View source for Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant

Oh, the picture has been deleted.  What, precisely, was wrong with it? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 10:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: I have a hunch that you know what was wrong with it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

It was a picture of a well-known English landmark.  Was it anti-American perhaps? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 10:22, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Read our [[rules]].  The user who uploaded that image is going to be blocked, and your account is going to be blocked if you try to push obscenity further here.  Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me?  What obscenity have I been pushing? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the Cerne Abbas Giant is considered to be obscene, why is this allowed?  http://www.conservapedia.com/Michelangelo

:I think this is an interesting point. On the Brest Exam talk page, where there is an ongoing discussion re "obscene" pictures someone makes the point that whereas they would delete photographs of naked people it is ok to have a picture of ''David'' because that is a statue, and not a real person. Surely that applies here also? You really need to have a clear policy in place because at the moment we are getting these inconsistencies. Also, threatening someone with a banning just for this seems pretty draconian; it's not like he's posting up porn or something. It IS a very well known landmark and I think it is over the top to label it obscene, just as it would be crazy to remove the picture from the Michelangelo page. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 14:12, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Since no real person's nakedness is being exposed (cf Michaelangelo's David) I do not see what the problem is. (Biblical references to nakedness (mostly in Leviticus 18 and 20), seem to refer mainly to relatives.) The Cerne Abbas Giant is a very famous British landmark, one of the finest surviving examples of prehistoric hill figures. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to waste time debating what constitutes "clean" and "family-friendly".  I'm building an encyclopedia here, and hope you can too.  You wouldn't see this image in a real encyclopedia.  It's crass obscenity.  By the way, it's not prehistoric either.  You can have the last word here if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::You won't see articles promoting creationism or Noah's Ark in a real encylcopaedia either [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 15:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Hah!  He's got you there, Andy!  What was the picture that was deleted about?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

It was a picture of the Cerne Abbas giant.  Nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The Hutchinson encyclopedia is a real encyclopedia as far as I know and that has a small picture of the Cerne Abbas Giant on it. [http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/hill+figure]It's a well-known landmark locally and absolutely enormous. Are we to assume that all the local children and all the thousands of tourists who visit it every year are irredeemably corrupt? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his [[own]] image in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them. Anyone who denies the beauty of the human body is denying God himself, and will have to answer to God for it.

I couldn't agree more with the last comment.  The human body is only obscene if it is displayed in an obscene way, it is not obscene per se. 

On the subject of the Cerne Abbas Giant there is speculation that it was originally some sort of pagan fertility symbol.  There are instances of couples who have tried to start families visiting the site at night in order to conceive on the Giant in the belief that the Giant helps them to conceive. I personally don't believe that the Giant has any effect but that by believing in it the self-belief and confidence aids the fertility process. The Giant therefore is in effect a very pro-family icon and I don't see anything inconsistent with it being show on this site.

:Only provided that the couple are married at the time. In any case, such behaviour would be a clear violation of the First Commandment.

:Still, as God struck down the heathen creators of the Giant many centuries ago, it serves as a magnificent and enduring memorial to the fate that non-believers may expect; on this basis alone, it is a very good thing to have an article about. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So true in so many ways......