|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 5:51:45 GMT
goz You can't see the obvious moral angle here is the core problem. but let me be crystal clear... it's showing disrespect towards Jesus Christ. which is obviously unwise to say the least. Well the Catholic church is started by Jesus Christ who basically put Peter as the first Pope and it went down through the generations til today (see Matthew 16 : 18 ; list of popes from Peter to date... www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm ). the Catholic church is THE church guided by God. or put it this way... the Catholic church is started by Jesus Christ, other denominations are started by man. a big difference here  or one last thing... if you got a bunch of random people reading the bible, there will be differing opinions on some more major teachings etc and they all can't be right. that's why you need one source who gets it right and that's where the Catholic church comes into play. it translates things correctly in major areas like faith/morals. the Magisterium is the Catholic churches teaching authority given by God and if inline with that is infallible teachings on faith/morals... catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htmthat's the gist of it No, your opinion, even if allegedly backed by the Catholic Church, has no more credence than any other. You act as thought there is an absolute objective set of morals at play here and there is not. An artists made an artwork and you reacted to it. Great! He did well. BTW. The Catholic Church was started by 'men' and the Bible was written by 'men'. No biggie!
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Sept 29, 2019 5:52:18 GMT
It is an act of disrespect to Christians. It is blasphemy. And it was an ingenious idea. I just don't understand why Serrano won't take credit for it. There is no way he made that to show the humanity of Christ. Have you read my posts and understood them? There is no such thing as 'blasphemy' for an unbeliever and the disrespect aspect is on those who feel disrespected. It is the intention of an artist to create an object/idea/concept to challenge people to think and feel about it. HOW they feel about his work is on them. This is precisely what makes it 'art' and not a piece of wood or metal in a random shape in a jar of urine. The artist is Catholic. His intent was to disrespect and provoke. That's the art. Have you read and understood my posts? And blasphemy is a word with a definition. You don't have to be religious to understand blasphemy. It's the act of profaning something in a religion. If I hang a dead pig on the door of a mosque I'm blaspheming Islam as a political act. It doesn't mean I believe in Allah.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 29, 2019 6:16:15 GMT
gozWell it's pretty clear cut the "art" in the topic is wrong. period. there is simply no debate as soaking a Crucifix in urine is blatant disrespect to God. but we have a differing view on morality at the core... I believe in objective morality, which is based around God, where as you tend to go with the flow of the world which makes up morality as it goes along which inevitably leads to moral decline after enough time passes as society drifts further away from God. because that's the natural consequence of those who reject God, they are really rejecting what's good, so disorder/immorality etc takes over.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 6:22:22 GMT
Have you read my posts and understood them? There is no such thing as 'blasphemy' for an unbeliever and the disrespect aspect is on those who feel disrespected. It is the intention of an artist to create an object/idea/concept to challenge people to think and feel about it. HOW they feel about his work is on them. This is precisely what makes it 'art' and not a piece of wood or metal in a random shape in a jar of urine. The artist is Catholic. His intent was to disrespect and provoke. That's the art. Have you read and understood my posts? And blasphemy is a word with a definition. You don't have to be religious to understand blasphemy. It's the act of profaning something in a religion. If I hang a dead pig on the door of a mosque I'm blaspheming Islam as a political act. It doesn't mean I believe in Allah. ...I like how you know his intentions when he has stated the opposite. I perfectly understand blasphemy and as I have said multiple time it is fictitious because it is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 6:24:55 GMT
goz Well it's pretty clear cut the "art" in the topic is wrong. period. there is simply no debate as soaking a Crucifix in urine is blatant disrespect to God. but we have a differing view on morality at the core... I believe in objective morality, which is based around God, where as you tend to go with the flow of the world which makes up morality as it goes along which inevitably leads to moral decline after enough time passes as society drifts further away from God. because that's the natural consequence of those who reject God, they are really rejecting what's good, so disorder/immorality etc takes over. Art is never 'wrong'. that is the whole point. I don't believe in objective morality because it has changed over time. Please explain how the morality of slavery acceptable in the Bible is objective when we find it morally objectional today.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Sept 29, 2019 6:45:13 GMT
The artist is Catholic. His intent was to disrespect and provoke. That's the art. Have you read and understood my posts? And blasphemy is a word with a definition. You don't have to be religious to understand blasphemy. It's the act of profaning something in a religion. If I hang a dead pig on the door of a mosque I'm blaspheming Islam as a political act. It doesn't mean I believe in Allah. ...I like how you know his intentions when he has stated the opposite. I perfectly understand blasphemy and as I have said multiple time it is fictitious because it is in the eye of the beholder. Nowhere in the dictionary does it says blasphemy requires belief. The best example of that would be Anton LaVey and his 'Satanic" religion. LaVey was an atheist who didn't believe there was a god or a devil. Yet he profaned the church. And I've been very clear that I believe Serrano is lying because he feared backlash. He was a Catholic committing blasphemy. Actually that's part of the art.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 7:28:31 GMT
