PDA

View Full Version : General Politics One Nation Under God - McNaughton Fine Art


Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 06:56 AM
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#

This is an interesting piece of art. Many of the members here will have a cow with some of the comments, the comments by the artist are his, many of which the conservatives on this board will agree with and many the liberals will tend to go off about.

Today is Thanksgiving and a day to reflect on the group that spawned a nation with their belief in the Bible and their determined effort to separate from the religious bondage of their home country.

They determined to stay after the winter of 1620-1621, and I feel their stand was based on Hebrews 11:15-16

Bible in Basic English (Heb 11:15-16)
And truly if they had kept in mind the country from which they went out, they would have had chances of turning back. But now their desire is for a better country, that is to say, for one in heaven; and so it is no shame to God to be named their God; for he has made ready a town for them.

If you prefer a different translation go to the links below, they will show quite a few of the translations of the Bible, choose the one you like.

http://bible.cc/hebrews/11-15.htm
http://bible.cc/hebrews/11-16.htm

HonestChieffan
11-26-2009, 07:17 AM
Fantastic. Thanks for posting that

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 10:52 AM
Holy shit, that's bad. I'm not even talking about the ideals behind the painting, I'm just talking about the painting.

stevieray
11-26-2009, 11:17 AM
That's awesome.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 11:19 AM
I prefer this:

http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz333/Extemporanus/One_Nation_Under_Cthulhu.jpg

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 11:20 AM
That's awesome.
C'mon, you're a painter. Don't you think that, despite whatever intellectual, civic or moral merit that the message of the painting may have, that it is really heavy-handed and sentimental?

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 11:38 AM
I prefer this:


I would think you need to look at the fires in the background and then get ready for your reward. Have a good one.

stevieray
11-26-2009, 11:47 AM
I prefer this:


why?

tidbit...the only character not defaced form the original is Satan.

stevieray
11-26-2009, 11:50 AM
C'mon, you're a painter. Don't you think that, despite whatever intellectual, civic or moral merit that the message of the painting may have, that it is really heavy-handed and sentimental?

???

Bwana
11-26-2009, 11:56 AM
I prefer this:



Well now, that's a shock. :spock:

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 11:56 AM
???
I wasn't expecting a perplexed reaction. Don't you think that the painting is heavy-handed in its symbolism? That it is too sentimental to have much real artistic value?

stevieray
11-26-2009, 12:01 PM
I wasn't expecting a perplexed reaction. Don't you think that the painting is heavy-handed in its symbolism? That it is too sentimental to have much real artistic value?

Art doesn't have any rules...I think you are free to interpet it as you see fit..it seems to have evoked a response, so , in that context, it's achieved it's goal.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 01:00 PM
why?

tidbit...the only character not defaced form the original is Satan.

Mainly because it's just as accurate with respect to what the founding fathers got their religious views from.

Deists. Not Christians.

With Deism, each main figure is potentially the one.

KC native
11-26-2009, 01:54 PM
I prefer this:

http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz333/Extemporanus/One_Nation_Under_Cthulhu.jpg

ROFL Pure Awesomeness.

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 02:25 PM
C'mon, you're a painter. Don't you think that, despite whatever intellectual, civic or moral merit that the message of the painting may have, that it is really heavy-handed and sentimental?

Couldn't you say the same of any religious piece done during the Renaissance Period?

More importantly, does sentimentality or heavy handedness detract from the pure beauty of the work?

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 02:27 PM
I wasn't expecting a perplexed reaction. Don't you think that the painting is heavy-handed in its symbolism? That it is too sentimental to have much real artistic value?

So Michaelango's Sistine Chapel was much to sentimental to have real value......

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 04:01 PM
Couldn't you say the same of any religious piece done during the Renaissance Period?

More importantly, does sentimentality or heavy handedness detract from the pure beauty of the work?

So Michaelango's Sistine Chapel was much to sentimental to have real value......
First, off there is no comparison between Renaissance religious art and this piece in terms of quality. Furthermore, have we learned nothing of the numerous, important movements in art since the Renaissance? I didn't realize that attempting to do what has been done before a long time ago was a good artistic ambition.

If we must compare though, I don't find older, classic works to be too sentimental or heavy-handed. This painting is almost saccharine in the idyllic sweetness of its message, and it pulverizes its point with multiple, large hammers of symbolism. Didn't you ever say to yourself "This may be coming across a little too obviously?" or "This is going overboard on the symbolism?" The Supreme Court cases, the disabled child... wipe it on a little more thick, could you, painter?

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 04:13 PM
First, off there is no comparison between Renaissance religious art and this piece in terms of quality. Furthermore, have we learned nothing of the numerous, important movements in art since the Renaissance? I didn't realize that attempting to do what has been done before a long time ago was a good artistic ambition.

