Blasphemy?

georgieporgy

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

I must dream up and paint up something very offensive and controversial to Protestants or Perhaps Gays or Immigrants to get noticed, as I'm a Catholic the press will be all over it like a rash hypocritically condemning me, then I can get a state institution to pay me taxpayers money to host a public exhibition of it on their property. The precedent has been set now. Easy money. I am an Artist after all.

just paint any kind of picture of Mohammed (PBUH) and you'll be in for it.

sorry, can't think of anything that might be offensive to protestants or gays just yet.

As for the artist's mockery of the sacred image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, which as noted previously has been criticised by bishop Buckley who is the person with authority in the diocese of Cork/Ross, it is a sin against the virtue of purity and a serious scandal. If some christians are not bothered by it , I can assure them that her son won't be quite so nonchalant.

Turtwig

georgieporgy wrote: »

just paint any kind of picture of Mohammed (PBUH) and you'll be in for it.

sorry, can't think of anything that might be offensive to protestants or gays just yet.

As for the artist's mockery of the sacred image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, which as noted previously has been criticised by bishop Buckley who is the person with authority in the diocese of Cork/Ross, it is a sin against the virtue of purity and a serious scandal. If some christians are not bothered by it , I can assure them that her son won't be quite so nonchalant.

What about turning the other cheek?

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

As for the artist's mockery of the sacred image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, which as noted previously has been criticised by bishop Buckley who is the person with authority in the diocese of Cork/Ross, it is a sin against the virtue of purity and a serious scandal. If some christians are not bothered by it , I can assure them that her son won't be quite so nonchalant.

It's precisely because people have made a mountain out of this molehill that we are even discussing this. Instead of complaining about the art that other people produce wouldn't it be better if Christians contributed to art / literary works / academia in a positive manner? Wouldn't it be better if we found new ways to engage with the public about the big questions in a way that would allow them to speak their mind without fear of some form of fatwa being cast upon them. Where would Jesus want us to be in the 21st century? Would He want us to be living and active in showing the grace and mercy that He made for us on the cross, or would He want us to turn into Pharisees?

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

sorry, can't think of anything that might be offensive to protestants or gays just yet.

There are thousands of statues of Mary in Ireland that are offensive to Protestants.

gimmebroadband

PDN wrote: »

There are thousands of statues of Mary in Ireland that are offensive to Protestants.

Do you speak for ALL Protestants or is it your own dislike of Mary's statues? I have relatives that are Protestants and it doesn't bother them either way!! My own mother is a Catholic convert from Protestant!!

Turtwig

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Do you speak for ALL Protestants or is it your own dislike of Mary's statues?

Very interesting choices you gave him there.
"Do you speak for ALL protestants?"
Clearly he doesn't
"Or is it your own"
Did he say use the word "I" there?

I'm just pointing out the intrinsic assumption you made there without even realising it.:)

Morbert

I have relatives who are catholic and the art exhibition doesn't bother them.

gimmebroadband

Malty_T wrote: »

Very interesting choices you gave him there.
"Do you speak for ALL protestants?"
Clearly he doesn't
"Or is it your own"
Did he say use the word "I" there?

I'm just pointing out the intrinsic assumption you made there without even realising it.:)

He didn't say SOME Protestants found statues of Mary offensive!
And I asked a valid questin whether he personally found statues of Mary offensive!

I'm just pointing out the instrinsic asumptions you made there!

gimmebroadband

Morbert wrote: »

I have relatives who are catholic and the art exhibition doesn't bother them.

I have family who are Catholics and don't even practice their faith, and they wouldn't give a hoot about the exhibition or anything else for that matter!

philologos

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Do you speak for ALL Protestants or is it your own dislike of Mary's statues? I have relatives that are Protestants and it doesn't bother them either way!! My own mother is a Catholic convert from Protestant!!

It doesn't have to be all or even a majority. Many people find many things blasphemous. It doesn't mean that the Government should bend over backwards trying to ensure that something isn't blasphemous because ultimately in many cases some believers find another believers views blasphemous. Never mind about non-believers.

Turtwig

gimmebroadband wrote: »

He didn't say SOME Protestants found statues of Mary offensive!
And I asked a valid questin whether he personally found statues of Mary offensive!

