Funny or Blasphemous

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1edyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a vast difference between South Park and a goofy stick figure cartoon. I wouldn’t draw it myself, but I don’t think laughing at it is automatically blasphemous. South Park is intentionally offensive, while this is just silliness (its actually better than most things from Cyanide and Happiness, which can be pretty inane. It doesn’t cross the line too often, at least not the stuff I see. Some people in my residence hall like to tape them to their doors.)

The fact that God created the platypus proves to me that He meant for us to laugh sometimes.
 
Lujack said:
There is a vast difference between South Park and a goofy stick figure cartoon. I wouldn’t draw it myself, but I don’t think laughing at it is automatically blasphemous. South Park is intentionally offensive, while this is just silliness (its actually better than most things from Cyanide and Happiness, which can be pretty inane. It doesn’t cross the line too often, at least not the stuff I see. Some people in my residence hall like to tape them to their doors.)
Click to expand...
Ah, the ‘it’s not as bad as it could be’ argument!
The fact that God created the platypus proves to me that He meant for us to laugh sometimes.
Click to expand...
No kidding. How is that on-topic?
 
Lujack said:
There is a vast difference between South Park and a goofy stick figure cartoon. I wouldn’t draw it myself, but I don’t think laughing at it is automatically blasphemous. South Park is intentionally offensive, while this is just silliness (its actually better than most things from Cyanide and Happiness, which can be pretty inane. It doesn’t cross the line too often, at least not the stuff I see. Some people in my residence hall like to tape them to their doors.)

The fact that God created the platypus proves to me that He meant for us to laugh sometimes.
Click to expand...
I agree…to a point. God gave us a sense of humor, and without humor, live would be nigh unbearable. We can laugh at our lives and situations god places us in. We are not to laugh at a “harmless” cartoon that potrays Jesus as a vacuous twenty-something at a party. Humor must maintain respect for our Creator.
 
CWBetts said:
I agree…to a point. God gave us a sense of humor, and without humor, live would be nigh unbearable. We can laugh at our lives and situations god places us in. We are not to laugh at a “harmless” cartoon that potrays Jesus as a vacuous twenty-something at a party. Humor must maintain respect for our Creator.
Click to expand...
Well put.

(Note that the ‘argument’ put forth was a non-sequitur: Laughing is good, therefore laughing at God is good.)
 
Lujack said:
There is a vast difference between South Park and a goofy stick figure cartoon. I wouldn’t draw it myself, but I don’t think laughing at it is automatically blasphemous. South Park is intentionally offensive, while this is just silliness (its actually better than most things from Cyanide and Happiness, which can be pretty inane. It doesn’t cross the line too often, at least not the stuff I see. Some people in my residence hall like to tape them to their doors.)

The fact that God created the platypus proves to me that He meant for us to laugh sometimes.
Click to expand...
I agree that South Park is far far worse, though I still do find this inappropriate as well (just because it’s better than it could be or is unintentional doesn’t mean it’s not bad). But my point was that there are people who at least claim to be Christian who would defend South Park for similar (though even harder to defend) reasons as some would defend this cartoon. And that’s sad. On the other hand, someone who disapproves of this cartoon, I think it is safe to say, would definitely disapprove of the horrible blasphemies/sacrelige often found in South Park and sometimes found in Family Guy.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Ah, the ‘it’s not as bad as it could be’ argument!
Click to expand...
No, its the “Just because some forms of humor are blasphemous, not all forms of humor are blasphemous.” argument.

Like I said, I myself wouldn’t draw it. At a low level like this, though (if it is blasphemous, it isn’t by much), I think intent plays a large role, and I think the intent here was to be just a little goofy.

Obviously, the more vicious humor you see on South Park is blasphemous and offensive regardless of the intent, but this is just a stupid joke that isn’t meant to be offensive to Christians.
No kidding. How is that on-topic?
Click to expand...
It isn’t. I just felt like adding a little bit of a light coda to a discussion that seemed to be very serious. Just like the platypus itself, it is a little bit of goofiness thrown into something that is usually pretty serious.
 
