Author | Comment | |
---|---|---|
1. 30 Nov 2009 03:54 | ||
...I would like to revisit this pic with Rachel... Rachel's reasoning for not uncensoring this pic was because of the "graphic nature" of the pic... |
||
2. 30 Nov 2009 09:25 | ||
it's a good, expressive pic...and I don't really understand the objection...I hope the censorship will be lifted, Matthew. |
||
3. 30 Nov 2009 12:03 | ||
Matthew, the pic is graphic, but certainly not gratuitously graphic. I believe most people would not be offended. |
||
4. 30 Nov 2009 15:49 | ||
I think that people should know what Jesus did for us, so even if it is a little graphic, it should be seen. |
||
5. 30 Nov 2009 15:59 | ||
I agree with Sheftali, I don't think many people would get offended... |
||
6. 30 Nov 2009 16:07 | ||
It is a beautiful picture, not only of itself but for what it stands for. I hope that it will be uncencored! |
||
7. 30 Nov 2009 16:16 | ||
Its censored? |
||
8. 30 Nov 2009 17:50 | ||
I'm confused about two things: |
||
9. 1 Dec 2009 02:17 | ||
Censored = You can't find it in the gallery... You have to search it out on my page... |
||
10. 1 Dec 2009 09:16 | ||
I think it's an outrage that it was censored. I've always thoughts so. |
||
11. 1 Dec 2009 13:53 | ||
I don't find it offensive. |
||
12. 1 Dec 2009 14:34 | ||
Riddle me this, riddle me that. For pics to be censored they need to be "scat". If thy eye offends thee, then pluck it out. Hitler taught us a valuable lesson about the value of human sacrifice, burning books, and making war, not love. Censorship at any level is offensive. The name of the website is THINKdraw not Well ya better think before you draw. For Matthew or anyone else censorship is unacceptable although we as the players in the grand ThinkDraw psychological experiment I've heard before are still just drugged mice in a maze. Amen. oops, sorry, this message will self destruct due to one, possibly two references to religion. |
||
13. 1 Dec 2009 16:54 | ||
I find it obscene not to allow tasteful nudes, the gruesome image of the crucifixtion has always given me the creeps, but it is such a common image in the western world, millions of people hang it on the wall, people, even little kids, see the image often, it is absurd to censor it. |
||
14. 2 Dec 2009 09:17 | ||
ooookaaayyy... time to weigh in on this. And what it comes down to is I totally agree with Coho's statement and reasoning.... |
||
15. 2 Dec 2009 13:00 | ||
Have we lost sight of the original reason Matthew gave us for it being banned (Community Forum - Goodbye - 19 Feb 2009)? |
||
16. 3 Dec 2009 02:16 | ||
Oh, I believe the original reason was spite... but the reason Rachel gave for it staying banned was its graphic nature... |
||
17. 3 Dec 2009 02:50 | ||
sorry all.. |
||
18. 3 Dec 2009 03:42 | ||
LOL.. |
||
19. 3 Dec 2009 03:48 | ||
Matthew, this Jesus is kind of gory, but not too much. I'm not offended. It did surprise me at first...... |
||
20. 3 Dec 2009 05:34 | ||
I'm not offended by the picture, but the description in the Bible was of a single wound to the side, so what was the point of adding multiple wounds all over the body? |