If we must compare though, I don't find older, classic works to be too sentimental or heavy-handed. This painting is almost saccharine in the idyllic sweetness of its message, and it pulverizes its point with multiple, large hammers of symbolism. Didn't you ever say to yourself "This may be coming across a little too obviously?" or "This is going overboard on the symbolism?" The Supreme Court cases, the disabled child... wipe it on a little more thick, could you, painter?

I agree, the message is too clear for me. And believe me, I am not comparing the current work to the Sistine Chapel. But your original argument against the piece was not logical in terms of previous works. Placing a halo around Mary in The Annunciation by Filippino Lippi was heavy handed, but was still beautiful.

I believe those who disagree with the message will find the work to be less than great - Just as I am sure Muslims would find Lippi's work over the top.

Does the painting move me? Nope, but it is done well. Of course, liberals will decry the work even if it were done by Cervantes himself.


Oh, and I disagree with you on a further point, art does definitely imitate earlier works and styles.

stevieray
11-26-2009, 04:21 PM
Mainly because it's just as accurate with respect to what the founding fathers got their religious views from.

Deists. Not Christians.

With Deism, each main figure is potentially the one.

hardly...it's more akin to drawing a toothless grin and pointy head on a pic of you.

Saggysack
11-26-2009, 04:26 PM
I'd buy that if it was on velvet. That would be real cool.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 04:45 PM
I agree, the message is too clear for me. And believe me, I am not comparing the current work to the Sistine Chapel. But your original argument against the piece was not logical in terms of previous works. Placing a halo around Mary in The Annunciation by Filippino Lippi was heavy handed, but was still beautiful.

I believe those who disagree with the message will find the work to be less than great - Just as I am sure Muslims would find Lippi's work over the top.

Does the painting move me? Nope, but it is done well. Of course, liberals will decry the work even if it were done by Cervantes himself.


Oh, and I disagree with you on a further point, art does definitely imitate earlier works and styles.
Not logical in terms of previous works? You can't just say untrue shit and try and pass it off as if it were. Rare is the great religious painting that is even half as obvious as this current one.

I don't think that I said anything about imitation or drawing heavy influence. My point on that front is that no one worth their salt makes their artistic mission to do exactly what old movements did. No composer is all like "I'm just going to compose in baroque." No sculpter today does straight-up Greek style.

Dave Lane
11-26-2009, 04:59 PM
Smaltzy as all crap and not very well done but certainly controversial. I'm still not sure who is dumb enough to believe this country or its founders where based on "christian" beliefs.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Smaltzy as all crap and not very well done but certainly controversial. I'm still not sure who is dumb enough to believe this country or its founders where based on "christian" beliefs.

Liar.

You know damn well there are people dumb enough to believe that. :)

bowener
11-26-2009, 05:32 PM
Liar.

You know damn well there are people dumb enough to believe that. :)

If it is said enough times it will make it true!

It also helps if people don't fact check or read for historical context (of course I supposed they could read Anne Coulter and believer that she is correct... but then that is just a whole other branch of stupid or lazy).

|Zach|
11-26-2009, 05:36 PM
I think the coolest part about this is the ability to rollover and see the different descriptions of everything in the painting. The interactivity is impressive.

The description attached to the supreme court guy is so silly. Especially at the end...

"On his wrist the watch time reads 11:59 to signify that there is little time remaining."

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/18/melodramatickit128608791944574957.jpg

bowener
11-26-2009, 05:37 PM
Check out this one (http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm).

edit:

Forgot to say, check out Thomas Payne.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 05:51 PM
I think the coolest part about this is the ability to rollover and see the different descriptions of everything in the painting. The interactivity is impressive.

The description attached to the supreme court guy is so silly. Especially at the end...

"On his wrist the watch time reads 11:59 to signify that there is little time remaining."

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/18/melodramatickit128608791944574957.jpg

Yes, that is impressive. But the descriptions are mindbogglingly stupid.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Check out this one (http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm).

edit:

Forgot to say, check out Thomas Payne.

Awesome.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 06:29 PM
Check out this one (http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm).

edit:

Forgot to say, check out Thomas Payne.
Civil war soldier, FTW

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 06:43 PM
Mainly because it's just as accurate with respect to what the founding fathers got their religious views from.

Deists. Not Christians.

With Deism, each main figure is potentially the one.

You need to look more into the founding fathers. I've read letters from the Diests and they admit the nation needed to be more Christian than the way you are portraying them.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 06:46 PM
Smaltzy as all crap and not very well done but certainly controversial. I'm still not sure who is dumb enough to believe this country or its founders where based on "christian" beliefs.

All you have to do is read the writings from those days, not just the ones that support your belief, but all of the letters. You might be a little more startled at their comments.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 06:50 PM
Check out this one (http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm).

edit:

Forgot to say, check out Thomas Payne.