Lujack said:
Obviously, the more vicious humor you see on South Park is blasphemous and offensive regardless of the intent, but this is just a stupid joke that isn’t meant to be offensive to Christians.
Click to expand...
How do you figure? Anyone who makes a cartoon like this knows what he’s doing. THe only purpose is to offend. Anyone who does not clearly see that is in want of even the most basic levels of discernment.
 
CWBetts said:
How do you figure? Anyone who makes a cartoon like this knows what he’s doing. THe only purpose is to offend. Anyone who does not clearly see that is in want of even the most basic levels of discernment.
Click to expand...
The only reason anyone ever makes a cartoon is to be offensive? Maybe he figured it wouldn’t offend anybody, and was just making a stupid joke.

Like I said, I wouldn’t do it, and I think that anyone really familiar with Catholicism who does it is showing extremely poor judgment at best, but I tend to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t like to just assume he’s doing this because he hates Christians.
 
What other purpose could a cartoon mocking Jesus Christ possibly have?
 
CWBetts said:
What other purpose could a cartoon mocking Jesus Christ possibly have?
Click to expand...
I just said it; maybe he thought it was just harmless humor and not mockery. If he has been away from Christianity for years and just doesn’t realize how unfunny it is to a devout Christian, it is possible.

There are ways to go into vicious mockery with the water-into-wine miracle (I’ve heard it done at high school basketball games), and he definitely didn’t go into that territory.
 
1edyson said:
saw this on another forum, and I must admit I got a chuckle from it at first. Lord forgive me my human nature. But is it funny or blasphemous, or both?

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/jesus-is-a-pretty-bad-backseat-driver-too.png
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s funny at all.
This was the first miracle Christ performed at the wedding at Cana.
Mary said to the attendants, “Do what ever he tells you.” Are you doing whatever he tells you?
or making light of his wonderful works. 😦

God have mercy us,
jean8
 
CWBetts said:
Why are you defending someone who makes light of God?
Click to expand...
For whatever reason, and I guess this is a blessing in many ways, whenever I see someone being harshly criticized, my first instinct is to see the good in them. It isn’t me trying to be contrary, its just me following my odd habits of defending people against criticism (I can tell you first hand that this habit makes it impossible for me to stand near anybody else at football games).

I just think we’re being too quick to assume malice. I think the default assumption should be ignorance. Like I said before, maybe I’m naive, but I just want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Lujack said:
For whatever reason, and I guess this is a blessing in many ways, whenever I see someone being harshly criticized, my first instinct is to see the good in them. It isn’t me trying to be contrary, its just me following my odd habits of defending people against criticism (I can tell you first hand that this habit makes it impossible for me to stand near anybody else at football games).

I just think we’re being too quick to assume malice. I think the default assumption should be ignorance. Like I said before, maybe I’m naive, but I just want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Thats not spirituality, thays worldliness and reltivism
 
CWBetts said:
Thats not spirituality, thays worldliness and reltivism
Click to expand...
What’s worldliness and relativism? The benefit of the doubt? Not thinking the worst of people right off the bat?

I just think we’re too quick to jump in here and say the guy hates Christianity. He might just be ignorant.
 
CWBetts said:
This was no “accident”
Click to expand...
I never said it was an accident; the artwork and the joke are clearly intentional, but what is so “relativistic” about assuming he may simply be ignorant, rather than malicious?
 
Cartoons like this to me depict the illustrator’s lame attempt to place more emphasis on Christ’s humanity than on His Divinity. It may be ignorance on his part - maybe he can’t wrap his mind around the fact that Christ is fully man and fully God. So instead of trying to understand the Nature of Christ, the author decides to portray Him at a level that he can relate to.

Personally, the comic wasn’t funny to me, and it made me uncomfortable looking at it, but then my understanding of Christ has grown since I was younger. The best reaction I can muster is just to pray for this person, and ask the Lord to forgive him, for he probably didn’t know what he was doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top