Apple Rejects Sacrilegious iPhone App

[Baby Tea]

Yes, we have grace, grace means our sins our forgiven, but we do not have license to sin/break the law.

I never said we did.

Perhaps the question I wish to ask is why do you refute the citing of the law?

What I refute isn't the citing of the law, but rather it's mis-use in light of the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:36-40). For example: when people shout 'God hates fags', that is a mis-use of the law and totally inappropriate. God doesn't hate 'fags'. And even if homosexuality isn't agreed with, we are to treat homosexuals with nothing short of love and compassion.

My problem is with people who read off the law as a judge, rather then a servant. Romans 2 says it well: Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

The law does define sin, but grace is always to be our response to sin.

I suppose I didn't make that very clear.
Really, I think we're arguing on the same side.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

As we have both said the same thing about three times now, yes, I think we're on the same side. What hit my button was that it seemed as though you were trying to say that the law doesn't matter.

Christians do not follow the books of the law, because Christians are under grace, not the law (See: Romans 6:14). So that isn't asked of us, so it isn't disobeying.

The point that the earlier reponse by Kryuu was making was that Christians do tend to pick and choose what they accept and what they condemn. I agree. I don't think that it is how it should be, but it is.

There is a disconnect when people claim that God hates sinners. God hates sin and loves the sinners. I hate smoking, I love my friend, but he smokes, so I don't like to be around him when he does. So take something from Leviticus, like homosexuality, and yes, God hates homosexuality, he hates lying, stealing, adultery and any other sin equally. We all have sin. To over-simplify, God loves us, but hates the sin so he can't be with us. God gives us grace to remove that sin so he can be with us. To advocate that God hates any person is hypocracy. To claim that God hates any particular sin more than another is hypocracy. The point was, Christians tend to do both of these.

Relating (somewhat) back to topic, and not directed at Baby Tea specifically: Christians pick and choose what to get "righteous" about. Such as this app. It's Apple's product, it's Apple's call. If they allowed it, and you don't like it, don't download it. If you see someone using it and it offends you, let them know, politely. If they conceed, great, if not, making a fuss isn't going to help your situation. However, they have not allowed it. For me, that raises an issue. What if they ruled against legitimate religious apps? Again, their product, their call.

 

[gurall200]

Apple out does themselves yet again, first no swear words in books, then no NIN app update (why?), now this. But they let the fart app, the your mom app and the shotgun app (all the kids at my school have it and use it regularly...makes me wish they would bring a real one), but this is apparently going to far.

 

[SLy AsymMetrY]

Forget about the religious argument for a second. Whats the POINT of this App. Its not fun. Its not amusing. I could see the point of replacing a sports superstars face with your own. Or the amusing potential of sticking your friends face on a poodle (now theres an image

But an app that turns you into a figure in robes. Exciting stuff, eh? The creator must be dense not to see how much of a waste of time this is. Unless he really is taking the p***. And must not be very good at it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Nice ten commandments burn. I was on his side until I read it.

Well, Satan originally got Humanity chucked out of the Garden of Eden with an apple, maybe Steve Jobs is erring on the side of caution.

 

[G-Mang]

Incredibly harmless. I personally didn't find it funny, but for those who do, they're laughing at the expense of no one, save perhaps the people who originally made the paintings in the app (assuming they weren't commissioned or compensated). This isn't laughing at misfortune or beliefs or serious issues. It's just putting faces over images of religious figures as a joke--defacing mere representative images at most. It doesn't even come close to making a serious statement of those actual religions, and if you take it as one, then I think you're looking for things to get offended by.

 

[Baby Tea]

As we have both said the same thing about three times now, yes, I think we're on the same side. What hit my button was that it seemed as though you were trying to say that the law doesn't matter.

Yeah, I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I personally focus far more on the soteriological theology of Christianity, as I find the church gives theological weight to things that don't deserve it, but that's derailing this thread far more then we already have. If you'd like to have a friendly discussion about it, then PM me. Otherwise, whatever!

There is a disconnect when people claim that God hates sinners. God hates sin and loves the sinners. I hate smoking, I love my friend, but he smokes, so I don't like to be around him when he does. So take something from Leviticus, like homosexuality, and yes, God hates homosexuality, he hates lying, stealing, adultery and any other sin equally. We all have sin. To over-simplify, God loves us, but hates the sin so he can't be with us. God gives us grace to remove that sin so he can be with us. To advocate that God hates any person is hypocracy. To claim that God hates any particular sin more than another is hypocracy. The point was, Christians tend to do both of these.

Yeah we're pretty much on the same page. I hate when that happens! We word the same thing differently (Or, in this case, don't word it clear enough) and then we get a little back and forth when we're both on the same 'side'. You know I find that happens most when discussing theology with fellow Christians? Huh.

Well, good talk. Welcome to the Escapist! Always good to have another theologically minded Christian here!

 

[samsonguy920]

Between the debate on religion (which never comes to an agreement) and a lot of people noting that the app was cheesy but harmless, I've found this thread quite amusing. The main crux of the matter is, Apple is saying they don't advocate free speech in their little IPhone, which burns my toast. True they have every right, the IPhone is their baby and their toy. If you don't like it, go find another ball to play with. Frankly I don't care for any of the phones of that style. They are cheesy and a bad investment. Unless you plan to encase it in 2 inch plastic and in a safe, it ain't going to last you enough time to really get your money's worth. But that's my view, if you don't agree, excellent!

