Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=605838&Start=1&Sectionid=1&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNe

HI All,

I have got to tell you...my heart jumps for joy when I see Pics like this one in the Poser Gallery. It is an awesome testament of Nathalie's faith, as well as my own. It is nice to see the truth relayed in this manner. Awesome..just awesome.

James (timefighter)

Nice work , great job on the lighting.

Although I myself am not religious, being an atheist, I have no problem with pictures like this as they have been categorized appropriately. I do have a problem when someone post something purporting to be science fiction or fantasy, when it is in fact categorized that way to so you won't think it is a religious pic & avoid it like the plague. Open & honest - that's what a christian should be - not deceitful. BTW - It is a well constructed view of probably the best known biblical scene. Shadowdancer.

Amen. Thanks James. ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

You are correct James, it is a very special picture and thank you for pointing it out to us. Sharen ;-)

Agree with everything Shadowdancer said above. Except I'm not an atheist,but an X fundy Christian pastor,now Wiccan Priest. :-)

I'm sorely tempted to jump into a debate here, but this is the Poser forum....so, I won't.

I will say this much: Thanks, timefighter.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Very good picture, artistically speaking. I like the lighting and point of view. (religiously speaking, well, I don't feel concerned by religion. Although I do feel a tinge when anyone speaks of "the Truth". There are so many truths out there...). On a related note, I wonder if it violates the TOS : "No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]" Religious art have been filled with nudity and images of torture in the past (martyrs, Jerome Bosch, pictures of judgement day or Eden...). Nudity and torture are excluded from this site when they are not connected with religion. I wonder if the owners of this place feel they are OK when religion is involved ? As for myself, I'd feel comfortable with nudity and not with torture on a regular (or should I say secular) basis, but since this religious scene has been depicted time and again and that most occidental children are familiar with it, I'd say it's OK. But I'm no one here.

I really appreciate a beautiful image of Redemption such as this, and I'm a Catholic!

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Intel Core i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 12.0GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 7770

PoserPro 2012 (SR1) - Units: Metres , Corel PSP X4 and PSE 9

It brings to mind Mel Gibson's recent controversy with Jewish leaders about the need to censor his "Passion" movie because it portrays Jews in a bad light. That's probably true, if he was shifting the blame from the Romans to the Jews, but given the level of hatred for Jews in Europe and Muslim countries, it's unlikely to make any difference in how real bigots feel. Personally I would advise the guy not to post a crucifixion pic here, due to the indescribable pain and torture involved, and also because posting religious pix may lead to trouble down the road, including posts of scans of overt anti-semitic propaganda from Arab tabloids, like some nut-case was posting here a few years.

I am always glad to see my Savior depicted with the reverence He deserves. Thanks for the pic! Jay Button

"given the level of hatred for Jews in Europe ..." Huh ? Any fact about that, Mateo, or just Fox News ? (I'm leaving in France and am married to a jewish woman, and no one ever caused us any problem, nor to the rest of my extended family).

http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/article.php?voir%5B%5D=487&voir%5B%5D=2495

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/wfran06.xml

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/articleDisplay.jsp?a_id=2717

Interesting that one lives in France and yet knows so little about the anti-semitism raising its ugly head in that country.

This same thing is happening in other places in Europe, too.

Would you like for me to list a few more url's on the subject?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

For heavens sake..it's a beautiful picture!!!! This person did an OUTSTANDING job! And if some nutball be it Arab etc wants to start something more power to them..IGNORE THEM!!!!!!. I've been putting off scene now it's come back to the forefront to me. I was going to do a scene with a HUGE cathedral textured with dollar bills and an empty parking lot. Next to it, a small chapel with the parking lot full to make a point. Need I say more about how I feel. I could give one rats ass what people say about the actual depiction. People post pics to get honest kudo's or criticism & help on how to improve, not to hear ones political/religious views. For those I'm not interested, there is an OT forum for that shit. My zero cents.

It is a rather nice image. Exquisite lighting. Subtle colors.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

dlk30341, dollar bills, very good idea but only if you incoporate the word BINGO in there somewhere. lol

I must remember to remember what it was I had to remember.

