Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

reply to post by Wookiep


No, not really.

It doesn't make me happy to see people upset, regardless of belief. It does, however, make me smirk when people of a religious nature, whose tennants include 'forgiveness' and 'turn the other cheek', get so upset about the use of a Bible.

And yes, I have publicly stated my distaste for religion in general - but not any specific group. I don't, for example, dislike Christianity more than Islam or Buddhism more than Islam, etc. I don't 'hate' them. I just don't like them in general.

But back on topic....

Again my point is still unchanged. It's only a book. One edition of millions, no doubt, of the Bible.

Setting it alight, tearing pages out, writing naughty words on the pages or drawing salacious cartoons in it - how has ANY of those actions changed your faith or your belief in God or Jesus? How can it??

If it *has* - and you feel so invaded and repulsed by the action - then what is that saying about your faith and your belief? Is it that weak or questionable that any attack on printed pages that your religion is based on then throw it's validity into question?

THIS is what I was getting at. That's all.

For the record, I don't harbour any ill wishes to any of you guys out there - I just don't agree with you and don't see why you're upset

Originally posted by Wookiep
Do you have a faith that you believe that you are so strong and un-moving? To the point where you wouldn't take "offense" when someone hops on a thread and is so obviously sickend by your views simply to try to cause problems and more heated anger about a subject that just so happens to be the cornerstone of what you believe to be your very exsistance?

Nope. Nothing, to be honest. The only thing(s) that would get me "sickened" would be something like.. I dunno.. children or animals being abused. Or something whereby someone is being tortured or killed in some horribly violent way.

And that, matey, is a far cry different from someone scribbling, "Jesus has a small willie" with a byro in the margin of a page in a copy of the Bible in Glasgow!

That's about it, really.

My "very existance" is a small spec in the otherwise giant cosmos that is the universe. When I'm gone, I'm sure my energy will pop up again in some other form. Guess I'll just have to wait and see. Exciting, nonetheless!!

reply to post by noonebutme

Setting it alight, tearing pages out, writing naughty words on the pages or drawing salacious cartoons in it - how has ANY of those actions changed your faith or your belief in God or Jesus? How can it??

It doesn't at least not for me, waver *my* faith* at all.. That doesn't make the act any less disrespectful! It doesn't to me, make the act of vandalizing a "book" as you call it, at all justified. (book or not) Human beings should simply not take things that are obviously sacred to millions, and for thousands of years and step on it with or without the intent of being "expressive". You can view the *contents* of the "book" as moot if you want, but that is not the point. Please at least tell me that you can realize this one simple thing.

Moving on, I still don't get your whole motivation here. What are you trying to do here other than troll?

Originally posted by noonebutme
No, I'm pointing out that it's easy to wind up such people. I just don't care whether people 'like' what I say or not. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. And as it's my opinion, I'll continue to express or explain why I think so.

And I was/am contributing - I was illustrating the point that it's still just a book and any form of 'artistic license' applied to altering it, for whatever reason, shouldn't be taken so seriously by those that follow it.
...
[edit on 29-7-2009 by noonebutme]

You didn't illustrate the point that it's just a book. You illustrated that it's "just a book" in your framework. And no-one argued that fact. You didn't - and won't - change the fact that it's NOT just a book for so many people.

It's really no feat to illustrate that it's easy to wind up people. It's human nature to get upset if someone walks over something that is dear to you.
If I started blurting out obscenities about your mother I'm pretty sure you will get "wound up". Because (hopefully) your mother is dear to you and you will speak up if someone says something you don't like about her.
To me she's just another person. It would only be my opinion...
I can make up a dirty poem about her and call it art... But basic ethics prevents me from doing so - because I have respect for other people's mothers and for other people's feelings. Most people that want respect also know how to show respect.

Edit: Removed extra word.


[edit on 29-7-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by Killeonidas
Um,

Holy or Not its a just a book.

And if people want to kill people over defacing a book,


doesn't that go against the peace and harmony that is purportedly espoused by that book?

Art is love Love is Life

Problem is, scrawling over the Bible isnt art. Its a message. A message that is negative toward the Bible. Allowing people, infact encouraging people to scrawl over the Bible is encouraging people to disrespect it. I personally do not hold what the Bible says to be true, but MANY other people do, so to do that is not art, its a gesture, pointing out how they feel about the Bible and so everyone else should know.

HOW IS THAT ART? Art is defined as the creation of beautiful or significant things. Aspersion is defined as an attack on somebody's reputation or good name. Hmmm....I WONDER....

reply to post by Wookiep


clearly you are applying the childish label to yourself, i am therefore to assume you believe this artist shouldn't be able to exhibit their work because it's disrespectful of others beliefs, this is the attitude i find childish, so let me ask you this

who decides?

who decides what is respectful enough and what isn't? what criteria do they use?

Originally posted by Toughiv
Art is defined as the creation of beautiful or significant things.

by whom? clearly it isn't the creation of something that everyone finds beautiful or significant, an artist doesn't send out for a general consensus before creating a work.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Wookiep

 

clearly you are applying the childish label to yourself, i am therefore to assume you believe this artist shouldn't be able to exhibit their work because it's disrespectful of others beliefs, this is the attitude i find childish, so let me ask you this

who decides?

who decides what is respectful enough and what isn't? what criteria do they use?

