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: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 





Even if today's Christians knew, they are instructed by the 10 Commandments to NOT make any graven images.


What I do not get is why one is not allowed to make an image of Christ. Is it because people will worship it instead of God? It helps to have an image when you are asked to put all of your heart into something. And I think it is pretty broad to say that people are worshiping these images. What woukld have happened if people had cameras back in Christ's times? Would they not be taking photos and documenting Him? Artisits would be rendering their images left and right. What I am saying is that they didn't have the means to back then, but I am sure they would have if they could.

Well, back to work for now, hope to continue tonight Duckster

[edit on 1/15/2008 by palehorse23]




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


i don't like this guys work either but i want to be able to decide that for myself. i don't need anyone to censor what i see or what i hear.
i just have a problem even wrapping my head around the concept of being offended. i try and think of scenerios that would make me take a look back and think "hey, i'm offended" but i am drawing a blank.

anger? sure....
offended though? i really don't see it happening...


i think it is safe to say the only reason people are offended by this is cause it is jesus. you're allowed to depict him in a peaceful way or in a bloody, murderous way, dying on th ecross and thats it.

i mean people wear crucifixes arounf their neck.
see jesus with some wood though and it is offence city.....makes ZERO sense to me



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Boondock78
 


This is in reply to Palehorse as well.

If the Christians looked more deeply into the laws, they would see that 'there shouldn't even be depictions of Christ'...AT ALL.

(paraphrasing) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images, of heaven, on earth, what is in heaven..." etc etc etc.

Anyways, I'd love to continue the discussion further, but like Palehorse, 'I'm riding off into the sunset of my work as well'.

Talk with everyone later.

~Ducky~



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Boondock78
 


I think that is the core issue here...cencorship, it dosnt have anything to do with jesus's genitals(im running out of euphemisms) What should or should not be censored? Thats the real battle here. The christians are appalled and I understand that but if they want the freedom to worship then they have to accept the freedom of speech and to express ourselves with it. They want to pick and choose our freedoms and thats not right.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Boondock78
 



Why is it insulting? Well, firstly, it wouldn't matter to me if it was Jesus, Buddha or any other spiritual figure. To portray them in a degrading manner, and yes, that is a degrading manner, is insulting to those who actually believe in something other than gross materialism.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Boondock78
 



Why is it insulting? Well, firstly, it wouldn't matter to me if it was Jesus, Buddha or any other spiritual figure. To portray them in a degrading manner, and yes, that is a degrading manner, is insulting to those who actually believe in something other than gross materialism.




i guess i am just a moran then cause i still don't get it...
it is not degrading to see him in pics all busted up, bleeding and nailed to the cross but it is degrading to see him with a boner?

where does gross materialism fit in?

so you're honestly telling me that you would be just as offended if it were a statue of ganesha up there with a boner???

come on man...sorry but i don't believe you. not for one second.
bring up materialism. bring up that it is 'degrading'
....in the end, imo you are offended cause it's jesus.

speak the truth speaker of truth



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boondock78

so you're honestly telling me that you would be just as offended if it were a statue of ganesha up there with a boner???

come on man...sorry but i don't believe you. not for one second.


Well, that just proves you don't know me then...
Of course, how well you can know someone over the internet is limited anyway.


Yes, I'd be offended.. Don't believe me? That is your right. *Shrug*



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


fair enough man...

stalemate then



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'd like to show another perspective on the piece (
)


Genesis 1 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."


If Jesus truly is God, then he is the god of everything, including fertility. This statue could be interpreted as the representation of God's fertility, and desire for mankind to multiply. Like this Peruvian fertility idol.




To worship God's desire for us to be fruitful is to respect humanity, and love mankind.

Just another way to look at it. And if that's how I see it, then any demand for it's removal or destruction is an insult to God's will.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Boondock78
 



Why is it insulting? Well, firstly, it wouldn't matter to me if it was Jesus, Buddha or any other spiritual figure. To portray them in a degrading manner, and yes, that is a degrading manner, is insulting to those who actually believe in something other than gross materialism.




