Woman Destroys Sacrilegious Painting of Christ

[handy]

There is a difference between Jesus and the moneychangers at the Temple and this situation and I think it is a key difference.

The moneychangers were people of God and what they were doing, they were doing in God's house.

The artist and the museum are out in the world.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13: For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

If the artist claims to be a Christian, and I don't think he does, then we within the body of Christ should rise up and condemn him for blasphemy. But, as I say, I don't think this artist makes any such claim and I'm not sure where we would find Scriptural backing for the idea that we Christians should forcibly destroy blasphemous items and condemn blasphemous non-Christians.

Having said that, I still stand by my original opinion. She should be fined for the destruction of property, and her brothers and sisters in the Lord should pay the fines for her.

 

[stovebolts]

I’ve just read this thread and it sadens me some of the things I’m reading. Part of me doesn’t even want to respond and the other part of me just wants to lock the thread and dump it in the Dead Threads… But I don’t have that authority being I’m not the mod of this forum.

First off, let’s not let the gentiles be more rightous than us Christians. Scripture is clear that we are to obey the authorities that govern our nations (Romans 13:1-10) What this woman did was wrong in many respects. First off, she broke into a business and second she destroyed a piece of property that was not hers. While the topic may invoke feelings of rage among many of you, as it did her, this does not give us a justifying reason to blatently commit the crime of breaking an entering and the destruction of property that is not yours.
<o></o>
This doesn’t mean we’re passive, but Jesus does call us to be innovative such as is seen in Matthew 5:43-48. By way of simple example, a Roman soldier could take any non-roman anywhere at anytime and force them to carry their pack for 1 mile. But the catch was that the one carrying the pack was protected under that same law because the law limeted the distance one could carry a pack to 1 mile. If you carried the pack 2 miles, the soldier would then be in violation of the law, so if you happily carried it 2 miles, what you forced the soldier to realize is that you’re a human being too. I wuold suggest the other two stories being told force the oppressor to come to that same realization.
<o></o>
As Christians, the artwork that was destroyed is offensive and not an accurate portrayal of our Saviour. But then again, neither is the blonde, european picture that Jesus is often depicted as an accurate portrayal of our Saviour. First and foremost, let’s not elevate any image to a status where it becomes an idol, but as important, when we’re offended, let’s get innovative in our responses. In this case, at the very least this portrayal of Jesus could have been used as an opportunity to tell who the real Jesus is. You see, we defend our faith with a shield, not a sword. The sword is used to press ahead, and as Christians, we press ahead by preaching God’s word. Simply put, when we support the behavior of this woman, what we’re doing is supporting an illegal activity based on a religious bias. If this is the rule we play by, then why can’t the athiest or homosexual etc. break into a church for the same reason? Wouldn’t they be justified by the same manner?
<o></o>
This brings me to several passages that I believe are taken way out of context, and I’m compellled to address these verses. First is the idea behind Luke 23:36 as supporting violence, or to give credence toward an unlawful act is to completely miss what Jesus is conveying. Pulling a verse out of context to support ones own view is dangerous. The second is John 2:14-15. In regard to that, are we now likening a museum to God’s Holy Temple? Say it isnt’ so. Again, this is a gross distortion of using God’s word and completely misses the point of what Jesus was doing.
<o></o>
I understand I’m not going to be popular with this post, but we’ve got to get a hold on our emotions and stop using God’s word to support our own image of who we think God should be. God said not to make an image of him because he’s the invisible God, yet we make images of him, and by doing so distort who He really is… and then we’re upset when sombody looks at how ugly we are, and they make a piece of art in the image of Jesus that they see through us, and we retalieate like those Christ told us not to be like which only supports their distorted view to begin with. I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind when he wrote the things he wrote in Matthew 5.
<o>
Grace and Peace.</o>

 

[LostSoul]

I’ve just read this thread and it sadens me some of the things I’m reading. Part of me doesn’t even want to respond and the other part of me just wants to lock the thread and dump it in the Dead Threads… But I don’t have that authority being I’m not the mod of this forum.

