The second issue is that a member who isn't a wordpress.com member but still attached via wordpress.org with an independent blog was attacked by a person who is a wordpress.com member who had a personal axe to grind over an image that was posted on anothers site and either hacked the site removing what they didn't like or facilitating the ability of someone else to do it for them. Granted wordpress.com may not have any responsibility in this issue other than to allow this as a "warning to others of possible consequences of Independent blogs".

Third and finally, OK...so this person isn't a wordpress.com member, but isn't there a connection between wordpress. com and wordpress.org? The content may not be held by wordpress, but I don't think it was as much that issue as it was the fact that they were trying to express frustration over a "member" of "wordpress" being this extreme because of a "personal issue" with content posted on someones site. To just dismiss this is counterproductive on all levels.

You're right. This is not a wordpress.com issue.

Setting that aside, the New Testament contains absolutely no support for violence of any kind for any purpose. To be a Christian and to advocate and/or participate in violence of any kind is untenable as it is contrary to the New Testament teachings, attributed to Jesus who is alleged to have never justified hatred, murder or violence. Hence there is no base for claiming self defense or survival as a Christian virtue based on New Testament teachings. Life is not to be maintained by any means.

For the first 200 years of Christianity, Christians ascribed to a living non-violent lifestyle just as Jesus is alleged to have done. They renounced the sword, rejected war and died refusing to resort to violence even in self defense. By the year 300 Constantine baptized his entire army adopted the Greek and Roman “just war” criteria. By the year 400 Augustine was approving “a just war”; by the year 1000 “Christians” were fighting “holy crusades”.

By 1572 Pope Gregory XIII proclaimed the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of French Huguenots by Roman Catholics, with a final death toll of 30,000, which ranks in the annals of licensed bestiality with Kritallnacht and the slaughter of the Mamelukes ‘a hundred times more pleasing than fifty victories like Lepanto’. The pamphlets of the day proclaimed ‘Jesus Christ will rule. Jesus Christ will Reign’.

Speeding ahead we find that Hitler was a Catholic who maintained that he was fighting a Christian cause. The Nazis entered a “concordat” with the Vatican. Here are some words from the man himself:

“My feeling as a Christian beads me to be a fighter for my Lord and Saviour. It leads me to the man who, at one time lonely and with only a few followers, recognised the Jews for what they were, and called on men to fight against them… As a Christian, I owe something to my own people.” — Adolf Hitler

“The (Nazi) party stands for positive Christianity” — Adolf Hitler

A cursory review of history presents us with the reality that Christian scripture has used to rationalize and justify violence, paternalism, misogyny, slavery, the Crusades, witch burnings, anti-antisemitism, and another millennium of wars fought under the banner of "God/Jesus is on our side".

You have said:

It seems that some Christians are becoming very dangerous people.

I say many Christians are among the most dangerous people on the planet and have been so for two millennium minus 200 years. They are standing shoulder to shoulder with all religious zealots the world over who adhere to fundamentalist religions and claim that "God is on their side". It's shameful that this despicable sloganeering continues even today.

In this case the blog that was hacked was running an outdated and insecure wordpress 2.6 version, because the blog owner ignored the dashboard notices to upgrade to secure versions. The current version is 2.9.2 > http://wordpress.org/ Updating wordpress versions amounts to deactivating all plugins, and upgrading with a single click, followed by reactivation of plugins.

In a comment of mine on the first page of this "not a wordpress.com hosted blog and not a wordpress.com issue" thread, despite the fact that my strongest preference was for the thread to be closed, I requested that this thread be moved into the Off-Topic forum . This morning I see that it has been moved to the Off-Topic forum.
See > http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/jesus-picture-with-beer-glass-and-cigarette-in-hand?replies=35#post-448826

@timethief...did I miss something, hasn't this post now been moved to Off Topic? As for it being a blog owner responsibility to protect his or her own work, I do agree, but there is also a certain amount of responsibility to the web sites as well to help protect the blogger that keeps them viable. I have to tell you that in reading arthumma's reply, I found myself questioning if it was just a "clever statement" when he replied and I quote...

"I posted my own comments giving you the reasons that I felt are justified for removing the tarnished image of the Lord Jesus Christ posted on your website."

Or is it more like a "clever admission" that he/she hacked another's account, yet insures that he/she will face no consequences for having done such?

Having moderated and administered many blogs in my time, I can tell you that statement alone would give me cause to at least wonder especially since he/she goes on to later comment on the account being hacked.

Religion is a touchy subject for most people, but I never saw this as a "religious" discussion, it was an issue of someones personal opinion being the foundation for retaliation and that should never be allowed anywhere.

Just my two cents...

There's thousands of electronic copies of this picture on the net. There's thousands of copies of OTHER pictures depicting the same sort of "blashphemy" on the net. Are you going after them all? Wouldn't the time be better spent educating the Christian groups, and spreading the word of your Christ through peaceful means?

Trouble over the tarnished image of Lord Jesus

Last month, the printing of the morphed image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on hoarding in Jalandhar unleashed violent protests in Punjab. The same image published in a text book by a Delhi based publisher led to the accusation of blasphemy in the North Eastern state of Meghalaya. The defacement of the image led to communal riots in Punjab and unrest in other places whose unpleasant consequences are still being faced.

Earlier this morphed picture was published by a Catholic Magazine Vachana Jyothi owned by the Diocese of Neyyattinkara in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, on the cover page of its June 5, 2008 issue forcing Bishop Vincent Samuel to take action on the editorial staff.