Well thanks again for calling me and/or millions of others who don't tend to agree with discracing a belief that has been around thousands of years. You may be right, again I'm sorry for being a "baby"!

In rebuttal of your question, do YOU decide? It seems you think you have the right to call people babies who disagree with an act of disrespect? Maybe you are just as much of a baby?

Ultimately, I think when the masses decide. Maybe we live in a world now where it's ok to just step on peoples beliefs and call it "expression" AGAIN, maybe I *am* the baby. Think whatever you wish friend!

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Toughiv
Art is defined as the creation of beautiful or significant things.

by whom? clearly it isn't the creation of something that everyone finds beautiful or significant, an artist doesn't send out for a general consensus before creating a work.

Uch...you are one of these people. The ones that really deep down, know that their arguments hold no weight but yet still continue to argue on a technicality.

Right lets put it straight for you. If I thought "ART" was seeing what blood splatters I could create by shooting a magnum through random peoples heads against a white wall, id sure as hell be condemned, yes?! BUT TO ME THAT IS ART, I DONT NEED A GENERAL CONCENSUS.

FFS, you say that (cant remember the name) is childish? Think before you speak, (in this case...write).

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Toughiv]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Toughiv]

reply to post by Wookiep


again, you apply the label to yourself, none the less, sorry if my statement offended you, cripes.

art is the personal expression of the artist. the person who decides if something is art or not is the person who creates it, no-one else. the opinion of the masses is irrelevant.

There is a difference between pushing the boundaries and plain upsetting people.

There is a difference between freedom of thought and disrespect.

Cmon, stop nit-picking at language and general concepts and use your intelligence for better purposes.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
If I started blurting out obscenities about your mother I'm pretty sure you will get "wound up". Because (hopefully) your mother is dear to you and you will speak up if someone says something you don't like about her.

No, not at all. You can say what you want. "She's a whore, she's a druggie, she's a pedo, she's x, y and z"

I don't care. I know that she isn't, she knows she isn't. And that's all that matters. Why do I care what you think in that regard? It doesn't change anything.

See? This is what I was making reference to. Insulting my mum, as an example, doesn't mean anything to me.

I'm still not seeing why scribbling on the Bible is so disrespectful.

Originally posted by Toughiv
If I thought "ART" was seeing what blood splatters I could create by shooting a magnum through random peoples heads against a white wall, id sure as hell be condemned, yes?! BUT TO ME THAT IS ART, I DONT NEED A GENERAL CONCENSUS.

to call it art, no, you don't need a general consensus.

i'm pretty sure you wouldn't be condemned for the art although i'm fairly certain you'ld be condemned for the murder.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Wookiep

 

again, you apply the label to yourself, none the less, sorry if my statement offended you, cripes.

art is the personal expression of the artist. the person who decides if something is art or not is the person who creates it, no-one else. the opinion of the masses is irrelevant.

I didn't apply any label to myself, you did though quite clearly.

Anyway, thanks! Your position here has been stated,

reply to post by Wookiep


It should be left up to the individual, weither or not they find this art display offensive. Everyone in entitled to thier views.

What I find offensive, some dude who thinks he has some morale authority, trying to dictate to everyone else, what is offensive and what is not. When his own church has a history of being guilt of doing worse things than writtingmessages ina Bible.

Who says the bible belongs to him anyways? Benedict I mean. Does it have his name on it? No it does not.

reply to post by pieman


So you admit, there is a difference between art and the action to create the art. AND it is THAT ACTION that can be condemned?

I think you see where Im going with this...

Originally posted by Toughiv
There is a difference between pushing the boundaries and plain upsetting people.

There is a difference between freedom of thought and disrespect.

the artists stated point was that they found it offensive that homosexuals were written out of mainstream religion, christianity in particular. she found the thought offensive. she found the stance disrespectful. she made a statement about this.

should the christian churches therefore be stopped from saying they believe homosexuality is wrong?

reply to post by Laurauk


Benedict doesnt say that the Bible belongs to him. The Bible represents much more. It represents traditions etc. (I personally think its a loada crap, coz it has been cannonised, caused crusades etc.) but what he is saying has got a point.

It is a belief, a world religion, so to disrespect a book (that could well be written by the devil lol )that millions and millions hold dear, its not art. Its expression yes, but not art. Those who think it is art, have no taste.

Simple.

reply to post by Toughiv



He certainly thinks he speaks for Christianity as a whole.

Which he does not. He needs to be reminded of this, insead of spouting his corrupt doctorine to everyone. As I said before and will repeat, it should be up to the individual, weither or not this art display is offenisve. Not someone who heads a church so corrupt in the first place.

Then may I add that, others who find this art display offensive, have no taste in art either.

I would have to ask weither or not, the vatican is offended by the writting in bible,or the fact some of those visitors who wrotes messages in this bible, were homosexuals and Lesbians.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by Toughiv


the action may well be condemned but, where the action doesn't break any laws, the condemnation of the act is morally defunct at best and morally disgusting at worst.

some would argue that even where the act breaks the law but does not physically harm another, as a once off piece of art, it is acceptable.