First off, let’s not let the gentiles be more rightous than us Christians. Scripture is clear that we are to obey the authorities that govern our nations (Romans 13:1-10) What this woman did was wrong in many respects. First off, she broke into a business and second she destroyed a piece of property that was not hers. While the topic may invoke feelings of rage among many of you, as it did her, this does not give us a justifying reason to blatently commit the crime of breaking an entering and the destruction of property that is not yours.
<O>
This doesn’t mean we’re passive, but Jesus does call us to be innovative such as is seen in Matthew 5:43-48. By way of simple example, a Roman soldier could take any non-roman anywhere at anytime and force them to carry their pack for 1 mile. But the catch was that the one carrying the pack was protected under that same law because the law limeted the distance one could carry a pack to 1 mile. If you carried the pack 2 miles, the soldier would then be in violation of the law, so if you happily carried it 2 miles, what you forced the soldier to realize is that you’re a human being too. I wuold suggest the other two stories being told force the oppressor to come to that same realization.
<O>
As Christians, the artwork that was destroyed is offensive and not an accurate portrayal of our Saviour. But then again, neither is the blonde, european picture that Jesus is often depicted as an accurate portrayal of our Saviour. First and foremost, let’s not elevate any image to a status where it becomes an idol, but as important, when we’re offended, let’s get innovative in our responses. In this case, at the very least this portrayal of Jesus could have been used as an opportunity to tell who the real Jesus is. You see, we defend our faith with a shield, not a sword. The sword is used to press ahead, and as Christians, we press ahead by preaching God’s word. Simply put, when we support the behavior of this woman, what we’re doing is supporting an illegal activity based on a religious bias. If this is the rule we play by, then why can’t the athiest or homosexual etc. break into a church for the same reason? Wouldn’t they be justified by the same manner?
<O>
This brings me to several passages that I believe are taken way out of context, and I’m compellled to address these verses. First is the idea behind Luke 23:36 as supporting violence, or to give credence toward an unlawful act is to completely miss what Jesus is conveying. Pulling a verse out of context to support ones own view is dangerous. The second is John 2:14-15. In regard to that, are we now likening a museum to God’s Holy Temple? Say it isnt’ so. Again, this is a gross distortion of using God’s word and completely misses the point of what Jesus was doing.
<O>
I understand I’m not going to be popular with this post, but we’ve got to get a hold on our emotions and stop using God’s word to support our own image of who we think God should be. God said not to make an image of him because he’s the invisible God, yet we make images of him, and by doing so distort who He really is… and then we’re upset when sombody looks at how ugly we are, and they make a piece of art in the image of Jesus that they see through us, and we retalieate like those Christ told us not to be like which only supports their distorted view to begin with. I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind when he wrote the things he wrote in Matthew 5.
<O>
Grace and Peace.

My apologies Stevebolts for any actions or words expressed here that were not within reason or properly based on scripture. My view remains as I expressed it, but if it was in any way unbecoming of a believer, then I am truly sorry. Everyone here is a beautiful creation of God and no one should feel any less of worth or value than the next.

So to anyone I may have upset with my choice of words, I apologize. While my views may not be the same as a number expressed here I did not mean to express them with the intent to be hurtful or slanderous to God's word.



</O>

 

[handy]

I agree with you, Jeff. I really do. She broke the law exercising judgement against a non-Christain...something we shouldn't do.

Which is why I believe that she should be fined for her actions. I don't believe she should go to jail or anything like that, as no one was hurt, but there should be clear consequenses against someone who destroys property like this. It will be a very bad witness, a very bad witness indeed, if we Christians give the impression that we have the right to break laws, that because we serve God, we don't have to obey the laws of the land. That is not at all what the Bible says.

By acknowledging that she did wrong in what she did and supporting the fact that she should pay fines, we acknowledge to the world that we do agree that Christians are not to judge others in this way.

By coming together and raising the money to pay the fines, then we are also showing the world that we love our sister, we understand her anger and we don't like our God to be blasphemed. No, the artwork wasn't our God, no image is. But, it was the intent of the artist to blaspheme Jesus, for he clearly used an image anyone would associate with Jesus and depicted the image in a profane way. The intent to blaspheme and offend was most certainly there.

Because the artist clearly intended to blaspheme Christ, even if he is now lying about it, I think this situation calls for a dual response by the Body of Christ: acknowledgment that the woman should not have done what she did...but that we stand with her in love, knowing that of course our Lord and our faith were being targeted by this artist. So, she gets fined, we all help pay it.

 

[stovebolts]

Dora,

I always enjoy your well thought out, calm responses.

That being said, I'm not sure that I'd be the first person to throw a dollar into supporting her fines, fee's or legal costs. Honestly, I'd rather give the dollar to somebody who was having a hard time paying their bills, or somebody who needed their car repaired etc. Call it tough love, but I can't see myself supporting her behavior, not even monitarily.

