It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


Great, now we're getting somewhere. And it only took 12 pages to start to pry it out.

WHY is it so ridiculous? HOW is it different than Michelangelo's David?

I don't ask these questions to patronize, but to get a serious intellectual debate on the differences in artistic taste, and to get an honest critique on the work rather than a knee jerk reaction.




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 

Hey, at least Raso got some guts. Here's a thumbs up for you Raso
and a star.
The OP won't even post that thing here. He don't wanna.
He should post it in the beginning, just like raso said, many people might not even saw the piece.

Seriously though... it's the Christian populace I think who has the right to determine how their holy symbols should be portrayed. Kinda like their intellectual property rights, and the government should give some protection of it (not unlimited protection of course).

[edit on Mon, 14 Jan 08 by Jazzyguy]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

WHY is it so ridiculous? HOW is it different than Michelangelo's David?


Dude, if you can't see how Michaelangelo's David is different from some sloppy metal abomination with huge engorged penises


I mean seriously. I can't help you.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Dude, if you can't see how Michaelangelo's David is different from some sloppy metal abomination with huge engorged penises


I mean seriously. I can't help you.


Damn, I thought this thread was actually beginning to progress. But once again, it comes back to this type of cop out statement.

"If you can't see it, I can't help you"

I've heard that more times in this thread than any I've participated in, and it makes no more sense now than when I read it on page 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. I think you can help me. I think I'm at the brink of understanding, I just need your help to get me over that last ledge. Can you at least try to help me?

And Jazzguy, out of context, that underwear thing seems a little.....weird.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 

Okay, okay, I'll edit the concerning line.

But don't you agree, that the christians reserve some right in how their holy symbols should be portrayed or used?
You can't even draw Muhammad. It's fine by me if people are not allowed to draw Muhammad. I think people should give the muslims and the christians some rights about this issue.


[edit on Mon, 14 Jan 08 by Jazzyguy]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Yes and no. If it's for the purpose of worship, sure. They can pin a monkey wearing a diaper to a purple triangle and pray to it all they want. However, a painter, sculptor, writer or anyone has the right to express what that monkey means to them. And, if that monkey is a symbol of the masses that worship it, then an artist has the right to portray that monkey in a method that displays his feelings towards those masses.

As for government protection? No. If they tried, I would seriously claim to worship Terrence's art so that it would be protected as a representation of my religion, and therefore subject to the same protection that the government would provide Christians.

I'm sorry that you are not allowed to draw Muhammad. That is a wrong that should be rectified. If there is something that I worship, it would be free expression.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23

So, this statement begs the question, did he exist? If there is no true proof of what he looked like, how do we know he really existed? Just asking the question I am sure non-believers might ask.


The Bible is the source of truth. Its the word of God. He existed long before the world began. The Bible not only contains truth, but it contains modern scientific facts discovered just a few years ago which even baffles me. Such an ancient book, how did it know about comets having a poisonous content like Hydrogen Cyanide? How did it know that we have deep ocean vents and volcanoes? How did the Bible know that the sun has sun spots and gives off solar flares and CME's? How did it know about black holes devouring constellations? How did it know that light cannot escape a black hole? How did it know about the biological effects of concentrated carbon dioxide in the human body?

If you want to discuss this intellectually, I'd be glad to make my time available so we can discuss this further. Perhaps you might want to open a thread just for this?

Non believers needs scientific facts and evidence. This is understood. We don't need to go to the spiritual side of things, just science. Agreed?

The Bible contains both, faith and fact. In faith, so that you believe without evidence. In fact, so that you believe.

Once you grasp the facts, it is no longer a matter of belief, but a matter of accepting reality.


And, if this is the case, why are so many getting riled up over the fact that "it isn't Jesus" as you claim?


I'll be blunt and straight forward. Many people think that Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church because they are the majority with hundreds of millions of followers.

Fact - Not all Christians are Roman Catholics.

The Roman Catholic Church have extra biblical scriptures, that is man made scriptures. They love to omit and erase original biblical scriptures to suit their own cultist beliefs and practices. They do things contrary to Biblical scriptures.

The Bible say do not make any statues or images of God to represent Him. They do the opposite. They make a statue and images of God according to their own imagination. They bow down, kiss the statue, pray to it, so as to give them blessings and healing. This is idol worshiping. But, when you point this out to them, they will defend it at all cost. They will say, its just a statue for remembrance and we don't worship it. And yet, they still bow down to it, kiss it, pray to it, just like the pagans.

