Christ on a cross! (used as profanity) change the TOS or delete the image from the gallery. just pick one. Crusifiction is CLEARLY listed as a violation in the examples of violations. Please keep your religious beliefs out of the Poser forum. Glad you have a personal faith, but I don't need to read it, see it, or certainly be offended by your beliefs that are not my beliefs. I don't throw mine in your face, don't have to do it to me.

Folks, we're discussing this very issue at the moment. Most of the time the TOS helps us decide quite easily what's permissible and what isn't but there are occasions, like this one, where the TOS simply isn't detailed enough to help us out (as pushinfaders has already said, if we had to have a detailed list of what's okay and what's not, what exclusions might at some time apply, the TOS would be enormous) so we have to make a decision based on what we feel to be the 'right' thing to do. We felt it was right to allow this image to stay. Kev.

Please keep your religious beliefs out of the Poser forum. Glad you have a personal faith, but I don't need to read it, see it, or certainly be offended by your beliefs that are not my beliefs. I don't throw mine in your face, don't have to do it to me.

In that case, why don't we simply ban the expression of ANY AND ALL "beliefs" from the site? Political, religious, philisophical, sports opinions, one's favorite color, one's thoughts on the Stock Market -- any subject that requires any reasoning at all.

Say nothing -- and certainly one should never produce a thing called "art". There is always a danger that "art" might mean something. Express zero opinions on any subject. That way, no one will ever be offended.

We felt it was right to allow this image to stay.

KUDOS!

I applaud you.

The TOS has examples of what is considered a TOS this is one of the examples, and the rules were bent to allow the image. When it's convenent the 'rules' are bent.

I am rather proud of the PTB for this. To demand elimination of a Christian symbol would have been the beginning of eliminating all images relating to "beliefs" and that's not a place you want to go. To demand that someone not upload religious artwork is pathetically insecure.

So the inconsistent TOS should be rewritten. "No Torture defined as: the infliction of intense pain as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion (unless you're a preferred Christian) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"

It isn't about religion. I was raised Catholic. shrug The TOS however clearly states no Crucifixions. It's inconsistent TOS as usual.

To demand elimination of a Christian symbol would have been the beginning of eliminating all images relating to "beliefs" and that's not a place you want to go.

Amen.

So,if I were to do a picture of Christians boiling Wiccans/witches alive and an endless list of other atrosities performed by Christians against them and other non-Christians,that are "historical fact" and way to gross to go into here. Would that be against TOS or not? Opinion: Should NOT play favorites with the TOS - especially with regards to religion :-) P.S. Have seriously considered doing this type pic,but didn't want to offend.

It is interesting to me that all of you who keep quoting the TOS are not even reading it, and how it does not even apply to Nathalie's image. And by the way...there is a Genre section stricly devoted to "Religious/Spiritual" images.

No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]

The crucufixion of Christ was a death sentence. Not a punishment, nor was it for sadistic pleasure. Fact of the matter is, that was the main source of carrying out a death sentence. Peter was curcified upside down. It was their main way of carrying out the orders of the Roman government. So how in the world can you say that this has anything to do with the TOS here at Renderosity.

Funny how people will always batter someone for defending or standing up for what they believe, especially when it comes to Christianity.

In His Service,
James

Opinion: Should NOT play favorites with the TOS - especially with regards to religion :-)

That's it, then.

Let's simply get rid of all opinions. Including yours. And including mine.

Peace will come. Just like in a cemetery. Only the sound of the wind in the trees.

But no beliefs. Oh, no....not that. Someone might be offended.

After getting over the shock of all the responses and reading everyone, I have a couple cents I'd like to throw into the pot. The crucifixion of Jesus is seen in every church from Catholic to Protestant all over the world. Countless paintings by the old masters have been created depicting the crucifixion of Jesus. Countless men and women wear the Christ on a cross around their necks. The same cannot be said for a naked Vicky being tortured on a cross for punishment, coercion, or to afford sadistic pleasure. I think, when the TOS were put together (and particularly the word "crucifixion"), there were aimed at avoiding just that. After all, there are plenty of other communities where you can freely post that type of art (i.e., Renderotica). The purpose behind Jesus' crucifixion goes much further than for punishment, coercion, or to afford sadistic pleasure but we should not get into that in this forum.

