Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians


www.upi.com

GATESHEAD, England, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- A statue of Jesus with an erect penis on display in England is drawing fire from outraged Christian critics.
"It's the Lord Jesus Christ being humiliated, ridiculed and vilified," declared Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice.
Green told the Sun he not only demanded the gallery take the statue down but also destroy it for good measure.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this. And if it really vilifies Jesus, why not let Him worry about it. If he is offended, he will take care of this artist in his own way. Wait, he loves all though, so I guess the artist will be forgiven if he wants. Just seems that this is another thing blown way out of proportion by the religious fanatics. A bit extreme wanting to destroy the guy's work just for good measure. Didn't Jesus turn the other cheek?

www.upi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Don't want to post the pic. But here is a link to it.
Jesus pic

[edit on 1/11/2008 by palehorse23]

[edit on 1/11/2008 by palehorse23]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this.

Thats not the point. I'm sure you would get upset if someone did the same to someone you loved.


A bit extreme destroying the guy's work just for good measure. Didn't Jesus turn the other cheek?

Umm....the article does not say that the statue was destroyed. All it says is that someone was demanding that the gallery remove the statue from display and destroy it. The article does not say if the gallery removed the statue or if they destroyed it. BTW, the Christians did not destroy anything so please stop misrepresenting the story.

I agree that the statue is a disgrace and disgusting.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
more important things to worry about than some statue... although i do see how it is provocative..

nice touch pointing out how Christians don't have any faith in there own lord to sort out these types of matters...
(but i guess that goes for almost all religions,*cough* Mohammad *cough*)



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this.

Doesn't this so called 'artist' have anything better to sculpt instead of demeaning the faith of millions.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
If that statue was of Mohamed, England would be in flames.

I see nothing wrong with Christians expressing their feelings regarding this, but really, as in a similar incident here in New Mexico over a painting of the Our Lady of Guadalupe, the item is getting publicity it would never have received if people had just ignored it.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


I know it didn't say that they did destroy it. Settle down. I am saying that what they want done to it is what is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. ever heard that before? Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean it is. I am not saying I agree with it either, but everyone has their freedom of expression. To him, obviously it has meaning. How do you know that he wasn't hurt by a religious figure at some point in his life? Maybe religion ahs affected him in a negative way as it has many other people.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
I know it didn't say that they did destroy it. Settle down. I am saying that what they want done to it is what is wrong.

Were you purposefully being misleading because that is not what you said. You said:

A bit extreme destroying the guy's work just for good measure.




but everyone has their freedom of expression.

Nobody is saying he cannot do it. The Christians have the same right to voice their displeasure.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The first thing that occurs to me is that this is just horrible art. Now I can barely draw a stick man, but really, is that the best he could do? The second is that these are not so much statues of people with erections as they are of huge phalluses with historical figures attached. I like a huge phallus as much as the next guy, but come on now.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


I guess I have to apologize. I assumed that people would get the point from the article that the Christians wanted it destroyed for good measure. I guess I can't assume. My whole point is the turn the other cheek aspect when it comes to that aspect. And referring to your point of the faith of millions. If this offends your faith that much, then, IMHO, you need to rethink where your faith lies. My whole rant on religion is that most don't practice what they preach. And, so you know, I am well aware that they have as much right to protest the artwork as the artist has to make it. Just the fact that they say "for good measure" is what urkes me.

Okay, edited my own post, hope that satisfies.

[edit on 1/11/2008 by palehorse23]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


I would have to agree. The artwork isn't the most incredible thing, but there are in fact a lot of pieces of art that look like pieces of junk to me. But that's not for me to decide. An artist's work is all about your own interpretation. If you check this guy out a bit more, I think he would freak out more religious folks by any of his artwork. I will let people search for themselves as most of his work is based on phalic subjects. Too each his own.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
I guess I have to apologize. I assumed that people would get the point from the article that the Christians wanted it destroyed for good measure. I guess I can't assume.

Again, it was only one person who requested it be destroyed and not 'all the Christians'.


And referring to your point of the faith of millions. If this offends your faith that much, then, IMHO, you need to rethink where your faith lies.

I don't expect you to understand since apparently you have no faith since you seem to dislike religion in general. It has nothing to do with 'where one's faith lies'. It has to do with common decency and respect.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
most of his work is based on phalic subjects.

Yeah, and you think religious people are the problem.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 

I can assure you palehorse, if an artist creates a statue of an aroused pale horse, you wouldn't like him either.

The artist should keep such statue to himself!

Maybe since he's not such a good artist, being a sensationalist is the only thing he's good at.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
It is my understanding that the artist's original intent was to give it the name of Mohamed, but after what happened with the cartoons a few years ago he changed the name to Jesus instead, all because he feared of his life.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
No image? How can I compare?


Are they sure it's really Jesus? I mean are they sure its not just some hippy?

What people did he use for reference to this holy member?

Maybe he... wait i'll just stop here.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Lysergic]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I think it is disgusting, and it would make me sick to my stomach and pain my heart deeply if I were to see it, but I'm not going to get all riled up about it because I know that Father will take care of things from His side and in His own way. Asking that it be removed isn't too much to ask though. I agree with 4thDoctorWhoFan in that it's also a matter of common decency and respect - which the world has so obviously lost sight of.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


You tend to generalize your statements. "Religion" I do not like as it pertains to organizations. And, please, do not question my level of faith as you have no idea. I dislike the hipocratic practices that most religions seem to practice. Whether it is intentional or not, I couldn't tell you. Religion to mean means living like Christ did. That is all. I do not need to go to church to have that or belong to a particular religion for that. Or worry about a phallic art piece. If you have "faith" as you state, this should not bother you as much as it does. Common decency you say? What about starting a war that is unnecessary? What about invading private citizens privacy, what about gouging the middle class and the poor so bad that they cannot recover, what about giving the proper care to victims of disasters, and wounded soldiers that come back from fighting for freedoms such as the choice to make an art piece such as this. One last thing, what about giving thousands upon thousands of people false hope that their lives will turn around as long as they give you money. Decency you say? I would say that has gone out the window quite some time ago.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by palehorse23
most of his work is based on phalic subjects.

Yeah, and you think religious people are the problem.


You need to get out of the clouds my friend. I never said they were a problem. I said they have bigger issues to worry about than this one. So you must think all art that depicts some sort of nudity must be indecent. I feel sorry for you my friend. You seem to not be able to see outside of the box of religion. Hopefully I am wrong



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Obviously you do not know the meaning behind my ID. It has nothing to do with horses. Anyway, what is the purpose of art if you cannot display it?
As far as changing the name to Jesus, he should still fear for his life by the sounds of folks posting here so far. Mohammed, Allah, Buddha, Jesus. Who cares. Let me ask you this, if it did say Mohammed, would you be as mad at him then? My guess is no, because it doesn't vilify Jesus, since He is the only possible figure that can be worshiped without.

Well, I guess the article title was right.

[edit on 1/11/2008 by palehorse23]





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join