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.

Tyger_purr --

As I said in my last post -- I would say that they are wrong.

But -- they've got a right to their wrong opinions. And they have the right to express those opinions.

If I didn't believe in my own accuracy, then why would I bother with this debate?

I think that this is beginning to wind down now........

This is the same kind of controversy that Mel Gibson is facing. He handles it by sticking to his beliefs as a strict Catholic. I'm interested to see how Renderosity handles it. One way would be to allow scenes of Jesus being whipped, tortured, punished, speared, crucified and killed by the Romans. That's historically accurate AFAIK. It will serve to re-inforce the rule that this is a PG-13 site run by Christians, and it reiterates the unwritten guideline that Renderosity allows things that are not offensive to a Christian raised in the U.S. I can live with that. Another way they could handle it is to disallow scenes like the Crucifixion. This would offend too many of their subscribers, so I don't think they can do that. Disallowing iconography from all religions would be fair, but it would offend even more people, so I don't think they can do that. They will just have to handle it on a case-by-case basis. If there is backlash, such as people posting anti-semitic or anti-Christian images, or people posting images supporting radical Islamists or other terrorists who kill Christians, then they know how to deal with that.

Ahhh.... A voice of reason.

my question is that why should this apply only to those of Christian belief? There are literally thousands of other religions that are practiced. Are they not allowed to display their iconography as well?

Are they not allowed to display their iconography as well?

I don't think that anyone ever said that they weren't.

And, I would dare say that if they did -- you would never see such a posting resulting in this sort of contretemps.

I wonder why that could be?

Do you really think that we just randomly enforce the TOS?

yep. In the short time I have been here I have seen it randomly enforced more times than I can count on two hands.

We had this discussion before, Bruce and I still feel the same way. The TOS IS being selectively enforced.

You can't say the rules are the rules except and then say it's not being selectively enforced. The "except" means it is in fact being selective.

Towal

People love to quote the TOS and say that the administators of the site should enforce their own rules. Where in the TOS does it say you cannot make exceptions? Is not our own Constitution set up where the powers that be can change or modify the consitution with 75% of the states approving it? The makers of this web site sets the rules and has a right to make decisions as they see fit. They put up general guidelines as a whole. Who are we to critique how they make decisions. That said, I wonder how someone with a title of Rev. can say that it should be removed based on a TOS. You would think that a Rev. would endorse this image and fight with their very soul to keep it on.....if not, why be a Rev.

Gee, look what I found on the TOS: **Renderosity reserves the right to change, alter or modify the Terms of Service as needed.....

but HAVE they been altered? no. Is there now a clause in there that says "Crucifixion is not allowed EXCEPT when representing jesus"? I doubt it. If there is, I sure don't see it. I think "selectively" is a more accurate term than "randomly"...

**Renderosity reserves the right to change, alter or modify the Terms of Service as needed..... Except that they didn't change, alter, or modify the terms. They just plain disregarded them. The problem is that the TOS is used as a club sometimes, and I've seen people get TOS warnings for things that are literally not in the TOS at all. I've also seen people post warez requests (which are supposed to be zero tolerence) and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and be told by the admin that zero tolerence doesn't really mean zero tolerence (they did baack down on that when enough people complained). YES, I think a site should evenly enforce its own rules. Gosh, how radical! Someone expecting the rules to be the rules ALL the time, and not only some of the time, or when it suits the admins to observe them (or not). Let me note again that I do NOT, in fact, think the image should be removed. I think it's a wonderful piece, well-made, good expression of emotion, good composition, etc. What I do think is that the TOS needs to be ammended or it needs to be enforced across the board. If they're going to use "TOS violation" as a means of controlling the membership, they need to make sure that the TOS is applied evenly and regularly ALL THE TIME. bonni

Agreed....They made the decision to keep the image up, now go in and modify the TOS. Hopefully that could end most of the debate...... On a side note, those who place more of a significance on the TOS rather the depiction of the greatest act of love from a man who represents the one and only true "religion" I pray for each and everyone one of you that you find Jesus.

"You can't say the rules are the rules except and then say it's not being selectively enforced. The "except" means it is in fact being selective." I never said that.. My point still stand, and mateo_sancarlos seems to comprehend it.. This type of image presents a unique situation. Images that are "possible" TOS issues are brought up for discussion.. We don't play favorites..Images are looked at on a case by case basis.. Despite the "Robo Mod" term that's thrown about quite often. We try to be fair.

" greatest act of love from a man who represents the one and only true "religion" " Gee I'll make sure to tell all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and every other religion on earth, that they are in fact not practicing a "true religion".