In Andhra Pradesh the printing of the tarnished image resulted in a violent reaction from the Christian groups. On Sunday July 13, 2008, the Telugu daily Sakshi owned by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the son of late Dr Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, published the morphed image of Sacred Heart of Jesus in an article on the teahing of Lord Jesus. The morphed image of Lord Jesus led to wide spread protests by the readers and others particularly Christians cutting across the Denominations.

Various Christian groups led by their pastors and leaders of Christian organisations conducted rallies and staged protest demonstrations in front of the Sakshi offices in many towns and at its administrative office head quarters at Hyderabad. In few places they ransacked its office, destroyed the computers and furniture, and burnt the copies of the Sakshi daily. Some went to the extent of filing a case against the management of the news paper under section 153 (A) and 295 (A) of Indian Penal Code for hurting the sentiments of religious communities.

The response of the management of Sakshi to the unforeseen turn of events was an unconditional apology. Its chairman Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy expressed his apology through the electronic media on Sunday itself. On the next day he published a box item on the front page of Sakshi with the title “Prabhuva Shaminchu” (“Lord, Forgive”) sorrowfully admitting the mistake, expressing his regrets unconditionally and requesting forgiveness from the Lord Jesus, all the readers and from the Christian community.

The morphed image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in question used to appear on the very first row of the first page of the Google Images when searched under Images of “Jesus”. It was gathered from the web blog of a person named Joe Nassif, who seems to be a student of Parramatta Marist High School in Australia run by the Marist Brothers. His web blog is <jnassif93.wordpress.com>. Fr Dr Anthoniraj Thumma, the Executive Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches, wrote to him requesting him to remove this image as it amounts to desecrating and it could be published again inadvertently by others causing offence and leading to disturbances. The abuse was reported to the webmasters and the tarnished picture of Lord Jesus was finally removed from the internet.

Some who had downloaded the morphed image earlier may be using it inadvertently at times. Their malicious intention, if exists, needs to be verified before the Christian groups react on such matters. A really effective and truly Christian response is called for on such occasions.

Fr Anthoniraj Thumma,
Secunderabad – 11-03-2010

Rev. Fr. Dr. Anthoniraj Thumma, M.A. (Soc.), M.Th., Ph. D.
(Professor in Contextual Theology)
Executive Secretary, A.P. Federation of Churches – APFC (Ecumenical)
Deputy Secretary, A.P. Bishops’ Council – APBC (Catholic)
Regional Director, APBC Commission for Ecumenism and Dialogue

Address:

Moderation Notice Personal information removed please re-frame from posting personal info in the public forums thanks - t3ck,

Thanks again and good night!

IMO this is dead horse beating at it's worst and I don't give fig for what response the OP may post. It's my experience that the OP's of these type of threads rarely, if ever, post again to them.

Moreover, if my site had been hacked I'd be too busy reconstructing it and setting up keepass to keep bumping this thread. Please see > http://en.support.wordpress.com/passwords/#security

What exactly is the viable "Idea" being proposed to Staff in this thread by the OP? There already policies in place with regard to abuse, freedom of speech and complaints. It's time for this thread to disappear from the front page of the "Ideas" forum because it doesn't belong here (it belongs in the Off_topic forum), and because Staff have already replied to the OP. (See Tellyworths' comment above).

Seriously, I will agree that we are all responsible in some form but that being said it has nothing to do with the right or freedom to post a picture on a personal blog. One is a "moral" issue the other is a "legal" issue. Morally,if you are offended then click close and move on, but legally you have no right to dictate to the person posting or a right to destroy what you don't like simply because you or even thousands of others find it objectionable.

I for one will defend Andrew's right to post what he chooses because I refuse to give up MY right to do the same.

Like you, I believe both in freedom of speech and respect for religion. I was raised a Catholic but I can't ever remember a priest preaching against smoking or drinking. On the contrary, I can remember on countless occasions meeting the local priest in the local pub, smoking and drinking.

As I said before, I asked everyone who complained about the picture to explain why they found it offensive, but I never ever heard a response. And then this Fr Anthoniraj Thumma makes one comment about it on this blog and the last four years of work are gone... This doesn't sound like actions worthy of any religion to me.

Andrew Hamilton

The tale of the binoculars:

Galiza (Spain), any summer in the early eighties.
A woman called the Guardia Civil (Spain rural police) because there were people naked on the beach. The police came and told that those people were far away. Why the bother?
The woman replied: "With the binoculars I see them perfectly!"

I am not a Christian (I'm Muslim and we also love and admire Jesus Christ) but I agree with arthumma that it is irresponsible to post such images on any site, knowing how offensive it is to so many people. Even athiests believe in respect for their fellow man, right?

With freedom of speech, comes responsibility. Don't kid yourself that you don't use censorship on a daily basis in your dealings with other people of different backgrounds and beliefs. Why is it not being used in this case?

It's just a matter of decency.

Khaled

Personally I'm of the opinion that if there is a diety up there, he had the presence of mind to lead his creations (us) to create an "off" button on our televisions and a "close" button on our browsers. If you don't like what you see, I don't understand why you don't take advantage of those wonderful creations. But then again, I may be completely ignorant on the matter.

Ok I have just one question for arthumma then....

Are pictures of drunk cows and cows smoking joints causing riots too?

moookie.blogspot.com/.../pot-smoking-cows.html

Here is one from GOA India where the sacred cows are drunk on the beach no less.

http://images.travelpod.com/users/inoursuitcase/freedom_07-08.1231176240.cocktail-drinking-cows.jpg