Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians

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

I am not going to argue with you. The display of this art is wrong. It sajust that Jesus was lustful, or a horney man. And this is not true. To display anything about Jesus that is not true is wrong. It ok to make art, as long as your art does not hurt no body. This art could protray Jesus in the wrong light and that is wrong.

reply to post by slymattb


It doesn't say that Jesus was a lustful and horny man.

A large erect penis in art has always been a symbol of fertility, especially in deities. God himself said "be fruitful and multiply". Does that make him a dirty old geezer?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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!!

Star for you, too.

The only difference I can find between the way Christians and muslims handle these situations is that some Christians might think about destroying the so-called "art", or wish someone would do it. While the muslims actually do destroy art they don't like (and kill people over it, too).

Originally posted by slymattb


I am not going to argue with you. The display of this art is wrong. It sajust that Jesus was lustful, or a horney man. And this is not true. To display anything about Jesus that is not true is wrong. It ok to make art, as long as your art does not hurt no body. This art could protray Jesus in the wrong light and that is wrong.

ok homie....i am not trying to argue either, just have a conversation but it is like talking to a brick wall with some of you guys...

it's just wrong cause it's wrong....to display him like this is wrong cause it's wrong...
it's like going in circles....

my home diggity ras already proved your little theory wrong so i don't even know what you're on about.

you personally may not like the statue but it does not hurt you...you can use your free will and look away...

reply to post by xmotex


Easy. I was responding to this post:

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?

reply to post by Rasobasi420


hey ras, isn't it like ramming your head against the wall or chewing on glass or something? 15 pages of 'it's just wrong'...
dayum.....ras/boon, meet brick wall

i couldn't begin to review 16 pages of reply posts.........

but does/did anyone say that... at the time - - Michaelangelos'
marble sculpture of 'David' turned the roman church
(that eras superpower) on its ear !! David has a foreskin and
that's not the practice of those then Jews or Hebrews...
Michaelanglo's statue of David was accepted and praised in the
media back then....
but the vatican & high echelon elite clerics of the church were fuming rom their gills!


this episode is nothing too much different

reply to post by St Udio


Sure did
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe not to the degree that you described, but it's been brought up.

And for that my friend, you get a star.

Originally posted by RogerT



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

No...

what I am saying is that it is an insult to those who view Jesus Christ in a respectable manner. Christ is believed to have been unequivocally celibate by most. To show him with an erection is insulting to those who believe that.

Now, I know there are those who claim that the gnostics believed that Christ had a relationship with Mary Magdelene. Did they? As someone who has read the Nag Hammadi, I can tell you that there is no definite answer to that.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


But celibacy and getting an erection are certainly different things. One has no control (often) over when they get an erection.

And once again, I'll say

*Be fruitful and multiply!*

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

To show him with an erection is insulting to those who believe that.

This I still do not get either ras, boon, fellow people who understand definition of art. Why is an erection such an insulting act of nature. If it was to be thought of as such, wouldn't God have created another way for us to multiply? It seems like you guys are hiding in a closet whenever "sex" topics are brought into the open. When, in fact, you know when you are behind closed doors, everyone likes to get their freak on...christian or not. I have been banging my head against the wall since I initially read the article and posted it. I knew I would just get dragged in circles when I was hoping to get honest answers to the other side of the topic. I think we have made better arguments for the religious than they have themselves. I feel like we are providing answers for you and even still, you have yet to agree. Chewing glass is a great metaphor in this case. The best yet is the argument that it depicts Jesus as lustful.
Not even close. It depicts Jesus as a true man, as God intended him to be. It is ludicrous to say that God left out the fact that Jesus would never have gotten an erection.
Just another question. Is the last supper artwork not allowed as well? Has there been an uproar over that at some point? I think the long hair on Jesus makes some sense in that as I recall, there were not barber shops on every corner in Jerusalem. To me it makes since that folks would have long hair. Just my opinion though.