I'm just pointing out the instrinsic asumptions you made there!

Nope you gave him an either/or question. It should be obvious that unless the person states so explicitly that no one person speaks for everyone. Anyways, I was just trying to help.

gimmebroadband

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't have to be all or even a majority. Many people find many things blasphemous. It doesn't mean that the Government should bend over backwards trying to ensure that something isn't blasphemous because ultimately in many cases some believers find another M

Most Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant knows that the Mother of God as depicted in the bible didn't dress up in a floral bikini, I'm sure most would agree with that!!! Many statues of Mary are a work of art such as Michelangelo's Pieta etc, complete with the proper clothing worn at the time Jesus walked the earth, I cannot fathom how that would be offensive!!!

gimmebroadband

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope you gave him an either/or question. It should be obvious that unless the person states so explicitly that no one person speaks for everyone. Anyways, I was just trying to help.

I apologise!

Fanny Cradock

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Most Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant knows that the Mother of God as depicted in the bible didn't dress up in a floral bikini, I'm sure most would agree with that!!! Many statues of Mary are a work of art such as Michelangelo's Pieta etc, complete with the proper clothing worn at the time Jesus walked the earth, I cannot fathom how that would be offensive!!!

By that logic the Creation of Adam is a work of blasphemy because we all know God the Father is spirit, not flesh. And what's all this about robes and beards?

mdebets

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many statues of Mary are a work of art such as Michelangelo's Pieta etc, complete with the proper clothing worn at the time Jesus walked the earth, I cannot fathom how that would be offensive!!!

You are aware that this is only a recent development (in RCC terms) and that for most of its history, statues and paintings of the virgin Mary with her breasts exposed were quite common (if you don't know it, Google for 'Our Lady of La Leche'). The change to not longer use these pictures and statues of Mary or to cover her up is ironically attributed to the 'prude' Protestants.

Some interesting reads (couldn't unfortunately not find the original article from L'Osservatore Romano) here, here and here.
Apparently even the Vatican wants to start and undress these pictures of Mary again.

And on a side note. The vast majority of pictures and statues of Mary (or Jesus or any of the other people from their time) don't show the clothes worn at the time of Jesus, but rather the clothes worn at the time of the painting.

mehfesto

mdebets wrote: »

And on a side note. The vast majority of pictures and statues of Mary (or Jesus or any of the other people from their time) don't show the clothes worn at the time of Jesus, but rather the clothes worn at the time of the painting.

That's a very good point. Even the Renaissance masters were guilty of this (shaved eyebrows on one Mary depiction, as far as I can remember!)

People take offense at her being 'ridiculed', by wearing a bikini, but why are people not offended that she's commonly depicted as caucasian, when it's most likely she was not? Or indeed that she always wore blue when she could not afford it? (Blue in the regions where she lived would have come from Lapis Lazuli - a rare gemstone, grind down to make this primary colour for garments.)...etc, etc.

Some things are accepted because they fit in with an understood 'ownership' of of Mary (i.e. she's X, but not Y). Who decided this, though? We'll never know what she looked like - surely SHOWING her as something you don't think she is, is really challenging your faith? I'd be worried if it did.

gimmebroadband

Many Church approved apparitions, where seers describe the clothing Mary wears, and it's often White and or Blue. Many statues of Mary are instantly recognised as Our Lady Of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima, based on the decription of the seers that saw them!

Morbert

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many Church approved apparitions, where seers describe the clothing Mary wears, and it's often White and or Blue. Many statues of Mary are instantly recognised as Our Lady Of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima, based on the decription of the seers that saw them!

And that doesn't strike you as odd? That a Middle-Eastern woman would be caucasian?

As another example, consider this picture of Mary with Jesus.

Bob Cratchet

Surely you're not that stupid folks.

That's a picture of our Lady of China. It's not a photograph.

It's a beautiful and peaceful artistic representation demonstrating that Our Lady represents ALL Women and Motherhood, regardless of race or creed.