Great Image, very powerfull ! Its ok to have a total violation of TOS because its religious, but GOD forbid you have images of gay men kissing or in an intimate embrace.(non sexually) but its ok for women. I am disgusted with how the TOS are bent to the whims of the powers that be for this site.I have seen too many double standards set here. Ive lost my faith in this community.

@ Mateo sancarlos : Estonia will become part of EU on May 1st 2004.

@ Xenophonz : Do not expect I'm ignorant of what goes on in my country because I disagree with you. The links you post do not contradict what I say (except the first whose reliability I don't know) : there are some problems of antisemitism coming from the arabo-muslim community (and these are adressed), but France has not degenerated into a Pogrom hungry mob. Since it's off topic, we could discuss this in the OT forum if you wish.

Back on topic, in retrospect, I regret mentioning the TOS here in the first place.
I sincerely thought that this image belonged in the gallery, even though I don't share its religious orientation.
I just wanted to point that the TOS cannot be taken as a judiciar text (as it has been on occasion).
And also that the intent is in the eyes of the beholder : do you see an infamous torture scene in this pic, or a martyrdom that bears promises for the soul of mankind ?

Lasttly, as an artist, I share the anxiety expressed colourfully by Xenophonz that if we make every effort not to step on anyone's toes, we may become very uninteresting in the end.

YOU GUYS JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU...???? Let's look at the very first word in the TOS in regards to this. "TORTURE" The crucifixion of Christ was "NOT" torture, it was a "DEATH SENTENCE" period!!! Now the rest of it (to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure)No one punished Christ, no one coerced Christ, and no one Crucified Him for their own sadistic pleasure. It was the LAW!! He died at the hands of Pilate. Please stop quoting the TOS in regards to this image...IT DOES NOT APPLY!!!! James

GraphicsMuse --

An image like yours is guaranteed to create controversy. Frankly, I don't understand your shock at the strong reactions.

Just look at what's been happening to Mel Gibson.

The subject of your image is a thing that makes many people uncomfortable.

And it enrages others beyond all reason.

So, by the simple act of posting your beautiful picture, you've stabbed a stick into a hornet's nest.

That's because of the offense spoken of somewhere......

Be strong. Don't worry about the harsh reactions of some. It was bound to happen.

To express an opinion is to create enemies. Someone, somewhere, is not going to like the things that you are saying. The only way to avoid this is to say nothing.

but France has not degenerated into a Pogrom hungry mob. Since it's off topic, we could discuss this in the OT forum if you wish.

I agree that this isn't the place to debate you on this point. I'll leave it at that, except to say that I can give LOTS more url's.

Colorful. Yes. And a danger of becoming nothing. If we remove ourselves from our art -- so as to avoid offending others. Becoming nothing.

I liek the image, it is technically very nice. I am sure those of the Christian faith are goign to draw much from it to support their faith - and that is what religeous art is for. But unless Renderosity is openly goign to admit its religeous/conservative bias then there will be a continuing problem with the decision to bend/re-shape the TOS in any way that the admins see fit. Look, it's your site - do what you want, but just be honest. Just re-state the TOS much more simply... "Images posted to this website will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Those we don't like or agree with will be removed, and those that we don't care about one way or the other or support our beliefs and vision will be allowed to stay". See how easy that is? I wouldn't even be upset by it because at least it would be honest. I just get tired of the pretenses and the confusion. It's an image that is >ONLY< getting a pass ont he rules because it supports a religon that is popular with the admins. Thats it. Admit it, let's move on. Remember, it's not being allowed because it is religeous - a lot of religeous iconography would not be allowed here - it is because it is the "right" religeon portrayed in the "right" way that it is being allowed. Renderostiy - the Christian artists community? Amen brothers, amen. "The TOS as defined below will be interpreted as we sit fit on a case by case basis.

Like I said....don't be surprised at the reactions. It's as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.

"Let's look at the very first word in the TOS in regards to this. "TORTURE" The crucifixion of Christ was "NOT" torture, it was a "DEATH SENTENCE" period!!! Now the rest of it (to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure)No one punished Christ, no one coerced Christ, and no one Crucified Him for their own sadistic pleasure. It was the LAW!! He died at the hands of Pilate." Ok, so if i were to make an image of a "vicky" nailed to a cross, it's a no no. But if I attach a story where she goes willingly knowing that it is a death sentence as a result of breaking a "law" it's quite alright.... Got it. I'll just make sure to attach one if I feel like making an image like that... TOS applies across the board. Religous or secular it desn't matter. I'm not saying that I agree with the TOS, but if they are specifically going to mention an act by name, they damn well had better enforce it.

but if they are specifically going to mention an act by name, they damn well had better enforce it.