One of the dangers I see in rallying around this woman is that it will be percieved as the Church supporting illegal activities based on religous belief and bias in which case we're no better off than those who flew into the World Trade center when it comes to ideology. You know that's how the story would be spun and this hurts the image of the church even more.

Like I said, I'm not going to be popular in this thread, but I feel that she needs to be held accountable and she needs to stand on her own. She needs to face the wrong she did, but that won't happen as long as she feels justified in what she did.

We have to stop being a part of this world, and it starts with not acting like the rest of the world. How can we be a light to others when our own actions are so hypcritcal?

I believe there is a better way that the image could have been handled. A way that opened the door to let the world see the real Jesus. It could have been an opportunity, not just another negative headline for a Christian.

Thanks for listening.

 

[destiny]

Stovebolts said, "" and then we’re upset when sombody looks at how ugly we are, and they make a piece of art in the image of Jesus that they see through us, and we retalieate like those Christ told us not to be like which only supports their distorted view to begin with.""

Wow...just wow. You need to stick with facts and leave personal opinion out of it. Again, Jesus said, ""The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil."" John 7:7

That scripture alone tells us why someone would be motivated to do such a hateful vile thing, but you are making the perpetrator into the victim and the godly into the hateful. This is the same spirit that the world has toward believers and is why the churches are silent. Unbelievable.

 

[stovebolts]

Destiny,

Just because the world hates us doesn't mean we're to act like the rest of the world. As Christians, we are to be above reproach. Breaking an entering is an illegal act that damages somebody elses property.

That being said, I don't agree with the art work, but I don't agree with justifying unlawfull behaviour based on religious bias either. There are other routes we as Christians could have taken in this manner that didn't entail criminal activities.

I am not calling the godly hatefull. I am simply calling a crime a crime regardless of who did it.

 

[destiny]

Destiny,

Just because the world hates us doesn't mean we're to act like the rest of the world. As Christians, we are to be above reproach. Breaking an entering is an illegal act that damages somebody elses property.

That being said, I don't agree with the art work, but I don't agree with justifying unlawfull behaviour based on religious bias either. There are other routes we as Christians could have taken in this manner that didn't entail criminal activities.

I am not calling the godly hatefull. I am simply calling a crime a crime regardless of who did it.

Maybe there was a way she could have handled it differently... but as someone who loves the Lord I can completely understand her anger, and given the opinions you've given I can even moreso understand her actions in knowing nothing would be done about it except finding herself condemned because of her anger.
It's a backwards day we live in!! Totally dark and backwards.

 

[stovebolts]

Destiny,
I understand your anger and yes, the whole thing stirs emotions within me as well.

There is a place in the Bible where the text says that Jesus was angered by the pharasis, and while it does not "template" into this story, we do get to see how Jesus responded. You know the story, it was the sabbath and a man with a curled hand was present. The Pharasis didn't believe it was right that Jesus do good on the Sabbath, so in anger, Jesus said, "Stretch out your hand". And the man was healed.

Jesus used his anger to do good. And by doing good, the darkness was exposed. Why do we spend so much time blaming the darkness for being dark Destiny? What if we spent our time trying to spread the light, and do good? Darkenss always disapaits when light is present. Darkness doesn't overcome light, but light overcomes darkenss.. and even scripture says we're not to sin in our anger.

Yes it angers mes that this "artwork" was on display... there are a lot of things that anger me about that whole situation. But like Jesus, we need to do good with it, not get sucked into it and become just like the rest of the world.

I'm not asking you to agree, but do you see where I'm viewing this?

 

[Lewis]

Well I have not changed my mind, and I am entitled to my opinion, I am glad she did it, I just don't like her going to jail. But I have heard Christians on this site, say we should do nothing about partial birth abortions, or abortion clinics, and that is their opinion, but it is not mine.

 

[stovebolts]

Lewis,

With all due respect, you are as entitled to your opinion as much as the gal who created that wretch called art. What should define us is Christ living in us.

I'm not saying that this, and I say this with a lack for better words, but this 'art' shouldn't make us angry. What I'm saying is as Christians, what do we do with that anger? Do we become just like the world and act like the rest of the world, or do we try to be like Christ and obey his commandments?