I can't answer you directly, compiler. It's off-topic. I don't single out or accuse France, which has taken stringent steps to combat anti-semitism, precisely for the reason that it still exists in Europe. If you wish to bring yourself "up-to-speed" on current events in Europe, check out recent activities in Estonia, where Nazi collaborators refuse to apologize for their murderous behavior, where a popular rock group sings the lyrics "It's o.k. to kill Jews" with government approval, and where a Swiss holocaust denier is very popular right now. You might reply with Gallic hauteur that Estonia is not Europe, but what exists there on the surface, exists everywhere else in Europe as a more-or-less hidden undercurrent. It has been there for 1,000 years, so, with the help of socially-conscious people like you, we have to be eternally vigilant that it never comes to power again.

LOL nikceshield..maybe I could spell it out with "colored" bills on 1 side :O LOL

I for one am so glad, no relieved, to see that a Christian can share their views even when we religious types are told not to press our ideals upon others, but any other veiw seems to be okay! I think that this render is just so well done, it strikes a very deep note within my heart, as I have a very personal relationship with the Lord. Well done!

This thread started about one specific image...let's stick to that please.. The rest of it is better suited for the OT forum

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

First of all, I want to thank James (timefighter) for telling people about my image. I honestly did not think I would get these many comments about it.

I also did not think about the TOS when I posted it. As I stated on my post, I made it for me and I thought I'd share it with, not shove it to, others who might appreciate it (both for its meaning and the artistic aspect of it - I AM proud of both). That's all ;o)

Blessings,

~Nathalie

Nathalie -- Thanks for sharing.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

And thanks for the OT information, mateo_sancarlos.

I was unaware of the situation in Estonia, although I've heard of similar happenings elsewhere in Europe.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Fair is fair. In order to be fair, a law must be applied fairly to ALL parties. If crucifixions are allowed and considered praiseworthy, than ANY scene depicting torture, bondage, and death must also be allowed. If we civilized people eschew the ugliness of mortification and murder in art, that law must apply to all such images and no crucifixions can be displayed. Being a religious scene does NOT excuse any violations of the Terms of Service for this site. I have raised this point before, and I will do so again. There must be no favortism. No special interest group can put its interests ahead of the common interest. I don't care if you are Christian, Nazi, or a collector of salacious fairy art (I am referring to the fact that some of the best fairy creators were driven from this site by uninformed bigots who thought that child porn was involved). What you believe is beside the point and ought to be a private matter. This is a public site, available to anyone who signs up, and there are laws about what can be posted. THIS is the law, and it specifically mentions crucifixion: "No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]" So, why does this ar any artist think they are above the law? Carolly

What you believe is beside the point and ought to be a private matter.

Then why don't you keep your beliefs private?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Oops......getting OT here........back to the subject...... Beautiful picture! Thanks again!

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I have to make a comment here. The picture from an artistic piece is truly a work of art. Lets not make this a religious issue because in fact, Jesus' cruxifiction is a historical fact, not just a religious fact. It's a shame that we have people wanting to quote the TOS when most images we look at it have nudity. If you were to break down the TOS in a legal aspect, one could make an argument that the many images of breasts shown here is also against the TOS. If someone is offended by a picture posted on this website, then treat it like TV, turn the channel and move on.

The image IS against the TOS, simply put, according to the rules of this site. shrug "No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]"

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Wonderful image....being the of the nature it is, of course someone will look and find a way to get it removed......that's the nature of the war of a higher level going on... XENOPHONZ, if you want to be heard STOP USING COLORED TEXT, it can't be read and is annoying for that reason...

