# Larry David urinates on "picture" of Jesus



## Michael (Oct 28, 2009)

The things people will do for ratings...

story here

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:27:54 EST-----

For those who don't know, Larry David is the creator of _Seinfeld_ and the current creator and star of the popular HBO comedy _Curb Your Enthusiasm_.


----------



## Tripel (Oct 28, 2009)

Read the story but didn't see the episode.

While the act was probably distasteful, I don't really have a problem with it. From the description in the story, it sounds like David was mocking religious nuts more than Christianity.


----------



## passingpilgrim (Oct 28, 2009)

wow, that is pretty sad when that's what people have to do to make a show funny. 

The article is interesting though in terms of the Catholic response to what happened. I grew up catholic but was eventually saved from it by the grace of God. But I remember all the religious icons and veneration given to statues and pictures, etc. while I understand the outrage at the act, the picture of Jesus is no more holy than my cell phone is. 

But, this is a good reason why we should make every thought and thing we view captive to the Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 28, 2009)

Joshua said:


> It really doesn't matter of whom the picture was, because it _certainly_ wasn't of the Lord Jesus. However, the fact that garbage like this is on television is an indictment against our culture, and more particularly, the laxity of the church which has allowed it to pervade society. Regardless of whom the picture was supposed to be, shouldn't we find it sinfully crass that such a portrayal of such an act even occurs? Yes, we should. All that being said, it's no surprise and am not sure why it's making the "news." Oh, wait, that's right, _news_ really isn't _news_ anymore.





As you note it certainly does not help that the Church is actively seeking to abdicate its role in this regard.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 28, 2009)

I don't watch the program, have never heard of the program..

What's truly sad here, is that he was intentional in doing this..granted the picture of Christ was not a 'picture' of Christ as we don't know what He looked like..but the man's heart towards God, is by all appearances set to do evil against Him. 

Most people see pictures of Christ and associate them with the God of the Bible, and Christianity, so even in this, it's not that he's 'mocking' Christianity, again, it is just showing where His heart is towards God..


----------



## Michael (Oct 28, 2009)

Joshua said:


> It really doesn't matter of whom the picture was, because it _certainly_ wasn't of the Lord Jesus.


You are right. However, there is no mistaking whose picture he _intended_ to pee on.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 28, 2009)

What makes me sick is that they would NEVER... EVER... dare do something similar in regards to any other religion, particularly Islam. Can you imagine the riots and deaths that would have occured had they urinated on a picture of Mohammed and mocked Muslims?


----------



## passingpilgrim (Oct 28, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> What makes me sick is that they would NEVER... EVER... dare do something similar in regards to any other religion, particularly Islam. Can you imagine the riots and deaths that would have occured had they urinated on a picture of Mohammed and mocked Muslims?



I think that goes back to what was said earlier that many in the church have such a lazy attitude toward their faith. Little by little we have seen Christianity attacked and chipped away until what is left is the dust of what used to be a strong and important voice. However, in an effort to not to "offend" or "push our views" on others, the church has allowed the name of Christ to be dragged through the mud.

Again I think we all know that is not Jesus or even necessarily what He may have looked like. But it is a representation of who we associate Jesus to be. Larry David knew what he was doing and just didn't care and sadly probably knew most Christians wouldn't either.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 28, 2009)

I agree Ben, and I think many Christian's would merely state.."Christ tells us to turn the other cheek" as if we should not stand up against such things..

Something else that is sad, is that Protestants are not speaking out in the media and such making their voices heard about this..


----------



## Zenas (Oct 28, 2009)

Ok that was not in the least what I expected it to be. Would he do it to Mohammed? No, he'd be killed at most and threatened at least. It's the double standard that disgusts me, along with the utter lack of comedic value.


----------



## Berean (Oct 28, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> What makes me sick is that they would NEVER... EVER... dare do something similar in regards to any other religion, particularly Islam. Can you imagine the riots and deaths that would have occurred had they urinated on a picture of Mohammad and mocked Muslims?



Thanks, Ben. You beat me to it.


----------



## Andres (Oct 28, 2009)

just thought I would add there is a 2nd commandment violation at the end of the article. Michael, could you please add this below your link?


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Oct 28, 2009)

What I find interesting / amusing / infuriating, is that these celebrities are somehow trying to be daring by, in this case literally, pissing on Christianity. The reality is there is nothing daring or counter-culture about opposing Christianity today. They are being as daring and controversial as someone proclaiming publically that they're a supporter of gay marriage or opposed to racism. Mainstream society has given it's stamp of approval to anti-Christian sentiments. So why the drama? As other posters have said, if they really wanted to be daring or controversial they would make a similar "statement" against Islam or gay marriage. It's telling that none (or very few) actually court real controversy.


