Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
wolfgirl said:
Or America.
Or America.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Abdul Alhazred said:
Or America.
Sheooot, everybuddy knows Jesus wast an 'merican. He'd haft ta be, 'cause everybuddy knows God an 'merican!
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
evildave said:
Heh.
Actually the bit about paying taxes goes together with "Resist not evil".
All this is true, but I only said it might approach the next best thing to "true, historical, semitic rendering of Jesus by a good artist". It's undoubtedly a spiritual idealization, but at least it's a spiritual idealization by people who lived approximately in the region in which Jesus lived, and a lot closer to the time in which he lived there (hence, we may assume that the ideal was one conceived by people who themselves looked reasonably similar to the people of 1st-century Palestine).headscratcher4 said:
It does, now that you mention it. And in my opinion, it also looks more than a little like Jim Caviezel in his Jesus makeup. It's tempting to conclude from that picture that 6th-century Semites living a stone's throw away from the Holy Land would not have found Caviezel's portrayal of Christ ethnically implausible. Which prompts the question: why does wolfgirl reach the opposite conclusion? I suspect she has some received ideas about what Semites are supposed to look like (apparently, they're supposed to look like "Abdul", whatever that means).
If I understand you correctly, Gibson's casting of Caviezel was calculated simultaneously to increase audience discomfort (because showing "Abdul" wouldn't have "bothered people as much") and reduce it (because showing Caviezel wouldn't "disturb people's comfort zone"). Which is it? This contradictory assertion makes no sense.
Gibson creates one of the most Semitic-looking Jesus depictions in the history of Western art (albeit that this is a relative standard), and for his trouble he gets dissed for paying "lip-service to reality" so he can "make lots of money"? Talk about a tough crowd. So tough, in fact, that one is tempted to conclude that this particular crowd is predisposed not to cut Gibson slack under any circumstances. By all means, withhold your pennies from Gibson - but for the sake of appearances at least try to come up with a better excuse for doing so.
It's usually meant to depict a book of Gospels. You can tell because sometimes the Christ Pantocrator is depicted with the book open, with NT verses showing (although sometimes, when closed, it's interpreted as the book of final judgment).Kopji said:
wolfgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Messages
- 1,375
ceo_esq said:
These assertions are not contradictory.
What I meant by disturbing people's comfort zone was questioning their comfortable belief in Jesus as a nice white boy. I don't think that as many people would have been as moved or touched by the movie if he hadn't looked so much like the audience expected him to look.
By the same token, I think that watching the torture of someone who looks like us is more disturbing than watching that of someone who looks like someone else, particularly if that someone else is someone we've started to think of as "the bad guy." A middle-Eastern guy being tortured might not bother (and therefore touch, move or affect) audiences as much as the boy next door.
The fact that he looks like us makes us comfortable (in general), thus more willing to see the movie. The fact that he looks like us makes us more uncomfortable when he's being tortured, thus making the movie more disturbing and moving, etc..
Get it?
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
wolfgirl said:
A nice white boy? I thought the deal was he was God come down to die. The comfort is supposed to come from not having to go to Hell as a result of this, not his color.
Doesn't the negative connotation associated with the word "usury" come from the Bible? Pray tell why I should loan my hard-earned savings to you for a scheme that may wipe out those savings if I cannot expect to earn any profit even if the scheme does actually enrich you?evildave said:
Do you loan money to people out of the goodness of your heart? If so, then maybe you should consider some of those "loans" to be disguised gifts. Don't expect to be repaid. Your debtors will be buying liquour, cigarettes, and lottery tickets; paying for cooks and waiters to serve them in restaurants; going to movie theaters; watching porn; and laughing at you.
Al Franken has a funny riff on liberal vs conservative Jesus in his most recent book. The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus. It's written in the style of a comic book.
Jesus says things like "Leprosy is a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy."
VERY funny:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245.html
Jesus says things like "Leprosy is a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy."
VERY funny:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245.html
asthmatic camel
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,510
Everyone knows what Jesus looked like. He was an old man in a battered hat who smoked a pipe and carried a staff. His original name was Olorin in the long forgotten days in the West. He was sent down to this middle-earth in human form, died, was reincarnated and...
Oh, sorry, this isn't the Tolkien thread.
AC
Oh, sorry, this isn't the Tolkien thread.
AC
Bottle or the Gun
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 890
No, jesus is a pretty white guy with long eye lashes and a see-through chest, which is why you can see that creepy burning thorn-covered heart of his.
asthmatic camel
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,510
Bottle or the Gun said:
Hah ! Wrong again. Jesus was actually a lion sent over the sea. Well, he was according to Charles Staples Lewis.
You can't bamboozle me when it comes to theology
Johnny Pneumatic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 2,088
I knew a black man who believed jesus was an Albino African.
davefoc
Philosopher
MLynn said:
I thought so too until I put them side by side. See image below:
The nose in the painting looks unusually narrow, particularly for a middle eastern man. I wonder if the artist was trying to make a philosophical statement that Jesus was a man of peace by depicting him as particularly gracile.
The Jesus in the shroud looks Scandanavian to me. Both because of the beard style and because of the heavy features.
One interesting thing that I noted while I was preparing the attached image is how, a negative image of the painting looks very similar to a real photographic negative image, whereas it is much less clear that the Jesus image on the shroud is a negative image. One of the points that skeptics make about the shroud is that it is substantially different than a real photographic negative image. This little paint shop pro exercise certainly made it look like they were right.
I thought so too until I put them side by side. See image below:
The nose in the painting looks unusually narrow, particularly for a middle eastern man. I wonder if the artist was trying to make a philosophical statement that Jesus was a man of peace by depicting him as particularly gracile.
The Jesus in the shroud looks Scandanavian to me. Both because of the beard style and because of the heavy features.
One interesting thing that I noted while I was preparing the attached image is how, a negative image of the painting looks very similar to a real photographic negative image, whereas it is much less clear that the Jesus image on the shroud is a negative image. One of the points that skeptics make about the shroud is that it is substantially different than a real photographic negative image. This little paint shop pro exercise certainly made it look like they were right.