Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 02:20 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by palehorse23



Most of us will turn the other cheek. Are points that important to you? You can have my points. Moderator?????????

These things are not art. That is the lie here. They are an intentional attack on Christians. If this was a piece attacking Muslims or Black People many here would change their tune. Most won't admit it but that does not make it any less true. Hate is a powerful emotion that rules peoples lives and makes them loose all sense of reality.

Hate is a bad thing whether you're a Christian or an Atheist. That phony art was created to express and create hate. It is what is wrong with our world and not part of what is right. Would you take your young child to see that? I would hope not.

Most Christians are kind decent people. The ones who are not, are not Christians. I can only apologize for the fake Christians who have made people hate us. Although I think many hate us for no reason.


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 02:38 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan



Palehorse does have a point in that we should not act like these others might. I think the real issue is that this object is on public display. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ignore it. I think that would exhibit the best example.


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 02:55 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by StormSolace



If I defecate on a pallet and put it in a museum and call it art; should that be protected as a form of expression?

Being an artist myself; nudity in art does not offend or bother me. What this piece is however is vulgarity and by no stretch of the truth is it art. In addition to that it is an expression of a mentally ill person who clearly needs help. Either that or it is an expression of hatred akin to that expressed by the KKK when it burns a cross on a Black Persons lawn. It is one or the other but not art.


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 04:29 PM by Rasobasi420
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan



Can I ask you if you even considered what the artist may have meant by portraying Jesus in this fashion, or did you just see the image and recoil in disgust, never considering what the artist's intent was?

Do you understand the purpose of art?


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 04:46 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by Rasobasi420



I don't think anyone is fooled by this sort of thing. The artist intended from the outset for this to offend the people it offended. It was to draw attention to himself and it of course works. Some nut will pay to much for it and be stuck with a work with no value when they try and sell it later on. That is also the intent of the artist. Some will lie and laud its value as true art but it will still be a lie. Timeless art makes you say "Wow" not "Yecch".


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 04:58 PM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan



Did Jesus have a penis?
Was this penis functional?

I would guess the answer to both questions is "yes" even in a beleif system where he's utterly perfect in every way - can't be perfect if you have a ken doll crotch or severe ED, right? Now maybe the mohel sneezed during the circumcision, but I doubt it.

Now these biological constants being true, it's entirely likely that Jesus got morning wood.

How is the fact that the guy's body was actually functional "demeaning"? Wrapping him up in a scanty diaper in every depiction of his mangling, torture, and execution isn't demeaning, but showing him how he probably looked when he got up in the morning is?

[edit on 12-1-2008 by TheWalkingFox]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^