Our Taxdollars At Work For The Smithsonian Museum Christmas Exhibit

[SwoopSJ]

To address your point, were someone I don't know to to call my mom a whore or worse? Why would I be angry? Is it because they insulted her? No, they haven't met her. They are merely insulting me and trying to goad me into a fight by dragging her into it.

I really don't get why you and Crusader don't just let this roll off your backs.

I understand where you are coming from regarding the "name calling" and those who mock God being ignorant of Him, but you most definitely are not getting my point.  You referred to being offended by the mocking of God as "the sin of pride", well it is clearly stated in the bible that God is the one thing we should be proud of.  (I can provide references if you wish.)  Personal pride is a sin.  That is what I was attempting to convey.   Your argument against the mother allegory only enforces my other intended point, as these artists are trying to incite anger.  Regardless of the subject, why do you not see that as unacceptable? 

As far as letting this roll of my back, I don't plan on cracking heads or even marching around with a picket sign.  I do find this artwork offensive, however, sort of like I would find someone walking down the street with a 3ft, dayglo orange dildo strapped to their forehead offensive.  The difference is the unicorn wanna be would be arrested, and anyone attempting to enrage members of another religion (Islam) would be unceasingly chastised and rebuked.  Christians, however, are expected to completely refrain from voicing their displeasure or we are overreacting.  What applies to one should apply to all, because their is no acceptable level of hypocrisy.

Swoop
 

[fightingquaker13]

I understand where you are coming from regarding the "name calling" and those who mock God being ignorant of Him, but you most definitely are not getting my point.  You referred to being offended by the mocking of God as "the sin of pride", well it is clearly stated in the bible that God is the one thing we should be proud of.  (I can provide references if you wish.)  Personal pride is a sin.  That is what I was attempting to convey.   Your argument against the mother allegory only enforces my other intended point, as these artists are trying to incite anger.  Regardless of the subject, why do you not see that as unacceptable?  

As far as letting this roll of my back, I don't plan on cracking heads or even marching around with a picket sign.  I do find this artwork offensive, however, sort of like I would find someone walking down the street with a 3ft, dayglo orange dildo strapped to their forehead offensive.  The difference is the unicorn wanna be would be arrested, and anyone attempting to enrage members of another religion (Islam) would be unceasingly chastised and rebuked.  Christians, however, are expected to completely refrain from voicing their displeasure or we are overreacting.  What applies to one should apply to all, because their is no acceptable level of hypocrisy.

Swoop
 

Then I guess we agree. Odd how  arguing with someone sometimes makes you see you are on the same page. I think that you are mostly correct, and I just didn't make it clear enough in my posts where I stood. I guess the only point of disagreement would be that I'm willing to tolerate th unicorn (if I must) and I think Tom should be able to bash islam with impunity. I hate PC nonsense. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt. This is where I had trouble with the Quakers. They set a great personal example about trying not to take things personally and avoid being goaded into conflict. They were less good at allowing people to speak freely as they thought that by banning "hate speech" and such it would avoid provocation to violence. What I took away from my time with them was the importance of  humility, and the ability to laugh at yourself, but I also had my fear of well meaning meddlers reinforced.
peace
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

Crusader, we've corresponded a few times. However, my faith wasn't one of the topics so I'm surprised by your "knowledge" of my beliefs. I'm a bit surprised you wouldn't ask before posting as well, but no harm no foul.
In order (not that it should matter):
 I came to God when I was 25. It was a very intense thing and yes I am "Born Again" although I don't like the term as its come to be more political than religious these days.
Belief wise? I am a very orthodox Christian. I'm an Anglican/Episcopalian in the CS Lewis mode and do believe in the divinity of Christ, the sanctity and reality of the sacrements, apostolic succession, and the Nicene Creed. Forgive me if I think that means I've got a fair clue as to "what the Christian faith is all about". I don't believe in Biblical literalism, but I do think its inspired, authoritative and true, not something we make up as we go.

