Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado

reply to post by lee anoma


Those are some interesting pieces of art. Innocent in their making I am sure but sometimes you just have to wonder. I have no issues with those as the intent wasn't to mock God.

There is a link or two throughout this thread to show you the picture, and I promise you it is nothing like those that you posted.

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by lee anoma

 

Those are some interesting pieces of art. Innocent in their making I am sure but sometimes you just have to wonder. I have no issues with those as the intent wasn't to mock God.

There is a link or two throughout this thread to show you the picture, and I promise you it is nothing like those that you posted.

Yes, I believe you.

I actually read where it stated the word "orgasm" was placed within the artwork.
I know the artist was intent on making a specific statement here.

I was just pointing out the subjective nature of art, and how there are some religious pieces, old and new, that various people put in the world depicting what looks like holy figures engaged in subtle sex-acts.

- Lee

reply to post by lee anomaLets be fair, viewed from the right angle, that statue with the bread would be very suggestive. Its not like paedophilia in the church is a new thing. Also, the stories have the Jesus character say "suffer the little children to come to me." Perhaps that didn't mean 'put up with their misbehaviour & let them come here', but 'put up with my misbehaviour'?
Its just conjecture. I couldn't possibly say, but it could've been on the sculpter's mind. They may have only felt able to make subtle comment for fear of the consequences of something more blatant.

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by Mobius1974

 

It's been said plenty already. 1) Jesus isn't a fictional character. 2) Even those that don't believe he exists must acknowledge that billions of people have based their entire lives on the teachings of him and to mock their faith and their God is simply uncalled for.

If this man wanted to call out the Catholic church, something I would agree needs to be done due to their hypocrisy and blatant disregard for the scriptures as they follow their traditions more than they do God, then by all means he should do it. If he has legitimate critique for any denomination or religion he should let it be known. What he did NOT need to do however was mock the very object of our love and adoration.

It's a good thing the world doesn't revolve around any one churchs sensibilities.. nobody has to get permission from your flock commander about whats considered art or tasteful... it's in the eye of the beholder and thankfully no dude in a robe and wazoo hat can take that away.

I think you're also assuming others empathize; you believe in that church stuff so you feel mocked.. I & others don't believe, ergo.. we don't feel mocked.. or care really. Peoples feelings get bruised every day, can't care or even keep track of the worlds hyper sensitive groups... and no, it's not more important because a church is involved, just another opinion in the mix.

The very fact that religious people (of pretty much any faith) are so sensitive, is evidence that they are insecure in their beliefs. And why wouldn't they be insecure? Their beliefs demand blind faith and no intellect. It's got to be a pretty uncomfortable position to be in when they must communicate with people who choose to use their brains to actually think about things.

If they were more secure they wouldn't be so easily offended, but that security won't be coming any time soon.

reply to post by wayno


Wait a second here. There are plenty of men and women of faith whop are highly intelligent. I think that the Jews have earned over 150 Nobel Prizes. I don't think they just hand those out.

So feeling offended at somebody's mocking of my God means I'm insecure? Does that mean that a black man who is offended at an insult towards his race is insecure? Does that mean that a woman who is offended at a sexist remark is insecure about her own abilities? Sounds to me like you are looking for a way to be superior to others. You aren't offended by something and ergo you are secure in your person and therefor better?

Some lady tried to violently damage the exhibit. I guess she thought Christians liked violence more than sex. So much for turning the other cheek.

reply to post by MykahelLogical Fallacy Alert
Racist & sexist criticism is aimed at what a person is, which they had no choice in & cannot change (without dangerous medical intervention & why would they?). The criticism of an aspect of a belief system is aimed at the ideas. A person who holds them could change the whole belief structure, their attitude to the ideas under scrutiny or attach less significance to them, if they choose. The comparison between racism, sexism & the competition between ideas is similar to comparing existance to thought.
Phlogiston is a thought; oxygen is a substance. If someone claims that liquid oxygen made by black women is inferior to that made by white men, they're an idiot, b/c both work just fine in a welding torch. If someone criticises the phlogiston theory, a) they have not criticised the believer & b) they are trying to provoke some thought. If the believer chooses to take offence, that doesn't alter the logical difference.
What, btw, is evangelism, if it is not attempting to change another's mind? How many evangelists are there that do not criticise the beliefs, very often also the actions, & not uncommonly the very person of unbelievers? Christianity instructs its followers to spread the word. Yet, people have been whinging about double standards?
Yeah right

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Ok, so my choice of using race and sex was a poor one for my example, I'll give you that. Perhaps it would be better to use the example of being a wrestler or playing in the school band. A person can choose to play in the school band, does it mean they are insecure if they are offended when somebody mocks band players? Does it mean a wrestler is insecure if they are offended when they are made fun of by the basketball players? I doubt it, because while the wrestler may be offended he also knows that he could teach that basketball player a thing or two. I am fully aware that some people just look for ways to be offended because they like playing the victim. But you also have to acknowledge that some things are simply offensive, and it's hard to deny that point when the work itself is intended to be offensive.