Images depicting the crucifixion of Christ present an interesting situation.. I understand what the TOS say's.. BUT, Christianity presents a unique situation.. A scene depicting Christ on the Cross is a religious Icon. It is unique to the fact that to the best of my knowledge is it the only major religion where such and image is part of the faith. I do not disagree with equal interpretation of the TOS. Yet, because of this, if we remove such images, it singles out a specific faith. I hope you understand my point. However, I have to say there is a big difference between an image with Christ on the cross and a naked Vicki on the cross.. Regarding the specific image that was first mentioned. The artist did put it in the "religious" genre.. They also did try to minimize the blood. All in all it's very tastefully done. IMHO I know this isn't an easy subject... Religious issues tend to get rather heated.. perhaps the TOS needs to be revisited. Why? simply because Christianity presents a unique situation. Buddha wasn't crucified, nor as Mohamed. I understand your point...really I do... fair is fair, but, we do need to respect all faiths. Hope you understand my point Pushinfaders Either that, or all Religious images need to be removed.

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

Dizzie --

Sure thing.

Whatever you say.

If I can remember to do as you say......but I doubt that I will remember.....I have an annoying habit of having my own ideas.

BTW - you have the right of it on the higher level war.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

say what?

C'mon folks lets stick to the issue being discussed Second Post about that... PLEASE....

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

Isn't using colored text against the TOS?
(just kidding ... but I couldn't resist it ... sorry) ;=[

;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

annoy

annoy

annoy

annoy

annoy.......

etc.....etc......etc.......

Now, what was that that you told me to do?

Hmmmm.....I've already forgotten..........

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Sorry pushinfaders, I posted B4 I saw your friendly (but applicable) "warning." cheers, dr geep ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Can you spell "l-o-c-k-e-d?" ;=[

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Yeah, Xeno - Dizzie's right. If somebody has a bright red or bright blue background in their profile prefs, they ain't gonna see your text. Man, think what that would do to your eyes, staring at a bright red screen all day. It could make a guy totally freak out, big-time.

No, Dr. Geep -- but tiny text is against the TOS......or at least I've heard a rumor to that effect.....

Now, to be on topic.....I really, REALLY liked this image.....

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I could be a Satanist. I would expect you to remove images where I have people cut and bleeding on reversed altars. I could be a voodoo priest. Killing animals in blood sacrifices. Tearing live chickens apart - I would expect those images to be removed. I could be Zoroastrian- According to Zoroastrian scripture, the end of the world will come about when a comet, called Gochihr, strikes the earth. Its "fire and halo" will melt all metals and minerals and will burn up the world in a general conflagration. The resulting boiling flood of metal will flow over the earth like a river. The righteous, as well as the wicked souls (released from hell) will pass through it. I could do images of the people half-melting and tortured in the metal flood. There are many more religions that have some form of torture included. However, according to this, since those would be my religions it should be OK to show horrible tortures. It isn't necessary to remove all religious images. Plenty of Christ's life was not , 'lived' on the Cross. It isn't really about religion. Just that TOS that gets bent and bent and bent.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Ok, How about this? BTW - The image which is referenced above is inspiring to some and to others, provocative. So .... ? But, are not many pieces of "art" viewed this way? ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Ahh, Dr. Geep. You do fabulous tutorials. I've been saving them for later reference.

Thank you, man.

Did I mention that I was inspired by the image in the gallery?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I couldn't really say what religion I am, not because I am ashamed but because I dont know. But I do respect Nathalie for knowing her beliefs and not being afraid to share them. She is NOT the first one to depict Jesus Christ's crucufixion. She will NOT be the last. People make art about what THEY are passionate about. If her image violates the TOS, then it's time that every crucifixion scene come down, and then that sort of runs into the freedom of religion thing doesn't it? It's a really tough subject. If the admins enforce it, then they will have to remove alot of images as I have seen plenty. The bottom line, I commend Nathalie for knowing what she believes and NOT being ashamed to share it. My 2 cents Gina a.k.a Cimerone

Point well taken... I would defend those images just the same... I'm really not trying to play favorite here.. Nor am I trying to "bend" the TOS.. You and I have had this discussion before correct? Perhaps not under these same circumstances, but the same general issue. There will always be sections of the TOS that need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. otherwise, the TOS would be a thousand pages long.... :-) I have the utmost respect for all faiths... or no faiths... that's a personal choice. I'm not going to debate that, it's pointless. To disagree, it is a religious issue, and Renderosity should remain neutral on that IMHO... This is an issue that has been the subject of much debate... Please try to bear with us while we work thru it.. I understand your remarks and hope you understand my position..I'm trying to remain neutral on this... I'd rather not see this thread locked.. That is if we can all stick to the subject at hand and not worry about fonts and colors of fonts :-) pushinfaders