I'm not surprised that there is a knockoff that has changed the content of the original art, but those if you that are hell bent on getting God out of the country will stop at nothing. Really a shame in my eyes.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 06:52 PM
I'm not surprised that there is a knockoff that has changed the content of the original art, but those if you that are hell bent on getting God out of the country will stop at nothing. Really a shame in my eyes.

Let's change that around, so you can see..

I'm not surprised that there is a knockoff that has changed the content of the original art, but those if you that are hell bent on getting God into the country will stop at nothing. Really a shame in my eyes.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 06:54 PM
Let's change that around, so you can see..

You are a dipshit and I know you can't help yourself. Too bad your knockoff won't do anything for you. Take the fire in the back and use it to get ready for your eternity. I'll take the alternative.

The worst part of this for me is that your name can still be written in the lambs book of life, it might be good but also a shame to see you in heaven.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 07:35 PM
You are a dipshit and I know you can't help yourself. Too bad your knockoff won't do anything for you. Take the fire in the back and use it to get ready for your eternity. I'll take the alternative.

The worst part of this for me is that your name can still be written in the lambs book of life, it might be good but also a shame to see you in heaven.
I know you don't know this, but that "knockoff" is a parody of the original painting using characters and imagery from the mythos of H.P. Lovecraft. It isn't being posited as some Satanic alternative to Christian dominion.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 08:36 PM
I know you don't know this, but that "knockoff" is a parody of the original painting using characters and imagery from the mythos of H.P. Lovecraft. It isn't being posited as some Satanic alternative to Christian dominion.

Opinions vary widely. I don't expect you to recognize what is happening, it's outside of your belief pattern.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Opinions vary widely. I don't expect you to recognize what is happening, it's outside of your belief pattern.
Sir, what I said was not an opinion. It is objectively a parody featuring Lovecraft characters.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 09:09 PM
Sir, what I said was not an opinion. It is objectively a parody featuring Lovecraft characters.

If that's what you perceive then go with it, I see it as a direct attack on the original piece of work in an attempt to justify a different belief. It's also insulting to many of the great people of our country. You can look at a piece of shit and claim it as art but it is still a piece of shit.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 09:13 PM
If that's what you perceive then go with it, I see it as a direct attack on the original piece of work in an attempt to justify a different belief. It's also insulting to many of the great people of our country. You can look at a piece of shit and claim it as art but it is still a piece of shit.
Its not trying to be much of an artistic statement. Its a parody. It was done as a joke. And you're probably right about the parody being antagonistic towards the original, but not to justify a belief in imaginary creatures like Cthulu, Yig or Yog-Sothoth from the writings of H.P. Lovecraft

Thig Lyfe
11-26-2009, 09:19 PM
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#



Holy shit.

That crap makes Thomas Kinkade look like Vincent van Gogh.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 03:16 AM
You need to look more into the founding fathers. I've read letters from the Diests and they admit the nation needed to be more Christian than the way you are portraying them.

It is a passive aggressive attack done by both sides. The argument is tired and old and NEITHER side listen to reason.

Not all founding fathers were deists, no matter how badly the liberals need you to believe such nonsense.

Then again, not all were flat out Christians, either. No matter how much conservatives would love for you to believe.

There were a great many arguments presented beautifully by both sides, some of each which leaked into The Preamble and The Constitution. Both sides currently trying to detract from the other simply belittles the sacrifices and writings made which are still the foundation of our nation to this date and hopefully for centuries to come.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 03:17 AM
Let's change that around, so you can see..

See what??

Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.

While it is a nuance, it is a very important one.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 03:28 AM
See what??

Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.

While it is a nuance, it is a very important one.

Actually, they're one in the same. At least, as the Supreme Court rules it.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 03:33 AM
Actually, they're one in the same. At least, as the Supreme Court rules it.

The SC also ruled the Dred Scott Decision. Are you stating blacks don't deserve rights?

They are not one in the same at all. They may be loosely interpreted as thus, but it is not accurate at all.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 03:40 AM
The SC also ruled the Dred Scott Decision. Are you stating blacks don't deserve rights?

Hey, you can't use my defense against Kotter against me....


They are not one in the same at all. They may be loosely interpreted as thus, but it is not accurate at all.

Yes, actually they are the same even without the SC. Freedom of religion implies it inherently.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 03:49 AM
Hey, you can't use my defense against Kotter against me....



Yes, actually they are the same even without the SC. Freedom of religion implies it inherently.

I didn't know you did use it. I could have pulled another 30 or 40 reversed decisions as well.

And while you can interpret them as the same phrase, the key word is "Interpret". I will go by what was actually written, not by what I thought they meant to say.

|Zach|
11-27-2009, 04:25 AM
I'm not surprised that there is a knockoff that has changed the content of the original art, but those if you that are hell bent on getting God out of the country will stop at nothing. Really a shame in my eyes.