Or else!!!.....what?

Anyone with a bit of intelligence knows what's going on here.

Essentially, there are two agendas:

Some people don't like the TOS restrictions on "adult" art - and this debate represents a back-door attempt to point out a supposed inconsistency in TOS enforcement. So, by this line of reasoning -- a depiction of the Crucifixion is on the same level as a porn torture pic. Bizarre. Convoluted.

Likewise, other individuals don't want to see ANY religious ((but more specifically, and more powerfully - Christian)) images depicted AT ALL.

These two ideas wrap up the problem in a nutshell, I think.

Kudos to RR for making the right decision in the face of wrong-headed opposition.

Xenophonz : actually anyone can find a huge number of links to "prove" everything and anything on the net these days...

no, I'm indifferent to the presence or absence of both adult content or religous content, Hell i've even posted one or two "angel" renders of my own, and guess what, out of my entire gallery I have 1 picture with exposed breasts (guess that shoots down your idea about porn-pervs and god-haters) What I'm saying is that if you're going to have a tos, it needs to be applied evenly or it's entirely pointless. Personally i thought it was a decent enough image and was not offended by it. But that is irrespective of the point, the point is the TOS says it's a no-no, so either the TOS needs to be re-worked (i don't care what it allows or doesn't) or it needs to be tossed. You can't make exceptions. You can believe all you want that this is a god-hating pornographers' conspiracy to keep the christian down, but seriously, all some of us want is a fair and even application of the TOS.

Xenophonz : actually anyone can find a huge number of links to "prove" everything and anything on the net these days... True, true.....but not always from major media outlets. I won't debate you on this issue here. As you pointed out yourself, it's not the right forum...... We might get locked down for being OT. It wouldn't surprise me if this thread ends up getting locked, anyway.....

*(guess that shoots down your idea about porn-pervs and god-haters)........

You can believe all you want that this is a god-hating pornographers' conspiracy to keep the christian down, but seriously, all some of us want is a fair and even application of the TOS.*

I would point out that those are your terms & words...and not mine.

Guess that shoots down your ideas about my thinking.......

your words: "Essentially, there are two agendas: Some people don't like the TOS restrictions on "adult" art - and this debate represents a back-door attempt to point out a supposed inconsistency in TOS enforcement. So, by this line of reasoning -- a depiction of the Crucifixion is on the same level as a porn torture pic. Bizarre. Convoluted. Likewise, other individuals don't want to see ANY religious ((but more specifically, and more powerfully - Christian)) images depicted AT ALL."

"god-hating pornographers" may not be your specific words (and I never claimed they were), but it is certainly what you implied.

Yep. That's what I said. I don't see one prejudicial term like "porn-pervs" or "god-haters" in the entire quotation.

Well, it IS a gorgeous and well done image. That being said, yes, it is also a depiction of torture and unless or until the TOS is changed it should be taken down. And for those who cry "but it's not torture, it's not punishment, it's a death sentence" what the heck do you thing a death sentence IS except punishment for whatever crime the individual has been convicted of? Christ was heavily tortured on the cross. It took him all day to die. He was taunted, spit upon, stabbed, tormented by the soldiers and some of the general populace. His willingness to endure all that is immaterial to this discussion because it does not change the facts. Fact #1 Crucifixion is a most horrible way to die. Fact #2 A death sentence is punishment for a crime. Fact #3 The TOS says what it says and has not been changed. If it is to carry any weight at all it MUST be enforced equally across the board. Fact #4 This is a beautifully done piece of art and speaks to many people, but it is still a violation of the TOS as it stands and should be viewed ONLY with an eye to that question in this case. Rev. D. G. Sexton, Minister

Lieing cheating rule bending hate. I do not enjoy the things that I see going on at Renderosty and the Poser forum anymore. An uneven application of an agreement that I signed up for when I became a member is unjustly used against some members and not against others. Since 2001 I have been a member of this site and more and more I want to participate less and less. That is sad. Thanks to everybody that helped and gave advice, I'm going to go and take my opinions and views somewhere else.