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

OK .... The purpose in me posting this thread was not to start a Holy War. However...it seems to have gone that way. I just wanted to give praise to an exceptional piece of artwork and to give the author the same credit. It amazes me how something so simple can get some people so riled up. I do have to agree with pushingfaders comments, as Christainity has become a very large minority in the world. The depiction of Christ on the Cross can be seen almost anywhere. You can buy a Crucifix necklace at any Wal-Mart...as well as a Buddha. You can not however buy one with decapitated people...or situations that depict torture. My point is this....Nathalie created an excellent rendition of the Crucifixion, and should recieve credit where credit is due. Which however "IS" a historical "FACT". Thanks Nathalie....keep them coming. In His Service, James (timefighter)

That is if we can all stick to the subject at hand and not worry about fonts and colors of fonts :-)

Just for the record -- I was sort of kidding.....having fun with it.

---

ON TOPIC, AND QUITE SERIOUS:

If Christian symbolism becomes a TOS violation -- then we've got a problem.

The total ban on "off-topic" posts -- while irritating -- is something that I can live with. I recognize it as an effort to keep the peace.

But to shut down religious art in the galleries? THAT would get my ire up, for sure.

Which category of art would be abolished next? Politically provocative art? ANY art with ANY controversial content at all?

What would the galleries become? Nothing but fractals and landscapes? Neutral images? Pictures of flowers and insects?

I won't take the tack that some do, and threaten to "go away" if things don't happen as I believe that they should......

But I would be greatly displeased to see Nathalie's image taken down. Or any others like it.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I understood what you were doing, even if it was a little annoying :-) pushinfaders

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

You can buy a Crucifix necklace at any Wal-Mart...as well as a Buddha. You can not however buy one with decapitated people...or situations that depict torture.

Not to be disagreeable -- but actually, you can buy torture scenes at Wal-Mart. Such scenes can be found in the electronics section - both in hard "R" movie DVD's -- and in some PC games, as well.

Fresh water and salt -- coming from the same source.

Sort of like a certain website with which we all are familiar........

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

OK folks....I commend everyone for trying to stick to the subject... However..it's been a long day for me... PLEASE don't let this thread get locked.. be cool and be well pushinfaders

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

The image is a violation of TOS. That's more a problem with the TOS than with the image, IMHO. I find it very beautifully done, and I'm glad I got to see it. Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof), it's a fine example of skillful digital art and freedom of expression. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

I agree with elizabyte. Perhaps the TOS needs to be examined and edited. Especially if they are going to have a section for religious art. Nathalie did not post this image in other areas where she tried to push her faith. I applaude Nathalie for her beliefs that shows an example of our Lord Jesus' sacrifice for us. This image is an example of the greatest act of love ever done by anyone who ever walked this earth.

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

...... Kendra

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"

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

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

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

"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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.....

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

*(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.......

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

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.......

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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..

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

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.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Did I misquote post 72?

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

"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..

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

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?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

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?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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?

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

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.

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

" 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..

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

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

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Kreations By Khrys

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Kreations By Khrys

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Signing off until tomorrow --

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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. ;)

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

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

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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......."

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

I believe that GraphicsMuse and timefighter have both been shocked and unpleasantly surprised by the reactions to the image/post.

But some of us weren't surprised at all.

We could have predicted the outcome with 100% accuracy.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=545754

Ummm...

If you will look at my own gallery.... and the amount of comments on my pic. I NEVER recieved anything about this being against TOS. If fact the Mod from the Vue Gallery/Forum gave it praise, as well as the rest of the comments.

I recieved 38 comments on my pic, However I can agree with XENOPHONZ about some or most of these pics not getting much attention.

I kinda feel like Rodney King...."Why can't we all just get along?"

