Saint-a-wear

[xBaron Dants]

Your post about the deaths had nothing to do with the topic. We all agreed that a human rights group has nothing to do in this business.

And when you name your own thread SAINT-A-WEAR, then that is what people will talk about.

[anileve]

It can be whatever you want it to be. If you were religious, and felt that it was something that you wanted to do, you could do it. It's on sale isn't it? And then there will be other people who won't like the idea, and won't wear it.

Why you still can't accept that some people don't like it is still a mystery to me.

Aaaah, Baron jan, now you have changed your tune. This is where our paths meet. It is a personal choice and preference to like it or not, a matter of taste I would say. What I don’t understand is why people find it sacrilegious and disrespectful which are light years away from “not liking” something. It is the twisted mentality behind this ridiculous hype of body parts representing lewdness that I don’t understand.

Inna, I absolutely understand that you are not comfortable; you’ve pointed it out twice. The question is why? I mean you can wear a cross of torture on your neck, or hang a crucifix on your hallway wall, or wear Virgin Mary pendant around your neck, but you feel uncomfortable wearing soft cotton underwear with the print of Jesus? As you have said it’s private, so why are people more comfortable with displaying such images to the public? How does it all add up?

[anileve]

Your post about the deaths had nothing to do with the topic. We all agreed that a human rights group has nothing to do in this business.

And when you name your own thread SAINT-A-WEAR, then that is what people will talk about.

It had everything to do with the topic. But the underwear took the prize of the most outrage. Shows exactly how people (particularly some religious oriented Human Rights organizations) prioritize. That's why our news are infested with talks about Weapons of Destruction, rather than the starving children in Africa or Human Rights violation in most of Asia.

[xBaron Dants]

I didn't change my tune, dear anileve. I said all along that we just have to accept that people will dislike it. And in that same spirit, you must understand that people will think that genitals are not some place where a picture of a holy person should go, whether you understand the reasoning or not.

[xBaron Dants]

It had everything to do with the topic. But the underwear took the prize of the most outrage. Shows exactly how people (particularly some religious oriented Human Rights organizations) prioritize. That's why our news are infested with talks about Weapons of Destruction, rather than the starving children in Africa or Human Rights violation in most of Asia.

It still has nothing to do with the debate, because as I said, we agreed that a human rights group has nothing to do in it.

[Inna]

Inna, I absolutely understand that you are not comfortable; you’ve pointed it out twice. The question is why? I mean you can wear a cross of torture on your neck, or hang a crucifix on your hallway wall, or wear Virgin Mary pendant around your neck, but you feel uncomfortable wearing soft cotton underwear with the print of Jesus? As you have said it’s private, so why are people more comfortable with displaying such images to the public? How does it all add up?

cross of torture?? I wouldnt consider wearing a cross around your neck as torture

anyways...first of all I keep my religious beliefs to myself..I only wear my cross when I go to church and I have one painting of the Virgin Mary and one painting of Jesus at MY house...thats all. Second, the whole idea of not using God's name in vain should also be applied with not using God's image in vain aswell.
I dont know why people are comfortable showing off what religion they are affiliated with in public..and frankly I dont care what religion their affiliated with..I dont like the image of jesus on clothing just as much I dont like the Jehovah's Witness people knocking on my door

If what I wrote above doesnt answer your question then I dont know what else to say...maybe its the traditional way I was raised and that is why I find the image of jesus on underwear degrading

[anileve]

Baron,

I am about to explode here. For Lucifer’s sake, once and for all, I understand that some people are uncomfortable with the idea of physically introducing their crotch to a holy figure. They’ve mentioned it only about a hundred times. Once again the question is why!!! Private connection with Jesus above the dining room table but not a ludicrous connection with private parts?

You are right the article doesn’t have anything to do with the current debate, however it still has everything to do with the topic. The article mentions a Human Rights group, so an article dealing with human rights of Indian women being burned becuase of the stupid dowry, who may buy this sacrilegious underwear is only prevalent.

[anileve]

cross of torture?? I wouldnt consider wearing a cross around your neck as torture

anyways...first of all I keep my religious beliefs to myself..I only wear my cross when I go to church and I have one painting of the Virgin Mary and one painting of Jesus at MY house...thats all. Second, the whole idea of not using God's name in vain should also be applied with not using God's image in vain aswell.
I dont know why people are comfortable showing off what religion they are affiliated with in public..and frankly I dont care what religion their affiliated with..I dont like the image of jesus on clothing just as much I dont like the Jehovah's Witness people knocking on my door

If what I wrote above doesnt answer your question then I dont know what else to say...maybe its the traditional way I was raised and that is why I find the image of jesus on underwear degrading

The original purpose of the cross was intended for torturing and executing slaves and criminals in the ancient Rome. The emblem you wear represents just that, except that it has a Christian twist to it, which as a result makes it somehow more acceptable and even more so “holy”. So wearing religious underwear which will serve as a comfortable and necessary apparel to us is in vain, but a painting without a purpose just hanging on the wall to constantly remind people of their sins is not?

[xBaron Dants]

The article was about a point on which we had agreed, therefore there was not much to say about it.

I would guess why people think that way,at least in Christianity, is because of the whole thing in religion where Adam and Eve feel shame and guilt and whatnot. Anyways, everything in Christianity seems to be associated with shame and guilt...

[Inna]

The original purpose of the cross was intended for torturing and executing slaves and criminals in the ancient Rome. The emblem you wear represents just that, except that it has a Christian twist to it, which as a result makes it somehow more acceptable and even more so “holy”. So wearing religious underwear which will serve as a comfortable and necessary apparel to us is in vain, but a painting without a purpose just hanging on the wall to constantly remind people of their sins is not?

The swastika also had a double meaning for it but it is the latter meaning (the one associated with Nazis) that has the most meaning these days..same as with the cross
You think that the painting of jesus serves no purpose and that it reminds people of their sins, while I see it as a reminder that God is with us everyday and is watching over us

Besides I obviously cannot explain it to you any more...you fail to see it from my own, religious perspective...maybe its easy for someone who doesnt believe in God to wear an image of Jesus on their underwear just as easily they would wear an image of Justin Timberlake, but for me Justin and Jesus are two very different images and bring about a different meaning.