[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Could maybe Catholics consider just using an image of a cross sans a violently beaten man nailed to it in their propaganda? It's a horribly appalling image...

Of course it is, which is sort of the point. Christianity is rooted in a horribly appalling event that produced unforeseen and highly positive results.

Originally Posted by Sliver

...As adults living in a western society we are pretty accustomed to the image, but if you step back and look at it objectively, it's unnecessarily violent and graphic.

Your first mistake here is in presuming that you can approach something like objectivity. Your second is to assume that the crucifixion event and its commemoration are UNNECESSARILY violent and graphic. As if these images were designed in the promotion of gratuitous, senseless violence. As if this was some sort of celebration of violence for the sake of violence. From a Christian perspective, an "uncensored" view of Jesus's crucifixion is precisely central and meaningful to the purpose of the faith. NOT "senseless" but rather unavoidably meaningful.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Look, JC's crucifixion is not that noteworthy relative to the rest of his life...

The founder of the Christian religion rather emphatically disagrees with you:

Originally Posted by The Apostle Paul

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

— 1 Corinthians 1:17–24, RSV

If you knew anything at all about Paul, you would know that his entire theology was rather squarely and totally founded on the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus. So much so, that he practically says nothing at all about Jesus’s life and his teachings. In fact, there are many scholars who quite persuasively argue that Paul did not even know much about what Jesus said and did in his lifetime; only about what was truly important to him: his death, and the empty tomb.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Focusing on the manner in which he died in signs, statues and other literature, to me, is like shock advertising. The manner in which he died isn't unique. His teachings are what make him significant, which is why visuals of him teaching are more appropriate, imo, particularly in a school.

Seriously? You have this all backwards. The manner in which Jesus died is absolutely, and fundamentally significant. His teachings, on the contrary, were not all that significant compared to his contemporaries. The fact that Jesus was tried and executed for sedition, that he was thought to have been charged by Jews with blasphemy, and that the circumstances and occurence of his death were universally considered ignominous completely transforms the significance of his life and message.

Originally Posted by Sliver

If Jesus led a normal life (grew up, became a teenager, went through a rebellious stage, banged some chicks, learned carpentry, got into construction, whistled at cute girls as they walked by the job site, got hammered at the pub on Fridays, etc.), then pissed off the wrong guy and was crucified, there wouldn't be the bible we have today. It is because of the life he led that his death became important.

There is nothing even remotely “normal” about your description of life here as it is applied to a Second Temple Jewish context.

Originally Posted by Sliver

...But maybe we are splitting hairs here. His teachings were important; they're the meat of the religion. The rising from the dead thing is the pizzazz...

The Apostle Paul, again:

Originally Posted by The Apostle Paul

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

— 1 Corinthians 15:13–22, RSV

Originally Posted by Sliver

I do think my image is much more tasteful than what is out there right now, though. I can't remember seeing any statues of MLK with a bullet streaming through his head. Significant people aren't generally significant because they died. They earn their significance during their life (like JC did).

From a Christian perspective, Jesus was much more than merely a “significant person”. He was the incarnation of God, the final atonement sacrifice for sin, and the inaugerate proof of the resurrection of the dead that would coincide with the appearence of the Kingdom of God.

...I think that your alma mater should give serious consideration to rescinding your degree with a minor in religion, based on your utterly deplorable lack of knowledge about Christianity.