I don't find the image offensive, but comments like wamuman's certainly are.....

Their not. Even Jews are becoming Christian Jews. In the end every head will bow and every knee will kneel and say the Jesus is the Christ. Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims will all need to be prayed for that they find Jesus and realise He is the true son of God. Even Jews who truly read the Old Testament can agree to that.

" I've also seen people post warez requests (which are supposed to be zero tolerence) and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and be told by the admin that zero tolerence doesn't really mean zero tolerence (they did baack down on that when enough people complained). " Funny, I've always seen WAREZ issues dealt with swiftly.. Not to totally disagree, there have been ocassions where there was a language barrier..

lol, this sort of closemindedness invalidates any points you may have made before. After reading arrogant spew like this I can't take anything you say seriously. How dare you attempt to invalidate BILLIONS of peoples' beleifs simply because they do not match your own. I can't even begin to have a rational discussion with a person who absolutely refuses to accept that other people may have a different (and completely valid) spiritual viewpoint than himself/herself. At this point, I must bow out of this thread as you have just shown yourself unable to accept other people for what they believe and are not even worth my breath, let alone my aggrevation.

This isn't the place for a discussion of one belief VS another.. Please try to be Tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others

Then it's simple. Modify the TOS to allow religious iconography and the problem is solved. Of course, it will still be enforced selectively when someone that is not Christian posts an image that falls into that catagory, I imagine, but maybe I'll be surprised and it will be applied uniformly. I personally liked the image and was not offended by it despite not being religious. I'm glad someone posted it because I wouldn't have seen it otherwise since I don't peruse the religion section. The entire point is that the ToS is selectively enforced. This on the other hand: On a side note, those who place more of a significance on the TOS rather the depiction of the greatest act of love from a man who represents the one and only true "religion" I pray for each and everyone one of you that you find Jesus. I find incredibly offensive, especially given that this is an international venue and there are many valid religions because Christian. It's funny how Christians tend to be the most judgemental people that I run into both in real life and on the internet. Towal (raised Catholic. Now agnostic.)

there are many valid religions because Christian, My kingdom for an edit feature. This should have said: there are many valid religions besides Christian

I'm speaking about what I personally believe and will die for that belief. It is my responsibility as a Christian to spread His word. However, I completely understand that this is not the forum for that. God will choose the right place and time for me to do that. In no way do I want to offend anyone, since God's love is for everyone. I will stop posting my persoanl beliefs here and only make comments on the art work only. Again I am sorry.

OK...

I THINK YOU ALL ARE FORGETTING THAT THERE IS A GENRE IN THE POSER GALLERY FOR RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL.

If you pull this image for TOS violation, you are singling out Christianity. You would then have major problems on your hands from all of those who feel violoated by this. Not to mention....if someone decided to do a picture of satan and post it in the Religious/Spiritual...hey there is not a problem with TOS.

I did not post the original thread to start a war on religion nor did i post it for controversy. It was for the sole purpose to give the artist and the art credit!! Period.

James (timefigher)

timefighter --

This subject will ALWAYS result in controversy. ALWAYS. As I've already said, the only way to avoid such attacks is to say nothing on the subject.

Some have indicated that non-Christian postings to the gallery would receive harsh treatment. I totally disagree.

Au Contraire: I believe that one would never see an eruption of this nature occur over any image except for a Christian image. No, most people would jump to defend the right of any other group to have their say. But they will just as readily attack anyone that dares to show Christianity in a positive way.......if someone had posted a travesty of the Crucifixion scene.......well, that would have been just fine. Freedom of speech and all that. But no freedom for anything positively Christian.

As for your original intent for this thread -- I've heard it spoken elsewhere: threads don't come with steering wheels attached.

Timefighter, the issue at hand isn't that the artist is Christian. I looked at the image. It's beautifully done. However, it's clearly against the Terms of Service, which we all agreed to when we signed up for the site. Wamuman: It's quite simple. You're allowed to preach your religion. I'm allowed to ignore you. I don't want to be converted. This site is not about the conversion of religion, Wiccan, Christian, Muslim or Satanist. It's about artists and art. If staff wants to change the TOS to allow images of crucifixion, more power to them. However, the image violates the TOS currently. AGAIN: Nothing against the image. It's beautifully done, I even left a nice comment. However, according to the rules, it needs to come down, or the rules need to change, plain and simple.

the issue at hand isn't that the artist is Christian. You speak only for yourself. Others have clearly stated that they have no desire to see anything "religious" allowed in the galleries. The issue is what people make it out to be.

Show me where a posting of ANY other "religious" group's symbology has resulted in this type of argument?

So... CHRISTIAN iconography can violate the TOS, but nobody else can post a scene showing torture, mutilation and death??????? THAT is unfair. That is blatent discrimination. That is putting one religions cult up on a pedestal and saying that THEY alone can violate any law they please. If you make exceptions based solely upon religious favortism, you are guilty of applying the law according to whim... and there is no more law... and no more reason to follow any of the laws of this Forum. I whole-heartedly support the ban against torture. NONE of it should be allowed. No excuses. No favortism. NO exceptions. AND, in response to the posts up there, this is a scene showing torture. According to the scriptures you guys love to quote, Jesus was flagellated, had a crown of thorns thrust into his flesh, had nails driven into his limbs, and had a spear poking through his side in addition to the agony of hanging up there until he died. If that isn't torture, what is? Excuse me while I go fillet and crucify the Toonafish and put it out of its misery. With enough rainbows and pretty pink clouds, I'm sure that it will be inspiring and protected as a religious image. Oh, you say it's not Christian? I'll put the word ICTHYUS on the little signboard so everyone will get the point. OH, you say only crucified gods are allowed (and blessed as permitted art). Fine, I'll nail up Buddha, Bill Gates, and a few rock stars, and anybody else who has been worshipped lately. If I have ideas such as this, you can bet your bottom-most dollar that others will be churning out image after image because the floodgate will have sprung more than a leak. Fair is fair. Please note that Christianity is not the only religion where torture and death is part of the ritual. There are plenty of "pretty" bronzes showing demons eating gods, and gods trampling over demons... Most importantly, if you make any exception for religious art, you will have to allow those writhing temple figures from India with hundreds involved in group orgies... and that will open another floodgate indeed! Carolly, thoroughly disgusted at rampant hippocracy and favortism.

Others have clearly stated that they have no desire to see anything "religious" allowed in the galleries

Well that wouldn't just be Christian iconography would it? "Anything religious" would encompass more than just Christianity.

I personally don't care to see religious things (though again I think Nathalie's render is VERY nicely done) so I simply don't peruse the religion catagory. I have nothing against a religion catagory. I have nothing against this particular picture other than it violates the ToS as it is currently written.

A simple change in the ToS to say that religous symbology is allowed and I wouldn't be involved in this thread at all other than to comment on the fact that I think the render is quite well done.

I don't see why a change in ToS is such a big deal. They did it before in the recent past based on another thread where people pointed out that the way it was worded wasn't exactly working as they likely intended. They clearly state they have the right to modify it, so modify it and voila no more problem.

I have a guess as to why they are balking about modifying it in this case, but I will keep that to myself for now until I see how this unfolds a bit.

Most importantly, if you make any exception for religious art, you will have to allow those writhing temple figures from India with hundreds involved in group orgies... and that will open another floodgate indeed! Don't worry -- if any of the groups which you mentioned were to post symbolic images into the gallery -- chances are that you'd never hear a peep on the matter. thoroughly disgusted at rampant hippocracy and favortism. The only hypocrisy and favoritism that I've seen here comes from those that would claim to espouse "artistic freedom" -- until someone posts a Christian image.

Well that wouldn't just be Christian iconography would it? "Anything religious" would encompass more than just Christianity.

Yes.

I don't see why a change in ToS is such a big deal.

Neither do I.

The only hypocrisy and favoritism that I've seen here comes from those that would claim to espouse "artistic freedom" -- until someone posts a Christian image.

Not from me. I don't care if it's a religious image or an alternate lifestyle image or a heterosexual image. If it violates the ToS it violates the ToS and ALL images that violate the ToS should be treated in the same manner no matter who posts them or what the topic of the render is.

Exactly, Towal. If I'd post, say, an erotic gay image that was blatantly in violation of the TOS I wouldn't be up in arms when staff took it down. Why? Because, however beautifully I did it? It was in violation of the TOS. I personally like the image, but it's against the TOS.

Not from me.

Towal --

You sound like a reasonable sort. You are not incoherently passionate -- unlike some others.

As you have indicated, a simple change to the TOS would "fix" the problem.

However, there are those individuals that would never accept anything like GraphicMuse's image. It offends them too deeply for that. This is one of those fights without a conclusion. If we discussed this until doomsday, no solution could be found that would satisfy everyone.

It's intrinsic to the nature of the issue.

If I'd post, say, an erotic gay image that was blatantly in violation of the TOS

I think that the key word in your statement is "erotic".