Art is art....However I don't go to the Poser Gallery that often because because of my own personal convictions and because of the types of pics that are in there. Things like homosexuality, naked men and women, displayed in an immoral or degrading, or sexual ways...are against my moral beliefs. However...I have never one time posted any comment on any pic or complained to the admins about TOS violations because there are two men kissing in a poser pic. No ...I dont agree with those things, but the artist has the right to make whatever art they desire...so I just don't go into those galleries. If anyone has a problem with a pic of the crucified Christ....or any other pic for that matter, then don't look at it....

"Have faith in God. Truly, I tell you, if you say to this mountain "Be taken up and thrown into the sea" and if you do not have doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you." Sometimes, things happen because you believe they will, and actually cause them to happen. It has something to do with planks. ;-)

Art is art....However I don't go to the Poser Gallery that often because because of my own personal convictions and because of the types of pics that are in there. I agree with you there, timefighter ... there is way too much art in the Poser gallery that I don't even take the time to look at. I'm truly sorry that your post came to this, because you had such good intentions. But, perhaps some good will come out of it ... we'll see.

A lot of us probably wouldn't have looked at either of those (your picture is a TOS violation IMO as well, btw) had it not been brought to the forum. I personally don't peruse the religion gallery for that reason. When it's brought out though people are going to voice their opinions on the subject. My only opinion on the subject happens to be that it is against the TOS as it is currently written

timefighter said: "If anyone has a problem with a pic of the crucified Christ....or any other pic for that matter, then don't look at it...." I agree timefighter. My first mistake was to take the hook. Hook: "1. Religious Pics In Poser Gallery" I check out the Spiritual/Religious art gallery semi-reguarly and know what to expect. With this link I didn't know what to expect. Shouldn't have gone, then I wouldn't be involved in this debate. The lack of respect for ALL religions displayed by some in this thread I find to be totally disgusting.

If anyone has a problem with a pic of the crucified Christ....or any other pic for that matter, then don't look at it....

Would that the issue could be solved that easily.

That's not good enough for some.

They won't be happy until this image, and any images with a similar theme -- get spiked.

If the spiking can be accomplished by protestations of "fairness", then so much the better.

It's cleaner that way. And it doesn't require one to stand flat-footed as an opponent........to something that one so obviously despises.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I have yet to see anyone say do away with the religion category in the gallery. I have yet to see anyone say anything negative about this picture other than it is a TOS violation. No one has been spouting religion, except for the Chrisitans. No one has passed any judgement on anything other than the TOS violation (as it is currently written), except the Christians. The only ones claiming that this issue is more than a TOS violation are the Christians. Fact remains had it not been brought to the forum many people (myself included) would not have even seen the pic and therefore would not have complained about the TOS violation. This is not the first pic I have said is a TOS violation (as the TOS was written at the time I posted) and I'm sure it won't be the last. Frankly, the least tolerant people in this thread appear to be the Christians (and in my experience that is almost always how it is in life). I don't peruse the galleries looking for items that might be TOS violations just for something to do. That doesn't mean when I see one I'm not going to say something about it, especially when it is thrust into the forums.

timefighter said ... "I kinda feel like Rodney King...."Why can't we all just get along?" I have asked myself that question so many times ... and I just started a thread in the OT forum called "Maybe John Lennon was right ..." so that we can kick this thought around a bit. This isn't the appropriate place for the debate that will no doubt ensue. ;-)

Towal -- You and I are obviously reading two entirely different threads. I've seen clear examples of all of the things that you claim to have not seen. 180 degrees. But -- where you are determines what you see.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Ok. point them out to me. Show me where someone has said do away with the religion category. Show me where anyone has said anything negative about this picture except that it is a TOS violation. Where has anyone said this is more than a TOS violation except the Christians? Where has anyone spouted anything about their particular belief (ie: the TRUTH, morals, there is only one true God/religion) other than the Christians? I reread the thread after I posted and I do not see either of those things so show me what I am missing.

Towal --

I'm at work, and I don't have the time to give you a comprehensive list. Perhaps there will be time for that later this evening.

