Badmovies.org Forum

http://newsok.com/warr-acres-catholic-church-has-crucifix-some-say-shows-exposed-genitals-of-jesus/article/3453833?custom_click=rss


 An unfortunate stylistic choice on the part of the artist. What gets me is how quick these morally offended people are to assume thats what its supposed to be. It says an awful lot about where their own head is at.

I'm not morally offended, but it sure looks like a penis to me.  Then again, everybody already knows where my head is....

It does look like a wang, but it could just be tough abs.  Either it was a joke, or the artist was out to lunch on what he was creating. 

Remind you of anything?

(http://botropolis.com/wp-content/uploads/c3po.jpg)

Funny, because the first thing I thought was "abs". 'Ol JC's got himself a 4-pack, but the church-goers obviously have rock hard love pumps on the brain. You can always find something troublesome or offensive if you look "hard" enough.  :wink:

Plus, they should be proud if it is supposed to be a wang, 'cause 'ol JC seems to be lumbered with quite a hefty piece. I mean, he did have one right?

It looks like his twigs and berries to me, impressive ones at that.  Im not offended at all,I think its hilarious but im not a religious person. I can just imagine some of those ladies having all those "unclean" thoughts.  :tongueout:

The artwork is pretty ambiguous.  But you can harldy blame Christians for being a bit paranoid - we belong to the only religion that is 100% fair game for comedians, satirists, and the entire entertainment industry to mock, ridicule, and insult at will.  No one in Hollywood trashes Buddhism, or Hinduism, and certainly not Islam (Muslims WILL kill you for mocking their prophet!) - but every sitcom and most comedies manage to hit our faith a lick or two, and some make a full time occupation of it.  We just get a bit tired of it sometimes.

Hopefully in yer pants. 

More of your beautiful cut-to-the-quick commentary. 

It's bizarre anatomy - Christ has abs in his bladder, but is otherwise shrunken and starved.  I don't care how traditional or old the design is... it's dumb and ugly.  This is why we have words like "jettison" and "bad art".   :drink:

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/newsok-photos/912545/medium.jpg)

Apparently bizarre anatomy is many an artist's inspiration: 
(http://www.maryshop.com/images/T/pi_670.jpeg) 
(http://www.iconsbydelphia.com/images/damianocloseup2.jpg)
(http://www.maryshop.com/images/T/pi_689.jpeg)
 :bouncegiggle:  :lookingup:  :twirl:  :bouncegiggle:

Yep.  Just like it's fair game to make fun of whiteys like us.  When you're in power, you get crappy treatment.  :)

Oh well, at least you can get elected into positions of political power.  Unlike, say, the non-religious, who have to fake a religion to have any chance in politics or other elected offices.  About 1 in 7 people in the US is non-religious, and we don't have a single rep or senator representing our non-interests.  :-P

Also, the art looks like this because of the crappy art style in almost all the artwork of Europe in the dark ages.  It's as if in that period they forgot how to use proper perspective and anatomy, particularly in religious artworks.  I don't get it, personally.  But I've always thought it looked terrible.

That was certainly a truism for most of this nation's history, but I think it is becoming less so as time goes on.  Being the dominant faith in America for so long - not to mention the woeful antics of some who claim to represent Christ and His church - has painted a target on Christians to some other degree.

Nonetheless, we do sometimes grow weary of being Hollywood's constant punching bag!

Yeah, it's certainly understandable to find it getting tiresome.  Historically, Muslims (mostly Arabic muslims, of course) are portrayed extremely poorly as well - probably the group portrayed the worst of any in the overall history of Hollywood.  I mean, how many positive Islamic characters exist in mainstream Hollywood films made between 1940 and 2000 can you name?  Only one I can readily name is Azeem in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.   There are thousands of stock villainous muslims through all of the modern era of Hollywood.  They may not directly trash the religion itself on screen, but the overall picture Hollywood paints is extremely negative.

I'd also agree that on the whole the influence reached a peak (modern context, I mean) in the 90s or possibly early 2000s, and I think the modern Evangelical influence is actually driving a lot of people from religion in general in the US. 

Back to art for a moment.  For a bit of contrast and to show why I don't like most western art from the middle (AKA "Dark") ages..

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Karl_den_store_krons_av_leo_III.jpg)

Here's a 14th century piece of art.

Contrasted with something from a few hundred years later, religiously oriented like the pictures of Jesus above.

(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/artmuseum/exhibitions/archive/saints.jpg)

The genitalia one is kinda funny, but this one is my favorite religion-related fail..

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fail-owned-jesus-walmart-price-fail.jpg)

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

 :bouncegiggle:

 

For me, art of all sorts - not just religious art - peaked in the Renaissance.  Those old fellows knew how to breathe life into the canvas!

I agree there aren't a whole ton of positive Muslims portrayed in the movies in the last 40 years or so - but I will say that since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there haven't been a lot of positive Islamic role models.  Since the 70's, Muslims have primarily made the news for:

1.  Killing non-Muslims
2.  Killing fellow Muslims.
3.  Protesting against those who say that Islam is violent (and sometimes killing people in the process!)