That isn't even possible. Christianity is firmly rooted in this nation. People have the freedom to be Christian. Not saying Merry Christmas in ****ing Best Buy doesn't change your personal relationship with your god.

If that has any effect on you your religious beliefs were ****ed in the first place.

Besides, in your particular case you are a complete coward and we know you don't back up anything you say.

Norman Einstein
11-27-2009, 05:42 AM
Actually, they're one in the same. At least, as the Supreme Court rules it.


Unfortunately for all of us the SC is supposed to interpret the constitution, not add meaning to what was written.

stevieray
11-27-2009, 07:35 AM
Hey, you can't use my defense against Kotter against me....



Yes, actually they are the same even without the SC. Freedom of religion implies it inherently.
ya, that's why churches used to share the Capitol for worship services.
...it's why Leviticus 25:10 is engraved on the Liberty Bell. It's why Praise God is carved on the top of the Washingtom monument. It's why Thomas Jefforson and others proclaimed the country experienced Divine providence. ..it's why the first schoolbook was the Bible..it's why God is included not only in our consttitution,, but almost every State constitution as well. It's why Moses is in the facade of the SC., etc...

Christian Nation? Hardly...they were founding a country based on freedom given by God, not Salvation from a Savior.

craneref
11-27-2009, 09:14 AM
ya, that's why churches used to share the Capitol for worship services.
...it's why Leviticus 25:10 is engraved on the Liberty Bell. It's why Praise God is carved on the top of the Washingtom monument. It's why Thomas Jefforson and others proclaimed the country experienced Divine providence. ..it's why the first schoolbook was the Bible..it's why God is included not only in our consttitution,, but almost every State constitution as well. It's why Moses is in the facade of the SC., etc...

Christian Nation? Hardly...they were founding a country based on freedom given by God, not Salvation from a Savior.

I agree this nation was a coutnry based on the freedom from God, however these men saw God throught he eyes of a Christian, and tht is why they saw freedom the way they do. There are really only three religins that claim Yhwh as the creator of the universe, the Jews, which our founding fathers were not, Islam, which they obviously were not, and of course Christianity. The so-called separation of church from state was not to protect the government from church, but to protect the church from the state. Remember in England, the state mandated what the church was to be. The religious freedme forefathers wanted to ensure freedom of religion in this country. Freedom to practice and live the way they believed. Without Christianity, this country would not have become the beacon of light to generations of immigrants who sought a life of freedom and justice. This nations Christian roots allows for the tolerance of other beliefs, other religions are not as accomadating. That is why I find it intersesting that the very belief that allows other beliefs is under attack and atempted to be restricted.

Norman Einstein
11-27-2009, 09:59 AM
I agree this nation was a coutnry based on the freedom from God, however these men saw God throught he eyes of a Christian, and tht is why they saw freedom the way they do. There are really only three religins that claim Yhwh as the creator of the universe, the Jews, which our founding fathers were not, Islam, which they obviously were not, and of course Christianity. The so-called separation of church from state was not to protect the government from church, but to protect the church from the state. Remember in England, the state mandated what the church was to be. The religious freedme forefathers wanted to ensure freedom of religion in this country. Freedom to practice and live the way they believed. Without Christianity, this country would not have become the beacon of light to generations of immigrants who sought a life of freedom and justice. This nations Christian roots allows for the tolerance of other beliefs, other religions are not as accomadating. That is why I find it intersesting that the very belief that allows other beliefs is under attack and atempted to be restricted.Freedom of Religion does not equate to your comment above, freedom from God. Most of the rest of your commentary I agree with, but that one just doesn't seem to be worded the way you wanted it to come out.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:25 PM
I didn't know you did use it. I could have pulled another 30 or 40 reversed decisions as well.

And while you can interpret them as the same phrase, the key word is "Interpret". I will go by what was actually written, not by what I thought they meant to say.

Freedom of religion, as written, inherently includes freedom from religion.


ya, that's why churches used to share the Capitol for worship services.
...it's why Leviticus 25:10 is engraved on the Liberty Bell. It's why Praise God is carved on the top of the Washingtom monument. It's why Thomas Jefforson and others proclaimed the country experienced Divine providence. ..it's why the first schoolbook was the Bible..it's why God is included not only in our consttitution,, but almost every State constitution as well. It's why Moses is in the facade of the SC., etc...

Christian Nation? Hardly...they were founding a country based on freedom given by God, not Salvation from a Savior.

I didn't say we weren't a Christian nation. I said we weren't founded as one, which is true. Sure, there's tons of Christian littering around the place. Because most of the people throughout our history have been some sort of Christian.

That doesn't mean we should, like Mike Huckabee insists, change the Constitution to "be more in line with God". Nor does it give Christians the right to stampede over everybody like they have in many sectors.