But, here's a quick quotation from post #52:

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I will admit to have spouted about my own belief system (which admittedly is somewhere out there in limbo at this point LOL), but it was intended to be a "middle of the road" stance that addressed both sides of the issue. I might get my hand slapped for trying to be a peacemaker. 8-)

Did you ever consider that post 52 might be reacting to what was said in post 51, and not the artwork?

I personally do not come to Rendersoity to view religious or spiritual works of art. That's why I like the catagory section I can look at what I want to look at. There is a TOS and a set of standards that we all agree to when we sign up here, guidlines rules that need to be enforced. The Off Topic forum would be a place to hold religious discussions, not the Poser Forum. I do not come to the Rend Poser Forum to see or read about someone elses spiritual beliefs or be force feed how I should feel, or that I'm wrong, that is not my purpose in coming to the Forums, nor is the forums purpose. I like religious art works, and the image in question was well done, it would have been nice to know what programs were used to create it or about the items used, but thats not a big deal it's art to me don't absolutly need to know. I'm not Christian, I love the work of DeVinchi, Michealanlo, Bernini and the great masters. There is a uneven distribution of how rules are inforced or what and how we as site members should act when the 'rules' change, or we are not told what the rules are. When we do get guidelines someone comes along and violates those rules or guidelines yet others get in trouble for similar infractions. I have a problem with this. We as members also have no way to clean up our acts and fly right as the TOS keeps a on your permenant record of infractions, 3 strikes your out approach. Part of the TOS is that attacks or revenge posts are a violation. I get offended when someone throws their religion in my face and tells me my beliefs are wrong. I'm made to feel less than and apart when I have not done a thing and that hurts, yet nothing gets done about this kind of violation at all. words can kill. I come to software forums to learn about the software and tips tricks new developments and sometimes see someones art work. Latly there are those that try or do it unintentionally and the forum goes completly off topic out on a limb and guns are blazing where words fly as shrapnel inflicking wounds. I'm glad that there are places and we all have a part where we can go and discuss and feel free to express our selves, I don't go where I don't want to see things, and I certainly don't want to see some things in th poser forum. in a seperate gallery, in a seperate forum, I do not have to go there I can express my free will by not participating in those things and enjoy the places that I do want to go. With all that is going on in Poserland, this certainly is the last subject that I wanted to deal with, read about or partake in here in the Poser forum. I'm sorry if my comments have offended anyone, or my posts have hurt you or made anybody have to defend thier beliefs, certainly was not intentional on my part. However when a gun is pointed at me I defend my self and my rights and beliefs, just didn't think I'd have to do that in a software forum, and it saddens me.

Did you ever consider that post 52 might be reacting to what was said in post 51, and not the artwork? It sounds like a pretty general statement to me. Look -- I don't need to re-hash the entire thread. Frankly, this debate will never reach a conclusion. And I seriously doubt that anyone's mind is going to be changed by what anyone else says here. That's just the way it is. So.....C'est la vie.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Xeno: np. I'm going offline for a while myself in just a bit. That quote you posted from 52 is in response to this: I applaude Nathalie for her beliefs that shows an example of our Lord Jesus' sacrifice for us. This image is an example of the greatest act of love ever done by anyone who ever walked this earth. Which is exactly what I said. The only people spouting their personal beliefs and saying in essence there is only ONE true God/Reglion are the Christians. That, IMO, is not a terribly tolerant point of view. There must be thousands of recognized religions in the world. Interestingly, if you look in webster's dictionary they define both Voodoo and Wiccan as religions, but they do not Satanism (which I think is normally classified as a religion). MysticMind: I had to go back and reread your posts because nothing from them stuck out in my mind as being particularly "preachy". Having reread them I still feel that way. You have expressed how you feel without saying there is only ONE true way to believe. There is only ONE true God/religion. While you did post your beliefs, it was not done in a judgemental way, IMO. That cannot be said for some of the other Christian posts in this thread (again IMO).

The only people spouting their personal beliefs

Everyone has the right to "spout" their personal beliefs. And not be condemned for doing so.

Including you and me.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Ok, folks this isn't really solving anything.. The matter is being looked into and discussed.. Thanks pushinfaders

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

My libertarian thinking is showing..........

One of the things that really irritates people is something called certitude.