Do Muslims do lots of good and positive things in the world?  Probably.  But those don't seem to make the news nearly as often!!

Along with Hellenic sculpture, I think Renaissance painting is my favorite artistic period.  It's certainly one of the top periods, that's for sure.  And in large part, that rebirth of the arts and sciences in the west is thanks in large part to Islamic countries.  Makes you wonder what happened in the intervening period to all those countries...


Yeah, but you can say the same general thing about Christianity in the news (think of the coverage of Fred Phelps, whose church has a total of less than 200 members).  I think the basic truth is negative stories about scandal and violence sell better than anything positive.  If they wanted positive stories, they could very easily find them in, say, Jordan, which is a very nice country.  Or amongst the US's 1.5 million muslims.

:bouncegiggle: OK, coffee nearly came out my nose when I saw that picture. I was expecting something much more ambiguous and it caught me off guard. It seriously looks like a superhuman boner sticking up. But only an idiot or a paranoid puritan would think it was intended to be anything but poorly-rendered abs. And it does not appear to be a unique image. Maybe Dan Brown can base his next book on the centuries-old conspiracy to hide naughty bits in Catholic art.

Funny, I went to school with a guy who is currently one of the world's prominent religious artists. We're talking big bronze statues for city churches and public spaces. I used to talk to him periodically for the paper, and one of his favourite topics was the lack of good religious art in churches, and good public art in general. He kind of fancies himself a throwback to the Renaissance, when his kind of art was thriving.

I dropped in on him when he was making this clay original a few years back. It's called "One Body." Note the accurate proportion of the abs. :teddyr: I forget how many identifiable saints and popes are in this ten-foot piece. Hundreds, I think. There's a diagram on his website.

http://www.sculpturebytps.com (http://www.sculpturebytps.com)
(http://www.sculpturebytps.com/HighRes/OneBody/OB.jpg)

If I'm completly honest, I don't see it... :question:

Ya, I'm not entirely sure what to think it could just be that the artist has a bad knowledge of anatomy and painted some rather phallic looking abs, or it could be intentional. In either case its a really ugly painting, I've never understood why churches put up a bleeding emancipated man, on a cross for people to look at and worship. Its rather morbid when you think about it.
Personally I can understand why some people are offended by it, it really does look like a penis, intentional or not and if the painting is so bad that you can't tell if its his abs or if he's going out like the old guy in Clerics, then it probably needs to be fixed.

The crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ are a central point of Christian theology.  Christians don't worship the Cross itself, but rather the one who died there and sacrificed Himself for the sins of all humanity.  "Substitutionary atonement" is the formal theological term.  I do agree that the Jesus represented in much medieval art is a very emaciated, effeminate figure.  The real Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter and probably had broad shoulders and a bone-crushing handshake!

As regards the artwork that started this thread, the more I look at it, the more phallic the image seems.  If it was deliberately done, it's a slap in the face to the church.  If it was unintentional, the guy REALLY needs some classes in anatomical drawing.

I'm such an idiot !!!!

I thought Andy's post was the topic starter !!!

Obviously I see it !

Yeh, that manly Jesus that you need to believe in... do you have any idea how starved most people were for most of human history (and still)? 

The artist is a woman. 

I thought the point of the images AHD posted was to show that the artist was following in a long (possibly centuries old) tradition of ab iconography, not coming up with her own interpretation.

John, you forget I am a historian.  Yes, Jesus was a real historical character and, as you point out, very human. I don't NEED to believe in a "manly" Jesus, I simply deduce that is probably what He was.  I doubt you could  make a living as a carpenter and itinerant preacher in such a rough and tumble, patriarchal society as the 1st century  Roman empire, even in a backwater like Judea, without having a tough physique - maybe not bulked up, but certainly wiry and strong to say the least.

And I am so sorry, I did not look at the artist's name and didn't realize she was female. 

And yes, I can see the similar outlines on the earlier posted works, but I think the phallic imagery on this one was so grotesquely exaggerated that it almost had to be deliberate.  How could anyone NOT see that?

That's right.  

Hey, first of all, my name is personal information not for you to peddle (or should I say piddle) on the web.  Secondly, I don't "forget" that you are a historian (or claim to be).  I state that last with doubt because you routinely demonstrate how your personal filters are firmly battened down without regard to objective analysis.  

Perhaps Jesus was underfed, sickly, exhausted, scrawny and mistreated.  You might be surprised how resilient a skinny person can be.  You don't know, nor do I.  Jesus spent 3 years living off of the auspices of those He preached to.  You think He was "broad shouldered," with that all-American "bone-crushing" handshake?   :lookingup:  Even He warned His closest followers: "I send you as sheep among wolves."