----------



## Tripel (Oct 28, 2009)

BJClark said:


> ..but the man's heart towards God, is by all appearances set to do evil against Him.
> 
> Most people see pictures of Christ and associate them with the God of the Bible, and Christianity, so even in this, it's not that he's 'mocking' Christianity, again, it is just showing where His heart is towards God..



It would be interesting to see the episode in its entirety to fully understand what is going on. From what the story said, it doesn't appear that David is saying anything about what he thinks of God. He's saying what he thinks about fanatics. I'm not justifying this episode or him urinating on anything, but we can't fully cast judgment on his heart. 

If you want to criticize him for lampooning people in a distasteful way, that's fair game.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 28, 2009)

The following comment is not meant to argue for or against the substance of the post. Just FYI:

The Fox story is misleading. It implies that he did the deed purposely but it was unintentional in the episode.


----------



## he beholds (Oct 28, 2009)

*Busted!*

Uh oh...here comes my confession: I saw that episode!! 

You know, what bothered me about that scene wasn't that his pee splashed a picture, but that the people called the picture Jesus. That is honestly what I was in shock over. They treated the picture like it _was_ Christ! I think pee is gross, obviously, and it is gross to have a theme in a show be about pee, but I think it is much grosser for people to consider a picture God. 
If they would have said, "he peed on a _picture_ of Jesus," I could have maybe spent my energy being offended that the show was trying to pee on a picture of Jesus (or say it was the Bible that got splashed by pee, but even that doesn't really offend me _religiously_. Sure it offends my sensibilities because it is crass, but I would not be in heartache if a real person accidentally peed on a real Bible). But since they said, "he peed on Jesus," I was more offended at their stupidity and wrongful thoughts about God. 

Actually, what it reminded me of was a wedding that I attended two years ago. It was at a Lutheran church and there was a picture of what was supposed to be Jesus. The picture was large and behind the pastor. During his sermon, he literally pointed to the picture and said, "This guy doesn't want..." as if he were saying, "Jesus doesn't want..."

I was shocked that the pastor referred to a picture _as_ God, and shocked that Larry David's employee referred to the picture _as_ God. 

For the record, we have a children's Bible that I love that has pictures that are supposed to be Christ. I would never tell my kids, ever, that "this is Jesus," instead, I would maybe say, "this is a make-believe _picture of_ Jesus," or I'd say "this is a make-believe picture of someone in the story," being as vague as possible. 

So the pictures that are supposed to be Jesus don't offend me, but people thinking they are him, does.

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 01:25:38 EST-----



Tripel said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> > ..but the man's heart towards God, is by all appearances set to do evil against Him.
> ...



Larry David is a secular Jew and he in no way loves Christ, but I don't think that he was saying anything about God (whom he doesn't believe Christ is) in this episode. 
I don't even think he was saying anything about fanatics. It was used simply as a tool in this episode to change the story. It was a causative agent, if you will. 
(If that term is even correctly used.)


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 28, 2009)

Poimen said:


> The following comment is not meant to argue for or against the substance of the post. Just FYI:
> 
> The Fox story is misleading. It implies that he did the deed purposely but it was unintentional in the episode.



That seems kind of important. Leave it to Fox to mislead like that.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 28, 2009)

I don't think that anyone should joke about going pee pee on Jimmy the Shepherd either. I saw the picture, it was Jimmy the Shepherd.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 28, 2009)

Reading the plot line, it sounds as if an unintended "splash" left "water" on a painting hung at a normal level on the wall. This evidently led to superstitious family members worshipping it as a miracle. This one is full of knotty issues: 2nd Commandment issues in a culture that generally does not count this as a problem; using comedy that involves "sacred" topics and what is more sacred than THE God-man?; involving bodily fluids (even unintentionally) splashed onto a "sacred" picture/icon; etc.

The point of the humor seems (since I have NEVER watched this show) to make fun of the lead for making a dumb mistake in someone else's house (cf. Steve Martin's infamous bank book from his future inlaws getting dropped into the pool and his efforts to retrieve it) coupled with making fun of the "dumb" credulous Christians. The first is a stock piece of commedy, made more edgy by using the painting of "Jesus." The second fits in with Hollywood's great enjoyment in mocking Christians. Several of the comments are quite correct, try this with Islam and see how far you get.


----------



## Knoxienne (Oct 28, 2009)

These Hollywood people do this sort of thing all the time. They are antichrists and this is the sort of thing antichrists do.


----------



## TimV (Oct 28, 2009)

> What makes me sick is that they would NEVER... EVER... dare do something similar in regards to any other religion, particularly Islam. Can you imagine the riots and deaths that would have occured had they urinated on a picture of Mohammed and mocked Muslims?