Well I very rarely feel the need to question your posts SoT, but I am with Boon' on this one.

you are insulted because it is degrading? So the obvious question is 'why is a large erect penis degrading'.

Personally, if someone depicted me in a statue with an enormous member, I may find it quite flattering, especially if the artist considered the penis an expression of fertility and virility


But you suggest I should feel degraded - why? (genuine question bro')



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Preach on brother good point



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Here what I think. I think its right for any Christian believer to want this take down and destroyed. how do we know that God and Jesus would not use those Christians to get rid of the statue. Jesus with a hard on is wrong. And should not be desplayed. We should have faith that God or Jesus would take care of the situation. But most likely God would use a son to stop get rid of the statue. For all we know God is waiting for his children to rid of the statue, to see if his children would work for him.

Faith with out works means nothing.

Any Christian believer has a right to not like this art. Or the display of this art. Any christian believer that think its alright really does'nt care for Jesus. Thats like saying its ok for your dad or brother to have a staue like this. Do you think it would be ok for your follow christian brother to have this displayed without his promission?

[edit on 15-1-2008 by slymattb]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Perhaps it's degrading because people of the Christian faith, just like Islam, should practice modesty, and nudity isn't a very big thing with these two faiths, especially when/if prophets and leaders of these faiths are placed in a nude nature within artwork.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
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.


I'm quoting this so that people that haven't read the whole thread can see what IMO is the real issue here.

OK, Christians don't like the "art". But where are the riots and where are all the martyrs that were killed because of it?

Answer: there are none.

End of story ...



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Not really buying that. If that were the case, any piece of art that depicted nudity would undergo the same scrutiny. We don't see people destroying art because it's blasphemous do we? Oh wait, sorry, Christians did do that didn't they. But that was hundreds of years ago. Christians have evolved right?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Not really buying that. If that were the case, any piece of art that depicted nudity would undergo the same scrutiny. We don't see people destroying art because it's blasphemous do we? Oh wait, sorry, Christians did do that didn't they. But that was hundreds of years ago. Christians have evolved right?


And what about the Taliban blowing up the ancient and priceless statues of Buddha in Afganistan a few years ago? They claimed the statues were blasphemous to islam and destroyed them even though many appealed to them to stop.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


See, Christians and Muslims are more alike than they'd often admit. Thanks for coming out and admitting how alike they truly are centurion. It takes a big man to come out and say it.

Star for you!!



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


How is that even a response?

The fact that the Muslim Taliban idiots did something idiotic in the recent past doesn't refute the point that historically, Christians have been guilty of many similar idiotic acts.

Idiocy is a human failing, and not one unique to any particular religion, or even religions in general



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
Here what I think. I think its right for any Christian believer to want this take down and destroyed. how do we know that God and Jesus would not use those Christians to get rid of the statue. J


Any Christian believer has a right to not like this art. Or the display of this art.


we're still not getting answers.

you think it is right for any christian to want it destroyed and your argument is you don't know if god or jesus would use christians to do it....that is one lame argument brosef.


to the other part....you're right.....you as a christian, as for every other person alive on the planet has the right to not like this piece of art. you have the right to not like the display of this art...
that does not give you the right to destroy it though......can't destroy something cause of a 'what if god' when we have not even established if there is such a fellow



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Perhaps it's degrading because people of the Christian faith, just like Islam, should practice modesty, and nudity isn't a very big thing with these two faiths, especially when/if prophets and leaders of these faiths are placed in a nude nature within artwork.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by DJMessiah]


none of that makes it 'not art' though. none of that means that they have a right to destroy anothers work.
nudity is not a big thing with those two faiths....

great thing is people of those two faiths can look the other way. no need for the destruction of it you know



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join