Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan 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.

Well several people in this thread have asked why exactly this is a problem - showing an erection on jesus - so it's not as obvious as you think.

The question is worth asking IMO.

Now you can keep avoiding this question or you can choose to answer it - either is fine, but whatever your response, it communicates.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this.

Doesn't this so called 'artist' have anything better to sculpt instead of demeaning the faith of millions.

i am only on page one but i am going to go through and read every post as i always do.
i just wanted to respond to you...

the first post you mentioned if someone did this to someone you love....

so jesus is a 'someone'?
huh...

anyway, about the artist....i think it is fantastic and i also think bwusahahahahahah.

sorry but i know that religious people get all bunged up at things like this and quite frankly, i get a laugh out of it.
people see 'art' in a different way.

there was an artist about 3 months ago that made a statue of jesus. jesus was naked and made of chocolat and the religious folk got bunged up over that too.

can you maybe give us a list of 'accpetable' ways to display jesus.

thanks

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


The thing about art is, even if the artist had one intention in mind, it's up to the viewer to find their own interpretation.

GREAT point ras.

the reaction one gets from looking at this work of art says far more about the person looking at it than it does the person who created it.

thats about as simple as it gets.

Art can be sooooo
stupid, I once knew a guy who made 100$ for taking a canvas and gluing trash on it and selling it AS 'Art'!
That was in the late 80's.
It doesn't surprise me, though that this guy has to be overtly blasphemous to display his 'modern' trash.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


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

Hmm....pasting an erection on a statue of Jesus is mature...rrrriiight...

Watching Academy Award-winning Disney movies is childish....yyyyeeahhh.. Uuuhhh...



[edit on 13-1-2008 by Toelint]

Originally posted by Boondock78
can you maybe give us a list of 'accpetable' ways to display jesus.

Apparently, a white man, beaten, bloodied, and nailed to an instrument of tortuous, excruciating death, is an acceptable representation.

"Remember, Jesus went through all this, so you can sit here now and feel righteous in your superior condemnation of others who don't believe the way we tell you to."

The more graphic, the better.

But definitely forbidden, is the depiction of his manhood in all it's glory...

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Actually, The Lion King showed "sex" in the dust, and The Little Mermaid had a huge penis in the promotional graphics.

Evil Disney

Not only that, but:

In 1989 Disney became a partner, and the one to own the largest % of shares in, Viewer's Choice "Hot Choice" - a leader in Pay-Per-View cable soft porn. Until Disney showed up, Viewer's Choice had only played action films and comedies. The profits were decent but Disney wanted better, and decided to launch the "soft porn" division in 1993. To develop original programming for their creation, Disney offered porn star Becky LeBeau a $7-figure deal and share of the profits. She appeared in many films herself and hosted an all-nude modeling program which showed explicit footage if women, some as young as 18. Disney also signed the infamous and famous Marilyn Chambers, a veteran hard core porn star, to an exclusive multi-project deal a year after she won the "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the Adult Video Association.

Source | anomalies-unlimited | Evil Disney | Disney's not so Disney Interests

I wonder if Disney has a "piece" in this artist?

Goosedawg, go to the video store as I did...BUY these movies as I did...and then please tell me exactly where these scenes are. I own both, and for the life of me, I can't find them.

As for the Disney deal, I intend to do just a tad of investigation. I'll let you know what I find.

reply to post by goosdawg


Sex in the dust is reaching a bit, but the Jessica Rabbit Beaver is hilarious. I guess animating gets boring at times and a little 'sin' livens up the place

Originally posted by Boondock78
i just wanted to respond to you...

the first post you mentioned if someone did this to someone you love....

so jesus is a 'someone'?
huh...

Umm...yes. I don't get your point.

can you maybe give us a list of 'accpetable' ways to display jesus.

Sure.......respectfully!

Originally posted by RogerT
Now you can keep avoiding this question or you can choose to answer it - either is fine, but whatever your response, it communicates.

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to repeat myself. Do you actually read the posts? I will say it again one last time.

Its called having some respect. Geesh!
Look, try and think about your immediate family. You would not want someone to show disrespect by cursing at your momma or grandma would you? You would not want someone to show disrespect to your sister or mother my making vile gestures to them. I guess in the name of art anything goes and respect & civility just goes out the window.

reply to post by Toelint


So you've been looking for them, eh?

j/k

(It's okay, I've hunted for them, too. )

In truth, once it became public knowledge, Disney took steps to remove the offensive material in future releases.

Well, except for the bare-breasted woman in the window on "The Rescuers" tape, they actually recalled that one!


reply to post by RogerT


Yeah, I'm sure these incidents were little jokes tossed in by the the animators.

The one that threw me though, was the intentional inclusion of the racially stereotyped character "Sunflower" in the original release of "Fantasia."

And then the ham-handed editing in later releases to erase the evidence.

I remember, as a kid, seeing racial stereotypes pop up in cartoons from most of the studios, like Warner cartoons from the same period, and to a certain degree, in the Disney cartoons as well.