As to the rest of your post, you prove my point. You mention the fatwa on the cartoonist. I'm saying no Christian would even consider such a thing. I believe God isn't mocked so why should we care? You, when saying "Christians should stand up for ourselves" seem to think that the muslims have the right idea in punishing blasphemy. I know thats not what you meant, but its how it reads. Me, I think that if this offends you, its not because they're mocking God, but mocking you. Its the sin of pride brother Rabitt. God doesn't care and so why should we take umbridge at someone mocking us? Who cares? Speak the truth in love, fufill the great commision, obey the golden rule, and get on with your day. If He can be crucified, I can sure take a few insults without letting it bother me.
peace
FQ13

This testimony is telling to say the least. I have not heard or read a more post-modern neo-Christian, new-age load of crap in a long time. You don't like the term "born-again" when Jesus Christ himself used that very phrase in talking with Nicodemus?

"I believe God isn't mocked so why should we care? " is supposed to be God is NOT TO BE mocked - and if He is, we are directed to clean the Temple as Jesus himself did. Not the same as a fatwa, but we can use righteous anger to drive out the hypocrites, the abusers, the violators.

You "don't believe in Biblical literalism, but I do think its inspired, authoritative and true, not something we make up as we go." How does that work - it's all true, it's all authoritative, but don't take it literally? Does that get you out of speeding tickets - Gee Officer, I know the speed limit is 45, it's true and authoritative, but I didn't think you meant it to be taken literally, so I was going 75?   

"God doesn't care and so why should we take umbridge (sic) at someone mocking us?" God DOES care, that is the whole point of the Bible. Jesus did say that the world despised Him so we should not be surprised when it despises us as well. It does not mean we have to suffer the outrage in silence.

FQ, you may fancy yourself a Christian in the CS Lewis mold, but the reality is somewhat different. You need to re-evaluate some of your basic tenets. They do not always align with Scripture. Instead, either due to the Quakers or academia or whatever, you treat the Bible as a menu - pick one from column A, and another from Column B, and ignore the rest.

Ignore the rest only at your own peril, my Brother, only at your own peril. I've seen too many good people - good Christians - get broken because they decided they knew better than the Word. I know, I was one of them.

Thank you for sharing your testimony though, that was righteous - and brave! 

[crusader rabbit]

[quote from FQ13] I came to God when I was 25. It was a very intense thing and yes I am "Born Again" although I don't like the term as its come to be more political than religious these days.
Belief wise? I am a very orthodox Christian. I'm an Anglican/Episcopalian... [/quote]

You are absolutely correct that I should have communicated with you in a less-than-public forum before making ANY statements about whatever your beliefs may be.  You have my sincere apologies for that oversight.  I was wrong.

However, your reply rather confrims my original assertion.  Personally, I rather do like the term born again, as it explains the very real change one experiences when one comes to God.  As to your being an orthodox Christian AND/OR an Anglican/Episcopalian...  Well, if you are, I applaud you, but  I think that is becoming rather difficult considering the recent directional shift taken by the Episcopal demonination with the elevation of an openly and practicing gay bishop to the head dude position.  Just to clarify my point, I have no issue with the gay community individually or collectively--until they try to sell their lifestyle/position to others as "normal."  To have a practicing gay church leader is, in my opinion, a rejection of the very Word of God that the church supposedly accepts.  I am not certain how one claims to be a born again Christian and affiliates with a church that rejects at least part of God's Word.

But, with all that said, this is probably not the forum for a theological discussion.  I rather do like CS Lewis, FWIW.

[fightingquaker13]

No worries Crusader. And I am not all that thrilled with gay clergy either. Its just that its a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned as there have always been gay priests. I mean the Catholic Church, and what was the Evangelical guy with the gay "masseuse" meth dealer? Not a shot, just saying that while the ordination thing is new, that particular elephant has been in the living room for quite some time. Its a debate thats best to be had in the open as far as I'm concerned, but I am a bit traditional here, though willing to listen. As to my objection to  the term "born again", its just that it seems to have been hijacked by the religious right for political purposes. If you self identify that way folks assume you vote with Pat Robertson. I have no problem with its theological meaning and embrace it that way (it accurately describes me), I just reject the political connotations. Thats all.
Again, no worries.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[tt11758]

