Woman Destroys Sacrilegious Painting of Christ

[jasoncran]

the same could same of the lord's name since we dont know the pronuciation of the tetragrammation.

 

[lovely]

This piece of 'art' was intended to upset and provoke. I hardly think one woman with a crow bar is a mob...artists love controversy. He will probably sell more lithographs. Maybe he should share in his part of the responsibility? Perhaps he should have to pay/serve half of the sentence for inciting. Radio hosts get fired over saying offensive things, so it seems like those who uphold tolerance and condemn these radio hosts, politicians, and beauty queens, etc. should be the first one's condemning this man's offensive artwork.

I understand the woman's feelings, but I do not agree with her actions, though I do applaud her courage. I agree with, Destiny, where are the men and the churches? This 'art' is NOT representative of God, but instead the reflection of a hatemongering, money-hungry heart void of God and full of disrespect, cowardice, and prejudice. She should have let it stand to his shame and let the fullness of his sin come upon him, while sharing the Gospel along side, inside, or outside, etc. with love and boldness.

I no longer live in Loveland, but they are known for their love for art...I wonder if the theme of this lithograph were offensive to anyone other than those who are religious if it would have been okay'd?

 

[Lewis]

During Biblical times a painting like that would not have been tolerated, somebody might have died over it. Here in early America that would not have been tolerated, you surely would have been put to death. You can all say what you want I am with this lady.

 

[Oats]

During Biblical times a painting like that would not have been tolerated, somebody might have died over it. Here in early America that would not have been tolerated, you surely would have been put to death. You can all say what you want I am with this lady.

Yup...I agree...the Church needs to advocate for her

 

[Mike]

And yet just this week (already) the Washington Post refused to publish a cartoon that they usually have because it "didn't" depict Muhammad... It is really rather ironic. The point of the cartoon was that not only can you not portray Muhammad, but now its not even PC to mention his name... apparently true...

Washington Post | Non Sequitur Muhammad | Muhammad | Mediaite

But it's ok to display an artists rendition of Jesus in a sex act? With a man? How lopsided will this nation get before we all just fall over?

This is the problem with tax funding the arts (not all of them). They have no accountability. Now to be fair, this showing didn't use tax money, as the "artist" donated the garbage for no cost, but the museum is funded with taxes. So they wouldn't be impacted by Christian not giving it their business. A news paper has to sell it's product, so they're accountable. (yet still they go over the line all the time)

But your point is well taken. Christianity is fair game for anything, and other faiths are off limits. We're just supposed to allow artists to express themselves. Isn't that what they said about "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

I agree with the anger and outrage over this trash, and it would take everything inside of me not to go off on it if I actually saw it. But, I'm just thinking that breaking and entering and destruction of property (the building) is not the tact that would be best.

 

[Theofilus]

Yet this woman broke an entering.....and assaulted property that was not her own. It is also written....that we are not to covet another's property. Taking from the museum...was that anything but?

While I can truly share her distaste for the object as I would not be much for it myself....what good does it do to go breaking the law and in the process one of the commandments God gave us in order to get rid of something she and others may have found offensive?

Which commandment did she break? It wasn't the one about coveting.

Covet
–verb (used with object)
to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

She didn't want the drawing for herself. Neither did she want to take over the museum for herself. She didn't covet anything. Like I said earlier, she was actually following God's commandment to destroy blasphemous images.

 

[Chris]

Err this, Jesus a living god needs not to be defended. A useless idol or statue does. To my way of thinking Defending Jesus against adversity while it does hurt me to think someone would paint that and it is about someone you love is not needed. God takes care of his own and hands down judgment. Might as well try to stand up and personally defend the whole US army from harm as to need to defend God against man. If the God of the bible is true, the one who destroys armies, he can take care of himself. Maybe we should pray for the artist.


Did the roman catholic church leave itself wide open for someone to criticize it via art?

 

[Lewis]

Which commandment did she break? It wasn't the one about coveting.

Covet
–verb (used with object)
to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

She didn't want the drawing for herself. Neither did she want to take over the museum for herself. She didn't covet anything. Like I said earlier, she was actually following God's commandment to destroy blasphemous images.

I am with you Theo all the way. I wish I was the one who did it.

 

[Cheyenne K]

My first reaction was, "Great!" However, it did get me thinking.