Now then, about the abortion issue, I don't even see how that's related. (Yes, I'm pro-life) Clearly, and I assume you agree that breaking into a place of business is a crime punishable by the authorities, though in reality she only broke into a glass case... And I'll assume you agree that destroying somebody else property is also a crime, punishable by the authorities. Surely this gal who broke the museums property and destroyed another persons property knew that. So when you say that you don't think she should go to jail, or get in any type of trouble, you smack at the same laws that are designed protect you.

 

[Lewis]

I related them Jeff because it is thee ole don't do anything attitude, just like what is being discussed about with this art thing. But on my part I should bow out of this now, I think that I have said enough, ain't no use in dragging this out, luv you all.

 

[jasoncran]

there's a better way and its simple, write the co senate and the congress and for those that did vote for this musuem to be paid for. refuse to vote for them.

will it change the situation? maybe not but they will know that you dont approve.

we dont have to watch this junk. i dont.

if a tv show offends you because of the mockery of the lord then stop warching the show.its that simple.

avoid movies that are like that as well.

if need be shut of the cable. vote with your dollars, if enough of us do this they will get the idea.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

I am going to be perfectly honest with all of you. As an American, people like you guys scare the living hell out if me. Most of you are argueing for a theocracy, which is frightening. You are essentially saying that we have the right to disobey the law when we are presented with opinions that do not conform to our own. You can try to play the respect card, but that is just a smokescreen. Would you be saying the same thing if I broke into a Church, destroyed the Bible on the alter, because it says that homosexuals should be stoned to death? I should be arrested are rightfully so. Or can I break into an art gallery that displays the Last Judgement painting, because it is offensive to non-Christians?

Frightening stuff. :ohwell

 

[Mike]

I am going to be perfectly honest with all of you. As an American, people like you guys scare the living hell out if me. Most of you are argueing for a theocracy, which is frightening. You are essentially saying that we have the right to disobey the law when we are presented with opinions that do not conform to our own. You can try to play the respect card, but that is just a smokescreen. Would you be saying the same thing if I broke into a Church, destroyed the Bible on the alter, because it says that homosexuals should be stoned to death? I should be arrested are rightfully so. Or can I break into an art gallery that displays the Last Judgement painting, because it is offensive to non-Christians?

Frightening stuff. :ohwell

Did you bother to read this thread before you posted this? Even the OP?

 

[destiny]

I am going to be perfectly honest with all of you. As an American, people like you guys scare the living hell out if me. Most of you are argueing for a theocracy, which is frightening. You are essentially saying that we have the right to disobey the law when we are presented with opinions that do not conform to our own. You can try to play the respect card, but that is just a smokescreen. Would you be saying the same thing if I broke into a Church, destroyed the Bible on the alter, because it says that homosexuals should be stoned to death? I should be arrested are rightfully so. Or can I break into an art gallery that displays the Last Judgement painting, because it is offensive to non-Christians?

Frightening stuff. :ohwell

I bet if someone calling themself a Christian depicted allah in some way that is considered blasphemy to the muslims, and displayed it in a museum causing the same reaction from muslims, it wouldn't scare you at all...I feel pretty sure you would be angry with the "artist" even though lives would be threatened by the muslims.
In the bible there are apparently some things worth going to jail for concerning our Lord, I know the apostle Paul was well acquainted with jail time. He even loved his chains because they represented suffering for his Lord.

 

[Lewis]

I bet if someone calling themself a Christian depicted allah in some way that is considered blasphemy to the muslims, and displayed it in a museum causing the same reaction from muslims, it wouldn't scare you at all...I feel pretty sure you would be angry with the "artist" even though lives would be threatened by the muslims.
In the bible there are apparently some things worth going to jail for concerning our Lord, I know the apostle Paul was well acquainted with jail time. He even loved his chains because they represented suffering for his Lord.

Amen & amen again destiny. Yes Paul broke secular law all the time, he was forbidden to preach the Gospel by some and was thrown in jail for it, many times. Paul for Christ broke secular law sometimes. Paul had no other way to do it sometimes. I am not advocating that people go out and break the law, but sometimes, depicting my Lord as a HOMOSEXUAL is to much for me, and I will react.

