Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians

Originally posted by Toelint

I love it when people ask this question. I just tell them. "Imagine your dad with an erection, then multiply the 'Eeeeeewww' factor by ten million.

If you're as young as you look in your avatar, then I can understand why that would be a 'Ewwww', but I doubt it will still bother you in a decade or two. Whether that's a maturing process or a desensitizing process, I can't say

Hilarious.

I think they are all praying I don't post a thread about the mother who scored four for god

Now whats more offensive, genitals or cold blooded psychotic homicide and
the wacko-paths who encourage that insanity?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by NewWorldOver

 

OK, it's dumb...... If you say so.

Now the real question. Should it be on display in this gallery? Should it be removed because it offends some people?

Anybody want to answer this for me? This seems to be the main issue here, not the debate about its value. Some people like the Mona Lisa, others think it's a pile of garbage.

Once again, should this be on display in the gallery or should it be removed because it's offensive to som?

I think there should be more statues like this maybe showing jesus in loads of sexual positions with mary magdalene just like on those temples in India. And not just jesus though mohammed, buddha and all the gods/prophets should get a shot as well. Just think of shiva with all those hands - what mad sexual positions could he get up to.

As for banning the statue, I think it should be the censors that get banned

Hey they could cover it up with hanging a warning sign on it!

G

Originally posted by shihulud
Hey they could cover it up with hanging a warning sign on it!

G

WARNING: If you're Christian, you may not be mature enough to appreciate the enclosed as art and should go back to watching the Lion King or The Little Mermaid

reply to post by palehorse23


Two words. Mohammed Cartoons.
They're more alike then they'll ever admit.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


hey raso,

looks like they don't want to tackle that issue. Duck and run. Personally, it is like anything else you do not want to see, don't go to the museum. Keep your kids away if you find it offensive. Pretty simple IMO. But most have to try and stage a protest of hate.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Yes, because we've seen the news coverage of the Christians burning cars, and demanding that the creator of said statue be killed.

How about this for comparison. "Rules that say 'Don't kill, steal, or cheat on your wife', rile athiests who demand their removal". As if those were terrible things to ban. You can't even compare Christianity to the extreme and activist stance of Islam or Athiesm.

reply to post by Rasobasi420

Classic


Anyone got any more suggestions for the penile sign?

What about:-

WARNING : THE NEXT COMING OF GOD?

G

Originally posted by shihulud
I think there should be more statues like this maybe showing jesus in loads of sexual positions with mary magdalene just like on those temples in India. And not just jesus though mohammed, buddha and all the gods/prophets should get a shot as well. Just think of shiva with all those hands - what mad sexual positions could he get up to.
G

Man, that is too funny. Shiva the one man gang-bang.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Once again, should this be on display in the gallery or should it be removed because it's offensive to som?

No, it should not be removed just because someone is offended. Whether or not it should be displayed in the gallery is up to the curator I guess, and people are free to vote on the art there with their feet and pocketbooks. Personally, I like my art to be something I know I could never produce, this guys stuff looks like a demented fourth grader made it in art class.

reply to post by dbates



Yes sir, your correct. I am a worm. I know nothing. RRRRIIIGGGHHHTTTT...

It's still on the same path.
The only problem with atheists is they're so damn self rightous.
Rather like Christians and Muslims.

reply to post by Legalizer

Are you sure no Christian wants to kill him? I do remember Madonna including a crucifix in her concerts and a priest called in a bomb threat, threatening to kill her.

Remember all of the abortion clinic bombings? In Buffalo,NY an abortion doctor was actually killed by a claimed "Christian". Thank goodness that doesn't happen on a regular basis.

reply to post by dbates



You have to admit that there are occassions when Christians have gone to the same extreme as I have mentioned in my last post about the abortion clinic bombings. I know that that is not a basis of Christianity, but why then did these people do what they did for the Prolife stance?

A few pages later and, after reading through it all, I still can't figure out the outrage. Even worse, I have that annoying urge to try and deepen my point. Oh well.

Originally I speculated that it was the penis itself that is bothering people. I feel confident now in my suspicion that it is not the penis, but rather, that it is the fact that he (read: Jesus) is sporting an erection.

Where does this outrage over the basic part of being a human male come from? In my humble opinion, it seems to come from the Christian churches long held villification of sexual aspects of the human body and all things sexually erotic.

This sexual hangup has me perplexed. Hell, some regions of India and Japan (just to name the few that readily come to mind) still practice certain rituals which involve depections of an erect penis to be blessed with fertility.

And now to adress a point raised a few pages ago:

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by spines
It is a statue depicting the humanity of Jesus.

Uh, no. It's a enormous phallus connected to a supposed representation of Christ. Does your phallus, or that of your spouse, depict your humanity? I would think that you consider yourself much more than this, but perhaps I'm wrong. I have met those that are a human phallus.

Well, to be blunt, I would consider that a phallus is one of those boundry crossing elements of humanity which tie us together.

The human species has one main purpose on this planet, like all species... and that is to reproduce. The erection is a clear symbol of this genetic desire to keep our species going.

So yes, representing Jesus with an erection is a pretty damned good way of representing the humanity (that which is to be human) of Jesus.

But then again I am rambling.

reply to post by spines

my humble opinion, it seems to come from the Christian churches long held villification of sexual aspects of the human body and all things sexually erotic.

That goes back to what-his-face saint with help from the old (and stupid belief IMHO) that women are evil.

Of course, one way to God is through sex. The Taoists understood that, as did a bunch of other esoteric traditions like the Kundalini/Tantric practices.

That's why when people climax they often say 'Oh God I'm coming'

[edit on 13-1-2008 by RogerT]

The statue either represents that Jesus was a HUMAN MAN who has human urges, or represents that manhood has dominated everything over the centuries. It doesn't represent the artist's hatred of Christianity. I bet when that cartoon of muhammed with the bomb in his turban came out, a bunch of you said the Muslim community was overreacting in their outrage.

I agree both that Christians have a right to dislike the statue, but that they can not stop an artist from creating whatever he wants. You can not stop Satanists from publishing their books anymore than you can stop Christians or Atheists from publishing their books.

So be outraged, ask not to see it... but don't ask to destroy something that harmed no one in any way other than it being aesthetically unappealing and hurting a few feelings.

reply to post by dbates


That's a ridiculous and exaggerated example, and so your argument has been demeaned. Try not to be sensationalist about something like that next time.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Some people like the Mona Lisa, others think it's a pile of garbage.

Once again, should this be on display in the gallery or should it be removed because it's offensive to som?

Disliking & thinking something is a pile garbage is a far cry from belieiving something is offensive. These are two different definitions and are not related to one another.

I think you are confusing the two. I don't think most here are offended by the statue but they do believe it's disgusting and a pile of garbage.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by shihulud
Hey they could cover it up with hanging a warning sign on it!

G

WARNING: If you're Christian, you may not be mature enough to appreciate the enclosed as art and should go back to watching the Lion King or The Little Mermaid

Look, you are being disingenuous. The problem is NOT that the statue is showing genitals as there is plenty of real art which shows nudity which is fabulous. The problem is showing an erection on Jesus. If you cannot see the problem or understand why some would be upset then I don't know what else to say.