Pornography - obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

For one thing, that isn't art. Things depicting sex are not art. They may have artistic qualities, but it is not art. Though I will admit there is a fine line between art and pornography. But this? It's trash. It looks like a little kid with a dirty mind took a bunch of magazine clippings and threw them together. Where's the effort? The technique? Even most modern art has that.
Secondly, this guy is saying it wasn't Jesus? Pfft. Yeah, okay. I've seen the so-called "art." It's a cut-and-paste image of Jesus on a woman's body. If the "artist" is going to make up an excuse, he should find one that isn't so incredibly stupid and take the backlash like a man.

On another note, while I am happy that this blasphemous piece of garbage is no longer there, however, I do not necessarily think that what this woman did was the best course of action.
Also, why was this woman the first one to do anything about it? Don't any churches in the area have anything to say about it? I mean, really, come on now. There's your Savior who died for you made in a disgusting image and you have nothing to say about it?

 

[Lewis]

Let me say something, God still raises up warriors and it is crazy to think that He does not, because He does.
Christians or should I say many Christians has this ludicrous idea that Christians should all be push overs.
Yeah sure come on in and rape my wife and kids while I stand there and pray for you. Yeah sure make bad images of my God Jesus Christ, and it's ok with us. Let me tell you something why do people think that Christians should be a bunch of punks. What about the Christians that are in the military, they have to kill, does that make them any less of a Christian. This country started out Biblically based, even though they got it wrong sometimes with things like slavery, they still were Jesus believers, and if someone black or white had made such a picture they would have been put to death. Now this woman did not kill anybody, and in my opinion she was justified.

 

[Bazz1040]

Let me say something, God still raises up warriors and it is crazy to think that He does not, because He does.
Christians or should I say many Christians has this ludicrous idea that Christians should all be push overs.
Yeah sure come on in and rape my wife and kids while I stand there and pray for you. Yeah sure make bad images of my God Jesus Christ, and it's ok with us. Let me tell you something why do people think that Christians should be a bunch of punks. What about the Christians that are in the military, they have to kill, does that make them any less of a Christian. This country started out Biblically based, even though they got it wrong sometimes with things like slavery, they still were Jesus believers, and if someone black or white had made such a picture they would have been put to death. Now this woman did not kill anybody, and in my opinion she was justified.

My question to you is this; what example did Jesus set....how did He live? What did He taught?

 

[Lewis]

My question to you is this; what example did Jesus set....how did He live? What did He taught?

And my question to you is, you don't think that God still raises up warriors ? Because if you don't, you are dead wrong. And why did Jesus make this statement below. I will tell you why because sometimes you have to do things another way. Why would Jesus tell him buy a sword, and what are they used for ?

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 

[destiny]

Get your dander up over sin and see how quickly you will be told that you aren't having a loving attitude like Jesus.

Jesus said, "the world HATES me because I TESTIFY THAT ITS DEEDS ARE EVIL"(John 7:7).

We need to ask ourselves how much our beliefs about Jesus are influenced from the bible, and how much our beliefs are influenced from the apostasy's FALSE love and tolerance teachings. Our society testifies to the latter.. it's pretty dark out there. Salt hurts but it purifies the wound... salve makes it feel better. We rub on the salve and leave off the salt, so sin spreads and rots away and we think this is the love of Jesus.

 

[Sissy]

First, that idolatrous image is not the Lord; neither has any image by any artist at any time ever accurately depicted his human form.

True.

But artwork doesn't have to have an accurate resemblance to represent someone.
My grand-children's drawings of the family can attest to that!

The painting was in poor taste and down right bad manners, but having bad manners and poor taste are not against the law.
And there is no law against painting a depiction of what you think of Jesus or Mohammad (good or bad).


It's sad and it breaks my heart that people can be so distasteful.
But that is the world we live in.

Destroying the painting by breaking the law is not going to change the artist's opinion of Jesus.
You can destroy every distasteful painting in the world, but if you haven't changed ones heart, you haven't done what is needed.

There is an old proverb that goes something like this ......
"If you choose to seek revenge on one, be sure and dig two graves."

 

[Theofilus]

My question to you is this; what example did Jesus set....how did He live? What did He taught?