If someone were to post an erotic heterosexual image, the staff would likewise take it down.

"Eroticism" and "Religion" are two very different issues --

However, a simple TOS change (hint, hint)...

Not that changing the TOS will change anyone's mind. Far from it.

An altered TOS will merely allow "artistic freedom" to exist on a central life issue - religious faith.

Signing off until tomorrow --

Changing the TOS is not a big problem to me. I wished I could understand clearly its purpose, though. If it's a set of judiciar laws to be inforced in details, and if there are serious consequences in not following it (being banned, and thus being unable to get access to the free stuff and market place can be a problem for some people), then it has to be enforced to everyone. But does it have to be spelled so precisely, and to be enforced like it is a constitutional text ? If it's just to protect minors, why not saying just "this site is PG 13 only ?". Note : the actual TOS doesn't satisfy me because I think it puts a strong emphasis on repressing erotic content and not enough on avoiding violent images (people being blown to pieces by various weaponry...). It seems a current trend, seen elsewhere (video games, TV, etc...). (oh, I don't like that much nationalistic messages and nazi insigns in the galleries, too...). But since I don't own this site, I don't feel entitled to demand any change in the TOS. The problem of the original pic is, as usual, in the eyes of the beholder. The author of this pic did not think it was a depiction of torture (and did not even put up the "violence" flag). Yet, some people can be hurt by these pics (I remember my kiddettes asking me in a museum in Venice who was this man on the cross, and why people were being so bad at him). What if someone posts pics of St Sebastian or St Joan of Arc martyrdoms ? Or someone claims to be a satanist and post pictures of a lecherous sabbat ? I have seen time and again catholics leagues trying to block the release of a film or book because it was disrispectful to their religion (and have no doubt that other religions act the same throughout the world). What if someone posts a picture making a mockery of a sacred person ? In a world where so many different beliefs coexist, can we learn to live together ? If so, are we condemned to express only "bland" ideas and images ? Can we learn to accept free expression of everyone (save the most depraved and barbaric) and accepting that the others turn ourselves in mockery at times ? Can we learn not to turn everything into an "I'm right / you're wrong" debate ?

You sound like a reasonable sort. You are not incoherently passionate -- unlike some others.

I'm sure you could find people that would argue that ;)

I agree that anytime you bring religion into something you are going to find people that will find something to have an issue with. I think that is true of almost anything actually, though there are some topics that are worse than others (religion and politics being the 2 biggest IMO).

It's soooooooooooooooo much easier to complain than to be responsible for your own actions. Though after reading the thread here on age (and when you got your first computer) I'm a little bit surprised it happens here as much as it does. In my experience, that kind of attitude is generally from a younger set of people.

I think adults should be able to censor themselves without the aid of all kinds of intervention. I, for example, simply pass over items that are not of interest to me rather than expecting someone else to censor something simply because it is not something that I wish to see. I would not presume to think that simply because it is of no interest to me personally that it is of no interest period.

I would never have seen the image at discussion here because I don't look in the religion gallery (again, I think the image is wonderfully done).

I have not seen a lot of religion bashing in this thread (other than at the end there where someone got a touch preachy which I personally do find exceedingly offensive). Most of the people involved in this thread that are having issue are the same ones that pop into any thread where the ToS is being applied selectively/randomly/unevenly.

Please bear with me while I lead up to my final point ... this isn't meant to be preaching. 8-) I sincerely feel, after much soul searching and comparing all world religions, that the true Word is directly written in our hearts (Jesus did say the origin of Good and Evil was within.) I say this not to "dis" anyone else's beliefs, because I believe we are each entitled to commune with God and Spirit the way each of us chooses. After all, when it comes down to brass tacks, there won't be anyone else around when we stand to get our life review. 8-) I am a Christian, but do not consider myself a "conventional" one. My beliefs are more "spiritual" than "religious." As my user name implies, I listen to the word in my heart rather than the words on a printed page. I choose not to follow any organized religion because I believe that my relationship with God and Spirit should be mine and mine alone. It is my responsibility to live my life the way I think is right. Because I feel that Jesus came here not to die for us, but to show us how to LIVE, there are so many images that (IMHO) would better represent Christianity while remaining within the TOS ... the nativity, the sermon on the mount, raising Lazarus, the Garden of Gethsemane, changing water into wine, the temptation in the desert. These are lessons and parables that mean much more to me than the crucifixion - because they teach me how to LIVE my life. OK, I'm off the soap box now ... I hope I didn't offend.

