Playing the Indian Card

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Disgusting Photo




"Take a look at classical nudes of Venus. I find her body grotesque" - Jeff Harmson.

Classical statue of Aphrodite, Turkish National Museum, Istanbul.
Posted by at

8 comments:

Jeff Harmsen said...

Ha, ha,you crack me up Steve! That is not the painting of Venus I was referring to.

Although, I have to admit, I prefer my women to have arms, legs and a head!

12:50 PM
Jeff Harmsen said...

Oh and hey, Aphrodite is not Venus but the Greek equivalant.

12:51 PM
Steve Roney said...

You did not say anything about any one painting, Jeff. You said "classical nudes," plural.

9:30 AM
Jeff Harmsen said...

You're right Steve, I did not specify the exact painting. Isn't interesting that you and I should be thinking about different pieces, as if art was subjective.

After watching the documentary about the Jesus Tomb (not convinced yet, but open to further scientific investigation), I realized another example of how beauty evolves. The narrator poionted out that nobody wore a cross for many years after the crucifixion of Christ. He said it would have been like wearing a little electric chair around your neck.

These days, Christians, I assume, think the cross is beautiful. Thus, the cross has evolved from a grotesque form of execution to THE iconic symbol of your cult (a thing of beauty).

Personally, since the cross literally means "torture," I still find the symbol grotesque. But then, that's just me, I've never been into sadomasochism.

Yet, this is what children are learning in your cult. A little flesh eating, a bit of blood sipping, some sadomasochistic worshipping and you're good to go! Is it really any wonder terrorism and war are alive and well in modernity?

9:52 AM
Steve Roney said...

You're off base as usual, Jeff. The cross was a popular design element, considered beautiful, well before the crucifixion of Jesus.

As for nobody wearing a cross for several centuries after the death of Jesus, there was a reason for this: Christianity was illegal. Therefore, precisely because it was the central symbol of the cult, it had to be avoided. But there is no question, from the New Testament itself, that it was the key symbol of the new religion from the beginning.

1:50 AM
Jeff Harmsen said...

Good points Steve. But you only think I'm way off base because of your bias. Let me elaborate. The cross was considered beautiful before Christianity, but not as a symbol of Jesus' execution.

Yes, Christianity was illegal after the Crusifixion, but this is not why Christians avoided the cross. They simply didn't consider a form of tourture as a worthy symbol. The trancendance of the cross did not happen for decades after Jesus' execution, when it was contorted to mean things like "he died for our sins." However, Jesus did not die for our sins: he died over a tax dispute.

Think about it. Because Jesus did not stand up against the Roman barbaric taxing system, he peeved off the Jewish Zealots. This is what caused the crucifixion. Now, in the end, how did the Christians gain power? Through warring the Pagans. This is what the Jews wanted in the first place, an uprising against the Romans. (Jesus' real name, after all, was Joshuah. He was named after a Jewish warrior from the Old Testament.)

Thus, the cross was not considered a beautiful symbol by the Christians until long after Jesus died, when spin doctors contored his failed uprising into the powerful motivation of martyrdom.

11:37 AM
Steve Roney said...

Jeff, anyone who has read the New Testament would know your theory is nonsense: St. Paul refers to Christians, for example, as "followers of the cross." The crucifixion is central to him and to his theology.

7:48 AM
Jeff Harmsen said...

No serious historian takes the NT as literal truth. Look it up, you will find I am correct. It's part of the current controvery surrounding the Jesus tomb.

When it comes to reading, you have to get out more often, Steve.

12:28 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)