Are Darwin fishes offensive?

[RND]

Are you saying that Jesus Christ asked the twelve to observe something pagan at the last supper, when He told them to eat bread and drink wine in rememberance of Him?

Did I say that or did I include a link to an article that gave the historical application regarding the topic at hand, namely "Darwin fish"?

There are many pre-Christian virgin birth stories; does this mean that the Bible borrowed from paganism and should be disgarded?

There are many examples in paganism where a "virgin" gave birth to a "son." The difference is of course is what was "real" versus what was "imagined." None of the "sons" birthed to the pagan goddesses ever promised what Jesus promised - namely eternal life through Him by His example.

 

[Gabe]

Are you saying that Jesus Christ asked the twelve to observe something pagan at the last supper, when He told them to eat bread and drink wine in rememberance of Him?

Did I say that or did I include a link to an article that gave the historical application regarding the topic at hand, namely "Darwin fish"?

The topic at hand, is whether or not the 'Darwin fish' is offensive to Christians, NOT the possible pagan origins of the Christian equivalent.

There are many pre-Christian virgin birth stories; does this mean that the Bible borrowed from paganism and should be disgarded?

There are many examples in paganism where a "virgin" gave birth to a "son." The difference is of course is what was "real" versus what was "imagined." None of the "sons" birthed to the pagan goddesses ever promised what Jesus promised - namely eternal life through Him by His example.

This is the same argument that atheists use against believing in the Bible and their arguments are just as valid as your's against Christian symbols and Holidays. It is only us Christians who see Christ's virgin birth as "real" and not simply a borrowed myth of pagan origin.

When Christ gave the bread and wine to His disciples or when we as Christians share Communion, we are NOT following a holy sacrament of a Mediterranean mystery religion.

The fish symbol represents what was used to cover a goddesses genitals to us, as much as the bread and wine would have represented the holy sacrament of a Medditerranean mystery religion to Christ.

If you insist on critisizing Christian traditions which may have been borrowed from paganism every opportunity you get, then you should remain consistant with your logic and critisize Christ Himself for "borrowing" from paganism.

 

[Rick W]

Somehow I believe the fish was used in reference to Christ's saying, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men".
I don't have the exact quote, I'm at work, but i think that will suffice for my point.

 

[RND]

The topic at hand, is whether or not the 'Darwin fish' is offensive to Christians, NOT the possible pagan origins of the Christian equivalent.

Blame Rick then, not me. Rick said that the Darwinistas "borrowed from Christianity." I was merely pointing out that the idea of "Jesus fish" or "Christianity fish" was of pagan origin.

This is the same argument that atheists use against believing in the Bible and their arguments are just as valid as your's against Christian symbols and Holidays. It is only us Christians who see Christ's virgin birth as "real" and not simply a borrowed myth of pagan origin.

Except I'm a Christian, not an atheist. I believe Jesus walked, talked and rode a donkey.

When Christ gave the bread and wine to His disciples or when we as Christians share Communion, we are NOT following a holy sacrament of a Mediterranean mystery religion.

Well, that depends on your outlook. Seeing that we cannot talk about certain religious practices without censure I'll leave it at that.

The fish symbol represents what was used to cover a goddesses genitals to us, as much as the bread and wine would have represented the holy sacrament of a Medditerranean mystery religion to Christ.

Except the bread and wine actually represent something of Christ whereas the fish does not.

If you insist on critisizing Christian traditions which may have been borrowed from paganism every opportunity you get, then you should remain consistant with your logic and critisize Christ Himself for "borrowing" from paganism.

Hey, I understand exactly what He was getting at in Luke 16:19-31 regarding the adoption of pagan beliefs - do you?

 

[MISFIT]

How about this...

Also I try not to get offended by the dumb little things in this world, I'm more saddened than offended.

 

[RND]

How about this...

Also I try not to get offended by the dumb little things in this world, I'm more saddened than offended.

Perfect!

 

[smos]

How about this...

Also I try not to get offended by the dumb little things in this world, I'm more saddened than offended.

It's not very easy to offend me either... I just laugh when I see one of those

 

[MISFIT]

If we all got offended by all the little things we don't like or disagree with we would have time for nothing else.

 

[Gabe]

The topic at hand, is whether or not the 'Darwin fish' is offensive to Christians, NOT the possible pagan origins of the Christian equivalent.

Blame Rick then, not me. Rick said that the Darwinistas "borrowed from Christianity." I was merely pointing out that the idea of "Jesus fish" or "Christianity fish" was of pagan origin.