Yep, Towal. The issue is the TOS not religion. Except for wamuman. ;)

By the way, I did forget to mention that the image is beautiful ... moving and very artistically done.

We (staff) are working on this.. Again, please be patient, this isn't an easy issue to resolve. pushinfaders

Far too much has been said for me to respond adequately to all of it, so here's an attempt to reply to some of the points.

The TOS is useless, change it at once! Well, a few months ago there was a lot of whining that the TOS wasn't specific enough and too open to interpretation. We listened to that, discussed it and tried to add a little specificity. Now that we've done so we discover that those specifics in fact rule out certain types of image that in all honesty should be allowed. So once again we are discussing it behind the scenes to see if there is anything we can do to both keep the specificity and yet still allow images which, under a robotic interpretation of the TOS should be removed but are in fact 'special' in some way. If you think it's possible to write a TOS that covers every possible image and content, please feel free to write it and we'll gladly look at it. What we aren't about to do is look at one image, chatter for ten minutes and change the TOS as a knee-jerk reaction. That would be plain daft. (Don't start shouting 'you've done that before'. I know. And we've learned just what a bad idea it is.) Renderosity is run by a religious/conservative regime Crap. I'm an atheist. Yet even I recognise that religious iconography is very important to a lot of people in the world. I also follow a weird little principle called tolerance. A little more of that would be a welcome thing. 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. Wrong. This moderator would support the keeping of images important to any and all religions and lifestyles if they were of such great importance to those religions and lifestyles as the crucifixion is to the Christian faith. Someone mentioned Satanist images of people being sliced open. That's not as central to Satanism as the crucifixion is to Christianity. If it was an image of Satan's fall from heaven on the other hand... well that's a pivotal thing to a real satanist. - - - - - -

If I could have just one wish about Renderosity it would be that people could see that the TOS isn't a one-size-fits-all document. It never can be unless we just say 'post what you like, we don't care.' There will always, always, be images which require that we interpret the TOS to some degree. Sometimes it means we will remove an image that whilst not against the rules in a robotic interpretation nevetheless just has to go. Conversely there will sometimes be images which under a robotic interpretation should be removed but nevertheless should be allowed to stay. Kev.

Couldn't have said it better myself and that's why you're a moderator and I'm not ;o) Kudos to you for taking on a very often thankless job. ~Nathalie

"Again, please be patient, this isn't an easy issue to resolve." Of course it's not easy, nothing worthwhile is ever really easy. Kate

Say what one will about TOS violations, or the lack thereof:

THIS ISSUE WOULD NEVER HAVE GENERATED THE TYPE OF HEAT THAT IT HAS, WERE THE IMAGE IN QUESTION NOT A SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN IMAGE.

Some may contend that this is not so. But I believe that the evidence speaks for itself.

Once again -- thanks to the admins for attempting to be fair and impartial. You are walking a tightrope with this one.

Yet even I recognise that religious iconography is very important to a lot of people in the world. I also follow a weird little principle called tolerance. A little more of that would be a welcome thing. How unusual. How refreshing.

THIS ISSUE WOULD NEVER HAVE GENERATED THE TYPE OF HEAT THAT IT HAS, WERE THE IMAGE IN QUESTION NOT A SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN IMAGE. Then why were these not contested? http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=607346 (The concept of "heaven" is Christian) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=602217 (Golgotha, but the crucifixion imagery is much more subtle and symbolic) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=601577 (An absolutely brilliant and more surreal crucifixion image) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=599798 (The mother of Jesus) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=599319 (An angel praying in front of a cross) All of the images mentioned above are Christian imagery, and they were posted without debate before the TOS was changed.

All of the images mentioned above are Christian imagery, and they were posted without debate before the TOS was changed.

Simple.

These images never received a mention in the forum. So, chances are that very few people were even aware of their existence.

If a thread like this one had been started up over those images, then you would have seen exactly the same kind of negative reactions.

"How DARE they post something like that......."

OK, so it is not the art itself that is causing the reaction - had it gone unmentioned in the forums, most probably would not have noticed it. However, I wonder if the initial post by timefighter could have set people off on the wrong foot when they went to look at the image. (BTW, timefighter, I respect the passion that went behind your statement, I am again only trying to make a point here.) As someone previously stated, the statement about the image being a representation of "The Truth" caused a bit of a tinge with them. And, I got that tinge instantly upon reading the message. But when I went to see the art, I appreciated the emotion and thought and passion that went behind it, so I left a comment. With the omission of that once sentence in the first post, I wonder how much different the reaction would have been. I would also be curious to hear what others think of some of the other Christian images that I posted above.