Off topic be damned. This is so entertaining.

Whining, crying, the sky is falling, but the tos says, double standards, double standards, freedom of religion

Most entertaining illogic:

Xenophonz: Anyone with a bit of intelligence knows what's going on here.
Xenophonz: there are two agendas
Timefighter: Please stop quoting the TOS in regards to this image...IT DOES NOT APPLY!!!!
Timefighter: it was a "DEATH SENTENCE" periodNo one punished Christ It was the LAW!!
OReillyTX: Ive lost my faith in this community.

As a Buddhist I do not find it moving, however, it is a well done image.

Data: Would you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.

Somehow I don't think the good minister fits into either category you so aptly grouped all of us into... Doubtful there is an agenda regarding porn (possible, but doubtful). Also doubtful he/she falls into the category of those that wish to abolish all religous art here "((but more specifically, and more powerfully - Christian))" Guess what? neither do I and neither do a whole lot of the people who are voicing their opinions....

MachineClaw -- You have a right to your opinions. So does everyone else. Hate to see you go. Every person lost is one less mind to think with us.......

Tyger_purr --

Thanks for sharing your own brand of illogic with us. And I'm glad that you've found this amusing. You've certainly amused me, in return.

Now, just what, specifically, do you object to?

With 164,457 active members and more joining everyday, I guess I was bound to step on a few toes one day. I also imagine that I'm not the first and I certainly will not be the last to do so.

I'd also like to think that I can pick my battles and know when to let something go but it's obvious that won't happen here. I feel strongly, in my heart, that this image has too much meaning, historical accuracy, and artistical appeal to take it down. Therefore, I won't.

Warm thanks to all who have commented on it.

Blessings,

~Nathalie

Thanks to you, Nathalie. You're a brave woman. And you should be commended.

XENOPHONZ, In #62 above you took a snip from my post #60 that said "Opinion: Should NOT play favorites with the TOS - especially with regards to religion :-)" You said in response: "That's it, then. Let's simply get rid of all opinions. Including yours. And including mine. Peace will come. Just like in a cemetery. Only the sound of the wind in the trees. But no beliefs. Oh, no....not that. Someone might be offended. I really don't see how applying the TOS without favoritism gets rid of all opinions. It's the TOS itself that rids us of or restricts our "visual opinions" in our gallery posts. These restrictions are necessary (childporn etc.),but it seems that in "most" other areas there seems to be a vast variety of opinions from members. The TOS, IMO should not favor one side or the other,but should allow for all (except in the cases of childporn etc). Not like a "cemetery",not without beliefs,but with all or most beliefs free to be expressed without favortism or ridicule. A less restrictive TOS, applied evenly would actually provide a larger variety of opinions. --------------------- timefighter in post #66 above you said: "TORTURE" The crucifixion of Christ was "NOT" torture, it was a "DEATH SENTENCE" period!!! Now the rest of it (to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure)No one punished Christ, no one coerced Christ, and no one Crucified Him for their own sadistic pleasure. It was the LAW!! He died at the hands of Pilate. Please stop quoting the TOS in regards to this image...IT DOES NOT APPLY!!!!" ---- As a person who spent 19 years as a fundy Christian Pastor,I know that their are many different ways of interrpreting the crucifixion and you probably are aware of this to. I know many Christian pastors who would agree that it was a death sentence, I don't know any that would say it wasn't torture or punishment for percieved wrong doing. And you don't really know if anyone Crucified Him for their own sadistic pleasure or not. In my opinion the TOS does apply :-)

Not like a "cemetery",not without beliefs,but with all or most beliefs free to be expressed without favortism or ridicule. A less restrictive TOS, applied evenly would actually provide a larger variety of opinions.

I don't have any problems with that. But it's not my decision.

That's in the hands of the administraion here at RR.

As for avoiding ridicule -- that's difficult to impossible. Someone is not going to like your opinion. And they will be happy to let you know this.

It's a difficult balance to achieve. I don't envy the admins/mods/coords on the job.

I think that the admins/mods/coords should be thanked for taking on an often thankless task.