In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:14-15 ESV)​

That's the example He set. Do you want me to list the things He taught when speaking to hypocrits and blasphemers?

 

[Mike]

In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:14-15 ESV)​

That's the example He set. Do you want me to list the things He taught when speaking to hypocrits and blasphemers?

Theo, you know what to expect in a response to this. He always saved His harshest words for religious leaders who abused their power - not sinners. I actually thought about the account in the account in the temple, but he had righteous anger for them using His Father's house for profit.

This sounds like a Person Who knew and accepted that people would do this kind of stuff (because of course He knew) and was trying to create a sense of even-handedness about them - not whimpy-pushover- handedness, but even.

John 15
" <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26707">18</sup>"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26708">19</sup>If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26709">20</sup>Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.'If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26710">21</sup>They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26711">22</sup>If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26712">23</sup>He who hates me hates my Father as well. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26713">24</sup>If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-26714">25</sup>But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'"

All but one person here expressed disdain and righteous anger for this painting, but we have different responses. Some things to consider:

a. The artist had 30 prints of this trash. Now he has 29.
b. Artists will continue to blaspheme the Lord
c. I don't want to give ammunition to non-believers who say "Well, Christians do ... so bleh!"
d. This behavior will change when mens' hearts change
e. This type of response can inflame tenuous feelings that already exist
f. This is how to make an artist's name known. Ya think this just might convince other starving artists to do the same??

Maybe instead, Christians could camp outside the museum when it's open and display pictures that glorify the Lord, while approaching city hall because it's tax funded, while approaching the state, while approaching their congressmen, while doing everything they can to stop this from happening, especially with a tax funded facility.

 

[Theofilus]

Theo, you know what to expect in a response to this. He always saved His harshest words for religious leaders who abused their power - not sinners. I actually thought about the account in the account in the temple, but he had righteous anger for them using His Father's house for profit.

Those weren't religious leaders He threw out of the temple. It was ordinary merchants and bankers. What they were doing (selling sacrifices and currency exchange) wasn't wrong in and of iteslf but, by doing it in the temple, they were disrespecting a building that had been dedicated to God. What this artist did was wrong on many levels. He did much worse than disrespect a building. He blasphemed Christ.

If anger against misusing a building can be considered righteous (and I agree that it can), then anger against someone making blasphemous drawings of our Lord committing a homosexual act can surely also be considered righteous.

 

[Lewis]

Theofilus, I am with you again. The thing is there are always going to be people who will see this another way, as you can see. And that is their opinion, and they are entitled to it. And you and I see it another way, and I think you and I Theofilus are right. Many Christians believe that God does not make warriors anymore, and that we are just to standby like little punks and let the bad treatment of us, just constantly go on. Now will admit that there are times when we should do nothing, but this situation is not one of them. I will give you a example 2 or 3 times on this board I asked what should Christians do if a man broke into their house, beat and raped their wife and daughters, should they fight that man, and would they use deadly force, to protect their family ? And do you know that some of these people said that they would just let the Lord take care of it. Now if I ask the man to leave and he does not, if I get any chance, I will take him out, even if it means his or my death. Same thing with this, they think that we should just sit around and take everything that comes down the pike. God sets in place men that deal with the infractions of other men, I am not always going to go to secular law to take care all our problems, now that is just me, I am not asking any of you to do what I do.

 

[Mike]

If anger against misusing a building can be considered righteous (and I agree that it can), then anger against someone making blasphemous drawings of our Lord committing a homosexual act can surely also be considered righteous.

This response to Theo and Lewis...

Of course we should have righteous anger toward matters like this. I (and I'm sure everyone) is angry about this. Personally, I'd like to drag the artist by a rope off the back of my car to an empty lot and invoke some screaming of pain. Lewis, I agree God does raise warriors. We're sounding like we're on different sides of the fence. Good grief! I'm not a pacifist by any stretch. I've always argued for self defense (and defense of others) with the intensity of it being measured by what it takes to subdue them including ending their lives. If you take a look at my points a-f above, I'm just considering those in thinking there must be a different way of handling this.

I'm not going to die on this hill, though. If other measures failed, this type of response might need to be considered.

 

[destiny]

It will be interesting to see what we will do when the laws of the land are completely against Gods laws. There is going to be a great trial here in America on whether we will suffer for Jesus Christ or not.