I'm not blaming anyone. I was merely pointing out that it was not me who had veered off-topic, as your reply seemed to suggest.

This is the same argument that atheists use against believing in the Bible and their arguments are just as valid as your's against Christian symbols and Holidays. It is only us Christians who see Christ's virgin birth as "real" and not simply a borrowed myth of pagan origin.

Except I'm a Christian, not an atheist. I believe Jesus walked, talked and rode a donkey.

How does being a Christian make it any different? You believe Christ's virgin birth to be historical fact, and any similarities to pagan mythology to be coincidental. Many Christians believe the fish symbol being used by earlier pagans is coincidental; both could be right or both could be wrong.

When Christ gave the bread and wine to His disciples or when we as Christians share Communion, we are NOT following a holy sacrament of a Mediterranean mystery religion.

Well, that depends on your outlook. Seeing that we cannot talk about certain religious practices without censure I'll leave it at that.

I'm not Catholic, I do not take it to be literal. I see no problem either way; it has nothing to do with a Mediterranean mystery religion.

The fish symbol represents what was used to cover a goddesses genitals to us, as much as the bread and wine would have represented the holy sacrament of a Medditerranean mystery religion to Christ.

Except the bread and wine actually represent something of Christ whereas the fish does not.

Many Christians believe the fish symbol to stand for Christ Himself, as the Greek word for "fish" made an acronym that spelled out a title for Jesus Christ.

If you insist on critisizing Christian traditions which may have been borrowed from paganism every opportunity you get, then you should remain consistant with your logic and critisize Christ Himself for "borrowing" from paganism.

Hey, I understand exactly what He was getting at in Luke 16:19-31 regarding the adoption of pagan beliefs - do you?

What do the rich man and Lazarus have to do with the adoption of pagan beliefs?

 

[Gabe]

Thanks for all the informative replies! (Keep 'em coming!)

I have never seen a Darwin fish but that in itself, I would not consider to be offensive. The question I feel compelled to ask is; Does the 'Darwin' emblem come in a ‘Star of David' or ‘Crescent moon’ variety?

I think it's become popular mostly because it's representative of evolution to add little feet to the fish (i.e. it's a later form of an evolved species). I think the rationale is that it wouldn't be making as much of a statement on a Star of David or Crescent Moon symbol.

I understand what you mean, Sam. its quite clever and I'm sure many people will not wear that symbol to cause offence, but i believe many do wear it etc to mock Christianity. For example, the link that Caroline supplied us contains a Fun with Religion section which has various Christian related items including a Nun Punching Puppet, which i found to be tasteless. Where is the Islamic women Punching puppet or the Jewish, Hindu, or Sikh women Punching Puppet? Aimed at ANY other faith, that online store would be viewed as hateful. Also, i see no Mohammad fighting Action figure or Lord Krishna fighting Action figure.

 

[smos]

I think it's become popular mostly because it's representative of evolution to add little feet to the fish (i.e. it's a later form of an evolved species). I think the rationale is that it wouldn't be making as much of a statement on a Star of David or Crescent Moon symbol.

I understand what you mean, Sam. its quite clever and I'm sure many people will not wear that symbol to cause offence, but i believe many do wear it etc to mock Christianity. For example, the link that Caroline supplied us contains a Fun with Religion section which has various Christian related items including a Nun Punching Puppet, which i found to be tasteless. Where is the Islamic women Punching puppet or the Jewish, Hindu, or Sikh women Punching Puppet? Aimed at ANY other faith, that online store would be viewed as hateful. Also, i see no Mohammad fighting Action figure or Lord Krishna fighting Action figure.

Perhaps the people that designed the nun punching puppet had more experience with the popular image of nuns being very controlled, gentle people, and as such wanted to make a punching puppet with more of a punch if you will (lots of people have stereotypical view of nuns - not many [punching puppet consumers] have a stereotypical view of Lord Krishna, etc); it's funny to people to see such a personage depicted with boxing gloves and gen-u-ine jabbing action. Also, being the most popular religion, Christianity might simply be the largest target (it most likely costs too much to maintain the extra Krishna section of the factory on top of the high-grossing nun and Jesus action figure sections).

If you made an action figure depicting Muhammad, there would be bombings of embassies and general uncivilized behavior from extremist Muslims. But that's for a different thread.