[edit on 1/15/2008 by palehorse23]

reply to post by slymattb

It ok to make art, as long as your art does not hurt no body.

This piece did not hurt anyone!! It may have saddened people emotionally that someone would do this, but that is not physically hurt. If your emotions are hurt by things like this, I reiterate, turn away! It is that simple. If we destroyed all of the art that someone claims "hurt" them, all artists would have to go underground and start their own secret art society. We all know art evokes sadness, happiness, anger, etc. etc. depending on the individual.

Jesus was a man! Men get erections! This is as natural as anything else in the world. We get offended because we attach our beliefs to the image...WE OFFEND OURSELVES! In my view it is impossible for an artist or a piece of art to offend us, The offense is self created. Imagine if this were happening in the Muslim world, some artist created a statue of the Muslim big guy with a woody, none of you would give a hoot. Because it is something that directly confronts your belief system it becomes disgusting! Hold your beliefs as your own and all is well...You cannot expect the world at large to adopt or respect what you believe, and if you do, war may come of it as it will and has for as long as we have been around. No, I'm not suggesting that a silly piece of art could start a war but merely opposing belief systems have done so time and time again. As was stated before my post "This piece has hurt no one". If such art offends you take responsibility for the origin of the discomfort, it was your creation! Don't go blaming the artist for not sharing your view.

Jesus depicted with an erection?? I always thought he was impotent? :p Judging by the reaction of those christians, if he isn't erectile disfunctional, he should be. A good dose of DP in the arm ought to take care of that!

Seriously I wonder how many christians who think the statue should be destroyed thought it was perfectly acceptable to depict Muhammad with a bomb in his turban?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

what I am saying is that it is an insult to those who view Jesus Christ in a respectable manner. Christ is believed to have been unequivocally celibate by most. To show him with an erection is insulting to those who believe that.

OK I understand and I agree with you that some christians choose to be insulted and believe the erection is degrading. But does that make it so.

If I choose to worship some god that I have been told was a vegetarian, and someone does a statue of that figure eating a pork chop, is that degrading?

Isn't that what art is designed for, to evoke emotional opinion and dare us to comtemplate our motivations? Or is religious belief/opinion above that?

i just wanted to add that just a few months back, another artist made a statue of jesus made out of chocolate and he was naked and people freaked at that one too. jesus was not sporting wood in that but people freaked cause he was not covered.

it would be nice if someone would just own up and say that 'yeah, i'm gonna be offended if jesus is portrayed in any other way besides ___________'
you know?

reply to post by Boondock78


They probably didn't freak out because he was naked, but because he was brown.

If Jesus was real you think he actually gives a crap about this statue? Are the christians offended because surely christ would be offended? He was beaten, spit on, mocked, beaten, nailed to a cross and died. He even knew it was coming and ALLOWED it to happen. What could a portrayal of his penis possibly do to someone who had that kind of guts. In my opinion I dont think he would give half a crap. Not after all that happened to him. Frankly its insignifigant. As I have stated this isnt about his penis its about censorship. Censorship disguised as anti religion semantics.

Originally posted by SoLaR513
As I have stated this isnt about his penis its about censorship. Censorship disguised as anti religion semantics.

you're right.
ras, you may be right as well.

hell, the buddy christ had people in an uproar when it came out in dogma. he is smiling, giving the thumbs up....people were seriously pissed off.

apparently christ can only be displayed in very few ways.

eating dinner with the homies
beat down on the cross
standing with hands pressed against each other....

those are the acceptable three right

reply to post by Boondock78





Wasn't it previously stated by a believer that Jesus or God cannot be depicted in any way shape or form? So, I think I asked once, but I will ask again, why are things like the last supper okay? Isn't it all or nothing? No one seems to be in an uproar over those depictions.

They probably didn't freak out because he was naked, but because he was brown.

That is classic Ras. I love it!!!

[edit on 1/16/2008 by palehorse23]