So read the article before jumping in with commentary.   :smile:  

Don't mind me, Indiana (the only name by which I know you) but your Jesus is a flag-waving, gun-totin', bone-crushin' Rambo that is alien to me.  I am determined to help you understand that you must not expect anything from any God you worship.  Nothing.  If you do expect, you miss the point of your faith.  Christianity is about sacrifice first.  

I didn't mean to offend you by using your name, AH.

I simply don't understand why you find my thoughts about Christ so inherently offensive.  I take the Jesus of the Gospels at face value, no more, no less.  Every carpenter I've ever known has been a physically strong man.  Weaklings simply didn't last long back then.  But I am sincerely sorry that I offended you.

My name is Lewis, BTW.  I am not offended if anyone uses it.

Same here. It looks like an exceptionally poorly-rendered copy of a copy of a copy of a crudely-rendered image that has become venerated as the accepted/expected image through repetiton over time.  It happens.  Tradition and familiarity makes it the 'stock' image - an 'icon' in every sense.  :wink:

Perhaps she was trying to modernise/improve the image by emphasising the '3-D' effect and erred disastrously.

If I'm reading him right, I think AHD is suggesting that we should not be too quick to define a deity according to our own values and expectations, which is exactly what those European artists did by painting Jesus as soft, effeminate and Caucasian, as opposed to a Jew who has spent over 30 years doing hard work in a harsh environment. He's divine, so he has to be clean and pure and beautiful and just like us. In that regard, I agree with you, except that you are, indeed, doing the same thing from your own perspective, making a pacifist John Wayne out of him. The lesson is right in the scriptures - the Jews themselves expected a warrior king to defeat their enemies, and they got a baby who grew up to preach tolerance, then surrendered without a fight. Jesus challenged the religious establishment of his time, and yet his most devout followers seem to think Christianity is about toeing the line and not questioning, rather than seeking enlightenment.

Myself, I think what is slowly killing religion in general is that it has traditionally been more about clinging to our preconceived ideas than it is about seeking truth. I don't believe there is any way we can possibly understand what God is like, and we never will if we insist on projecting our own values onto him/her/it. My 75-year-old mom is one of those people who thinks the Bible is a perfectly accurate account, and every story happened exactly as told. When I found that I couldn't accept it on those terms, I stayed away from church for about a decade and a half, until I came to understand that I didn't have to.

As an amateur paleontologist, I'm sure you can appreciate how ridiculous it is that some people will emphatically deny that dinosaurs existed because they'd rather believe the bones were left by God as a practical joke than accept that the creation story is not a literal account. To me, the process of evolution is far more miraculous than the idea that everything was assembled exactly as it is in a week. Would you not agree?

Religion has got to grow with us, or we're going to leave it behind, and that would be a tragedy. The first step is setting our own expectations aside and remaining open-minded.

Not offended... just making a point.  I do appreciate you, though sometimes I think you be thilly.   :wink:  

You're always thinking you're offending me, and you never do.  I'm just a candid and direct debater.  (Some people might put "master" in front of that instead of "duh".)  :tongueout:  
Every carpenter you've ever known?  (And mebbe had a platonic not-gay love fer?  :wink:)  Y'mean in privileged well-fed America?   :twirl: 

:bouncegiggle: Great.

I was prepared to come home mad at you, AHD, but you have totally disarmed me . . . again!

You are my favorite gadfly.



The picture still looks like an enormous dong.

The crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ are a central point of Christian theology.  Christians don't worship the Cross itself, but rather the one who died there and sacrificed Himself for the sins of all humanity.  "Substitutionary atonement" is the formal theological term.  I do agree that the Jesus represented in much medieval art is a very emaciated, effeminate figure.  The real Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter and probably had broad shoulders and a bone-crushing handshake!

As regards the artwork that started this thread, the more I look at it, the more phallic the image seems.  If it was deliberately done, it's a slap in the face to the church.  If it was unintentional, the guy REALLY needs some classes in anatomical drawing.
[/quote]
Ya I remember that from bible school, still doesn't make the image of a bleeding, starving man any more soul inspiring. Its like that figure of Jesus in Carrie, it's just a creepy image.

Ya I remember that from bible school, still doesn't make the image of a bleeding, starving man any more soul inspiring. Its like that figure of Jesus in Carrie, it's just a creepy image.
[/quote]

Um, I'm not a religious person at all, but that image has inspired billions of people for over 2000 years.  I think you're in the minority there.

It's somewhat helpful to think that if it had happened fairly recently, we might see Christians walking around with electric chairs dangling around their necks and adorning the tops of every church.  I can see why some find it strange.

But, I can also understand why people find someone suffering and dying for them to be inspiring.  Something can be strange and inspiring at the same time, after all.

Martyrdom is a powerful thing.

So who offended whom? 

And therefore you'd be my favorite closed-minded bible-thumping educator.  :tongueout:

On this we agree. 

Um, I'm not a religious person at all, but that image has inspired billions of people for over 2000 years.  I think you're in the minority there.
[/quote]

Well maybe I'm in the minority then, but I've always been creeped out by that image. I used to have nightmares about it when I was a kid.