Talk:Jesus with erection

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Unfortunately, I think this article is somewhat at a roadblock. This being relatively unimportant, I don't think right now that this article can advance anywhere beyond a bronze brainstar due to the criteria for a silver one. Bronze is still a good article, though. I tip my hat to whoever turned a stub I thought would be better off not as an article on its own but a tiny entry in a much bigger article into a good article. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Starting up

I created this page I hope it's not TOO offensive. It would really be helpfull if someone could upload a picture of Jesus with an erection (you can find it on Wikipedia) because I don't know how.

YlfalhcsA 19:13, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I added the picture. I feel the banhammer slowly drawing near... Bizzaro Andy 19:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I'm so offended, yet if this were to be banned, I would be even more offended... does that make any sense?A.Ha 20:55, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not offended by the imagery. I'm offended by the horrible colours and ugly drawing style. It looks more like a coat hook than a penis. wassaiLOId~ 21:04, 22 December 2008 (EST)

plz remove this picture of jesus christ in nude. i am talking on behalf of millions of people who cannot see the prophet of god almighty humiliated in this way. the day is near to come. ask forgiveness before you rest in your graves. ^{— Unsigned, by: 114.79.144.225 / talk / contribs} 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No. -- Nx / talk 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And here's why. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice link, Tetronian. A very well argued article. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The way I see it, free speech should take precedence over political correctness, especially when it comes to "offending" an abstract thing like religion. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you helped me improve Crimen Solicitationis. I'm not Jesus (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was supposed to be Muslims who get offended with depictions of Muhammad. Also, your god is simply a man who was born and got crucified 2000 years ago, when he survived the crucifixion and disappeared shortly thereafter. Assuming he ever actually existed. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Image display

For some reason, the image does not display on this page, just a link _{not that I care to see Jesus' pee-pee}, and I can't figure it out. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 03:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out category:NSFW. Thunderkatz^Ho! 03:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've gone blind.... Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, I was referring to the text at the top. Forgot about all the pictures there... Thunderkatz^Ho! 06:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel this page would be at least 235.6 times more interesting if it was about this sort of thing. ^narchist 04:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No wonder Christians insist Jesus never masturbated, he couldn't reach it, his hands being nailed in place and all; it does appear, though, that he seems to have been a masoch(r)ist. 16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Why is this here?

Why exactly does this article need to be on RationalWiki? It doesn't really have to do with our mission. I think it would be better for a link to the image be moved to the article on Jesus with a NSFW warning added. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I second this, mostly because "the hell"?--Mikalosa (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be somewhere on the wiki, but not necessarily as an article of its own; perhaps somehow in relation to blasphemy or something on the Muhammad cartoons? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

the first works better, since islam is the only one that actually cares if theres a picture of its people so this wouldn't make much sense in the islam related one--Mikalosa (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: add a link to this image in the article on Jesus and slap on a NSFW warning. Unless anyone complains, I will vaporize the article in --18 hours. (4:30 PM EST)-- one minute.The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not 18 hours. Cool your jets. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have made a much better answer to this complaint on the Muhammad talk page.

Nevertheless it does sort of ask an interesting question: Why is it more offensive to show a man with an erection than it is to show a man being nailed to a cross? Shouldn't it be the other way around?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got enthusiastic. 4:30 PM EST today, though, this article will be deleted unless there are any complaints. (Could somebody please tell me how to do strikethroughs on here?) The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually my comment was a complaint - or at least a point to be addressed.I also indented your comment as is our usual procedure, if you look at the wiki stuff you will see how that works.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article as it stands does not need to be here, but with some better writing and some expansion, it could be a good article. I say leave it and fix it.Klaus Vos (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Keep and expand. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 19:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I say keep. It's a fun little story, although I prefer the one the pareidolia flavoured version. ADK^{...I'll soak your bamboo!} 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't that much to really say about this. It's better as just an entry under the Jesus article. I'm actually 2 hours later to vaporize, so I'll do it in 7 minutes. ^{— Unsigned, by: HeidelbergKid / talk / contribs 22:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I believe you said "this article will be deleted unless there are any complaints." I think you got some, no? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No harm in leaving it here for a while, and thereby avoiding pissing some folks off...B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What to do

Leave the article here (voting here implies that you will put some effort into making it less stubby).

1. It's a lot less stubby now.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
2. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Can we add this as well? Balaam (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC) EDIT: this too

Move it to a subsection of Jesus.

1. Sure why not? Ty^talk 23:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete altogether.

Goat.

1. Keep, but I make no promises to actually expand it, so goat Blue (is useful) 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
2. I'll change to 'keep' if someone was to give me a link to research it from. As it stands, the article is not very clear Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 23:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
3. you can wiki it, but this really is pretty much all there is to it. I think we would be better off with a page of "famous Right Wing over reactions to Jesus Images" or something, but this is definatly worth keeping in some form, especially when you look at how many xian said the muslims over reacted to the "bombing mo" images. It's not just islam that gets antsy when it's god isn't presented in the mannar they like, and that is worht saying/showing. but I'd include this with mapplethorp "piss on jesus" and other such images. But it's is very RW to point out both the xians hypocriticsy and their over reaction.GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 23:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
   • I like the "famous Right Wing over reactions to Jesus Images" idea. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Also Goat. I'm in the "keep but too lazy to do anything about it" faction. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
5. There's an interesting reference in the Wikipedia page on "death erections" to Renaissance artists depicting the crucified Jesus with an erection, presumably because of the phenomenon of violent death often causing post-mortem erections... Perhaps this page could be expanded to include? ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎4.53.128.218 / talk / contribs}

Many religious people feel they have a right not to be offended by other people's words, images, actions or even ideas.

I'm not sure what is meant here. Can someone please explain that to me? Thanks. ^{— Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs}

It's a pretty simple idea, Brx. Some people think that their religious belief as such should be especially protected against critique, criticism, satire, ridicule, etc. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it as long as you aren't being a complete dick about it. This is partially because most of ym friends aren't the same religion as me.--Mikalosa (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's poorly worded, but whatev^{— Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs}

I think it's worded OK. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "a right not to be offended" is ambiguous. For instance you could also write "Many religious people feel they have a right to be offended by other people's words, images, actions or even ideas." - which would also be true.

It might be better worded: "Many religious people feel they have a right to expect that other people will not use words, images, actions or even hold ideas which religious groups might find offensive."--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob, that's what I wanted to say--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

The article includes the paragraph below.

The cartoonist(s) from the student paper, said they wanted to "start a dialogue" and show that the over-reaction of Muslims to the controversial European cartoon of Mohammad were really not much more different than Christian reactions to perverse images of their own man-God.

Comparison between Chrtistian and Muslim reactions are therefore relevant, I feel the section below should stay.

Overall Christians reacted far more moderately than extremist Muslims who feel their prophet, their God or the Qur'an have been insulted. There were no street riots and no killings.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can turn that into a literate paragraph introducing what you are comparing this reaction to... and not use the freepers as a reference, then maybe it can belong. ħuman 02:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there somwhere

an uncensored version of the image linked below?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Good luck looking for it. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

I didn't manage to find except a copy of the Insurgent issue, in which the relevant picture was split in two pages and scanned badly (I can't just rotate and join the images without having it look like shit).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disregard that, I found an uncensored one. Gonna upload and link it rights away.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)