Aaannd... I was going to say something else, but I've completely forgotten what.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, it seems that the Darwin fish isn't all that offensive from my small sample of posters here. For me, I can't think of any symbol of mine that, upon its desecration/alteration a la Darwinfish, would offend me. I don't think I would be offended even if I did have an emblem that really represented something special to me, since I'm the one sanctifying the symbol in the first place - on its own, it's just a piece of plastic.

More thoughts?

 

[Gabe]

Anyway, it seems that the Darwin fish isn't all that offensive from my small sample of posters here. For me, I can't think of any symbol of mine that, upon its desecration/alteration a la Darwinfish, would offend me. I don't think I would be offended even if I did have an emblem that really represented something special to me, since I'm the one sanctifying the symbol in the first place - on its own, it's just a piece of plastic.

More thoughts?

I suppose its down to the intent of the wearer, whether it is an object of offence or not, but personally I do not find the Darwin fish emblem to be offensive.

 

[carbon]

Personally...

I would have to agree that it depends on the intent of the wearer. Strongly.

I think there are two messages people commonly use with them:
1) "This shows something about me" In other words, they're making a statement about themselves, but not really caring to offend people. Which, in all honesty, I think is the most common for Darwin fish. Almost kind of a joking fashion sometimes. Like "oooh, this is amusing, this fits me, I'll use it".

2) "I want to send a message" This is a good bit more uncommon (I think, I don't know *that* many people that use Darwin fish). This is the one with the more offensive intent. However, I still wouldn't bother with getting offended by it. In all honesty most atheists that I know don't have seething hatred against Christians.

 

[Veritas]

Like "oooh, this is amusing, this fits me, I'll use it".

Yeah, I think this happens a lot. Which is fine I guess. It's nice to have a little humor. Actually, I just saw this one yesterday (I have not before) and chuckled a bit.

[attachment=0:3d9vip2q]Image1.jpg[/attachment:3d9vip2q]

I don't know, making light of things is "ok" to a point I think. It does cross over the edge sometimes. A good example is that show "Family Guy" on TV. The writers are very clever and the episodes I've watched were well done and funny. But there was a point where I thought, "Man, I don't feel so good laughing at this" It happened at a point I knew was a serious issue that caused someone I knew a great deal of pain....and they were treating like it was nothing... a laughing matter really.

Anyways, I realize it's hard to be sensitive to all, and maybe a little unrealistic. But I think its a good general rule to strive for.

 

[Veritas]

Huh...looked up that image on the internet. See, as advertised, I don't think the intent behind it is so great... at least not by this vendor.

http://www.shirtsonsale.info/2007/11/sh ... chips.html

 

[carbon]

Huh...looked up that image on the internet. See, as advertised, I don't think the intent behind it is so great... at least not by this vendor.

http://www.shirtsonsale.info/2007/11/sh ... chips.html

Ahhh the "Let's see if we can get a reaction" reason. That's another one that's probably somewhat common...And you're right about that. The intent isn't that great.

As to being sensitive...I'm torn. As I used to be atheistic, I never used one of those Darwin fish. I personally didn't like them, they kind've...I had a gut "oh this isn't quite right" reaction. Nonetheless, I knew people with harmless intentions with them. Yes, my reaction to them shouldn't be "Oh, I love this person! They love me, I should hug them and profess my faith to them!" But I shouldn't hold it against them until I know them better and perhaps find out their intentions *were* offensive. But as you said, we should probably strive for being sensitive to that kind of thing. But I don't think we need to act on the sensitivity on an irrational manner or even in general. But that's just me. I have lots of atheist/agnostic people I know. I'd be doomed if I acted on sensitivity to every comment that's not that great.

 

[MISFIT]

Fish & Chips!!! Never seen that one before... funny.

 

[carbon]

On the subject of different fish...
There are different fish from "pastafarians".
Http://www.venganza.org/materials
I know a few pastafarians...rather full parody of Christianity

 

[MISFIT]

On the subject of different fish...
There are different fish from "pastafarians".
Http://www.venganza.org/materials
I know a few pastafarians...rather full parody of Christianity

Weird

 

[ephesus32]

sometimes when I see it on cars, it kinda annoys me because it seems like the people that do that are mocking the Christian faith because it seems before Darwinists used the symbol, Christians used it. So they took the Christian symbol and just added some legs to it. It's humorous in the point of the Darwinist and now thinking about it too, it's kinda funny. But sometimes it's still annoying. Can't you guys just wear a shirt that has a monkey going to Homer Simpson or something??