"Another Face Of God"

[cruise]

Well took some pics of Babies.....and oh my god it turned out really good.
what else can i saw.....have a look

 

[HollandHusker]

So sweet! Very well done! Love it!(them)

 

[The_Traveler]

pictures are great.
I don't get the title.

 

[Garcia]

pictures are great.
I don't get the title.

I think when babies are born he believes god creates them so hence another face from god.

Nice photos

 

[The_Traveler]

I think when babies are born he believes god creates them so hence another face from god.

The Forum guidelines ask that OPs avoid assertions of a religious or political nature.

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

The Forum guidelines ask that OPs avoid assertions of a religious or political nature.

How has the OP made an assertion of a religious or political nature?

 

[The_Traveler]

How has the OP made an assertion of a religious or political nature?

Yes.

Rather than an innocuous title about baby pictures (which I happen to like), the OP has chosen to make the connection between the beauty of the generation of life with his/her's own belief that there is a god and god is responsible for this generation. It is the equivalent of showing a picture about abortion clinic protesters and entitling it 'standing up for what's right.'
Both of these would be statements of belief - even if indirect.

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

Yes.

Rather than an innocuous title about baby pictures (which I happen to like), the OP has chosen to make the connection between the beauty of the generation of life with his/her's own belief that there is a god and god is responsible for this generation. It is the equivalent of showing a picture about abortion clinic protesters and entitling it 'standing up for what's right.'
Both of these would be statements of belief - even if indirect.

I disagree.

Most of what you have said here describes what has taken place in your head and cannot be attributed to the self-selected title by the photographer or his photographs.

The comparison to abortion pictures is hyperbole.

 

[The_Traveler]

I disagree.

Most of what you have said here describes what has taken place in your head and cannot be attributed to the self-selected title by the photographer or his photographs.

The comparison to abortion pictures is hyperbole.

Everything I write originates in my head. (as it does for most people)

Perhaps you can make the connection between the title and the subject of the pictures. and tell me how that connection doesn't involve religious belief in the statement.

The comparison to abortion pictures is hyperbole.

Hyperbole is exaggeration used for emphasis. Hyperbole can be used to heighten effect or to catalyze recognition.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/eghsap/apterms.html

Yes the statement may be hyperbole but that doesn't mean the comparison is wrong.

 

[JCphoto]

Well said Traveler.

Nice series cruise! I think in a few of the shots the focus looks a little too soft, though that might be what you were going for.


JC

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

Everything I write originates in my head. (as it does for most people)

Perhaps you can make the connection between the title and the subject of the pictures. and tell me how that connection doesn't involve religious belief in the statement.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/eghsap/apterms.html

Yes the statement may be hyperbole but that doesn't mean the comparison is wrong.

Traveler, I am not going to banter with you. Nothing I could suggest would change your mind. As the self-appointed truth giver, you are far too arrogant to consider any other point of view.

Why don't you just let the site moderators do their job.

 

[The_Traveler]

Nothing I could suggest would change your mind. As the self-appointed truth giver, you are far too arrogant to consider any other point of view.

I notice that you haven't suggested any reason for the title that doesn't have religious overtones. Why should I change my mind when you haven't given any alternative?

 

[astrostu]

Those are cute pictures, though perhaps you should've listed "NSFW" in the title since there's nudity. I especially like the last one.

I notice that you haven't suggested any reason for the title that doesn't have religious overtones. Why should I change my mind when you haven't given any alternative?

I'm as up-tight as the next guy when it comes to religion (I don't like it on the money, etc.), but you seriously need to get over yourself. Live and let live.

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

I notice that you haven't suggested any reason for the title that doesn't have religious overtones. Why should I change my mind when you haven't given any alternative?

First, look at the rule:

"* No religious discussions or debates are allowed. Exceptions are only an objective explanation of a religious ceremony that may have been photographed during the course of a wedding shoot, or other photojournalistic event that may require some informative background."

The full text of all rules can be found at:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/faq.php

The restriction in the rule is limited to discussions or debates.

Discussions defined at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussions
and debates defined at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debates.

The mere use of the word GOD in the photographer's title does not amount to a discussion or a debate given the definitions referenced above. The entire rule entry omits any definitions of these two words leaving the reader to rely on conventional definitions.

Second, consider the title. "Another Face Of God" We have a strong indication that this is the title of the photographic series given the use of quotations see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Titles_of_artistic_works

The OP's only other words in this thread are: "Well took some pics of Babies.....and oh my god it turned out really good.
what else can i saw.....have a look." We can gather from these words that the OP took photographs of babies and was astonished at how they turned out. Yes, there is the mention of god again outside of the artistic title; however, it is lower case and apparently used to convey astonishment. There is no other or further discussion of religion or mention of god.

If I were to argue that the baby's name is God and the OP is simply showing the various faces of God, I would be about as reasonable and accurate as you are being with your assertion that the title and pictures are religious discussion or debate that is prohibited by the rules of this forum.

 

[coastietech]

I usually don't get involved with crap like this, but damn. Traveler way to trash a completely innocuous thread that had some great pictures, with your commentary. I'm sure that the rule stems from the mods not wanting a religious debate here. There would have been no debate and people would have simply commented on the pictures had you just kept your mouth shut and kept on browsing. Like I said way to ruin someones thread. Go pat yourself on the back there big guy.:roll: