7 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

http://www.aldridgism.com

It's really really good though, really.

[pyke]

Found a religion you can dig into Joe?

[Hydrogen]

Is this offensive to Christians to have another man's face pasted onto what they believe to be the representation of Christ?

[pyke]

Is this offensive to Christians to have another man's face pasted onto what they believe to be the representation of Christ?

Some of the more devout probably. It's only a picture though.

[Dan]

Some of the more devout probably. It's only a picture though.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image;

We don't need any images to symbolise our God, all we need is the cross on the bible and our pledge to the lord.

Not offensive, but a little disrespectful.

[Hydrogen]

Some of the more devout probably. It's only a picture though.

It's up to the Christians to argue this one but even a picture can harm

[Sweeney]

xD
Anyone who believes that original image could be a true representation of Christ is a fool.
Jesus was an Arab.

[Vansen]

Is this offensive to Christians to have another man's face pasted onto what they believe to be the representation of Christ?

The original image is of the Sacred Heart, so it's fairly specific to Catholics. There's some ardent Protestants who would quite happily destroy it themselves. Even to fairly conservative Catholics, messing around with that image online would be more distasteful than blasphemous, because items/pictures don't normally gain any kind of sacred status unless a priest blesses them.