Whenever someone comes along, and stands without apology for their beliefs -- others are inevitably offended.

Speaking out is always a risk. Best to remain silent, if one does not want a fight on one's hands.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Everyone has the right to "spout" their personal beliefs. And not be condemned for doing so. So, if that's the case, does that mean I can spout about how I think X is true even if it isn't. For example (Something I do NOT believe) "All Catholic priests are pedophiles and molest little boys". This is NOT true. However, Xenophonz, you're being hypocrytical. You're trashing people for spouting THEIR belief that the item in question is a TOS violation. It /is/ with the current TOS. Do I think it should be ripped down? NO. It's a well done image. The TOS merely needs to change.

Kreations By Khrys

Ok, folks this isn't really solving anything..

You have the right of it.

you're being hypocrytical. You're trashing people for spouting THEIR belief

Oh, really?

There is a distinct difference between disagreeing with someone's ideas.....and condeming them out of hand for having those ideas in the first place.

I don't understand where "hypocritical" comes into play here.

You have the right to speak out. So do I.

I have the right to say that your ideas are wrong.

That's not hypocrisy. That's the opposite of hypocrisy.

But, pushinfaders is right....this is really going nowhere. We'll never agree.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Whenever someone comes along, and stands without apology for their beliefs -- others are inevitably offended When will you realize that it's not your beliefs that people are taking offense to ... it is your assertion that it is the One Truth that everyone takes offense to? There are many christians (with a small C) in the world ... but let me ask this. Which branch of christianity has a handle on the truth? Catholics? Episcopaleans? Presbyterians? Baptists? Jehovah Witnesses? Congretationalists? Mormons? If what we know of as Christianity had all the answers, then why so many divisions? pushinfaders, I'm really sorry, for prolonging this debate. It might be best to move this post to the OT forum (where I was hoping it would be by now). Please accept my apologies for the continuance, as I know you are working hard for a resolution.

Yes, I think that the time has come to drop out of this thread. This could go on and on........ We aren't going to arrive at some final answer that we'll all agree upon. Let's just say that we disagree. Admins -- I wish you the best in your decision over this issue. Whatever that decision turns out to be.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

DANG .. where's that Edit button? Congretationalists = Congregationalists

Attached Link: http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=3&aid=D80QI6FO0_story

In a 33 year long life filled with sermons and adventures and miracles you can find nothing else to portray? You can post any religious picture uyou want in the appropriate gallery... but don't violate the rules of the Forum while doing so, and don't argue for special and unique privileges. Some pigs are more equal than others? Bah! As for rewriting the TOS, why? That section is designed to keep out sadistic degrading ***horrifying*** images from a public gallery. The TOS is fine. The only problem is willful people pretending that the law doesn't not apply to them because they are somehow special and blessed and above earthly concerns such as justice and fairness. You say a crucifixion is not sadistic torture? Read this article (it's by religious scholars): ""Early Christians believed that Jesus was nailed to the cross," he said. "But there is absolutely no proof of this. The only skeleton of a crucified person ever recovered indicated that the two arms were tied to a crossbar, and two nails were used in either shinbone. There was no standard procedure in any of this. The only common feature in the different types of crucifixion is intense sadism."" So, the TOS bans images showing crucifixions for extremely good reasons. It is an act of torture, mutilation, and death and such scenes have no place here. Besides banning crucifixions, the rule also bans images of torture and images depicting sadism. No exceptions. Carolly

Amen, hauksdottir. ;)

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

There is nothing wrong with the picture, what is wrong is the TOS. The current TOS exclude art of Bosh, Dieric Bouts, most of rennaisance artists and of course most of Christian's religious art including Jesus! So the picture is against the TOS and must be removed, but this picture is ART!!!!, so please let the picture in the gallery and change the TOS!!!!!!!!!

Stupidity also evolves!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=592503

If you don't like Jesus crucifixion, here you have the Virgin and she is not against the TOS!

Stupidity also evolves!

"Every person lost is one less mind to think with us....... "

Or in terms of the TOS... "one less mind to think LIKE us..."