...I like how you know his intentions when he has stated the opposite. I perfectly understand blasphemy and as I have said multiple time it is fictitious because it is in the eye of the beholder. Nowhere in the dictionary does it says blasphemy requires belief. The best example of that would be Anton LaVey and his 'Satanic" religion. LaVey was an atheist who didn't believe there was a god or a devil. Yet he profaned the church. And I've been very clear that I believe Serrano is lying because he feared backlash. He was a Catholic committing blasphemy. Actually that's part of the art. It doesn't need to. Look at the 'definition'! It is full of other words that are subjective like 'sacrilege', 'sacred' and 'profane'. It is possible to understand that others see it as 'blasphemous, however if ( like me) you don't believe, then those words are meaningless in reference to me. Example: I say 'God sucks donkey balls'. To me that is my opinion about some things that God is alleged to have done in the OT. The religious would say I am saying something blasphemous, and I would disagree, as I am merely stating an opinion and in my view it is the truth. To me it is a little like when someone sues you in Court for libel or slander and your defence is whether or not the statement was true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 8:50:03 GMT
IMO, do not mess with GOD
Exactly! ; some people have no standards as stuff like that is a blatant attack on Christianity (and basically a attack on God) under the guise of "art".
He's obviously not a Catholic if he does something like this. if he claims to be Catholic ill bet he's pretty much Catholic in name only as he's pretty much going with the flow of the world to do something like this as ill bet someone like him rarely if ever prays etc. Stop casting judgement on who is and who isn't a Catholic. It is you His Holiness has told to leave the Holy Roman Catholic Church... Your type isn't welcome any more... You aren't a Catholic, you are an evangelical fundo. You turned your back on the Holy Roman Catholic Church when you entered your ideological ecumenism of hate. As His Holiness says, you are preaching Christ, but aren't Christian. We aren't afraid of schism. You have turned your back on the Catholic Church, and now it is turning it's back on your unholy alliance. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 29, 2019 9:06:36 GMT
Exactly! ; some people have no standards as stuff like that is a blatant attack on Christianity (and basically a attack on God) under the guise of "art".
He's obviously not a Catholic if he does something like this. if he claims to be Catholic ill bet he's pretty much Catholic in name only as he's pretty much going with the flow of the world to do something like this as ill bet someone like him rarely if ever prays etc. Stop casting judgement on who is and who isn't a Catholic. It is you His Holiness has told to leave the Holy Roman Catholic Church... Your type isn't welcome any more... You aren't a Catholic, you are an evangelical fundo. How many times have you said I wasn't a Christian, Father Jack? You seem to think it's going to hurt my feelings or something. So Maya and I drove you off this board with our "homophobia" and "bigotry," did we? It didn't take you long to come crawling back under an assumed name, did it, you simple Irish buffoon?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProjectError on Sept 29, 2019 9:11:54 GMT
Exactly! ; some people have no standards as stuff like that is a blatant attack on Christianity (and basically a attack on God) under the guise of "art".
He's obviously not a Catholic if he does something like this. if he claims to be Catholic ill bet he's pretty much Catholic in name only as he's pretty much going with the flow of the world to do something like this as ill bet someone like him rarely if ever prays etc.
either way, it makes no difference if he meant no offense by it etc, it should be obvious to him you just don't do that, period! ; it's clearly showing disrespect for Jesus Christ regardless if you intended that or not. personally I think he surely must have known it was disrespectful as it's just too hard to believe someone meant no disrespect given the name of that piece of 'art'.
Did you know that there is no actual thing as 'blasphemy' because it is only shared by a certain percentage of people ie religious people. I know that it can exist for them, however it is meaningless to me hence non-existent in my worldview. No, blasphemy applies to all, not just those who believe in the word's existence. An atheist is being blasphemous by being an atheist. God said so, somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProjectError on Sept 29, 2019 9:16:44 GMT
The artist is Catholic. His intent was to disrespect and provoke. That's the art. Have you read and understood my posts? And blasphemy is a word with a definition. You don't have to be religious to understand blasphemy. It's the act of profaning something in a religion. If I hang a dead pig on the door of a mosque I'm blaspheming Islam as a political act. It doesn't mean I believe in Allah. ...I like how you know his intentions when he has stated the opposite. I perfectly understand blasphemy and as I have said multiple time it is fictitious because it is in the eye of the beholder. Some women told me I was stalking her when I showed up at her house unexpectedly. I explained to her that "stalking" is completely meaningless to me in my worldview. It is a subjective in the eye of the beholder. To me, I am just being friendly. Do ya see what's wrong with this picture?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 29, 2019 10:06:03 GMT
Destroyed? Can’t they just refill it? It’s a photo so he should still have a negatives. But why not be brave and redo the artwork with a set of Avengers action figures because we all know how dangerous nerds are.