Also, God was not mentioned in the constitution. Just FYI.

Ironic isn't it? The country known for religious freedom was based by the freedom given by God yet it's the same god who says there no other gods besides me and wants you to worship him and him alone or forever burn. Such freedom...

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:33 PM
Freedom of religion, as written, inherently includes freedom from religion.




I didn't say we weren't a Christian nation. I said we weren't founded as one, which is true. Sure, there's tons of Christian littering around the place. Because most of the people throughout our history have been some sort of Christian.

That doesn't mean we should, like Mike Huckabee insists, change the Constitution to "be more in line with God". Nor does it give Christians the right to stampede over everybody like they have in many sectors.

Also, God was not mentioned in the constitution. Just FYI.

Ironic isn't it? The country known for religious freedom was based by the freedom given by God yet it's the same god who says there no other gods besides me and wants you to worship him and him alone or forever burn. Such freedom...

"Inherently" it is in the Preamble. Blessings which are secured come from where else?

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:38 PM
"Inherently" it is in the Preamble. Blessings which are secured come from where else?

Freedom of religion as an expression itself inherently implies freedom from religion.

If you have freedom of religion, you can pick any religion. And as with all choices, you can pick none. (even if it's not a religion) It doesn't have to say it in the Constitution. :rolleyes:

And I have no idea what you're referring to with the bold.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:41 PM
Freedom of religion as an expression itself inherently implies freedom from religion.

If you have freedom of religion, you can pick any religion. And as with all choices, you can pick none. (even if it's not a religion) It doesn't have to say it in the Constitution. :rolleyes:

And I have no idea what you're referring to with the bold.
You stated God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Technically, He is in the Preamble.

"Secure the Blessings of our liberty, for ourselves and our posterity"

Where do Blessings come from? If the preamble was not referring to a gift from God, what did it mean?

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:46 PM
You stated God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Technically, He is in the Preamble.

"Secure the Blessings of our liberty, for ourselves and our posterity"

Where do Blessings come from? If the preamble was not referring to a gift from God, what did it mean?

Are you saying because it is capitalized, it means God?

Also, it's pretty easy. "Secure the blessings of our liberty" has nothing to do with god. I could secure the blessings of food on my table. That doesn't mean it came from god but rather from Price Chopper.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:52 PM
Are you saying because it is capitalized, it means God?

Also, it's pretty easy. "Secure the blessings of our liberty" has nothing to do with god. I could secure the blessings of food on my table. That doesn't mean it came from god but rather from Price Chopper.

I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. The word blessings. What does it mean?
Posted via Mobile Device

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:57 PM
I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. The word blessings. What does it mean?
Posted via Mobile Device

I thought I answered that with my reply.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:59 PM
I thought I answered that with my reply.

Obviously not well.

Can you give me the proper definition of the word "blessings"?
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16
11-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Bless, def. -- to bestow good upon

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 02:10 PM
Bless, def. -- to bestow good upon

Actually "to make holy by rite, sanctify"
"To invoke divine favor upon"
"To recognize as holy"

Now using the above proper definition, who would bestow said "blessings"?

I guess Irish just needs the word "inherent" when it appeals to his sensibilities, regardless how senseless they are.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16
11-27-2009, 02:13 PM
Actually "to make holy by rite, sanctify"
"To invoke divine favor upon"
"To recognize as holy"

Now using the above proper definition, who would bestow said "blessings"?

I guess Irish just needs the word "inherent" when it appeals to his sensibilities, regardless how senseless they are.
Posted via Mobile Device
Actually, we are both correct regarding the definition. I could give a couple of other correct definitions, too. So stick your "proper" up your ass.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 02:15 PM
Actually "to make holy by rite, sanctify"
"To invoke divine favor upon"
"To recognize as holy"

Now using the above proper definition, who would bestow said "blessings"?

I guess Irish just needs the word "inherent" when it appeals to his sensibilities, regardless how senseless they are.
Posted via Mobile Device

Blessing doesn't inherently mean god. Just as holy doesn't necessarily mean God.

Like I said, there is no mention of a god in the Constitution.

Pitt Gorilla
11-27-2009, 02:19 PM
The worst part of this for me is that your name can still be written in the lambs book of life, it might be good but also a shame to see you in heaven.That is awesome.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Blessing doesn't inherently mean god. Just as holy doesn't necessarily mean God.

Like I said, there is no mention of a god in the Constitution.
And "of" doesn't inherently mean "from".

Like I said, there is a huge difference.
Posted via Mobile Device

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 02:26 PM
And "of" doesn't inherently mean "from".

Like I said, there is a huge difference.
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually, it does. As I highlighted.

If you have choice, none is inherently an option.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 02:26 PM
Actually, we are both correct regarding the definition. I could give a couple of other correct definitions, too. So stick your "proper" up your ass.

