Bibles and witchhunts

Boys this is what I keep telling you nice people like Peter and Graham. You have a lot more in common with us atheists than you do with this mob of slavering loons. Do you really believe that loud-hailer wielding nutjobs are "saved" in Christ as you believe yourselves to be? Do you really believe that by grace God has decided to admit these knuckle-dragging bigots into the New Jerusalem, and consign thoughtful provocative (and devastatingly sexy - let's face it) freethinkers to the flames?

No - I thought not.

-H (Hellboundopolitan)

A few years ago I was asked to take part in a BBC television programme called Edinburgh Nights which covered what was happening at the festival.

I was asked to look at an exhibition by photographer Andres Serano and in paricular at one image which showed a crucifix suspended in a yellow background. It was certainly a very beautiful, serene, peaceful image. (Strange for a picture portraying such a violent and evil act.)

I began to ponder what I was going to say to camera, then looked down at the frame. The picture was entitled "Christ - ***" (I dont want to risk being moderated so you'll have to guess the second word, suffice to say that the cause of the yellow background in the image was that the crucifix was suspended in human urine.)

I immediately smiled as the meaning (for me) suddenly emerged. During the ensuing interview I stated that I liked the image, it spoke to me of Christ being among the so called dregs of society, the filth, the unpallatable, those whom others would turn their noses up at in disgust.

I gave the view that maybe Serano is putting Christ back where he always wanted to be, among those considered to be human waste, and that the image would certainly offend those who have hijacked Christ and turned him into some sort of imoffensive, halo wielding, teacher of prudential morality. I said that morally omnipotent busybodies everywhere would be enraged.

The next day I was lambasted with calls from Christian morally omnipotent busybodies who were enraged, (calling for me to be defrocked, whatever that actually means.) They said I was a scandal.

Others, who had to endure being looked down on and treated like dirt on a daily basis by Christain morally omnipotent busybodies simply said, "Hey, saw you on the telly last night, big man!"

I used to work in a bookshop where one of the annoyances was a handful of Christians that came in a scrawled slogans over the pages of some of the ‘new age’ books as well as those such as the Bhagavad Gita etc. Some we caught and barred, others got away with their vandalism. They may or may not have been aware of the fact that all stock in a bookshop has actually been bought by the store, so the shop lost money on the defaced books. (We ended up selling them at a reduced price, as shop soiled, to bemused customers.)

Intolerance towards any views other than their own seems to be a characteristic of those that are strongly religious.

Jay, you should have marked them *up*! They would be collectors' items.

I used to go into the Faith Mission bookshop and hide the creationist books behind crate after crate of Willie McCrea albums. No-one would ever find them there!

Helio

You went to the Faith Mission to hide books, now that is funny! I mean was it some kind of covert, one book at a time up your jumper exercise? And, like, did you sing or whistle or anything? 'Seek Ye First', perhaps?

"Do you really believe that loud-hailer wielding nutjobs are "saved" in Christ as you believe yourselves to be?"

No idea! Some of the time I've no idea about me either. And please, no one tell me that I know he lives because he lives within my heart.

What I will say is that if I am written into the margins of the story of God's "relationship with a historical people." (to quote a professor!), that's good enough for me. :-)

#3 - jayfurneaux -

"Intolerance towards any views other than their own seems to be a characteristic of those that are strongly religious."

I think you’ll find that such intolerance, although certainly practised by some religious people, is a problem of human nature and not limited to any particular worldview. Frankly, if all atheists are overflowing with tolerance, then I think a serious - and Orwellian - redefinition of the word 'tolerance' needs to be formulated (see post #4 for evidence to support my argument).

#1 - helio -

"You have a lot more in common with us atheists than you do with this mob of slavering loons. Do you really believe that loud-hailer wielding nutjobs are "saved" in Christ as you believe yourselves to be?"

Helio, let me try hard to be nice to you in what I am about to say. I'll try not to shout, but you, for your part, do me the honour of exercising a bit of logic - it's not that difficult ya know.

Deep breath... count to 10... now here goes...

Have you ever heard of such a thing as a 'false Christian'? Or do you think that we Christians are so cognitively comatose and sapientially challenged that we assume that any brainless bigot who calls himself a Christian must be one of our genuine co-religionists?

In fact, one of the themes of our book (you know the one - that notorious "dodgy dossier") concerns imposters and charlatans. Even if you don’t wish to indulge yourself in a belief in the devil, please at least take this verse as a metaphor: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Now I am fully cognisant of the fact that quoting the Bible to you will not make any significant impression on that wondrous whirlwind of activity within your cranial cavity, but I am simply making the point, on what we regard as good authority, that we do not "really believe that loud-hailer wielding nutjobs are [necessarily] 'saved' in Christ..." Please note my presumptuous insertion of the word "necessarily". This is because there is such a thing as mercy, and this mercy may extend to "loud-hailer wielding nutjobs" as it also does to loud-hailer wielding not very thoughtful atheists (note to myself: tut tut, that wasn't very nice to helio now, was it?!).

Now concerning 'hell', a subject you have brought up a couple of times. Here's a little logic for you.

I am assuming, when you talk about 'hell', that you are referring to the Christian concept of it. If (very hypothetically speaking, you understand) God does not exist, then clearly hell does not exist. So no need to worry about the idea of hell then.

But if hell exists, then God must exist. We assume that the word 'God' implies the Creator of all things - including our minds. Now suppose I believe in God, but hate his guts, cos I think he's, to quote you verbatim, a 'narcissistic tyrant', then it follows that I think he is wrong, because his ways are evil. But how is it possible for me to believe in God and think he is wrong, since he created the only means by which I am able to think he is wrong - viz, my mind? How could I trust the thoughts of a mind created by such a nasty and evil tyrant?

So logic says that either one should be an atheist, or a Christian (OK, for the sake of argument I am putting other religions to one side, sorry Hindus, Muslims etc...). The one thing that makes no logical sense is to believe in God and hate him, since it is impossible to justify hating the one who created your own mind. So far better to try and understand God than to jump to simplistic conclusions.

Therefore those who insist on throwing themselves into hell are rather logically challenged, in my opinion. But I guess that's why you're an atheist, and we take your "hell" comments as just a "figure of speech"?

Finally... #4 -

"I used to go into the Faith Mission bookshop and hide the creationist books behind crate after crate of Willie McCrea albums. No-one would ever find them there!"

When I was doing some Christmas shopping (sorry, 'festive' shopping) in Waterstones I had a similar urge to hide "The God Delusion" under a pile of other more intellectually worthy books (such as Al Murray The Pub Landlord, or something like that), but thought better of it, because why should we be afraid of freedom of speech?

And so what are you afraid of....? A scientist afraid of a contrary theory? Perish the thought!!!

LSV

post # 6

Are you attempting to beat me at 'silliest post of the year'??!

#7 - RJB -

It was a good try, wasn't it? The year is still young though...

I hope Helio enjoys reading it, and if not, to quote Jane Clarke, he "does not have a right not to be offended."

I've just read the Times article about Bridget McConnell (and I think the quote in my message #8 came from her and not Jane Clarke).

While I deplore the reaction against her, is it not possible that those who send her obscene messages could argue that they are engaging in a form of "art", and that she should accept that? They would have a point, actually.

If McConnell's "art" is offensive and "no one has the right not to be offended" then why is she offended by people's reactions? What is she moaning about? Unless there are definite threats against her, then she should not be offended by people's words, according to her own way of thinking.

If "everything goes" then "everything goes". If someone sends her their "work of art" with the words "filth" or "you are sad and sick" on it, and she is offended, is that not the same as Christians taking offence at the provocative art which she is promoting?

It seems to me that there are double standards here. It is culturally acceptable to offend Christians (along with gypsies and travellers), but of course we know the sort of groups we must never offend!

So much for our freethinking and liberated secular society.

LSV:

You say: "If hell exists, then God must exist". Do you mean literally or metaphorically? According to Sartre, "hell is other people. Reading some of these posts, I know what he meant.

You say: Either one should be an atheist or a Christian". Is this the law of the excluded middle? Or the fallacy of same? It also sounds a tad intolerance: what about agnostics, sceptics, doubters? Are they being illogical?

You say: "the one thing that makes no logical sense is to believe in God and hate him, since it is impossible to justify hating the one who created your own mind". Really, I know many people who seem to hate themselves, are depressed or even suicidal. In any case, 'God' might be immoral, amoral, indifferent to human fate. Is it not possible for a survivor of the Haiti earthquake to believe in a God and yet hate him for what he thinks he has done".

The one thing that certainly isn't logical is your nom de plume. How about 'Confusus sine humilitas'?

LSV - post # 9.

What annoys me here is your presumption that anything is or can be art. Tracey Emin's unmade bed is art, my unmade bed is unfortunately not art. A well thought-out project with many historical references which illuminates a truth about human experience is art, semi-literate scrawls screaming hatred might (if judiciously selected and arranged) have the potential to become art but they are not of themselves art. Your view of art debases one of the greatest of human endeavours.

I think it important to point out too that the artist is herself a Christian and the artwork speaks of Christian experience - many Christians, far from being offended by the work, will thoroughly approve.

Ah, LSV my dear petal, you know how to make an old man happy. The bad news for RJB is that he isn't in your league ;-)

But how is it possible for me to believe in God and think he is wrong, since he created the only means by which I am able to think he is wrong - viz, my mind? How could I trust the thoughts of a mind created by such a nasty and evil tyrant?

See, this is where facile ontological thinking lets you down, and badly. You are assuming that because a god created your mind (I'm humouring your little fiction here - we really evolved, but let's work with the pixie tale anyway), that it is necessarily bound by its creator. However, we know mathematically, provably, logically that that is not a limit. I have previously mentioned the Turing machine. Your brain can function as a Turing machine. It can carry out activities that were not programmed in initially. It is more complex than its generative system. I'll not bore you with the details, but it is a mathematical fact that simple rules can and do give rise to dazzlingly complex behaviour, so even if your evil tyrant pixie *had* created your brain, it would have no control over how it turned out.

So your objection is mere ontological frippery, and has no bearing on the real world (why change the habit of a lifetime, eh? ;-) The simple can beget the complex. Even if a god exists, it is not responsible for what is in my brain (heck, even you pixie huggers agree with this), so I do indeed claim every right to stand in judgement over whatever pixies you propose. Otherwise you're not really proposing anything more uplifting than Sandra or Jason (the two aunties).

So drop the ontological fallacies, LSV. You owe it to yourself. Think outside that restrictive little box - there is a whole big world out here. Come and explore, rather than lecturing from inside the box what you THINK it might be like outside. You're just preaching to cardboard walls, and the rest of us are playing in the sunshine.

#12 - Heliopolitan -

"So drop the ontological fallacies, LSV. You owe it to yourself. Think outside that restrictive little box - there is a whole big world out here. Come and explore, rather than lecturing from inside the box what you THINK it might be like outside. You're just preaching to cardboard walls, and the rest of us are playing in the sunshine."

What you don't seem to realise, Mr Helio (and the rest of your fellow playmates and proselytisers), is that I do know what it is like in your imaginary "big world outside". I've been there already in my life. And no, I do not owe it to myself to go back down into the dark cellar of banal reductionism, despair, depression, meaninglessness and emptiness. You may call the fire in the cellar "sunshine" (a kind of deluded matrix world of deceptive appearances), but I can see it for what it really is.

You carry on having fun down in the basement, where you think you are free. I am very happy indeed out in the real sunshine.

And for those who call me illogical: words are cheap; coherent arguments are not.


#11 - Parrhasios -

"What annoys me here is your presumption that anything is or can be art."

And who are you to decide what should be defined as "art"?

The point I was making is that Bridget McConnell was claiming that "no one has the right to not be offended." I am saying that she should be consistent with her claim and apply it to herself.

Or is that being illogical as well?

While I deplore the reaction against her, is it not possible that those who send her obscene messages could argue that they are engaging in a form of "art", and that she should accept that? They would have a point, actually.

Ah, ASBO art. The next big thing.

And no, I do not owe it to myself to go back down into the dark cellar of banal reductionism, despair, depression, meaninglessness and emptiness.

Jeebs, LSV, it's not much fun being you, is it?

She wanted a response, she got a response - time to live with the result and reality of free speech.

RJB - why am I not surprised that you'd be a supporter of suspending a cross in urine.

MCC Would it be because you have more in common with omnipotent moral busibodies than you do with the poor?

#15 - grokesx -

"Jeebs, LSV, it's not much fun being you, is it?"

I think you've got the tense wrong there (if you had read my post carefully). As I say, I left the basement many years ago, and am now - to use helio's memorable phrase - playing out in the sunshine, where it is a lot of fun (which may be hard for you to understand, as I imagine you have a preconceived idea about Christianity - the kind of dead 'religious' Christianity that I also reject).

It wouldn't surprise me if some unbelievers think that people like me are somehow labouring under a terrible guilt trip under the frown of this "angry God", and that I am bound up in all kinds of stifling prohibitions. I suppose this is an understandable reaction from those who have never known or tasted of the grace of God.

romesjellybean.

Really! after reading your post about a certain "DEVIL" and the way you gave him credit for his pathetic BLASPHEMY, no wonder people are leaving your church, honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that's your thoughts on how you feel about Christ the Lord, then clearly you are bankrupt not just with Morality but Spiritually as well.

Romans chapter 8 & verse 9b... Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Hrrm. I spy a culture war! It does seem odd that with weekly church attendance hitting 14-15% in England/Wales (Tearfund) that 2000 people could be in on a hate campaign.
At the same time a small group can inflict tremendous damage. How may evangelicals does it take to produce 2000 e-mails? This will bear some patient examination.

The counter arguments can be found here -

https://www.csgwatch.com/bridget-mcconnell-victim-or-villian.html

GV

Yip, John, you got it off to a T.

That is exactly how they reacted.

They each started with an indignant exclamation!!
Then a comment about how blasphemous I was.
Followed by the worst possible insult they could muster.

Then topped off with a handy scripture quote, designed to show how God was on their side.

Is there a class somewhere which one can attend to learn this behaviour?

RJB, people are going to find those views upsetting, as not everyone thinks that a piece of art's meaning is in the eye of the beholder. You seem to - so you could give a positive response to the piece.
Now, I don't. I think that the meaning of the piece is nihilistic and blasphemous. John Dynes seems to want to see the meaning of the piece in the intent of the artist.
Now I think John's mistaken in assuming that you want to join in the artists blasphemy. You just don't think that the artists - or anyone else's - intentions give a piece of art it's meaning. *You* impose *your* meaning onto the work of art.
That's a respected point of view. I disagree, but I doubt that will cause you any anxiety. But it's a point of view that isn't obvious to most people. It seems counter-intuitive to them. So I can see why John thought you were being blasphemous.
To reiterate, I don't think that was your intent at all. I'm also pretty sure that we can't (or shouldn't try to) impose our own meaning on things. It's that idea that has caused the confusion, and John's reaction.

GV

No surprises here -

https://www.christianwatch.org.uk/cwn/

are involved in this row.
The plot thickens!

GV

GV Most people do put their own meaning on works of art. I'd also add, much more dangerously and damagingly, people put their own meaning on the Bible and cause untold amount of suffering. (As a cursory glance around these threads will verify.)

I think my post was worthwhile in the context of this thread though, as it illicited real examples of what so called Christians often say and gives a flavour of what Dr McConnell was exposed to.

GV

On reflection, I further disagree with you.

One of the other images in the gallery that night, was a photograph of an 83 year old woman. She was naked and it was a full frontal. She had been 'tarted' up with red lipstick, and quite overt make-up.

My initial reaction was that it was grotesque. But it didnt take me long to realise that Serano was actually challenging society's fixation with the young 'bimbo'. The image screamed, "We old people are human beings, we are worth something, we have dignity too...."

By your above logic, you are saying that in that image, Serrano was rubbishing and ridiculing old people. Clearly he was not.

You conclude that, unlike all of Serano's other work where there is very powerful underlying comment, in this one image of Christ, he was simply saying "God is ***"

He was saying much, much more.

We have the choice to reflect on such things or simply shout them down - thus relieving ourselves of being challenged. The reaction from some Christians is not only vicious at times, its damn lazy.

@LSV

I was thinking more along the lines of it not being much fun projecting bleak fears of despair, depression, meaninglessness and emptiness on to other people.

Hee hee hee! from LSV.
And for those who call me illogical: words are cheap; coherent arguments are not.

Well, why be such a miserly old skinflint? Why not let us SEE some coherent logical arguments, instead of a load of old cabbage? Come on and lavish some of your massive opulence on us mere philosophical peasants who are still scrubbing spuds in the basement.

Or, if we're Cinderella, you're cutting your flabby toes off trying to fit into a glass slipper that just never will fit. Give it up, Ugly Sister. :-)

romejellybeen... you clearly stated that you smiled and liked what you saw, believe me, you are clearly wrong in this whole matter and the only thing, that any true "Child of God" would give a interpretation too should be the Word of God NOT some piece of BLASPHEMY made to degrade the Lovely Son of God, infact, if this particular "Devil" who made this so-called art is no better than those who used their vile spittle upon the face of MY Saviour and the interpretation from this was just the same as today.

I wonder rjb, do you smile at that and give a educated interpretation, your thoughts on this evil matter will someday catch up with you BUT on that day the Father of Christ the Lord will indeed give you His final interpretation on your soul.

Lastly to GV, there is no confusion in any of this matter from me or anyone else, Christ makes it very clear, we our either for him or against him.

And to echo Helios criticism of LSV, it's not just the reasoning department where LSV comes up short whenever he's challenged. I'm still waiting for his answers on scientific matters from another thread. Bold proclamations on his part about thermodynamics etc. Followed by a most unglorious silent retreat when challenged.

John, the problem is that you are not for "Christ" but for a made up Christ idol, as tacky and powerless as any jungle fetish. That was a sin, last time I checked. Bibliolatry, idolatry, valuing one's religion above reason and above one's fellow human being - at the end of the day, the only Way, Truth and Life comes from a forthright freethinking atheism. You other chaps would agree, yes?

I think RJB's comments are at once funny and profound. It would be great if we could get Jesus to join us in these little discussions, rather than a load of self-appointed spokespersons who have evidently never "got it".

[I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to work out at what points my tongue is in my cheek]

#27 - Helio -

"Why not let us SEE some coherent logical arguments, instead of a load of old cabbage? Come on and lavish some of your massive opulence on us mere philosophical peasants who are still scrubbing spuds in the basement."

Well, I can't lavish my opulence on you, for the simple reason that you have decided that my currency is not legal tender in your happy little kingdom. Therefore you have decreed that we cannot trade. I offer something of value and you call it cabbage, so I think, pal, you have a bizarre problem of perception.

You subscribe to the Henry Ford school of philosophical reasoning: "All arguments are considered as long as they are consistent with our atheistic presuppositions." To go back to the financial metaphor: there is clearly no method of exchange between our respective currencies, since you have decided a priori that my cash has the status of monopoly money. Change the terms of the agreement - i.e. respect the authority of logic and be prepared to question your own fondly held presuppositions - and then possibly we might be able to trade.

As for PK rooting around in your dusty and rusty filing cabinet in the corner of your stuffy little basement, to find some misdemeanour of mine from the dim and distant past, perhaps he would like to reapprise me of the issue that has obviously so irked him for so long. But perhaps first he might like to explain why he acknowledged that he doesn't know how life arose from non-living matter (shall I find the link, or is his memory up to it, I wonder?)

But what's the point of discussing this anyway? If I quote a scientist who hasn't been 'baptised and confirmed' (in other words, 'peer reviewed' by the inquisition), then there follows the usual litany of ad hominems and straw man accusations... yawn.

Poor Cinderella, how persecuted you must be by having to put up with 'ugly' searching questions and freedom of speech. I feel so sorry for you...

(But nice to think that you atheists recognise that you're part of a fairy tale).

This is what I find so incredible about the Gospel. Its so beautiful timeless, relevant...

The same scenarios unfold all the time, with the same groups of people, just a couple of thousand years later.

It has the wonderful ability to expose, to embarrass those who know it all, to show the blindness of those who think they see, to reach those who would never dream of claiming a monopoly on it.

I've long since given up trying to use it as a proof text or find what is historical etc.. in it, etc.. Its power is so obvious I believe that it has to be divinely inspired. (I also think God has a tremendous sense of humour.)

Not many books have people quoting from it not even realising that the very words they are quoting are actually condemning themselves. That is very, very clever stuff.

RJB, indeed. Maybe Shakespeare and The Brothers Grimm were divinely inspired too :-)

LSV, you're a busted flush, baby!

And possibly Dickens too, Helio, lol.

Maybe all these "one book" places in the world where they are all fighting each other need a big air drop of Maeve Binchys.

Graham. Sounds as if you might subscribe to the intentional fallacy! When an artist finishes a work he loses both responsibility for and intellectual possession of that work. His understanding of the work is of no great significance and offers no more worthwhile insights than those found in the reflections of any other engaged observer.

Great art elicits responses - authentic responses are of necessity subjective. Great artists may attempt to control the responses of the observer but if we focus on their methodology we shift our admiration away from the product and on to technique. Such an endeavour sits well with critics and fans of crosswords but ultimately dessicates. Art, like Christianity, requires immersion.

Parrhasios

In logic that errors called "psychologism". No, I don't think that authorial intentions (alone) determine the meaning of a piece of art. Fop one thing, an artist can try to say something with a piece and fail, or say something else entirely. For another, who is the author of a film or play? The director? The scriptwriter? The actors? Some of the above? All of the above?
Finally, authors overlap. Spielberg and co. leaned heavily on "Moby Dick" when making 'Jaws', without giving the meaning of Moby Dick much thought. So some of the meaning of Melville's novel will be carried over into a popular film quite unintentionally.

IMHO, broadly speaking, you look at the pieces referent(s), and then how the piece is being used. Whatever the intent of the artist I think the most reasonable interpretation of "P*** Christ" is blasphemous, given it's referents and use.

G Veale

As a resident of Glasgow, I well remember the overwhelming local reaction to this exhibition. Disgust. Disbelief. And the most frequently asked question was this:- Would they have dared to do this with a copy of the Koran?

Graham, assuming that is the case (i.e. blasphemous), why is that wrong? What is your problem with blasphemy?

GV

Since you have dismissed the meaning behind the art, lets forget the art for a moment. What say you to the claim, held by many, that Christianity has deviated from Christ's teachings?

That the very people Christ would have welcomed into his fold have been alienated and disenfranchised by the Church. That the Church has become in many instances a comfortable Sunday pastime for the well dressed middle class. That, that same Church will often show its outrage about things it considers to be blasphemy, but will do very little about real blasphemy, namely the way the rich and greedy continue to treat Christ in the poor of this world. That not only does the Church do very little to effectively alleviate the plight of the poor, it, in many instances, jumps into bed with the very agencies/people who would render the poor, poor. That the Church has effectively airbrushed out the more radical calls of the Gospel and turned Jesus into a very safe, sanitized, non-threatening figure who apparently wandered around Palestine patting children on the head and helping senior citizens accross the road. (Eh, who would crucify such a man in the first place?!)

It would appear to me that by dismissing the art and the artist who would pose such questions, we dont have to deal with the questions they pose.

Graham - I have said before I do not regard logic as the only (or indeed even as the necessarily pre-eminent) tool available to humanity for making sense of the world around us - but 'error' - rather begs the question doesn't it?

Helio

It's evil.

Graham

"Since you have dismissed the meaning behind the art"
"It would appear to me that by dismissing the art and the artist who would pose such questions, we dont have to deal with the questions they pose."

I'm not dismissing the meaning. I'm saying that you shouldn't read your preferred meaning into the work of art, and if the artist wanted to condemn the practices of Christians and not Christ, he screwed up on a major scale.

I'm no Clement Greenberg, and my knowledge of art is limited, but I'm trying to take the meaning of a piece very seriously indeed. (But there's no algorithm, no set of rules, for determining meaning, Parrhasios. I'll agree with you passionately on that point.)

"What say you to the claim, held by many, that Christianity has deviated from Christ's teachings?"

A lot depends on what you mean.

Replace "Christianity" with "Christendom" and I'll agree that's true. But I'm not sure how thoroughly and consistently Western Culture took Jesus' teaching on board.
Replace "Christianity" with "the Church" and I'll ask you what you mean by "the Church".
Replace "Christianity" with "Christians" and all of us fall from Christ's ideal. And if we approximate Christ's ideal, it's by his grace alone.
All Christians fail to meet Christ's standards some of the time. That doesn't mean all Christians forget all of his teachings all of the time.

"That the Church has become in many instances a comfortable Sunday pastime for the well dressed middle class."
Amen! No argument from me there, whatever your definition of the Church.

"That the Church has effectively airbrushed out the more radical calls of the Gospel and turned Jesus into a very safe, sanitized, non-threatening figure who apparently wandered around Palestine patting children on the head and helping senior citizens accross the road. (Eh, who would crucify such a man in the first place?!)"
Again, Amen. I'll even add a Hallelujah.

But what is the radical call? It goes beyond economics. It means accepting that I'm so damaged it would take an Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection to fix me. It means taking a Crucified Carpenter's Son as Savior and Lord, as My Lord and My God. As absurd as it seems, not to dodge the radical nature of this claim by pretending that it is some sort of useful or beautiful fiction. Rather I have to believe that it is true. That it corresponds to the facts. And that this demands an immediate and ongoing personal response to God. A total dependence on God that is only possible beacuse Jesus called me along with everyone else.

Now the Church often forgets that radical message. Prostitutes can come to faith as long as they don't marry in to our families afterwards. Romanians are welcome into the Kingdom of God. But they needn't turn up in Portadown.

"not only does the Church do very little to effectively alleviate the plight of the poor, it, in many instances, jumps into bed with the very agencies/people who would render the poor, poor."

Agreed again. And there's some evidence that younger evangelicals in the US are regretting the alliance with the GOP. But still, I think that the politics of the Church needs to move beyond policies that Brangelina and Bono would approve of. (And that Sarah Palin would approve of).

I'm a leftie at heart on economics. I want wealth redistributed more widely, City bankers strung up by their Rolex watches etc. But good, conscientious Christians think that would cause more harm than good. I'm not for throwing them out of the Church!
So back at you -
(i) what are the radical claims of Christ?
(ii) given the need to help the poor at the political AND practical level - what economic theories and policies should the Church endorse?
And can we justify those demands by reference to Christ's teaching.

That's wayyyy more than I intended to write, apologies all!

GV

What did I say that needs such careful moderation?

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to add that I did not mean to imply that RJB's first post was unwelcome. It seems to be, more or less, at the heart of this issue.

And to say to John Dynes that I mean #41 quite literally.

GV

Quote from the top, "But people do not have a right not to be offended, and arguing that this debate involves an attack on Christianity is, in effect, an argument against pluralism and free speech."

Apparently she's wrong.

Graham and some others are currently being moderated on a couple of threads, with no explanation; I wonder why?

So, in light of that let me give my take on 'free speech' and how it popularly works.

"I have a right to say whatever I want as long as you don't offend me."

Yea, that's right, the pronouns are a bit mixed up.

LSV wrote

"As for PK rooting around in your dusty and rusty filing cabinet in the corner of your stuffy little basement, to find some misdemeanour of mine from the dim and distant past, perhaps he would like to reapprise me of the issue that has obviously so irked him for so long."

No point in sorting out the many times LSV ran away after yet another vacuous bold statement about science, reason etc., as LSV announced he was leaving the blog because one of his posts got pulled on the other thread. Shees, the conspiracy thinking of the man. As a regular here he should have know by now that the moderation here is absurd, inconsistent, and almost random in nature. Does LSV really think he's that interesting, that people would bother with some censoring conspiracy against him? Pffrt, what over-inflated self-importance on his part.

I have no problem with free speech or free so-called art, but the real problem for me is people like "RJB" who talk about the gospel of their own making? and it does NOT matter what church he belongs too, whether he be protestant or catholic, the fact is "RJB" clearly has a connection with a church, he claims to be a learned theologian with much so-called understanding of how christianity should work but yet his version off the gospel is to embrace a artist who clearly would like to see the Christ of christianity covered with urine and the interpretation of this is that christ is brought down to human waste, now this awful version of RJB's gospel sounds as if it came from a "off tune melodian", as to try and compare it to basic Christology in regard to Christ's humanity is totally from the mind off satan himself.

"the Christ of christianity covered with urine and the interpretation of this is that christ is brought down to human waste"

I think you may have misread RJB on this point. I don't think he sees the piece as vulgar. Now I'm bewildered at that reading. I think some sort of vulgar insult is the effect of the piece (I don't know what the artist intended).

But I think RJB means "the dregs of society" (outcasts, prostitutes, addicts etc) by human waste. I don't think that RJB meant anything vulgar or crude.

I don't think that the image is a helpful way to convey that message. Quite the opposite (it just comes across as a secularist insulting Christianity). But "blasphemy" in the spriritual sense is a state of mind (eg.blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of that without good reason.

GV

There are a few other points worth conisdering here.

i) "Crucifixion" was itself an offensive term in 1st Century AD Roman society. Cicero refers to it as 'the broken leg'. This is why the cross was so offensive to Jews and Greeks.

ii) Is blasphemy possible for a secularist? To take up Helio's question, what is wrong with blasphemy?
Well, blasphemy is subverting something of ultimate value, degrading and devaluing a supreme good. Satanist rituals mock the Catholic eucharist. The supreme example in the Bible is, surprisingly, Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
This is being willing to believe and teach that an act of the Holy Spirit's work through Christ is in fact an act of Satan. It is an act of will. This is as evil as it gets in Scripture. You can crucify God's Son. You can't blaspheme the Holy Ghost.
You can't have laws against that sort of thing. And you actually have to believe in the supreme value to commit this sort of blasphemy.

iii) What's the Big Deal? When observing acts of cruelty, watch how physical pain is not the end of the tormentor, but just a means to the end. The aim is to humiliate and degrade another human being. To rob a human of all value. You take something sacred and degrade it. This is why I think Augustine and Aquinas did not go far enough in their descriptions of evil. Absence of the Good does not go far enough. You have to take the Good and willingly treat it as something worthy of contempt. Blasphemy is degarding the greatest Goods. (I use the capital deliberately. You can't blaspheme what humans just happen to take as subjectively valuable).

iv) I think then we have to distinguish between blasphemy and taking God's name in vain.

G Veale

RJB - simple question - what did Jesus actually do for the poor? He didn't condemn their poverty, he didn't attack the structures which made them poor, in fact he pointed out that poverty was a surer way to get to heaven than being rich. and with sinners - he didn't surround himself with sinners to sink to their level like a cross in urine - he called them to repentance - that's what the gospel was about - the good news of salvation on the one hand and a call to repentance. You can't get one without the other.

MCC

I get tired of the Gospel according to Bono too. But...

Jesus message is *more* than good news for the poor. Not less.

True, Jesus was not a "top-down" political reformer - Galileans did not have access to political power. The question for Galileans was how to respond to political oppression and marginalisation. Jesus did have a response.
Now I think that scholars like Gerd Thiessen and JD Crossan have overplayed this aspect of Jesus' ministry. But Jesus definitely took a different approach to the "lestai" (bandits) and zealots of his era. He aimed to set up communities that did not aim to set up God's kingdom through violence. (Keep in mind that the Hasmoneans had managed to establish a Jewish kingdom against all odds, and that one city - Rome -now ruled the world. So violent rebellion would not seem an unrealistic means to an unachievable end).
Instead Jesus set up communities that did not depend on the Temple for their authenticity, and that would not violently oppose gentiles and those who collaborated with them.
Bypassing the power centres of the elite, and opposing customs that were deeply ingrained, in an "honor/shame" culture based on patronage and kinship was a political response, and a message for the poor.
In terms of the actions of the communities towards their oppressors Jesus expected his followers to escape persecution when possible, to turn the other cheek when flight was not an option. Getting even was wrong, and wasn't practical in any case ("live by the sword, die by the sword"). The community was not to leave those suffering to endure by themselves, but those with should help those without. The only other options for Galileans were banditry and revolt. Refusal to pay taxes was an act of revolt.
Banditry was a strong temptation to those who faced unjust landlords (who are implicitly condemned in many parables). Jesus strategy was to convert the corrupt - hence the focus on the tax collectors. The example and testimony of the oppressed was essential to this mission.
Some Essenes joined the Jewish revolt, but Christians fled, despite the Jerusalem church's attachment to the Temple. So the break with violence was well established. And managed to last a few centuries.
As for oppression - this was mainly by Jews on Jews. Certain factions had Roman patronage, and this enabled them to pursue corrupt practices. But Roman centurions did not patrol the streets of Galilee (or Jerusalem for that matter, except during the Feasts). The Syrian auxilliary legionaries tended to stay in the Antonia fortress in the Temple as a dterrent to revolt. The famous heavy infantry of the Roman legions did not arrive unitil the Jewish Revolt.
Failure to pay taxes would be a symbol of revolt and would lead to brutal repression by Rome. The census of AD6-7 was a prelude to more taxation, and this led to the rebellion of Judas the Galilean.

By setting up new communities he was robbing the Temple authorities of their prime source of power - the cultic requirements of Temple worship. This was also a symbol of their political power. (The Temple authorities were Rome's chief collaborators.)
Of course, the Essenes of Qumran had a similar approach, and this did not lead to their persecution. So this is my problem with those who view Jesus as *just* a misunderstood social reformer. This doesn't explain the Crucifixion.

There is a condemnation of structures when it comes to "sinners". An honor and shame culture judged you (in part) by your company in a way we can't imagine. It was an objective ranking that took place, not merely an excuse for Pharisees to gossip. And that ranking defined your opportunities - including economic opportunities and safety nets.

G Veale

MCC
It does beg the question, why did they crucify him then?

Why would such a man be a threat to anyone?

I can think of many things the Gospel is about over and above the good news of salvation and repentance. Its about forgiveness, about humbling oneself, about treating others justly, about not judging others harshly, about being generous, about caring for the weak and vulnerable, about truth and merciful justice, prayer, compassion, suffering etc..

But most of all, and I'm surprised a Carmelite didnt get this one, it is about love.

It is also about what true religion is. Reminding people not to get caught up in and make idols of, religious practice - like the Pharisees. Obviously when he exposed such people for their overt shallowness, it was a really difficult accusation for them to swallow. Would you believe, people are still like that today and they will attack anyone who threatens to breach their religious comfort zone?

Sorry to tell you GV, but unfortunately, I have to seriously disagree, just look at what RJB has said... it was certainly a very beautiful, serene, peaceful image... how the heck can you even with a ounce of common decency come to that EVIL conclusion, honestly, GV, Iam really surprised at you to even try and tell me that Iam hard on RJB and misunderstood what he is saying.

Again, RJB says... I gave the view, that maybe serano is PUTTING christ back where he always wanted to be, among those considered to be human waste... tell me GV, how the heck can any person with some sort of spirituality look at "Christ the Lord of glory" covered in urine as he hangs on the cross and come up with that devilish false humility.

Psalms chapter 4 & verse 2 says... O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing?.

The real way to portray Christ the Lord, is by checking out my youtube video... Whisper JESUS!.

There ya go, Graham. There is no god but Jesus and Johnny is his prophet. I've told you before - you, RJB, Parrhaisos, Peter and even Bernie (wherever he's gone) have more in common with me and PK than you have with these punters, just like Jesus had more in common with the Samaritans than his own caste of the Pharisees.

Come over to the fun side!

Oh heck, Helio! I had such hopes. You were so different. A free spirit, even a voice crying in the cyberness. Then you go and spoil it all by making the most religious of all religious statements - come over to our side!

I despair.

You dont need a gang.

Helioshine

Sing with me!

After... ehem... 3!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXT2suWLNAg


And as you know, the sun shall set you free! ;-)

@Helio,

RJB is right We're cats, remember, we don't do herds.

Helio - I intend to hold you to its being the fun side. I have just this evening been asked to what will be my first Non-Christening party.

RJB - I don't disagree with any of what you said there - but it's covered by repentance and salvation

MCC

I think you have to be very careful scripturally (and morally and ethically) when you make such comments about poverty. You are not a piece of stale bread off treating poverty as a value, which of course, it is not. Poverty is an evil. (Try fasting for three weeks before Mass instead of an hour before and you might be less blasé about the subject.)

Are you saying that Jesus would look at the people of Darfur and not be utterly scandalized by what he would see?

Here is a man who was saddened by the plight of the 5000 and allegedly multiplied bread and fish in order to feed them. They were merely hungry, not chronically starving.

The claim that Jesus was unmoved by the poor (based on the passage 'The poor you will have with you always') is one of the more cynical and bizarre to emerge from the religious right and was exemplified by Mrs Thatcher and her odious 'Sermon on the Mound' where she used the Gospel parable of the talents to justify rampant capitalism and personal and collective greed.

They love to talk about the hereafter (the Kingdom of Heaven) and tell the poor not to worry about their desperate circumstances here on earth as everything will be just fine after they die!!

They thus relieve themselves of any urgency in responding to the plight of the poor. If repentance and salvation go hand in hand, so do the gospel and social justice, my friend.

You need to read a little less Denzinger and a little more Gospel.

John

It might be worth reading this through carefully, just so we don't misunderstand each other. I think we've the same concerns, we're just approaching the matter differently.

Now, this is a bit weird for people who aren't used to the theory. But some people think that a piece of art has no meaning - **except the meaning that you choose to give it**

Now I disagree with that theory - and I think the common sense answer that you gave pretty much shows why it's wrong. "How the heck can any person with some sort of spirituality look at "Christ the Lord of glory" covered in urine as he hangs on the cross and come up with that..." hits it on the head. Common sense tells you it's a blasphemous image, and that's a good part of the art's meaning.

I think common sense has a lot of good, rational argument to back it up. And pragmatically, you have to wonder how art can survive if ordinary folk need to understand Postmodernism to (not) interpret it. I don't think a piece of art like Serano's can be interpreted as beautiful and serene. It's not that I can't see it that way. It's that it doesn't make any sense to interpret it that way. It's just a mistake to think it can mean whatever you like or prefer.

Now I think RJB would disagree with that. If I've read between the lines correctly, RJB would argue that the image means NOTHING AT ALL (or very little) until he chooses to GIVE IT **HIS** MEANING. Common Sense rejects that way of viewing art, and I think common sense is right. A lot of folk, who spend time in art galleries, disagree. And I know this sounds absolutely crazy - but if you look into the different ways of interpreting art, RJB *intended* no blasphemy.

Now I think your warnings to RJB *are* appropriate. (What we intend and what we achieve can be different things). But the spirit of Galatians 6 v1 would seem appropriate also. To be honest, I'm not sure where RJB stands on issues like the Incarnation or the Atonement. That's not his fault, BTW, we just haven't had a chance to discuss it much. He may think of Jesus as merely human, for all I know. He may no longer be sure what he believes. I just don't know - again not his fault, and unless he chooses to share, not my business. (But if you click on his name and look at his past posts you'll get a good idea of his relationship with the Catholic Church. It's not cosy).

So there are two issues I think that need teased out. One is how art interpreted and how the public in general perceives a work of art.

The other, more important issue, is who was Jesus? What should our response be?

GV

RJB - not sure why you always feel the need to get on your high horse and attack me for agreeing with you.

Calling for repentance clearly includes those who abused the poor, the stranger, the widow etc. What you call social justice can also be called repentance and salvation. They're not in opposition.

But Jesus was correct in stating that there will always be relative poverty.

As regards economics and politics - capitalism has always been better for the poor than socialism, which attacks poverty by making everyone poor while removing fundamental human rights as well. Can't see Jesus supporting that.

Where do you see St Francis fitting in with things?

C'mon MCC, dont get all wet on me. You've dished out a few bric-bats and hurled them in my direction over the last few months.

St Frankie is the man! A believer in the redistribution of wealth I think you'll agree, a man who unquestioningly loved and devoted himself to the poor.

But a man who started that process..... with himself!

I dont wish to get lost in semantics here, but if you'd prefer, instead of using the term "the redistribution of wealth" would it be more acceptable to you if we talk about "the repentence of the wealthy."

I don't think St Francis did believe in the redistribution of wealth - his radical poverty required other people to generate wealth to provide for him. He became a beggar and beggars need rich people to give them money.

"Beggars need rich people to give them money."

lol. Classic, undiluted, upperclass twittery, snobbery and insensitivity.

What beggars really need, the rich will never give them.

Does human nature allow for a perfect society?

post 62... BROTHER GV, I appreciate your words and clearly understand the points BUT it was RJB's response in trying to spiritualize that devilish art, which in no way can be done with a truly Christian prospective , and to tell you the truth, I was saddened and shocked at RJB, who in some posts talked a lot off good sense.

By giving a "spiritual opinion" he left himself open to attack from others from various churches not just "funnymentalists" as he would view them, I have close catholic friends who belong to the legion of mary and they would certainly agree with me and even be worse in their attack and even hate for that awful piece of junk.

RJB, speaking as a mendicant, where else are those who beg supposed to get money from if not from people who have it? St Francis relied totally on other people - that's what his radical poverty was about - reliance not on self but on God, which of course means other people - rich people.

John
I had "Legionaires" in the parishes I worked in, not the disease, although people often commented that the disease would be preferable at times. Dear sweet ladies though they were, I wouldnt be basing a world view on their opinions. A bit like asking the women's guild for an assessment of Jesus' jam making skills.

They werent really a metaphysical group.

I am doomed to Hell so there's nothing more you can do for me. However there is something you can do for yourself. Ask yourself why you got so angry at me expressing an opinion? Ask why you couldnt see the point I was making for outrage. (It is after all what the thread is actually about.) Why do you think Jesus needs your protection? (Last time somebody tried to protect him, I think he commented, "Get behind me, Satan."

I am not leading my life desperately hoping not to leave myself open to attack, by the way. (You might have noticed.) There are higher values.

Come to think of it, didnt the Pharisees get all outraged and angry and totally missed the point "Our Saviour" was trying to make?

MCC

I once went fishing and tresspassed on land sign-posted "Private Property."

After a while, a man in plus fours appeared and threatened me telling me that it was his land. I argued with him about the legitimacy of his claim. Where had he got the land from?

He said it was his parents land. I asked where they got it from, he said, "From their parents."

I asked him to go back to the time when his forefathers originally took posession of the land, how did they get it? He stated that they fought for it.

"Right, Norbert, get yer jaiket aff!!" was my response.

The poor need a fair deal, MCC. They need to have access to equal rights and opportunities. They need the same access to education and employment that the rich have. They dont need their hand outs, which often merely serve the purpose of easing the conscience of the greedy.

Where did the rich get their money from, MCC? One of the most outrageous lies in capitalism is the businessman who screws every penny he can from whoever he can, then out of his immorally gained massive profit, deigns to stoop down and give a sandwich to a guy in the gutter. And you would applaud him for his generosity.

I was outraged because you are in someway sending conflicting messages about Christ the Lord, one minute your putting forth a message that Christ is the defender of the poor of this world, (AMEN) to that, which you probably have taken from the Bible, Historical Facts and off course the Church fathers, again(AMEN)to that, but,"WE" don't take our inspiration from a worldly artist who clearly is opposed to everthing that "Our Lord" stands for, nor do "WE" gave them any foothold to say, that their are even some within the Church which have no problem with it because art is open to everyone's interpretation, while all along Christ Is portrayed hanging on the cross in urine.

Can you not see RJB, this is not a game for a non-catholic like myself to try and score silly spiritual points nor for me to be a so-called pharisee which is further from the truth as I KNOW what its like to be persecuted by PROTESTANT pharisees who hated me because I gave too much to the poor & homeless and off course the GOSPEL message, as man cannot live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Lastly, you right in what you said up, to a point, there's nothing I can do for you in regards to me, converting you, as SALVATION is off the Lord, also the Lord certainly does NOT need a "NOBODY" like me to fight his corner as other educated people have been blessed with much wisdom but have lost their way and calling.

#46 - PeterKlaver -

"No point in sorting out the many times LSV ran away after yet another vacuous bold statement about science, reason etc., as LSV announced he was leaving the blog because one of his posts got pulled on the other thread. Shees, the conspiracy thinking of the man. As a regular here he should have know by now that the moderation here is absurd, inconsistent, and almost random in nature. Does LSV really think he's that interesting, that people would bother with some censoring conspiracy against him? Pffrt, what over-inflated self-importance on his part."

Gosh, I really must be very important indeed if PK has gone to such literary lengths to comment on my trivial complaint about being moderated.

I am now a conspiracy theorist because of a petty gripe!!!

Forget the conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, the Freemasons, 9/11, who shot JFK, and all the rest of it. That's all 'old hat' now. The new threat to civilisation are those wackos who get upset about BBC moderators!!

The mind boggles.

Anyway, I love the onomatopoeia:

Shees!!

Pffrt!!!

(Helio, are you taking note? These expressions might spice up some of your rejoinders.)

LSV, it all goes down in my wee notebook. I'm feeling positively disposed to you at the moment; don't blow it ;-)

John, methinks the lady doth protest too much. What are you hiding?

Golum

Never you mind whats in my pockets. Now get your legs out of yours and go get us a trout for the dinner.

John

Are you joining in the scripture study course? If you watch the first lecture you may note that the lecturer spends a fair amount of time appealing to students of a certain bent, not to get upset by certain things which may be said.

Its obvious from her attempt at appeasement, that she is used to people turning up for class who already have a very fixed and rigid view of the Bible (stemming from their upbringing), who have maybe been disruptive in the class. People who are not open to learning.

I think the scripture course would be the best thing you ever did for yourself.

RJB, agreed re the course. Tehom = Tiamat! Fantastic! Prof Hayes is awesome.

My precioussss...

Helio - agree with the awesome. This is a thread about art and all that that implies about truth and beauty, so confession time: I have to say that I'm glad I read the transcript first for the OT lectures are eminently watchable.

Do you think absolution is required RJB?

Parrhasios

One must always beware and act with prudence unless something become an 'occasion of sin.' (Catechism.)

The professor may have teeth like a row of newly sheered sheep from Canaan and breasts like halves of pomegranate (Song of songs) but that does not excuse you having flesh as that of an ass and issuing forth like a stallion. (Ezekiel.)

I hope I've made myself clear. (God.)

John - I watched your video and was struck by the sense of peace and reassurance that came from the beautiful mix of photography, words and song. It exemplified one of the possible functions of art: to enhance our understanding of something we know and add to our appreciation of it by illuminating it with beauty.

Art can and does have many other functions. One of those functions is to challenge us, to make us stop in our tracks and have us rethink the familiar. Such art can be deeply uncomfortable, even disturbing.

I would ask you to consider this: which depiction of Christ on the cross more undermines our understanding of the incarnation and Christ's work of salvation: the image of Him suspended in a vial of urine or the version which gilds the cross with gold, sets it with gems, and irons out the suffering? Which one is truly blasphemous?

My understanding is that Jesus in His ministry "emptied Himself of all but love", He "laid His glory by". Christ's glory was not in gold or jewels but in the perfecting of the likeness of God which is in man. He did not come to the work of salvation riding the chariots of heaven but walking the earth as a humble man. He did not die proud and serene on a golden cross-shaped throne; He died suffering and broken covered in His own blood, faeces and urine on a Roman gibbet.

Surely this is the great truth of our salvation that it is accomplished, not in heaven by some abstract process, but here on earth in the grim reality of this physical and often sordid world.

If Serrano's work gives rise to these thoughts then it has illuminated one of the fundamentals of the Gospel.

RJB - that is just the sort of response I would expect from my confessor. Oddly the person who most nearly fills that role is one of my oldest friends, a reformed evangelical Presbyterian minister, even odder, I'm not sure his response would have been very different!

Well, she's a nice looking lass - a bit like Erin Gray as Col Wilma Deering in Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Suggest to Yale: lose the big sweaters and move to the tight white jumpsuit ;-)

Sorry - getting off track here (she's a good lecturer - that's what matters). Even though I'm a Christian Atheist, I find the image RJB is presenting much more powerful than some tarted up gilded monstrance or crucifix. Silly, but more powerful, and more challenging. Like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when the dude chooses the golden chalice.

"He chose... poorly".

Thank you, parrhasios for taking the time to watch "one off" many video/films which I have made, this particular site has well over 150,000 plus persons who also taken the time to watch, also this is one among 2 sister sites of mine which has well over the hundred thousand plus mark, people from all walks and cultures, religions have send me untold letters in support of the way I have portrayed Christ the Lord in a Beautiful way and easy to understand with no ambiguity, infact there is a video intitled (even creation knows) in which a large spider has a sign off the cross upon its back, now this is left up for the individual to make a conclusion that the son of God can be seen even in creation,
But really, its one thing to use natural occurrences and another, to go out off your way and use christ covered in urine as a metaphor for a symbol of suffering, when the artist clearly used his art to degrade Christ but used the old card of art is open for interpretation and off course this allows him protection from so-called "funnymentalists" who only want to suppress free art.
The only thing that I want to suppress "is" that, this particular piece of art cannot be used to portray "Christ's humility" BUT his awful blasphemous treatment by the hands of the person who made this so-called art.

John

Have you made any videos where the sun isnt shining?

Sol invictus, RJB.

Thanks RJB, for taking the time to watch some off the video's and the answer, to your question is yes!.

John

I'd like to tease out this thread a little further.

I've recorded this event elsewhere on this site, but its maybe appropriate to repeat it here and get your thoughts.

An Anglican minister who became a Catholic priest at the age of 68 told me this story when he was in his seventies. He spoke of his first ever theology class at college, which must have been in the 1930's or thereabouts.

The lecturer came into the class and ordered all the students to follow him. He led them down the stairs into the courtyard, then down a country lane to the farm. At the farm, they were led to the piggery.

They were told to climb the fence and look into the piggery. There they saw a fat pig, snorting around in garbage, covered in excrement and urine. The place also stank.

The lecturer began, "God has either got everything to do with that pig or he has got nothing to do with anything at all. Class dismissed."

Some of the class thought it was blasphemy and thankfully there were no student Rabbis there or one can only guess at what the comments would have been.

That lecturer's words that day, had a profound effect on the man who related the story to me all those years later. It coloured everything about him from that day, his view of God, his spirituality, the way he treated his neighbour. He was one of the truly holiest people I have ever met.

It also profoundly affected me. It challenged me to break out of the stagnant, spoon fed, comfortable religiosity which seemed to have crushed the life out of so many 'good' Christians.

I'd like to think I began to perceive Christ powerfully in places that, up to then, I was blind to.

On one retreat weekend with young adults (20's up) I did an Ignation contemplation session with these youngsters. I did a long imaginative story with them about an old man carrying something in a rag. The rag contained the 'secret of life.' Its a long story, designed to relax the listener and allow the deeper self to emerge. At the end of the story, the man unravels the rag and each person is asked to say (in their imagination) what the rag contained.

All afternoon, these young adults came to see me individually and told me what was in their rag. The idea was that I would take what ever it was and begin describing it using only positive terms. (The contents of the rag was actually the person themselves and the exercise is designed to allow the person to see themselves in a good light, maybe the way that even Jesus sees them.)

Everything was fine, I was actually amazed at the words I found myself saying to many of these young men and women. However, near the end of the day, a young woman walked in. When I asked her what was in her rag she stated depressingly, "A toilet roll."

How do you find the words to described loo roll in glowing terms?!!

Amazingly, I did. I wont go into the gory details but I spoke about things like softness, endurance etc..

The woman came back to me later and told me about her life. Her husband had just left her for another woman, she was bringing up three kids on her own, she had stopped going to church because she felt like a leper, like dirt, that she had done something wrong to chase her husband away, that she was worthless, etc.. etc.. and even more etc..

Was it any wonder she imagined a toilet roll? That's all she was good for, in her view. She laughed at my description of a toilet roll, that only me could find such nice things to say about such an object.

I shared with her the story of the pig and attempted to allow herself to see how beautiful she was in Gods eyes. I exhorted her to ignore the sugary sweet image of Jesus so prevalent in our Churches, and to believe how intimately God loved her, especially at those moments when she was changing nappies, worried sick about money and feeling rejected and alone.

**** Christ spoke absolutely to her. She was moved deeply by the image which reminded her where Jesus is to be found.

Two points - Firstly, I think you are very wrong to shout down as blasphemy such art. If it doesnt speak to you, fine. But you have no right to stop it from speaking to others.

Secondly - you and others on this thread have used some pretty vitriolic language about me being spiritually bankrupt, blasphemous etc.. You are very, very wrong about that. I think you should listen and reflect more before you 'go off on one.'

Thanks for the two wonderful stories RJB, really, I don't have a problem with those experiences, but however! the object was NOT Christ the Lord covered in urine, it was a rag & a pig which were cleverly used to bring a helpful spiritual experience for all those concerned.

In reference with, spiritual bankruptcy, it was within the context of looking at a blasphemous piece of art, thats my opinion, which I'am also intitled to have in the sameway as those who try and say that there is nothing wrong with it.

Question, why don't you try more & defend the Christ of the Bible, instead off defending a persons controversial art work?.

ps... I'am NOT being vitriolic, whatever the heck that means.

John

You obviously still havent got my meaning - it is the Christ of the Bible I have been defending, all along.

I wrote ages ago on here that our circumstances, our reality, often doesnt allow us to hear the radical call of the Gospel.

You walk into an art gallery, look at a picture and cry blasphemy.

A woman, who spends all day every day up to her oxters in dirty nappies - or it feels like that to her - she feels her life is over, nothing except the pungent smell of urine everywhere she goes, walks in to the gallery, looks at the picture and immediately breaks down in tears. This Jesus whom she feels deserted her suddenly reminds her that he is THERE!

Most of the planet are used to the smell of urine. They dont have access to the plumming we enjoy in the West. Many of them saw something very different from you. I say again, our circumstances do not allow us to hear the radical call of the gospel.

Serrano's **** Christ, for me, will go down as one of the most powerful pieces of art I've ever seen, because it managed to do two things simultaneously.

It had the ability to whisper gently to people who are overwhelmed with filth and degradation, a word of comfort, of hope. I'm here.

But secondly, it exposed very cleverly those church people who like to make a show of how they 'love' God, but yet who remain so callously indifferent to the plight of the people he loves.

Finally, you say you are not being vitriolic but that you dont know what vitriolic means. Well, I'm not going to spoon feed you. Go and look it up!! Learn something new, open yourself to a surprise. Cast aside what you believe vitriolic to mean, leave behind what you think it might mean and go find out what it DOES mean.

Some Christians are really lazy!!

Might be worthwhile throwing in the incident where Jesus washed the disciples' feet. He comes to Peter, and Pete's having none of it, up on his high and mighty horse, probably waffling some vitriol ;-) about blasphemy or the like. John, you should listen to what RJB is saying. He has a point.

I was in Bethlehem a few years back, and went to the church of the Nativity. In there you can find the stone manger where Jesus allegedly spent his first night. Tarted up with cloths and hangings and monstrances and bejewelled adornments. Instead of cowdung. Now OK, the Nativity Story may be fiction (well, two fictions actually), but the power is there. Power does not come down from above - it wells up from below. Like chaos. Like complexity. Like evolution. Like morality itself. The wonder of simplicity, of fractal efflorescence. The saviour of the world arrives as a dirty little scrap of a baby.

They didn't recognise the message then, and most Christians don't recognise it now. Ironic, don't you think?

First things first, honestly, truly, you don't even know me at all, you keep on implying "that" I am in somewhat detached from human suffering and just caught up in my own little fundamentalist world, going in and out of art galleries looking to cry blasphemy! send this place to HELL. Tell me, what about all the RIDICULOUS amounts of money spent on art, I supose that's ok, a good cause and so on, when the HOMELESS people I served for years were crying out for help and love, maybe I should have sent them over to a art gallery to see Christ covered in urine, maybe? they have a religious experience, believe me, they wouldn't even get through the doors, BUT yet, they have been always welcomed in my HOME, by me, wife, kids and one child with autism, I know the foul smells of human waste & urine as I have cleaned it off the Homeless & washed their very backsides, cut their hair, give them NEW clothes, my last few pounds, food from my house, and got them somewhere to live permanently, went to courts on their behalfs, filled out forms, used my car at a drop of A hat, day or night, started a film & dinner club and so on,

Over the many years of my Christian life, I've organized many cross community meetings in ardoyne (were I was born) raised quite a few quid for africa, various Childrens charities, bereavement, again so on.

Suffering, over these last number of years, I've been very ill and suffer everyday with awful pain in most parts of my body and can only work part-time at times, can hardly walk, sick quite often because of serious medication which I need to keep me going and so on.

So please don't try and tell me I am out of touch with anything, for the only thing I am out of touch with is so-called religious art, that keeps Christ in urine, finished, no-more.

John, you have your view; others have theirs. Simply do not presume to think that you have a direct pipeline to all ways of looking at things. If you presume to speak on behalf of the gods, you need some solid backing, and as has been pointed out, the bible itself speaks strongly against your Christ-as-Harpic notion.

No, RJB or I do not know you, and while I'm sure you're lovely, that is beside the point. You regard the artwork as offensive, RJB thinks it is challenging. I watched your video and (sorry) found it total pants. But many of your commenters loved it. You might look at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem as a desecration of the site of the Temple, whereas most other people regard it as a beautiful and sublime achievement of Islamic civilisation.

Different strokes for different folks.

Look, "Heliopolitan" aka, the person with no name? thanks for watching it anyway, & out of 250,000 plus persons who have been on my sites, you really, are the first one to say anything negative, while others would give a fair assessment off the film.

I really don't know what Bible your reading from, as I have read mostly all the translations and could Never see your type of "christ" which you may think is there.

Question, if I took a image of someones Mother, who was pictured suffering & in her last moments and just befor she died, a artist decided sometime later to make some art, by putting her image into urine and went about displaying it within places her family lived, I am quite sure that, the family would be horrified and hurt to see the one they loved portrayed in such a awful manner soaked in urine.

Please don't try and say people would like such art as you would be talking pants.

This thread is all about pants.

John, call me Ishmael. I'm not saying anything objectively negative about your compositions - they are not my cup of tea, but I accept that the sort of people who leave comments on your youtube site might like that sort of thing. No problemo. I think I'm entitled to my opinion, which I freely acknowledge is subjective. And I do think that Irish coastal sunsets & sunrises are spectacularly beautiful.

Jesus is not your mother. You do not have ownership over him. He means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, including me as an atheist. He's Freeware. This is why you are presuming a heck of a lot when you pretend you can speak on his behalf, or (most worryingly) the behalf of the gods themselves. You presume you have a closer relationship with this 1st century Jew than, say, me or RJB, but what do you really know about what I or RJB have been through with this same 1st century Jew?

I sailed across the Sea of Galilee in November, and swam in it by starlight. I have walked the hills of Galilee and drunk coffee and eaten olives with the locals; I don't pretend that that gets me closer to Jesus, but the question you need to ask yourself is this: if Jesus were to see that image, would he really turn in his grave? The same man was not (if you believe the gospels, which is a big ask, but work with me) above a certain wry sense of humour. He was perfectly happy to throw out shocking remarks (such as the parable of the Good Samaritan - he was lucky not to be lynched for that one). But like the whitewashed sepulchres, his point was that corruption does not come from without, but from within.

So I appreciate that you feel hurt and shocked by this image, but that is YOUR response. Many people felt the same about the Life of Brian, although spectacularly few people would claim that now - they recognise LoB as a/ one of the funniest movies ever made, and b/ one of the most biting satiresa about human gullibility and organised religion ever made. Jesus would have loved it.

-H

Has anyone noticed the length of time the moderator is taking on his tea break?

Is the BBC using the Civil Service to moderate posts?

Heli, you've missed the whole part of understanding how art works, the piece we disagree on would be "philosophical art" and that's why I used the metaphor of someones Mother in the same way that serrano used "quote"...unobtainable deity... listen Heli, you have to look beyond my "philosophical metaphor" to see what I have said, a Mother represents Family, Christ represents Family, I didn't say Christ was a Mother, you would be to fundamentalist and literal hardliner on this matter, so just think for a moment?.

The whole point off, the matter for me (if you botherd to read early posts) was, RJB was a man of faith and I think in my opinion, he was to quick to give the thums up to that piece off ?, when many people, who he claims to serve, HATED it.

Also GV, hit the nail on the head in his post 23, when fundamentalist people will say about ROME, see we told you so, they are full of Blasphemy, just look what RJB says and sister what's her name?, when of course this is not a true reflection of the majority of Catholics.

Lastly, the only reason I went on about myself (woe is me) was that RJB thinks he is the only person who goes out of his way to help people, and "those" funnymentalists only want to send people to Hell, total rubbish.

Helio:

"Jesus is not your mother. You do not have ownership over him. He means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, including me as an atheist. He's Freeware."

That statement just about encompasses postmodernism. There is no real*truth* just someones opinion of it.

"So I appreciate that you feel hurt and shocked by this image, but that is YOUR response. Many people felt the same about the Life of Brian, although spectacularly few people would claim that now - they recognise LoB as a/ one of the funniest movies ever made, and b/ one of the most biting satiresa about human gullibility and organised religion ever made. Jesus would have loved it."

It's interesting to note - most of the satanic groups including the church of satan in california use body fluids to degrade Christ.
Seems to me Helio is right. Jesus is not our mammy and he deserves a lot more respect than any mother figure, and certainly should not be portrayed as urine - even if you are a half baked atheist.

Er, John, I sort of think I rather did get the point. Art works in many different ways, and, well, this piece has done that. QED. You have no exclusive right to Jesus, nor does anyone else.

I have to defend, not only John's right to be offended, but also the authenticity of his reaction.

If RJB and I, who share to a considerable extent a prophetic activist understanding of Christianity, can look at this work and see that it reflects something of how we see the life and ministry of Christ then John can look at it, perfectly legitimately, with the horror which accompanies the viewing of the despoliation of something not only precious and beautiful but deeply loved.

It seems likely to me that John's experience of Christ at least includes something of the experience of Mary of Bethany: it is committed in a deeply personal way and marked by a knowledge of Jesus as the 'loving Lord'. The videos I have viewed speak to me as offering Jesus as solace and refuge to those who need such in this hostile world and they are undoubtedly effective in so doing.

I may think Jesus was an angry prophet, fulminating against hypocrisy and injustice, but He was very much also the tender gentle and loving friend of sinners who welcomed the broken and delighted in the company of children. He would want people today to chide and rebuke the powerful and the oppressor but equally he would want those whose ministry is to nurture and console the bruised and the afflicted. I think John does that very well with his films and I rather suspect the intensity of his reaction to this artwork is but a reflection of the intensity of his very personal connection with his Lord.