 

[Dastardos]

Jesus what if you could edit your face into a picture of Muhammad.

The radical Muslims would be pissed off...

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I am a Christian. Me and jesus are kinda tight, I think. Jesus has a sense of humor. He was also a witty man. I doubt he cares. I'm not offended. People who like to think their faith is under constant attack are offended. Paranoid fear is a GREAT way to live your spiritual life, apparently.

 

[Plauged1]

Apple is now experiencing the joys of being a major company having to babysit its overtly sensitive public. They should just give up and give exclusive license to Disney just in case.

Or they could just put a purity ring on it.=p

I don't find it offensive at all. Don't see the deal here.

 

[WingedFortress]

Nice ten commandments burn. I was on his side until I read it.

Well, Satan originally got Humanity chucked out of the Garden of Eden with an apple, maybe Steve Jobs is erring on the side of caution.

And that was just an unwritten rule. Shit.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Our question is, is religion really to be placed in the same category as these violent apps? Sex, urine, and defecation don't seem to be off-limits, yet a totally non-violent, religion-based app is.

Which only shows how he is probably not religious, and has no idea how closely people can hold their faith to their hearts. This could easily be seen as extremely offensive to multiple faith-based groups all at once, which begs the question: Why even make something so pointless and obviously offensive?

But the guy can ***** all he wants. Apple has the say, and I think they are absolutely right in this case. Are their other apps that are offensive and pointless that are permitted? Perhaps, but those aren't in question. This one is, and I agree with Apple.

Can I ask a question? I'm not trying to be snide, clever, sarcastic or what have you. I'm genuinely curious.

My question is: Why would someone find it objectionable? I mean if I interpose my own picture on a picture of, say, Jesus, surely it would no longer be a picture of Jesus, but a picture of me with long hair and a rather lame beard and possibly a halo?

I ask, honestly, out of ignorance. I have a hard time wrapping my head around faith so stuff like this perplexes me a great deal. In this case my bewilderment is bigger because this is not different from a app I have for my phone where I can take pictures of a mate in a rabbit head. That don't make it a rabbit. I can't see how this would make it Jesus.

All that being said, the app itself is rather pointless and lame. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would find it funny. But each to their own.

 

[Baby Tea]

My question is: Why would someone find it objectionable? I mean if I interpose my own picture on a picture of, say, Jesus, surely it would no longer be a picture of Jesus, but a picture of me with long hair and a rather lame beard and possibly a halo?

It can be offensive to people because Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, or any other god, or god-like figure, is sacred to them. It holds a very special and powerful meaning to that person, or group of people, and to see something so important and paramount to them and their worldview be used in such a pointless, stupid, and trivial manner is upsetting.

It isn't simply that it's putting some head on their body, it's that it's trivializing something that is a central and major part of one's worldview. It's making fun and light of it for no other reason but to make fun and light of it.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

My question is: Why would someone find it objectionable? I mean if I interpose my own picture on a picture of, say, Jesus, surely it would no longer be a picture of Jesus, but a picture of me with long hair and a rather lame beard and possibly a halo?

It can be offensive to people because Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, or any other god, or god-like figure, is sacred to them. It holds a very special and powerful meaning to that person, or group of people, and to see something so important and paramount to them and their worldview be used in such a pointless, stupid, and trivial manner is upsetting.

It isn't simply that it's putting some head on their body, it's that it's trivializing something that is a central and major part of one's worldview. It's making fun and light of it for no other reason but to make fun and light of it.

Alright. Thanks for that. I guess my problem is that I don't quite understand why people do take it so close to heart. Faith is a strange entity for me I guess.

But still, if people poke fun of something I hold dear I'll mostly just ignore it, unless it's funny in which case I'll laugh. I guess the closest thing I can come up with, with regards to shaping my worldview would be socialism and science. They are the two fundamental pillars I stand on and live my life by. But people are more than free to poke fun at it. As I said, if it's funny I'll laugh. (Though I would despair for them if it was as stupid as this.)

I don't know. I think I'm okay with people making fun for no other reason than to make fun. It seems to be the best reason. And anything is a valid target, as far as I see. Politics, religion, science, me and what ever else there is. Of course some subjects require a better attempt than this sad app if it's to be really funny.

 

[siege_1302]

What I don't understand is why we have to tip-toe around people who get offended over this sort of thing. They aren't being forced to download the app, it isn't shoved in their faces. They seem to be getting offended over something not really affecting them. Again.
Not content to just not buy the thing themselves, they must stop others from buying it too! I wish this weren't typical behaviour, but we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[Maikan Bacon]

Given that Kahle is pushing this as a religious app,

religion-based app is.

Religious-BASED. Not religious. Big difference. Get your facts straight.

On that note, the whole "offensive" thing is retarded from the start. If anyone was forced to download and use this, then I'd understand it being removed, but seeing as it's usage is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL people who push to have this product removed because they don't like it should kindly drop dead, because I don't like them, and according to their retarded logic this is good enough reason.

Totally owned, love it. Must agree too.

I myself am Athiest, so slap me across the face and call me bias but I really feel that those who take offense to this can - of course they can! But they shouldn't be allowed to go forward to campaign it being removed from public domain if it were to be...

If they don't like it then leave it alone and allow others to enjoy it. I don't personally like religion - but I don't campaign against it, I simply allow for others to go about thier thing.

Bacon.