Damn, you become a petulant liittle man when presented eith nasty facts, don't you?
Posted via Mobile Device

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 02:27 PM
Damn, you become a petulant liittle man when presented eith nasty facts, don't you?
Posted via Mobile Device

An equally correct definition is not also a "nasty fact"?

Reaper16
11-27-2009, 02:30 PM
Damn, you become a petulant liittle man when presented eith nasty facts, don't you?
Posted via Mobile Device

An equally correct definition is not also a "nasty fact"?
No, neither definition is nasty. What's nasty is Wolfman's patented disingenuousness.

Norman Einstein
11-27-2009, 02:31 PM
That is awesome.Good thing is that we probably don't have to worry about you! heh

Pitt Gorilla
11-27-2009, 04:22 PM
Good thing is that we probably don't have to worry about you! hehI don't know. I do the best I can. I certainly don't pretend to know anything about your salvation, though.

Norman Einstein
11-27-2009, 05:43 PM
I don't know. I do the best I can. I certainly don't pretend to know anything about your salvation, though.

Who's talking about YOUR salvation?

SNR
11-27-2009, 06:34 PM
I would call this kitsch, but I don't think it's kitsch. The artist clearly has a plan and uses symbols to create meaning, moreso than just slapping a bunch of beautiful things together and calling it a pretty piece of art like Thomas Kincaide or Norman Rockwell.

Of course, most of that IS slapping shit together and calling it art. While it all has a theme, he's putting together Jesus, a bunch of historical figures from US history, and soldiers, children, and all that and just calling it shit in a bag. Also, the symbolism that he explains in the depictions isn't clever or thoughtful at all.

So no, it's not kitsch. But it's also not great art. It's just stupid.

If I may quote John Adams from the HBO miniseries,

"Man, I knew Peter Paul Reubens. And YOU, sir, are no Peter Paul Reubens!"

Norman Einstein
11-27-2009, 08:10 PM
I would call this kitsch, but I don't think it's kitsch. The artist clearly has a plan and uses symbols to create meaning, moreso than just slapping a bunch of beautiful things together and calling it a pretty piece of art like Thomas Kincaide or Norman Rockwell.

Of course, most of that IS slapping shit together and calling it art. While it all has a theme, he's putting together Jesus, a bunch of historical figures from US history, and soldiers, children, and all that and just calling it shit in a bag. Also, the symbolism that he explains in the depictions isn't clever or thoughtful at all.

So no, it's not kitsch. But it's also not great art. It's just stupid.

If I may quote John Adams from the HBO miniseries,

"Man, I knew Peter Paul Reubens. And YOU, sir, are no Peter Paul Reubens!"

So based on your comments above you feel the alternative piece posted is just fine?

SNR
11-28-2009, 12:26 AM
So based on your comments above you feel the alternative piece posted is just fine?Alternative piece? Are you talking about the one irish posted earlier in the thread?

I don't believe it has more artistic credibility, if that answers your question. In fact, it's reactionary, so though it's kind of funny, the first one is a much better work of art in my opinion

SNR
11-28-2009, 12:30 AM
I agree, the message is too clear for me. And believe me, I am not comparing the current work to the Sistine Chapel. But your original argument against the piece was not logical in terms of previous works. Placing a halo around Mary in The Annunciation by Filippino Lippi was heavy handed, but was still beautiful.

I believe those who disagree with the message will find the work to be less than great - Just as I am sure Muslims would find Lippi's work over the top.

Does the painting move me? Nope, but it is done well. Of course, liberals will decry the work even if it were done by Cervantes himself.


Oh, and I disagree with you on a further point, art does definitely imitate earlier works and styles.Cervantes? As in the author of Don Quixote? Did he also paint? Or is this another Cervantes?

(My art philosophy course in college did not cover art history, unfortunately)

Pioli Zombie
11-28-2009, 06:23 AM
Few things dishonor Jesus Christ more than political "Christians". Jesus came to save souls. He wanted His followers to spread the Word, not go on and on and on about politics. He held up The Word, not the U.S.Constitution. To limit Him to being a conservative hack cheapens the Cross and those that use Him as such will have to answer for it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
11-28-2009, 06:54 AM
Few things dishonor Jesus Christ more than political "Christians". Jesus came to save souls. He wanted His followers to spread the Word, not go on and on and on about politics. He held up The Word, not the U.S.Constitution. To limit Him to being a conservative hack cheapens the Cross and those that use Him as such will have to answer for it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Who is limiting him as a conservative? You have to realize that the conservative side have more of the religious right among them than the liberals. It's normal for them to want to associate God with their side of the argument.

I think there is enough to answer for among all of us to worry about one guys combination of art and politics.

Cannibal
11-28-2009, 07:28 AM
Public School/Public Buildings = No God

Private School/Private Buildings = God

No rights abridged on either side... we all good here?