I wasn't aware they had snuck it into the big features, too.

Speaking of "big features"...are there any updates on the status of our statue?

reply to post by goosdawg


How old are you? 12?

A person without enough talent to create sellable work resorted to sensationalism to get his name in the press. It worked. His skill, or lack of it, as an artist is apparent in the execution of the work. Some fanatical Christian Hater will buy it for way too much money. Since it has no artistic value to speak of it will end up in storage or in some nuts living room. The immature and childish among us will get some pleasure out of it. That pretty much sums this whole thing up I think.

Here is a Link to a real work of art. I selected this Michaelangelo to show the contrast between a talented artist and the bum who did the work in the OP.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


You keep saying "it's about respect" But you have yet to successfully state what is disrespectful about it. You just keep saying "If you don't get it I can't help you"

Such a cop out.

Meanwhile, it's still art, despite you liking it or not. Some do, and that's all that matters.

Do me a favor and explain the difference between this and the depiction of Jesus bleeding and dying on the cross. Is violence against your god more acceptable than your god having an erection? He didn't die horribly from an erection.

Please explain how this is different than showing Adam on the Sistine Chapel with an insultingly small penis?


I have yet to find any comment in this thread explaining why it's disrespectful or insulting.

If you're personally insulted, please explain it. I'm begging you. It's driving me nuts.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Umm...yes. I don't get your point.


Sure.......respectfully!

my point is 'someone you love' is far different than a man who may have not even existed a couple thousand years ago....do you not agree.

and you little attempt to be witty and answer 'respectfully'.....well, what does that mean?
must jesus be displayed only as a white male with a beard and sandals?

when does it cross the line into the offensive?

this whole thread your're dodging questions trying to be witty. i think you just want to bitch about the 'art'....

Anyone who is offended by this; is weak minded, or is insecure of themselves.

I am sorry. But no religious anything. In the end. is important.
Especially one with an erection.

In my opinion, the image below is stupid, racist and extremely offensive.



The image displays a disrespect for those of middle eastern heritage, and is extremely unbelievable in that anyone who lived in the Middle East would be so pale.

More than that, it's purpose was to show that God is white. And anyone who isn't white is just that much further from God.

And yet, I don't see you screaming about this depiction..

Why is that?

[edit on 13-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Look, try and think about your immediate family.


I guess in the name of art anything goes and respect & civility just goes out the window.

you liken jesus to the same category as your immediate family? dayum

as far as respect and civility in art, as i said before. the reaction one gives to the 'art' says far more about that person than it does the artist....
look at your reaction.


frank zappa wrote an instrumental called 'i promise not to ______in your mouth'(figure it out)
it is one of the most beautiful songs i have ever heard....now, there are/were tons of people that were offended by this song and would not even listen to it...how can the song be offensive when there are no lyrics?
he gave this song that name on purpose....to see what type of reaction it provoked and people bugged it out....
much like you are bugging now....

he is the one i got that from......all these people freaked out at a song title essentially. they could not even bring themselves to listen to the 'filth'.


why would you want to censor things man?

Dear People, I find this interesting that a statue w/ an erect penis is causing so much controversy. I am wondering if those who are upset about the statue that is said to depict Jesus, are they upset because it shows a penis? which he would have one, right? or that it is erect? I am thinking that if this Jesus, who I feel actually did walk the earth, obviously was a man, don't you think he could occasionally have had an erection?? But I am thinking that people are still uncomfortable with the human body in it's free and natural state. Certainly I don't feel this disgusting, the penis itself? seeing the penis? would it be disgusting if it were not erect? Would people think that Jesus would not have had a penis? Maybe people feel Jesus is too holy to have a penis? not sure why this is so upsetting except since it is said that Jesus was a man, living on the earth amongst the people. And you know there are so many terrible things people are doing to each other in different parts of the world, this statue is such a minor thing to be all upset about. I think maybe Jesus, could be even finding this funny! even bizarre that instead of people being outraged at war, child abuse, and the ice melting, the waters rising, that they are spending time on his penis! oh well, just my two cents. may peace prevail, Unani

reply to post by Blaine91555


How old does one have to be to "get it?"

This "artist," IMHO, displayed a skillful knack for manipulating the emotions of a huge cross-section of humanity, through the mass media, a willing co-conspirator, who delivered it up like a steaming pile of feces on a silver platter, to be consumed, and reviled, hook line and sinker, by the same target demographic that will buy up what ever their advertisers pitch to them.

By giving this "art" media exposure knowing the reaction it would cause the MSM that brought it to the masses are complicit in the creation of the event.

Ignored, this nasty little "tossed-off" "piece" would have quickly been relegated to the dust bin of history that it so obviously and richly deserves.

The "art" of this "piece" is in the reaction it has garnered, IMHO, and that is why those of us who realize this fact, are laughing.

This "artist," IMHO, used the media and the followers of a religion to make a statement on the power of the MSM itself to manipulate the masses, according to the whims of those who pull the strings.

How does it feel to have your "string pulled?"