The Bible say do not repeat your prayers and babble about. They have rosary beads to keep tract of their repeated prayers. Not only that, they have ready made prayer formulas. You just recite it, repeat 10x, 15x, 100x in front of an image or a statue. This is a pagan practice. This is idol worshiping.

These practices are basically of pagan origin. The original Christians did not practice such and we abhor that.

So, the only people that will be offended by that statue are those who don't follow the Bible and what it says. Not only they don't follow, they omit and erase the part that says, "You shall not have any graven (carved, sculptured) images before me".

Read this -

www.ovrlnd.com...

In fact, the Bible already describes God:

Revelation 4

3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.

Revelation 1

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Ezekiel 1

26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

--

According to the Biblical description of God, the image below is an utterly incorrect and erroneous image of God, made like in the form of a mortal man:



Who is this man anyway? He has long hair. He has the pagan symbol of Odin's cross behind his head. He has a pagan mystical hand gesture on his right hand. He has a pagan symbol of the sacred heart.

We don't know this man and we don't worship this image. It is of pagan origin.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
You should start a new thread iamtheone, just copy paste all of that and take it to the religious conspiracy forum.

You won't find any sympathetic ears in here.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 





Hey, at least Raso got some guts. Here's a thumbs up for you Raso and a star.


I already explained myself very early on in the thread about posting the pic. If people cannot go to the link and check it out, then they obviously ae a bit lazy. Guts, all I have seen from the religious side is cop outs and belittling without addressing the main disagreement at hand. At least I have been stating my point in an intelligent manner. A point that to me is quite simple, and yet very completely misunderstood by most of the opposing viewpoints.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 





You won't find any sympathetic ears in here.


I do not sympathize for whiners without a reason (at least one they can back up) to whine. You really need to listen to the MOD that warned you and settle a bit. Please respect everyone's opinion whether you agree or not. This debate can heat a lot of people up, but we need to be rational.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
I do not sympathize for whiners without a reason (at least one they can back up) to whine. You really need to listen to the MOD that warned you and settle a bit. Please respect everyone's opinion whether you agree or not. This debate can heat a lot of people up, but we need to be rational.

You don't tell me what to do, and neither do MODs. I got a warning and I'll do what I like.

Who in here has been 'whining' about this statue? I haven't seen a single person whine.

You people are totally hung up on your whole anti-religious trip. You honestly think there are hordes of Christians stamping their feet about this
What a %*#$ing joke.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Does anyone remember that "artist" a few years ago who spread ham slices all over a bed in a museum and called it art? I remember having the same reaction to his work as I did when first reading about this new piece in this thread.

Not shock, disgust, contempt, rage, or insult. Just, "Stupid."



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I dont understand why the statue of mary with the erect penis is being overlooked here at least jesus has a penis. Where are all the enraged christians at on this one. I mean if their gonna throw a hissy they should at least use all their ammo. As for the person who commented that the only people in this thread defending the statue are anti-religous and are just trying to enrage christians I say this, I am not anti religion you can do what ever you want with your faith and spare time I could care less. What I am is pro freedom of expression. You can take your censorship and eat it.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


reply to post by palehorse23
 


My main point has always been the same. It won't be good to have unlimited freedom of expression of anything whether it's in scientific endeavor, political ideology, religious belief, and arts.

I don't feel the christians' objection regarding this piece as outrageous (or hypocrisy) as long as they don't go overboard with it. If they want to address this issue, it's fine by me. I won't pose too many questions about it or telling them how to worship or how to deal with the issue.

Remember one thing, this is their symbol. And to protect it, might be part of their dogma. YOU CAN EVEN SCULP DONALD DUCK IN A BAD WAY, Donald Duck is owned by Disney. Why didn't the artist sculp something else? Something that doesn't belong to other people or at least get their permission. In conclusion, I feel the christians reserve some right.

Let me state this (relating to my main point), religious follower should not force their belief to other people, just as artists should not force their belief such as freedom of expression in arts to other people. An artist can believe whatever he/she wants about freedom of expression but that's not necessarily what other people believe. And the artist should understands and respects that also.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoLaR513
What I am is pro freedom of expression. You can take your censorship and eat it.


And you can take your bogus 21st century 'I'm a free thinker' attitude and shove it in someone else's face.

Nobody HERE has called for censorship or even hinted that it's appropriate. What is this crazy delusion that you're all suffering from? Are you really so convinced that you are edgy and special that you cannot see that NOBODY had called for censorship? It's like your fighting your own lil imaginary battle in here
which is cute, but stupid.