Pioli Zombie
11-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Who is limiting him as a conservative? You have to realize that the conservative side have more of the religious right among them than the liberals. It's normal for them to want to associate God with their side of the argument.

I think there is enough to answer for among all of us to worry about one guys combination of art and politics.
People can want to associate God with their side of an argument all they want, it doesn't make it right. There is so much ungodly behavior amongst Christians and dishonoring Christ in churches its truly sad. Right here in the heartland go to any Megachurch with its 3.95 lattes for sale and bookstores and CDs and t-shirts. This is the stuff Jesus knocked over tables about. And this politicizing of Jesus in the last generation is the worst. Like Jesus cares if Republicans win or America is #1. Total feces. You want to show what a great Christian you are? Give a hungry person a sandwich. Adopt an oprhan. Help an old lady.
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
11-28-2009, 03:12 PM
People can want to associate God with their side of an argument all they want, it doesn't make it right. There is so much ungodly behavior amongst Christians and dishonoring Christ in churches its truly sad. Right here in the heartland go to any Megachurch with its 3.95 lattes for sale and bookstores and CDs and t-shirts. This is the stuff Jesus knocked over tables about. And this politicizing of Jesus in the last generation is the worst. Like Jesus cares if Republicans win or America is #1. Total feces. You want to show what a great Christian you are? Give a hungry person a sandwich. Adopt an oprhan. Help an old lady.
Posted via Mobile Device

It doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. There might be ungodly behavior amongst Christians, but I'd wager there is more ungodly behavior with those that are not Christians.

Are you showing that you are a good Christian? Personally I'm not a good Christian, but I do give to charities that help children. I have supported a young kid in Africa for 4 years. I have fed the hungry, I have helped some of our senior citizens. I have not adopted an orphan, so am I now going to hell because I didn't meet your criteria for being a good Christian?

Norman Einstein
11-28-2009, 03:14 PM
Public School/Public Buildings = No God

Private School/Private Buildings = God

No rights abridged on either side... we all good here?

Schools allow Muslims to exhibit their faith in public schools. Until the field is even across the board the answer has to be NO.

|Zach|
11-28-2009, 05:47 PM
Schools allow Muslims to exhibit their faith in public schools. Until the field is even across the board the answer has to be NO.

How so.

ClevelandBronco
11-28-2009, 08:35 PM
C'mon, you're a painter. Don't you think that, despite whatever intellectual, civic or moral merit that the message of the painting may have, that it is really heavy-handed and sentimental?

And poorly painted.

Brock
11-28-2009, 08:49 PM
That picture is hilarious. Not to mention misrepresentative.

Norman Einstein
11-28-2009, 10:04 PM
That picture is hilarious. Not to mention misrepresentative.

Yeah, right. Nothing like anything else on the internet.

Brock
11-28-2009, 10:20 PM
Don't care what you think of it, Tom.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 03:22 AM
Don't care what you think of it, Tom.

Look Tom, I don't care what you think of my opinion either. There is a concerted effort among the left to remove God from our country, there are those that feel that is a wrong move for our country. I don't care where you stand considering religion, but if you read the constitution it does not say God cannot be part of the Government and/or be in the public schools. It says there is a freedom of religion. Liberal justices on the SC have perverted the intentions of those that framed the constitution.

Like it or not your stand here seems to be against the wording of that same constitution and Tom, I don't care what you think either, Will.

|Zach|
11-29-2009, 03:39 AM
Schools allow Muslims to exhibit their faith in public schools. Until the field is even across the board the answer has to be NO.

How so.


Bump.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 03:49 AM
Bump.

What is your problem? Have you not read papers and been in cities that have verified this small little fact? Are you Muslim?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26wwln-lede-t.html

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18535

http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html

Pioli Zombie
11-29-2009, 08:09 AM
It doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. There might be ungodly behavior amongst Christians, but I'd wager there is more ungodly behavior with those that are not Christians.

Are you showing that you are a good Christian? Personally I'm not a good Christian, but I do give to charities that help children. I have supported a young kid in Africa for 4 years. I have fed the hungry, I have helped some of our senior citizens. I have not adopted an orphan, so am I now going to hell because I didn't meet your criteria for being a good Christian?
Nice leap there. Did I SAY that? No. I didn't. We aren't talking about the non Christians. We are talking about that "art" and how Christians want to mix Jesus with their political agendas. Too many Christians are more passionate about spreading the Word of the Republican party than they are the Gospel. I'm not holding myself up as any kind of Christian example. I'm keeping the focus on the topic. The "art" as its described in the OP.
Posted via Mobile Device

RNR
11-29-2009, 08:24 AM
Nice leap there. Did I SAY that? No. I didn't. We aren't talking about the non Christians. We are talking about that "art" and how Christians want to mix Jesus with their political agendas. Too many Christians are more passionate about spreading the Word of the Republican party than they are the Gospel. I'm not holding myself up as any kind of Christian example. I'm keeping the focus on the topic. The "art" as its described in the OP.
Posted via Mobile Device

The only thing you could hold youself up to is a halfwit troll example~

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 09:14 AM
What is your problem? Have you not read papers and been in cities that have verified this small little fact? Are you Muslim?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26wwln-lede-t.html

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18535

http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html

I refuse to read anything from Whirrled Nut Daily.