Here's Our Lady of Africa.

gimmebroadband

.....and the Black Madonna!

lmaopml

It's no surprise that Our Lady is depicted with the culture in mind in different cultures. Mostly she is depicted with her son and fully clothed, and almost anybody would recognise who she is no matter whether she was black, chinese or white etc. She is regarded as being modest, feminine, and motherly...the very first 'Christian'.

However, some artists may decide that they would like to express themselves a little more - you only have to look at the Sistine Chapel, or inside the vatican museum to see various artists representations of biblical episodes. I think Michealangelo was told to paint a few garments on some folk if memory serves me right?

Yes, the picture has some boobs underneath on some other person whoever they are meant to represent, and the depiction of our lady is kind of all flowery and garden of eden(ish). It's not your average painting, and it's not really very good imo either because it could really be anybody if it weren't on display in the 'Our Lady and other queer Santas' exhibition.

It's all in the title of the exhibition to me, and not anything to do with 'Artistic Talent' or even the flowery painting at all....

So, let em at it - it's crap....I hope nobody has to pay to view it up close..lol..

Waste of money, time and effort. Save up, go to Rome, see some real 'Art' and be blown away by just how much people vary in their Artistic depictions ( with better boobs etc. )...before telly and even since.

*This reminds me of an essay I once had that was similar 'Art for Arts sake, and other queer nonsensical X factor artists' :pac:

*I didn't really have that 'exact' essay..but it brings one to mind, I had long ago, in secondary..

Morbert

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Surely you're not that stupid folks.

That's a picture of our Lady of China. It's not a photograph.

It's a beautiful and peaceful artistic representation demonstrating that Our Lady represents ALL Women and Motherhood, regardless of race or creed.

Here's Our Lady of Africa.

I cannot understand why you would post that. You are implying that folks seem stupid because they think the picture is a photograph, despite the fact that nobody thinks it is a photograph. Our Lady of China, like Our Lady of Lourdes, or Our Lady of Fatima, is an artistic representation of a middle-eastern woman, contrary to what gimmebroadband said in post #168. The pictures reflect the cultural context of the artist and not the skin tone or facial features of Mary.

Incidentally, if what gimmebroadband says is true, and the woman depicted in Our Lady of Lourds or Fatima is what people claim to have seen, then that is a strong indication that the apparitions are hoaxes.

Bob Cratchet

Morbert wrote: »

Our Lady of China, like Our Lady of Lourdes, or Our Lady of Fatima, is an artistic representation of a middle-eastern woman

No, its an artistic representation of the universality of the Mother of God.
Or do you really like to think Catholics are so stupid they think Mary looked Chinese or Black ?

Incidentally, if what gimmebroadband says is true, and the woman depicted in Our Lady of Lourds or Fatima is what people claim to have seen, then that is a strong indication that the apparitions are hoaxes.

How so ? Below are some pictures of Palestinian Women.
and BTW Catholics are not required to believe in any private revelation such as Lourdes or Fatima.

Bob Cratchet

Our Lady of Fatima

Morbert

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

No, its an artistic representation of the universality of the Mother of God.
Or do you really like to think Catholics are so stupid they think Mary looked Chinese or Black ?

No, it is an artistic representation of a woman who would have been from the Mid-East. And again, your post makes no sense. Please explicitly point out anything I have written which would suggest that Catholics think Mary looked Chinese or Black because I cannot understand where you would have gotten that idea. What I said was it should strike Catholics as odd if they think Mary looked European. The mother of Jesus would have been Middle-Eastern.

How so ? Below are some pictures of Palestinian Women.

And here are some pictures of Our Lady of Fatima and Lourdes

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Images/NSraFatima.jpg

http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping143.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Pjy6KcyIrh8/RkWo_a0cXAI/AAAAAAAAAUI/e911kcuSQJw/s400/NSFtaima1.jpg

http://americaneedsfatima.blogspot.com/2009/06/lesson-about-rosary-from-our-lady.html

http://www.marypages.com/NovenaLourdes.htm

http://www.stjudeshop.com/resources/StJudeShop/images/products/processed/109560.zoom.a.jpg

Notice how she does not look Palestinian.

and BTW Catholics are not required to believe in any private revelation such as Lourdes or Fatima.

Good.