You mentioned evangelism. Yes, evangelism consists of trying to change the opinions of others to match your own, but it is not done my mocking a different religion or worldview. Obviously winning people over isn't done by insulting what they believe. Instead it is done through reasoning and love. Show people that you care, and they'll care about what you have to say. This is, of course, not to say that Christians never mock other belief systems.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


If an artist depicted the central figure in a major religion, to which quite literally billions subscribe, partaking in a sex act, I'd be outraged. That this artist (?) portrayed the central figure in a major religion doing just that is outrageous, and deliberately offensive.

Don't anyone attempt to tell me that's not what he had in mind from the beginning. He set out to offend. He may say otherwise, and I'm sure he does...if so, he's a liar. Plain and simple.

There is no need to do this sort of thing. You find religion tedious, even odious? Then leave it alone, ignore it.

Just to set the record straight, before anyone accuses me of being some sort of religious zealot, if a Christian artist, or Muslim artist portrayed agnostics, or athiests in such a fashion, as has been done in the past, I'd find it just as reprehensible. To give deliberate offense is stupidity written large, and does no good at all.

reply to post by MykahelWell, we're straying into logical fallacy again b/c the artist in question has not mocked any christian band players or wrestlers. He's criticised an aspect of christian beliefs. If anyone chooses to see it as mocking those ideas & then chooses to take offence, that doesn't alter the logic. Still, lets run with it:
Insecurity is a complex issue, but a symptom is oversensitivity to perceived criticism, so I'd say that a strident response to even genuine ad hom mockery, unless a failure to do so would dent one's status in their peer group, may well be indicative of insecurity. I cant see why anyone would criticise bands or sport vociferously, but if I felt that such activities would foster an attitude that curtails physical experience, hinders mental development & stunts spiritual growth, in a manner that creates unacknowledged frustrations, with no outlet other than trying to find virtue in carrying on in the same way, thus producing neuroses which will then affect children & sometimes end in tragic consequences, you can be certain I'd have plenty to say on the subject. Unless my cogent argument was met with ad hom, I'd not resort to personal mockery, but if my argument was ignored, the activity continued & was promoted as harmless, then I may well resort to mocking the ideas behind it, in order to dissuade others from participating (eg, were I a visual artist, I may portray their favourite composer decomposing).
I have had my beliefs, behaviour & person mocked by christians, both in media & F2F. There was a hard-core fetish club I patronised & christians would often protest with a small PA: it was mostly hilarious, but occasionally really spitefully personal. I was offended. The difference is that I just went in & had a good time, I felt no need to seek protection from being offended. Back to insecurity then: in my youth I was insecure. I responded in kind to what I felt were "threats"; now I laugh.

reply to post by seagullJust to explain to those who might censor me again, I'm going to begin this post with a socratic question. If you dont understand the relevance, thats not my fault. All will befome clear as we progress.
So seagull, what do you think of this statement:
"Our dear leader watches American films & indulges in other products of capitalism so that he can understand their negative effects. This is how much he loves us: he risks his own sanity to protect us. This is why such things are banned in our country."?

There is no need to do this sort of thing. You find religion tedious, even odious? Then leave it alone, ignore it.

You find ignorance odious? Leave it alone. You find self-serving corporate interests buying up self-serving politicians odious? Leave it alone. Of course, since this is the net, to be certain the point is made, I will now resort to reductio ad absurdam: you find paedophilia odious? Leave it alone.
There is every need for us to express our opinions about what goes on in the world. How on earth would any new ideas, that have helped us develope from a position where almost all of us were living hand to mouth to our current position where many of us have at least some security & those that dont can be aided when they're in particularly dire straits, have been adopted, if people looked at the world, saw its faults & left them alone?
Or are you saying that religion ought not to be held to the same standards as any other human behaviour?

reply to post by Bunken Drum


So to prove his point, assuming, of course, he had one, he sets out to deliberately offend as many Christians as possible? In what way does that accomplish anything?

I must be excessively dense, 'cause I quite simply don't see it.

I'm sure he sees himself as a very sensitive person...except where it concerns the very real belief systems of others.

So not impressed.

reply to post by seagullI'm sure you must've been in a debate where the other party would/could not address your argument, but simply repeated their stance in different words, right? What did you do? Quit? Stubbornly bang on? Or, when you had sincerely held beliefs, persevere, even tho you knew that your interloctor wasn't listening, b/c you wanted those who read it to understand that your beliefs make more sense? Is it possible that this artist looked at the way the christian church dodges the issues consistently & continues some very unpleasant practices, so decided that there was no point speaking to the believers, but rather, from sincerely held beliefs, would speak to the waverers & the rest of us?
I'd still like to know what you thought of the socratic question I asked above & whether you believe that religion ought to be singled out from other voluntary behaviours as off limits to criticism. Also, why should anyone expect that they ought not to be offended?