That said, I would like to point out that the NY Times article is a direct result of having Christian influences in public schools for years. Accommodating other faiths is what needs to happen. Unless, of course, you'd like to see EVERY faith banned from the public school system. I am a proponent of that.

It's just like the Washington State Capitol fiasco. This year they aren't allowing any holiday displays on their grounds because if they allow some, they'll have to allow all else suffer discrimination lawsuits. Fox News, incidentally, did a segment on this the other day. Both segments were atrocious and didn't even bother to interview a lawyer to see the legal side of things - which is the side the Capitol is taking.

So, if you want Christian stuff in the classroom, you have to make room for others.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 02:40 PM
Nice leap there. Did I SAY that? No. I didn't. We aren't talking about the non Christians. We are talking about that "art" and how Christians want to mix Jesus with their political agendas. Too many Christians are more passionate about spreading the Word of the Republican party than they are the Gospel. I'm not holding myself up as any kind of Christian example. I'm keeping the focus on the topic. The "art" as its described in the OP.
Posted via Mobile Device

Where did you depart from reality?

I said"It doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. There might be ungodly behavior amongst Christians, but I'd wager there is more ungodly behavior with those that are not Christians."

You totally changed directions.

Your post - People can want to associate God with their side of an argument all they want, it doesn't make it right. There is so much ungodly behavior amongst Christians and dishonoring Christ in churches its truly sad. Right here in the heartland go to any Megachurch with its 3.95 lattes for sale and bookstores and CDs and t-shirts.

Try responding to the comment that rebutted yours.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 02:41 PM
I refuse to read anything from Whirrled Nut Daily.

That said, I would like to point out that the NY Times article is a direct result of having Christian influences in public schools for years. Accommodating other faiths is what needs to happen. Unless, of course, you'd like to see EVERY faith banned from the public school system. I am a proponent of that.

It's just like the Washington State Capitol fiasco. This year they aren't allowing any holiday displays on their grounds because if they allow some, they'll have to allow all else suffer discrimination lawsuits. Fox News, incidentally, did a segment on this the other day. Both segments were atrocious and didn't even bother to interview a lawyer to see the legal side of things - which is the side the Capitol is taking.

So, if you want Christian stuff in the classroom, you have to make room for others.

The point is that Islam is currently welcome and Christianity is not, you can't have it both ways. Either they can both be there or neither of them can be there.

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 03:03 PM
The point is that Islam is currently welcome and Christianity is not, you can't have it both ways. Either they can both be there or neither of them can be there.

Thanks for successfully repeating what I said.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 03:36 PM
Thanks for successfully repeating what I said.


No thanks are necessary, your point was seen as sarcasm. You disagree with me based on the fact it's me commenting. Your refusal to read a link shows your fear of truth in many ways.

Pioli Zombie
11-30-2009, 06:06 AM
Where did you depart from reality?

I said"It doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. There might be ungodly behavior amongst Christians, but I'd wager there is more ungodly behavior with those that are not Christians."

You totally changed directions.

Your post - People can want to associate God with their side of an argument all they want, it doesn't make it right. There is so much ungodly behavior amongst Christians and dishonoring Christ in churches its truly sad. Right here in the heartland go to any Megachurch with its 3.95 lattes for sale and bookstores and CDs and t-shirts.

Try responding to the comment that rebutted yours.
IMHO, it IS wrong to put Jesus in a picture with a bunch of politicians and making Him out to be the lead architect of a political movement. It cheapens who Jesus was and is. But to some people, politics is more important so they'll stoop to depicting Jesus this way.
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
11-30-2009, 09:05 PM
IMHO, it IS wrong to put Jesus in a picture with a bunch of politicians and making Him out to be the lead architect of a political movement. It cheapens who Jesus was and is. But to some people, politics is more important so they'll stoop to depicting Jesus this way.
Posted via Mobile Device

No, your interpretation of the picture is all yours. I doubt that you will ever figure out that both sides want to have something to hang their hat on, the liberals are sucking hind titty because they tend to approve of abortion.

If you feel it's wrong to put a picture of what someone conceives that Jesus looks like then you get to feel it's wrong. Others don't feel that way.

Is it cheaper to do your very best to have Jesus/God eliminated from the American culture? Is it wrong to remove God from public display? Many liberals are attempting to do just that.

Where is your outrage regarding removing God from America?