I don't have an agenda here... I don't really care what the admins want to set their TOS to. What I >DO< expect is the TOS to be accurate and enforced. The admins should have the courage to be honest, to openly state their beliefs and their decision to use their judgment in place of the rules as they see fit. Just say it flat out...

"The administration of this site reserves the right to remove any post or image for any reason at their should discretion without notice or recourse. Some examples of reasons that may result in removal are...

• Torture
• Sexual activities
• Nudity
• Animals
• Underage humans (children)
• etc..."

Be adults. Be ethical. Have the courage to say it out loud so you can be honest with yourselves and us. Don't pretend the rules are absolute so you can later hide behind them to avoid having to stand up and say "this image goes because we don't like it, and this one stays because it fits with our religion".

"You're a brave woman."

Brave how? It's a nice image but it's not like she is going to be burned at the stake, attacked or harmed as a result of it. This isn't a martyr situation here, its a thread on a internet forum. I think applying the concept of bravery to the action diminished the concept and the act itself.

We aren't marching into Rome to support Jesus here, this was an image posted to a web site. I doesn't really fall under my concept of bravery. In fact, the response to the image itself has been overwhelmingly supportive and positive. Not one person here has called for it's removal - in fact almost everyone here wants the TOS to change to accurately reflect that it should stay.

"In my opinion the TOS does apply :-) "

You! You! You pro-pornography, anti Jesus agenda toting person! How dare you!

"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."

For this single event in this specific religion. Well, that would be amazingly prejudicial and myopic, but the admins would at least be open about their agenda.

"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."

You must know that logic isn't going to fly here, right?

"I wonder why that could be? "

First answer: Because very few other religions have a depiction of torture as the central icon in their faith? I can guarantee you that if I posted a Voodoo ritual of a animal having it's throat slit it would be removed as a TOS violation. Or maybe an Inca ritual of a heart being torn out? Wanna take a guess how long that woudl stay?

Be honest, the only reason this image is here is because it fits with the faith of the admins.

Second answer: Because we are all part of the global Illuminatus conspiracy. But now that we have been found out we are going to disband.

"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......"

For me? It certainly would.

"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."

Faith is a powerful thing, and I am glad that you have yours and I hope it brings you comfort. Personally? I think Jesus would have been looking for a little honesty among his followers, and the courage to state their beliefs outright in their... say, TOS :)

Whether this is the one "true" religion is a matter that is certainly open to question, though possibly not a question that is tolerated on this website apparently.

If this site is "The Christian graphic artists community" then someone needs to go change the banners cause all us non-believer heathens are under the impression we might actually matter here.

"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.. "

Sorry, there is no wiggle room here like there usually is. Crucifixion is SPECIFICALLY mentioned as an act of torture. You don't have any room to "decide" or "evaluate" that, the TOS defined it. Now, you  want to make a judgment call on this? Fine ... then go change the TOS because it is no longer accurate. A little honesty is a good thing.

"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"

Your paranoia is showing. No one is demanding that the image be taken down, many ARE asking that the TOS accurately reflect the real rules. This isn't like a croup of people getting together to attack and destroy those who don't believe as they do... you know, it's not a Crusade or anything :)

"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."

Again, it is a simple matter to add "any image may be removed at the discretion of the administration without notice or justification." As it is not up to them to try and define what is and isn't central to other faiths it comes down to that anyway.

"If anyone has a problem with a pic of the crucified Christ....or any other pic for that matter, then don't look at it...."

That's a fine sentiment - of course the TOS has already decided that that isn't enough. The administration has decided (as is their right) to impose their own judgments on what is and is not acceptable rather than simply be an open forum (and I think that's a good thing).

It's really amazing to me that out of a simple concept to "either remove the image that violates the TOS or amend the TOS to accurately reflect the rules" we have now got a thread basically positing a conspiracy within the poser community to attack and defame the Christian faith.

Asking for honesty and accuracy in the TOS is not an attack, nor is it anti anything. It is completely reasonable and rational.

We aren't covering any new ground here folks..just arguing the same points over and over.. Feel free to resume this debate in the OT forum.

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook