[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
appropriate and humorous[/quote]
Seriously, are you like the special needs contrarian?[/quote]
sup Lamb chop 
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Billions of people worship worthless idols and worthless people every day. I don’t see this as anything different than the norm.
Take away the crown of thorns and it just looks like he’s about to draw the curtains over the presidency (or maybe it could look like he’s opening them, but that’s definitely not what he’s done).
The crown of thorns is just a symbol. It could never even begin to represent what Christ means to me. No collection of idols and symbols could ever represent what He means to me.[/quote]
No one is worshiping the pict
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?
[/quote]
This is offensive: because it portrays a known public figure who is not Jesus, as Jesus; and because it portrays the U.S. Presidency as being equivalent to Jesus’ ministry.
Given a different life path for Barack Obama so that he were not a known public figure; the same face and hands on a cross with the body clothed in period-appropriate garb for first century A.D. Palestine (or even with a particular culture’s customary representation of garb for first century A.D. Palestine; or with a particular culture’s customary representation of garb for Jesus); and nothing else indicating that somebody other than Jesus is being made out to be Jesus: this would not be offensive.[/quote]
Dead on. It’s extremely offensive, not because of the skin tone of the figure, but because a specific historical figure is being equated with Jesus. I don’t think it should be taken down - as another said, that is the point of free speech - but the current cultural state of this nation, a nation rapidly losing any concept of “taboo,” is extremely depressing. Worse, some people essentially believe Obama IS the savior.[/quote]
The Romans Crucified a lot of people and I am sure Jesus was not the first or last to wear the crown of thorns
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?
[/quote]
This is offensive: because it portrays a known public figure who is not Jesus, as Jesus; and because it portrays the U.S. Presidency as being equivalent to Jesus’ ministry.
Given a different life path for Barack Obama so that he were not a known public figure; the same face and hands on a cross with the body clothed in period-appropriate garb for first century A.D. Palestine (or even with a particular culture’s customary representation of garb for first century A.D. Palestine; or with a particular culture’s customary representation of garb for Jesus); and nothing else indicating that somebody other than Jesus is being made out to be Jesus: this would not be offensive.[/quote]
Dead on. It’s extremely offensive, not because of the skin tone of the figure, but because a specific historical figure is being equated with Jesus. I don’t think it should be taken down - as another said, that is the point of free speech - but the current cultural state of this nation, a nation rapidly losing any concept of “taboo,” is extremely depressing. Worse, some people essentially believe Obama IS the savior.[/quote]Ya beat me to it, but “extremely depressing”?!?!?! Nonsense brother. You n I need to talk =] No greater time to be a Christian in what’s left of America than what’s coming in your lifetime if not mine. I hope I live long enough to be in some of those prayer meetings. On one hand. I’m in a straight betwixt two. (I always loved that KJV phrase) For me to live is Christ AND to see the purest, most glorious church this continent has ever known, but to die is gain.
Obama is a sign waving hippie who belongs in the roach infested basement clubhouse of some fringe subversive campus communist outfit. His presence in the whitehouse offends me, but alas, THAT is what the country IS now and I don’t have to tell you that you are in the vaaaaast minority of people your age.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?
[/quote]
This is offensive: because it portrays a known public figure who is not Jesus, as Jesus; and because it portrays the U.S. Presidency as being equivalent to Jesus’ ministry.
Given a different life path for Barack Obama so that he were not a known public figure; the same face and hands on a cross with the body clothed in period-appropriate garb for first century A.D. Palestine (or even with a particular culture’s customary representation of garb for first century A.D. Palestine; or with a particular culture’s customary representation of garb for Jesus); and nothing else indicating that somebody other than Jesus is being made out to be Jesus: this would not be offensive.[/quote]
Dead on. It’s extremely offensive, not because of the skin tone of the figure, but because a specific historical figure is being equated with Jesus. I don’t think it should be taken down - as another said, that is the point of free speech - but the current cultural state of this nation, a nation rapidly losing any concept of “taboo,” is extremely depressing. Worse, some people essentially believe Obama IS the savior.[/quote]
The Romans Crucified a lot of people and I am sure Jesus was not the first or last to wear the crown of thorns
[/quote]
That’s inaccurate. After reading every single text discussing crucifixion in the period in question as part of my graduate work, I can honestly say that the crown of thorns is a uniquely Christian notion. There is no evidence that it was a common feature of crucifixion, nor evidence that it was used for anyone other than Jesus. The only evidence for the use of this item on ANYONE lies in the Christian gospels. Now whether or not you believe (as I do) that the gospels present accurate information about the life of Jesus is a different question, but either way, it is a distinctively Christian emblem. And unless the painter was equally misinformed and thought that the crown of thorns was just a common element in crucifixions, there is definitely an equation of Obama with Jesus in that painting.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
appropriate and humorous[/quote]
I agree completely. My first reaction was “LOL, there are people out there who treat him as though he were Jesus. Those idiots.”
Not offensive, just funny commentary about the way some people view the anointed Obama.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I can honestly say that the crown of thorns is a uniquely Christian notion. .[/quote]
This may be true , the picture is Obama wearing a crown of thorns , it is not depicting crucifixion , Deity or any other semblance of Christ
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< there is definitely an equation of Obama with Jesus in that painting.[/quote]Of course there is. And of course the crown of thorns was a device of mocking scorn in response to Jesus claim to being King of the Jews. An argument from silence is not logically conclusive, but as you say, there is no record of anyone else ever having been so crowned. The fact that anybody would even dispute that this is a clear depiction of Barack Obama in the very least in a Christ like position and state is a bit dopey.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am just guessing Cash is talking about drug addiction
But is it meme worthy?
I’m not upset, although I can see how people would be, for various reasons.
I’m curious (didn’t watch video, have read about it though) are athesit groups all up in arms over this? I mean they flip out over a christmas tree being called a christmas tree, and the word “God” in the pledge, so I can only imagine they want this burned, right? The whole church and state thing? This should be a major issue for them…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
About as “artistic” as piss Jesus.[/quote]
Yes. Deifying obama is a bit much, but whatever. If people want to visualize obama as a savior that’s their own problem
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not upset, although I can see how people would be, for various reasons.
I’m curious (didn’t watch video, have read about it though) are athesit groups all up in arms over this? I mean they flip out over a christmas tree being called a christmas tree, and the word “God” in the pledge, so I can only imagine they want this burned, right? The whole church and state thing? This should be a major issue for them…
[/quote]
Not really. It’s a painting in an art gallery.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not upset, although I can see how people would be, for various reasons.
I’m curious (didn’t watch video, have read about it though) are athesit groups all up in arms over this? I mean they flip out over a christmas tree being called a christmas tree, and the word “God” in the pledge, so I can only imagine they want this burned, right? The whole church and state thing? This should be a major issue for them…
[/quote]
Not really. It’s a painting in an art gallery.[/quote]
Still that all evil mixture of church and state…
I gotta be honest. I don’t see the mixture of church and state. I do see the blasphemous portrayal of an evil man as the sinless Son of God. For the record though I’m betting this was more an exaltation of Obama than it was a desecration of Jesus with a splash of simply making him out to be a persecuted hero.
meaning no disrespect , but that is what you want to see
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?[/quote]
Because it is blaspheme.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Looks like something I could pick up at a flea market. I wonder if I could get one on velvet…[/quote]
I got some pleather I can sell you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?[/quote]
It is neither religious nor political. What is offensive is that the author probably thinks there is actually some profound commentary in it. Nope.
The artwork is crude. The symbolism aimless. It is a painting by someone who is ignorant aimed at inciting others who are equally ignorant – this is what counts as “art” any more. Controversy is a good career move and the painter can probably wring a few more commissions out of local councils for the arts because they are staffed by the sort morons that think they have witnessed something profound (I know, I’ve worked with them, yuck).
It is the shallow-ness I find is offensive. What it purports to “show” is idiotic and laughable.
– jj