|
|
|
|
Post by ᵗʰᵉᵃᵘˣᵖʰᵒᵘ on Sept 29, 2019 10:29:33 GMT
It’s a photo so he should still have a negatives. But why not be brave and redo the artwork with a set of Avengers action figures because we all know how dangerous nerds are. Because DC, in typical fashion, will inevitably copy them and release an artwork featuring faeces-covered figures. But they won’t be as poopular.
|
|
|
|
Post by ᵗʰᵉᵃᵘˣᵖʰᵒᵘ on Sept 29, 2019 10:37:56 GMT
It surely can be wrong as it's soaking a Crucifix, which represents God, in urine (sort of like peeing on a crucifix, which is obviously disrespectful). you just don't do that as people lack decency/standards nowadays. but as the saying goes... 'you reap what you sow'. some people have it coming. I can't really be any more obvious than this. but the godless types like you try to say anything to justify something that's obviously disrespectful/wrong. it's something decent people just don't do. Yeah, it’s perfectly understandable that God idly stands by while hundreds of children in Third World countries die from preventable diseases each day yet what’s truly offensive to Her is a piece of carved, painted wood and metal immersed in wee-wee. She’s got her priorities straight, that God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Sept 29, 2019 10:40:50 GMT
I think Serrano is being disingenuous. Though I don't necessarily agree with the implications of the work itself, it was so obviously created to be blasphemous and take a jab at Christianity. Yes, Jesus was human. But if I were to take a picture of Martin Luther King or Gandhi and cover it with excrement and call it art, would liberals and atheists be so accepting of it? No, it would obviously be a repudiation of what those men stood for, equality and civil rights for all. So Serrano cannot tell me he merely wanted to show the humanity of Christ. He was attacking Christianity for the crusades and the witch trials and the intolerance of Christian fundamentalists. Serrano obviously got cold feet when he was attacked in the media and put forward a cover story. I spent an entire year at University studying 'What is Art'? Even then it wasn't long enough. I could've told you in 30 minutes and that would've been more than enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 29, 2019 11:18:34 GMT
It’s art but whether or not it is good art is up to the individual.
Personally I think it’s a good image but the waffle going on behind it all is annoying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 11:28:06 GMT
The real question is, if that's actually the artists piss? He should get his kidneys checked, I think they're struggling. Looks more like it's a cheap crucifix photographed behind honey or a piece of amber. Compare Serrano's alleged 'piss', with that of the urine in 'Lego Piss Christ'...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Sept 29, 2019 11:28:08 GMT
IMO, do not mess with GOD
Exactly! ; some people have no standards as stuff like that is a blatant attack on Christianity (and basically a attack on God) under the guise of "art".
He's obviously not a Catholic if he does something like this. if he claims to be Catholic ill bet he's pretty much Catholic in name only as he's pretty much going with the flow of the world to do something like this as ill bet someone like him rarely if ever prays etc.
either way, it makes no difference if he meant no offense by it etc, it should be obvious to him you just don't do that, period! ; it's clearly showing disrespect for Jesus Christ regardless if you intended that or not. personally I think he surely must have known it was disrespectful as it's just too hard to believe someone meant no disrespect given the name of that piece of 'art'.
You have no idea what’s in Serrano’s heart. And a LOT worse than disrespect being done/has been done in his name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 29, 2019 12:35:54 GMT
It’s a photo so he should still have a negatives. But why not be brave and redo the artwork with a set of Avengers action figures because we all know how dangerous nerds are. Because DC, in typical fashion, will inevitably copy them and release an artwork featuring faeces-covered figures. But they won’t be as poopular. Disney will counter that by releasing Poo Bear.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 21:15:44 GMT
Did you know that there is no actual thing as 'blasphemy' because it is only shared by a certain percentage of people ie religious people. I know that it can exist for them, however it is meaningless to me hence non-existent in my worldview. No, blasphemy applies to all, not just those who believe in the word's existence. An atheist is being blasphemous by being an atheist. God said so, somewhere. Nope! Jesus fucking Christ on a bike I never blaspheme!
|
|