I'm going to be obnoxious again. What's the deal with Muslims? Muslims almost NEVER mock Christ, since to them He is at least a great prophet.

So, we've got a Jew writing an episode in a disproportionately Jewish industry mocking Christ. That's typical of Hollywood Jews. Ben and Dr. M, you should both know that. It's pretty much every time you turn on the TV.

But it isn't Muslims doing it. It's largely Jews, and for some reason people are either blind to it, or afraid to say it. What's with that? Sure, Baptist dispensational garbage about Jews and Israel being some sort of chosen race and holy land have something to do with it. But it has to go deeper.

Why didn't the guy pee on the diary of Anne Frank?


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2009)

> Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, also criticized the episode, saying David should "quit while he's ahead," and that the show is proof that *the comedian's best years are behind him.*



Yep, he's right! I hear hell is no laughing matter.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 28, 2009)

> I'm going to be obnoxious again. What's the deal with Muslims? Muslims almost NEVER mock Christ, since to them He is at least a great prophet.
> 
> So, we've got a Jew writing an episode in a disproportionately Jewish industry mocking Christ. That's typical of Hollywood Jews. Ben and Dr. M, you should both know that. It's pretty much every time you turn on the TV.
> 
> ...



Tim,

Hold your jets! I didn't say that Muslim's mock Christ. I was referencing the _Jyllands-Posten_ Muhammad cartoons controversy that began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper _Jyllands-Posten _on September 30, 2005. 

Just recently Yale University Press published a scholarly treatise on the Danish cartoon snafu. They elected, either under the pressure of threats or under an abundance of political correctness, to censor the cartoons from the book. How does one write a book about a controversy to be published by a UNIVERSITY Press without being able to print the offending cartoons???

Christians, Hindus, Sikh's, and Jews don't threaten to kill you if you draw a cartoon of their deity, leader, leading prophet. However, there is ample evidence that some strands of Islam will do exactly that (e.g., Rushdie controversy of a couple of decades ago, the Danish cartoons).

In that instance in 2005, this led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, all together), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City.

The point of the OP was that Hollywood can mock Christianity (or Judaism or pretty much any religion, I would add) with impunity. However, as some pointed out before me, it is massively politically incorrect to even draw an image of the prophet, Mohammed.

Following the logic of my post, I doubt that the "Christian" response to Mr. David's miraculous splashing waters will result in 100 deaths, including setting fire to Embassies in three countries, storming European buildings, and desecrating the flags of multiple nations.

And, BTW, Tim, even the "Jewish" creative team running Hollywood would not dare mock Islam, regardless of the deep seated historical antipathy between their peoples. Christianity, particularly Roman Catholics and evangelicals are fair enough game. We are the fools, stock village idiots, bigots, book burners, prigs, and intolerant bores in cimema and television. But, they would NEVER get away with even a hint of humor regarding Islam.

Finally, my only comment about Islam was the final few words. It was beside the point of my post.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 28, 2009)

Might this be one of those cases which prudence suggests we should not even let our minds dwell on enough even to talk about it? Eph. 5:12 -- For it is a shame to even speak of those things which are done of them in secret.


----------



## PresbyDane (Oct 28, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> What makes me sick is that they would NEVER... EVER... dare do something similar in regards to any other religion, particularly Islam. Can you imagine the riots and deaths that would have occured had they urinated on a picture of Mohammed and mocked Muslims?



Well they would not have to pee on Muhammed, just drawing the picture is enough, trust me! as a Dane I know


----------



## Ron (Oct 28, 2009)

When I read the depiction I had an impression of the picture being on the floor and an intentional act of desecration taking place. I found a video of the scene on the internet. Although the scene was blasphemous it was not as blatant as might be inferred from the depiction. I won’t provide a link but it can be found on the web. My only point is, the journalism is misleading, but again I am not giving a pass to Larry David. Had the act been blatant, nobody would have laughed. That it was depicted as an accident, the blasphemy got smuggled in under the radar. 

Ron


----------



## he beholds (Oct 29, 2009)

Ron said:


> When I read the depiction I had an impression of the picture being on the floor and an intentional act of desecration taking place. I found a video of the scene on the internet. Although the scene was blasphemous it was not as blatant as might be inferred from the depiction. I won’t provide a link but it can be found on the web. My only point is, the journalism is misleading, but again I am not giving a pass to Larry David. Had the act been blatant, nobody would have laughed. That it was depicted as an accident, the blasphemy got smuggled in under the radar.
> 
> Ron



Very good point about the need for the act to be an accident in order for the show to get laughs!