From page 1 all we've done is point out that it's a vulgar, shock-art piece and that Christians in general don't even CARE.

I understand that you people read a little newsclip about some preacher being outraged and then decide the whole of Christendom must be outraged. But that's because you're simple and you view religious communities in a simple-minded frame of view. (Which isn't very progressive at all).

I'm not a 'Christian' by label and I have no problem pointing you people out as bigots. You think all Christians are the same and want to throw fits over meaningless shock-art. Go educate yourselves and find something better to do than sensationalize anti-religious snuff art


[edit on 15-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by amitheone
 


The bible is the truth because it is the word of god?

Yeah well they say the same thing about the Koran and the Torah (my spelling).

IMO, just because an old book has some interesting information ahead of its time, doesn't make it the word of god, and just because a book says it is the truth, doesn't make it the truth.

I never understood how otherwise intelligent people could use that circular argument as proof.

Wouldn't it be more honest to say "I believe the bible is the truth because my faith convinces me that it is"?

Sorry off topic.

On topic:

The fact that after 13 pages there is still not a single post EXPLAINING why this statue is offensive says a lot. Is the question too difficult to ask of oneself, why one feels offended? Sounds like an inability to pierce the mental conditioning.

Now, given that christianity is renowned for its repressive opinions on sexuality, we can draw our own conclusions as to where the conditioning comes from.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by RogerT]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
And still, my questions go unanswered.

I should be used to it by now.

Go figure.

This thread seems to be going nowhere. All I want is an honest critique as to why it's stupid, or vulgar or whatever. I have yet to get one. I just keep hearing that there's no hope for me, and that anyone who thinks as I do is retarded.

Nothing intelligent about it.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

WHY is it so ridiculous? HOW is it different than Michelangelo's David?


Dude, if you can't see how Michaelangelo's David is different from some sloppy metal abomination with huge engorged penises


I mean seriously. I can't help you.


dude, this is lame.
add another emoticon to get your point across.

how friggin hard is it to answer questions?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
hey new world.....

HOW is it offensive? what about it offends you?
why do you think it is not art? dumb? maybe....ugly? maybe......
art? definately.....

13 pages and not an answer. just a bunch of posts from you with a # ton of emoticons....lots of cursing too. don't the bible frown on such language...

foe list in 3, 2, 1



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
It basically boils down to the fact that NONE of us, living on this earth today, know what Jesus Christ of Nazareth actually looks like.

We have the 'stereotype' pictures 'representing' him (what past artists thought he looked like), but no ACTUAL likenesses. Even if today's Christians knew, they are instructed by the 10 Commandments to NOT make any graven images.

To even fight/debate over this statue is silly.

ALL of us (including myself) are looking pretty assinine at this point.

Let me try to see if I can understand BOTH sides:

Christian viewpoint: "You people are blasphemous!!! You are desicrating something holy, something that means the world to us. Have you NO scruples, respect or decency for us/our faith?"

Opposition: "You Christians don't have one iota of what 'art' means!!! You take things too seriously. Look at all the other 'nude' paintings and sculptures that have been 'deemed' tasteful down throughout the centuries, and even by today's standards."

I've stated a few good reasons as to why Christians shouldn't get their backs up. Graven images Plain and simple.

Now on to the Opposition.

As I've stated previously, "I love art as much as the next person. My tastes may/may not be the same as the next person; and I'm sure as hell not going to spread dead meat on my sleeping quarters, stand up proud, and sing the national anthem to."

I'm positive, that artworks didn't become artworks over night. I wonder how long it took before the general populous could de-robe MichaelAngelo's 'David' in their minds. How long did it take before it was 'acceptable' enough to display in plain view?

Well...as with any art pieces, they are subject to vast amounts of critique, before there is even any acceptance of any kind. Not every piece of art will be a Rhembrandt. Nor do I expect that every solitary piece of my oil-paintings will be sold on the marketplace.

The freedom of expression...how far do we go to gain approval from others. I honestly don't have any answer to that one. Until we 'objectively' view anothers workmanship, until we see for ourselves, preconceived notions and stigmas will forever remain in our minds.

What may be acceptable today (or we can reverse that) may NOT be acceptable by societie's standards in 20, 50, 100, or 500 years time.

It is up to ALL of us to affirm our views in proper, concise, responsible, and respectable manners.

Petty bickering gets my goat.

Now I'm going to go get a cup of coffee, and come back to the table to have an intelligent conversation with the rest of you. Does anyone take cream or sugar in their coffees?

~Ducky~



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join