This a subject where I think we can respectfully disagree Swoop. My position is this. When it comes to God you get it or you don't. Why should I care what those who don't say? They speak from ignorance. To address your point, were someone I don't know to to call my mom a whore or worse? Why would I be angry? Is it because they insulted her? No, they haven't met her. They are merely insulting me and trying to goad me into a fight by dragging her into it. Why would I let myself be baited? Its foolish. Same with God. Say what you want. You don't know Him and aren't trying to insult Him. You're trying to insult me, and frankly, I don't much care. Maybe this is what happens when you spend a few years teaching at a Quaker college, but honestly, I really don't get why you and Crusader don't just let this roll off your backs. It means nothing unless you choose to make something of it. Its just sound and fury Swoop, sound and fury. Blessed are the peacemakers (particulary those made by Colt).
FQ13

Quaker, your point, as far as it goes, is somewhat valid.  Where it falls short, in my opinion, is that it fails to take into account the fact that these people are attempting to degrade Christians and Christianity, whether or not they succeed with you, and are using your own money to do it.  Kinda like somebody sleeping with your wife, and using your credit card to pay for the hotel room.

Further, it is my opinion that the anti-Christian sentiment that is so pervasive in the PC crowd these days is due in large part to the failure of Christians to draw a line in the sand past which they won't be pushed.  Why do we kiss the asses of Muslims?  Because we're afraid we might offend them or piss them off.  Why do we care?  Because they HAVE drawn a line in the sand.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a contract on those who seek to insult, but there comes a time when a stand needs to be taken.

Just sayin.

[kmitch200]

You "don't believe in Biblical literalism, but I do think its inspired, authoritative and true, not something we make up as we go." How does that work - it's all true, it's all authoritative, but don't take it literally?

Taking metaphores and allegories literally is IMHO insane.

Taking my tax dollars for this "artwork" just pisses me off. Let these jerks fund their own damn way.

[twyacht]

from tt,...
 Kinda like somebody sleeping with your wife, and using your credit card to pay for the hotel room.

Quote of the Day!!!

Oh, the Washington Post "art critic", is whining, seems his views would ban Norman Rockwell,.....

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/art-critic-angry-at-removal-of-ant-covered-jesus-would-ban-norman-rockwell

But the angry critic continued by saying he would ban Norman Rockwell:

    Norman Rockwell would get the boot, too, if I believed in pulling everything that I'm offended by: I can't stand the view of America that he presents, which I feel insults a huge number of us non-mainstream folks. But I didn't call for the Smithsonian American Art Museum to pull the Rockwell show that runs through Jan. 2, just down the hall from "Hide/Seek." Rockwell and his admirers got to have their say, and his detractors, including me, got to rant about how much they hated his art. Censorship would have prevented that discussion, and that's why we don't allow it.

***

Ban Norman Rockwell? Are you kidding? Where's the damn rope on this idiot? As anti-American as this clown is, he needs a one way trip to France, perhaps he can find an audience in North Korea,..Get this scumbag out of our country.

Boy do I miss tar & feathering.

[fightingquaker13]

from tt,...
 
Boy do I miss tar & feathering.

You also miss his point. He's against banning anyone. He just used Rockwell as an example of how folks can be offended by anything in order to suggest that museums shouldn't censor based on who might be offended. Personally, I find Rockwell kind of boring and O'Keefe a little repetative. Both however, do offend folks. God knows why, but they do. Should we censor them? No. A museum is like a university, or an internet board. Part of its job is to be provocative in order to stimulate debate.
FQ13

[twyacht]

If Rockwell "offends" folks, they are how many decimel points "behind" the zero? .00001%? The Smithsonian is a public funded warehouse of artifacts, and historical items. Let the universities display and "stimulate" debate.

Ask this critic if he can find an artist with the balls to do the same with a statue of Allah? I didn't know ants on Jesus was related to AIDS? It's such a clear correlation....

The big point FQ, is Not On Our Dime. There are plenty of private exhibit venues for this crap.