IF I were the PTB, this is what I would do: I would either a) remove the image as a TOS violation, no matter how well done, beautiful and inspiring I found it OR I would amend the TOS as follows: No depictions of torture, yadda yadda yadda, EXCEPT for depictions of the crucification of Christ and the two thieves as this falls under the category of religious iconography and is intended to be inspiring and uplifting for those who follow this religious belief. This way, you still have the ban on extreme torture images that are better housed at Renderotica and other appropriate sites but religious and faith based images are exempted. Naturally, I have no problem with the image itself, but as the TOS stands I have to agree that it does fall outside the allowed limits. Easter is coming soon and there are sure to be a lot more people making images that express their faith and beliefs about this particular period. I sincerely think that it is time the owners of this site and their administrators take a look at the wording of the TOS and adjust it according to what they actually meant. As it stands, there are items that many (as evidenced in the previous posts in this thread) find harmless, uplifting, inspiring and quite moving that are technically against the TOS. This definitely needs to be fixed, but until it is, I expect the TOS to be administered to all equally without regard to color, creed, sexual orientation or any other factor other than those stated in the TOS itself. Either change the TOS or enforce it equally. One or the other. Rev. D. G. Sexton, Minister aka KateTheShrew

Stop, take a deep breath a slow down......... If the image is removed, then you are labeled as being "anti Christian" If the images stays your playing "favorites" Both are totally absurd.. Do you really think that we just randomly enforce the TOS? C'mon... I think we deserve a little more credit than that. There was a rather lengthy discussion on this subject. Any laws have to be interpreted..It happens every day all over the world. Now..... let's stay away from the name calling..

Xenophonz--- Object to? Nothing really. Entertaining, The presence of so many logical fallacies. To address yours that I quoted above. The declaration that anyone who does not see it your way doesnt have a bit of intelligence and the classification of your opposition into two neat little groups. The entire post from which it is quoted does nothing to support your position. FWIW: I believe the image should be allowed to stay, and I believe it was proper for the subject to be brought to the attention of the authorities and discussed in the forums as it established precedence. Not just as passive acceptance, but actively reviewing and declaring it acceptable. While I am not sure exactly who holds authority in this case, it appears to have been deemed acceptable.

pushinfaders --

Yes, all of you deserve more credit than you get. A LOT more credit.

Trying to keep this crowd happy is like riding the storm.

The declaration that anyone who does not see it your way doesnt have a bit of intelligence

Tell me, where did I say this? I don't see it in any of my previous posts. I must have missed my own words somewhere.....or perhaps you are reading my mind?????

Illogical in the extreme.

FWIW: I believe the image should be allowed to stay, and I believe it was proper for the subject to be brought to the attention of the authorities and discussed in the forums as it established precedence. Not just as passive acceptance, but actively reviewing and declaring it acceptable. While I am not sure exactly who holds authority in this case, it appears to have been deemed acceptable.

I agree with you.

Did I misquote post 72?

Did I misquote post 72?

Yes, you did.

I never made this statement: "I declare that anyone that disagrees with me doesn't have a bit of intelligence."

What I did say was that anyone with a bit of intelligence can see what is going on here.

If you fail to grasp the distinction, I can't help you.

And I stand by my statement.

"anyone with a bit of intelligence can see what is going on here" So anyone that doesn't see the same things going on there as you do hasn't any bit of intelligence ?

C'mon folks stick to the subject... Sheesh..

So anyone that doesn't see the same things going on there as you do hasn't any bit of intelligence ?

Don't assume the converse.

In this context, I would define "intelligence" as a synonym for "perception".

I would say, however, that they are wrong.

Otherwise, why bother with an opinion at all?

In your post you state whats going on here. This is what interpret as your position.

And that anyone with a bit of intelligence knows your position to be true/the truth.

Therefore anyone who disagrees with your position, that is, doesnt know your position at the truth must not be a person with a bit of intelligence.

As others have made statements contrary to your statement of whats going on here. It would seem they are attempting to defend themselves and most likely interpreted the statement in the same, or similar way to what I have stated above.

If my interpretation of your statement is not an accurate representation of your intentions. You, in fact, are the only one who can help me. As you are the only one who truly knows your intentions.

I belive you have clairfied your statement. Thank you
:)

Pushinfaders: C'mon folks stick to the subject...

Which subject was that? <--in jest