 

[Theofilus]

I am going to be perfectly honest with all of you. As an American, people like you guys scare the living hell out if me. Most of you are argueing for a theocracy, which is frightening. You are essentially saying that we have the right to disobey the law when we are presented with opinions that do not conform to our own. You can try to play the respect card, but that is just a smokescreen. Would you be saying the same thing if I broke into a Church, destroyed the Bible on the alter, because it says that homosexuals should be stoned to death? I should be arrested are rightfully so. Or can I break into an art gallery that displays the Last Judgement painting, because it is offensive to non-Christians?

Frightening stuff. :ohwell

I think you're misunderstanding what we're saying. Nobody has said that the kind of thing should be legal. What we are saying is that there are certain situations that can justify breaking laws which, under normal circumstances should be obeyed. Let me give you an example that you should probably be able to understand.

In 1776, the people of certain British colonies in North America rebelled against their lawful king and declared their independance. They did this knowing that it was illegal and that war would inevetably be the result. Do you, as an American, believe that rebellion against lawful authorities should be legal? Do you think the founding fathers of your country believed that rebellion should be legal? No, of course not, but there are certain situations that can justify it.

The justification the colonists used was unjust tax laws. While I don't enjoy paying taxes that I think are unjust, I feel that blasphemy is a much more serious thing. If you agree that unfair taxes justify starting a war, can you not see that blasphemy can justify breaking a plastic case and ripping up a piece of paper?

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Did you bother to read this thread before you posted this? Even the OP?

Of course I did, mate. I read most of the thread.

I bet if someone calling themself a Christian depicted allah in some way that is considered blasphemy to the muslims, and displayed it in a museum causing the same reaction from muslims, it wouldn't scare you at all...I feel pretty sure you would be angry with the "artist" even though lives would be threatened by the muslims.
In the bible there are apparently some things worth going to jail for concerning our Lord, I know the apostle Paul was well acquainted with jail time. He even loved his chains because they represented suffering for his Lord.

Why would I care if someone depicted Allah in a blasphemous manner? I am not a Muslim. I do hate South Park for its constant denigration of religion, but I do not mind limited instances of criticism, nor do I think any action should be taken against anyone who works with South Park. Are you in fact saying that what fundamentalist Muslims do (i.e. going after those who depict their God in a blasphemous manner) is acceptable?

Amen & amen again destiny. Yes Paul broke secular law all the time, he was forbidden to preach the Gospel by some and was thrown in jail for it, many times. Paul for Christ broke secular law sometimes. Paul had no other way to do it sometimes. I am not advocating that people go out and break the law, but sometimes, depicting my Lord as a HOMOSEXUAL is to much for me, and I will react.

And what if Christian fundamentalists constantly depicting homosexuals as evil and sinful is too much for me? Do I have the right to take violent action against you?

I think you're misunderstanding what we're saying. Nobody has said that the kind of thing should be legal. What we are saying is that there are certain situations that can justify breaking laws which, under normal circumstances should be obeyed. Let me give you an example that you should probably be able to understand.

If it is justified, then it should be legal, shouldn't it? Would you support a censorship bill that made it illegal to make art that is blasphemous art to Christians?

In 1776, the people of certain British colonies in North America rebelled against their lawful king and declared their independance. They did this knowing that it was illegal and that war would inevetably be the result. Do you, as an American, believe that rebellion against lawful authorities should be legal? Do you think the founding fathers of your country believed that rebellion should be legal? No, of course not, but there are certain situations that can justify it.

The justification the colonists used was unjust tax laws. While I don't enjoy paying taxes that I think are unjust, I feel that blasphemy is a much more serious thing. If you agree that unfair taxes justify starting a war, can you not see that blasphemy can justify breaking a plastic case and ripping up a piece of paper?

I am not argueing that everything which is legal is just and everything which is illegal is unjust. However, you are argueing apples and oranges. The Founding Fathers rebelled because they were fighting for political and ideological freedom. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch proponent of liberal democracy. You are in fact argueing that it is noble to fight for the censorship of ideas and ideology.

 

[LostSoul]

As I have expressed to another here at Christian Forums this is truly where my heart is on this matter:

In regards of the woman and her actions against the rather contraversal piece of artwork...I meant not to sound as though I were condemning her. Rather that I was against her course of action.I do feel in the depths of my heart that she set a bad example. While the reasoning behind her actions was understandable, her actions were hateful and unlawful. God is one, I believe and likely always will, is one who wants us to minister in love. She could have taken another form of action. She could have petitioned against the artwork being shown or brought up her concerns to the museum director. Would it gaurantee something would be done? No, not necessarily but it would give God's followers a voice....