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.
Originally posted by palehorse23
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.
Originally posted by palehorse23
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
Originally posted by Lysergic
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.
Originally posted by palehorse23
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?
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.
Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
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.
Well, I guess the article title was right.
Originally posted by StormSolace
Visual art is a form of self expression, not everyone is going to like or appreciate that which is created. It needs to be viewed as just that... an individual's form of self expression. Look at the amount of Salvador Dali's work that is comprised of mutilated women. Me, I find that offensive... but that does not take away from his merit as an artist.
I would venture to say such things should not be displayed in front of children... but to remove it? *I* feel that to be a form of artistic censorship, and very sad.
Originally posted by Jazzyguy
All people want to express what they are and what they feel. But there should be some limit to it, otherwise the world will turn into chaos. This holds true for every profession and devotion whether it's an artist, scientist, politician, military personnel, and religious follower.
Einstein's space is no closer to reality than Van Gogh's sky. The glory of science is not in a truth more absolute than the truth of Bach or Tolstoy, but in the act of creation itself. The scientist's discoveries impose his own order on chaos, as the composer or painter imposes his; an order that always refers to limited aspects of reality, and is based on the observer's frame of reference, which differs from period to period as a Rembrant nude differs from a nude by Manet.
Arthur Koestler (1905 - 1983), The Act of Creation, London, 1970, p. 253
What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos.
Kerry Thornley, Principia Discordia, 5th edition
Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.
Henry Miller (1891 - 1980)
Originally posted by goosdawg
Who is to determine the extent of these limits?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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,
Ok, now you are just babbling. How about sticking to the topic at hand.
He learns that from past experience, or somehow figure out there will be some sort of consequences.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Otherwise devout Christian women might have a stroke.
Originally posted by neformore
Interesting to see that alot of the posters on this thread who are "offended" by this are also the same ones who call muslims "stupid" when they take offence to things.
Two sides of the same coin methinks
Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this.