----------



## Blue Tick (Oct 29, 2009)

As already stated the sentiment that the picture is Jesus Christ is far more alarming.


----------



## regener8ed (Oct 29, 2009)

What I find strange about this board is the way some will point out a "second commandment violation" in reference to a post that contains an supposed image of "Jesus". 
Yet if someone makes a post containing the words of an atheist, or a heretic no one is quick to warn of a violation of the 1st commandment. 

It is not a violation of the commandment to read about or view an image or story regarding a sin, it is a violation to commit the sin. 
Looking at a supposed picture of "Jesus" is not a violation of the second commandment. Worshipping said image would be, and I seriously doubt anyone on this board would worship such an image.


----------



## Zenas (Oct 29, 2009)

regener8ed said:


> What I find strange about this board is the way some will point out a "second commandment violation" in reference to a post that contains an supposed image of "Jesus".
> Yet if someone makes a post containing the words of an atheist, or a heretic no one is quick to warn of a violation of the 1st commandment.
> 
> It is not a violation of the commandment to read about or view an image or story regarding a sin, it is a violation to commit the sin.
> Looking at a supposed picture of "Jesus" is not a violation of the second commandment. Worshipping said image would be, and I seriously doubt anyone on this board would worship such an image.





> Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; _the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever_; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves,542 or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.



Larger Catechism, Question 109.


----------



## regener8ed (Oct 29, 2009)

> Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; _the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever_; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves,542 or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.




Where in the above quote is it stated that simply looking at an image is a violation of the commandment?


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 29, 2009)

> Where in the above quote is it stated that simply looking at an image is a violation of the commandment?



If Q109 says that "the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever . . ." violates the 2nd Commandment, wouldn't making a picture and featuring it in a television program constitute a violation of the 2nd Commandment?

A video of someone lying about his neighbor would be a video of a 9th Commandment violation wouldn't it? In your long time on the PB, haven't you found that a number of PBers like to be warned about "2nd Commandment" violations for the same reason that a number of folks like to be warned about the nudity, violence, or excessive language in a movie?


----------



## steven-nemes (Oct 29, 2009)

The question was whether or not _looking at_ a picture of Jesus (which, the picture is a violation of the second commandment) is itself a sin and a violation of the commandment.


----------



## Andres (Oct 29, 2009)

isn't this kinda like the "if a tree falls in the woods and no ones there to hear it does it make a sound" argument? I mean, on one hand someone made a purported picture/image of Christ (which is a sin) but then it's not really an image until people see it, right?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Oct 29, 2009)

If I go to a site that has a picture on it, am I not causing my computer to make such an image on the screen?


----------



## he beholds (Oct 29, 2009)

regener8ed said:


> What I find strange about this board is the way some will point out a "second commandment violation" in reference to a post that contains an supposed image of "Jesus".
> Yet if someone makes a post containing the words of an atheist, or a heretic no one is quick to warn of a violation of the 1st commandment.
> 
> It is not a violation of the commandment to read about or view an image or story regarding a sin, it is a violation to commit the sin.
> Looking at a supposed picture of "Jesus" is not a violation of the second commandment. Worshipping said image would be, and I seriously doubt anyone on this board would worship such an image.



I think to some it could be a violation of the Second Commandment to look upon a picture that is supposedly Christ, because it turns their hearts to worship God, but falsely.
So that is why the commandment violation warning gets sent out. (Or at least in respect of that possibility, that is why *I* would give that warning.)

I do think that the person who made the image and labeled it Christ would be likely to be guilty of breaking the commandment, so you are pointing out that there is an example of the commandment being violated. 

But I personally do not see in the Bible or in the Confessions that looking at what another considers to be Christ is necessarily me sinning. It could be, if I am fallen to worship that picture; the danger is (which is where I have personally sinned) that one may start to think of Jesus in such a way when praying, even accidentally. It takes a concerted effort sometimes for me to not think that Jesus looks a certain way (but even in that, I do not use that image to worship). That is what I want to prevent my children from having to deal with.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2009)

Doesn't Larry David bear a resemblance to John Piper?


----------



## Michael (Nov 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Doesn't Larry David bear a resemblance to John Piper?


My wife and I were watching video of Piper the other night and I must admit I thought the same thing!


----------



## Ivan (Nov 3, 2009)

I don't see it.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 3, 2009)

In a Christian country, gross, wilful and public blasphemy would be punished by the civil authorities.

But neither Great Britain nor the USA are Christian countries, but only countries in which a part of the populace are Christian.

With these gross, wilful and public blasphemers, where it truly is blasphemy, we should pray that they will be converted, or that God's wrath would be revealed in them in Providence, so that people learn not to mock God.


----------