Originally posted by seagull
You find religion tedious, even odious? Then leave it alone, ignore it.

Which is what people were doing for years with the Catholic church abuse scandals. However, that finally caught up and bit them good right where it hurts.

If something is wrong in this world it is not simply ok to ignore it but to speak out about it, whether that be through art, music, journalism, etc.

This guys piece puts the focus right back on what alot of Christians wish would just go away.

Originally posted by seagull
If an artist depicted the central figure in a major religion, to which quite literally billions subscribe, partaking in a sex act, I'd be outraged. That this artist (?) portrayed the central figure in a major religion doing just that is outrageous, and deliberately offensive.

Don't anyone attempt to tell me that's not what he had in mind from the beginning. He set out to offend. He may say otherwise, and I'm sure he does...if so, he's a liar. Plain and simple.

Did you bother to read what the artist had to say about his reasons for making this artwork?
Are you telepathic, so you can know what was going on in his mind?

There is no need to do this sort of thing. You find religion tedious, even odious? Then leave it alone, ignore it.

One could equally well say, "you find an artwork odius? Then leave it alone, ignore it.".
However, instead of ignoring the artist whose work you find odius, you insult him, and even call him a liar if he defends himself from your insults.
It's pretty hypocritical to use your free speech to insult someone, while insisting they were wrong to use their free speech to insult someone.

To give deliberate offense is stupidity written large, and does no good at all.

You have just given deliberate offense to the artist, and to all those who appreciate him and his work.

Seagull, Christianity, as it has been practiced, has damaged many people in this world.

One can't just ignore it when the largest Christian sect is still covering for its priests when they rape children, still trying to prevent the use of contraceptives, thus making sure even more people die of AIDs, still trying to prevent legal access to abortion, still vilifying homosexuals, and still teaching children that they are eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus at the eucharist. And it's not only the Catholic church. Hillsong, the fastest growing church in Australia, was founded by a convicted paedophile, has gained great influence politically, and is busy stuffing up peoples' lives too.

People have a right to use legal means to hit back.

Do you want freedom of speech, or freedom from being offended?
You cannot have both.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


So, to put it simply... if something is bad we should speak out against it and let our opinions be known otherwise there wont be any progress in society?

I can agree with that.

Seems like you and me differ greatly on what is good and what is harmful though. You would say that religion is harmful and holding us back, and then also point to the numerous wars and things happening within certain sects of the church.

I'll tell you what, you point out something bad about the church, and I'm likely to agree with you wholeheartedly. There are too many corrupt churches and church leaders out there. That doesn't mean that it is right for a person to mock our God in such a distasteful way.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is sinful and wrong. More than that, I believe it is ripping apart family values and destroying our society. As a result, I may go protest something that would allow for gay marriage, but what you wouldn't see is me painting a picture of a couple of gay men or women lit on fire while having sex with a a real big "Flamers!" text right above them. No, instead I would treat homosexuals as I would anyone else and help them as best I could while still fighting to keep marriage what I believe it was meant to be, between one man and one woman. To anyone who IS offended by the above metaphor, I do apologize, as I am simply trying to make a point.

I still hold that while this man had the Right to paint whatever he so desired, it does not make it Right.

reply to post by Mykahel

So, to put it simply... if something is bad we should speak out against it and let our opinions be known otherwise there wont be any progress in society?

I can agree with that.

I suspect there's many things we'd agree on, starting with the ethical Golden Rule (which existed way before christianity): do unto others as you would be done by. However, not quite your simplification: I say that if we think &/or feel something is bad, we should voice our opinion & then let it stand on its own 2 feet, to be judged by our peers, without attempting to claim special treatment for some ideas over others, b/c we must accept that we may be, at least partially, wrong (ie I accept that people can 'do' my ideas, just as I can theirs).
I dont get exercised over the wars that have been fought in the name of religion b/c imo, religion was the excuse, not the cause. If I asked a bunch of ordinary people to come with me, whilst I stand at the back & they wade through the blood & guts of friend & foe alike, at considerable risk to themselves, so that I'll be in charge of some new resources & they'll be either dead, maimed, or pretty much as they are now, they'd tell me to stop my sabre from rattling by shoving it where the sun dont shine. Get them hopped up on any ideology tho...
My disagreement with, particularly Abrahamic, religion are about some of the beliefs. To whit: misogyny; aversion or need to control sex, particularly promiscuity & homosexuality; promotion of patriarchal hierarchy; but the worst is the most subtle...
The laziness of thought promoted by the encouragement to view things as good or evil/black or white. Even somebody who is prepared to think a little further, thus recognising that outside maths we are vanishingly unlikely to know enough about a subject to confidently place anything at either extreme, can only but work with a shade of grey. How about the rainbow?

Rule 34 and 35, it was inevitable...