When it comes to religious art, how graphic is too graphic?
That’s the question swirling around a controversial statue depicting the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. The statue, titled "Crowning," elicited shocked reactions from viewers when it was unveiled in an Austrian cathedral.
And at least one person was offended enough to be moved to action; in a shocking turn of events, the statue was found beheaded mere days after going on display.
The act of vandalism has prompted a dialogue on how we should react to art we don’t like, as well as the consequences for artists who intentionally push the envelope.
A Crowning Artistic Achievement
The statue, designed by artist Esther Krauss and sculpted by Theresa Limberger, went on display earlier this year at the Catholic St. Mary Cathedral in Linz, Austria. It graphically depicts a nude Mary sitting on a rock, her legs spread open in mid-birth.
It was on display as part of an exhibition on gender equality and women’s roles in the church. From the moment it was unveiled, the artistic expression became the center of controversy.
A petition seeking to ban the statue received more than 15,000 signatures, with petition authors calling the statue a “feminist-pagan” idol and demanding an immediate removal of the “scandalous exhibition.”
"Christian believers consider the birth of Jesus Christ to be sacred,” reads the petition. “The sculpture ‘Crowning’ destroys precisely this sacredness and has no place in sacred spaces.”
Unsuccessful in getting the statue removed, someone evidently took matters into their own hands. After just a few days on display, a vandal removed the statue’s head.
Freedom to Offend
“An attack on artistic freedom,” is how Father Johann Hintermaier, episcopal vicar for education, art and culture, described the statue’s beheading.
"We were aware that we were also provoking debate with this installation,” Hintermaier stated. “If we have hurt people's religious feelings, we are sorry, but I strongly condemn this violent act of destruction, the refusal to engage in dialog and the attack on the freedom of art.”
However, others argue that creating "blasphemous" art is bound to provoke strong reactions from believers. If an artist decides to depict a sacred religious figure in an offensive way, they should be prepared for the possibility of vandalism, critics say.
The beheading calls to mind similar backlash other artists have faced for depicting Christian figures in an unflattering light.
- An Australian artist received death threats over a painting depicting Jesus Christ overlaid with Looney Tunes characters
- An Italian artist was stabbed in the neck over a painting of a man giving oral sex to Jesus
An Attack on Women?
The artists say they expected to be targeted, but didn’t believe that vandals would go so far as to destroy the work entirely. "I was prepared for verbal statements,” said the sculptor, Limberger. “However, I would not have expected that the work with which I spent so much time would be destroyed."
Strauss says that the vandals misunderstand her sculpture. She says that it was intended to show the strength and grace of the Virgin Mary, to show Mary “[getting] her body back” after scores of prior portraits of her “served patriarchal interests.”
“Mary is completely at one with herself,” Strauss said of her sculpture. “She is at the center of her strength, and also at the center of her independence.”
Strauss seems to view the vandalism as an attack on women in general. “This violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies,” she stated. “We have to take a very firm stance against this.”
What do you think of the statue? Artists often like to push boundaries, but did this piece go too far? Or does freedom of expression outweigh the views of offended believers?
143 comments
-
Rev Sarah Foster
I think it’s so wrong damaging the art work, no matter how wrong someone may perceive it to be it’s not right to be so destructive. There are many other civil ways to disagree or to voice an opinion. Some would use the phrase that “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and it’s certainly applicable in this case. I can understand why some may view it as offensive however I personally quite liked it, to me it seems very significant about Jesus being crowned the very moment that he arrived in human form. Would I display this in my church? no, because I can understand that people all perceive things differently and Genesis teaches that we need to be covered, something Adam and Eve didn’t need to question in the very beginning but after the fall they felt the need to be because of guilt and shame, even God understood their feelings by providing them with the leaves to cover themselves and also by continuing to provide us clothing today. We wouldn’t walk around naked now nor would we be so willing to publicly display our own birthing, well certainly not the majority of people anyway, so technically why would we expect any different with something that represents Mary, mother of Christ? This art is not for everyone I can understand why many disapprove however I do see the the beauty in this moment depicted here…
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Wow. It really says a lot about some people's mentality that they're offended by a graphic depiction of the birth of the Messiah, but graphic depictions of his death are so commonplace that people don't bat an eye at them. I guess it's okay to revel in violence in every gory, grotesque anatomical detail, but showing a baby coming out of a woman's vagina is cause to clutch pearls and swoon. What a gross attitude, to make the beginning of life something considered obscene but the ghastly end of it something to reproduce endlessly and dwell upon. And then decapitating a statue, instead of engaging in thoughtful discourse about reactions. I'm embarrassed for that segment of humanity.
-
Richard T. Dallas
Rich Dallas-Chaplain-A.C.L.C. I'm in my 3rd year in Bible College. The concept of the statue is just plain GOOFEY. Worth a chuckle. not much more.
-
Charity Lace Ann Cason
“how we should react to art we don’t like, as well as the consequences for artists who intentionally push the envelope.”
Consequences for artists being artists?
1) Intention cannot be proven through the reaction of another. One’s own emotions are yours to handle (or with the help of a professional).
2) An artist’s job is to “push the envelope”.
Experience has taught me that, in general, the public does not understand Art or artists. The aesthetic, skill, and monetary values of Art are understood, but those things are not the Art. They’re quantitative data applied to an ineffable experience being expressed and shared.
Leo Tolstoy tried to tackle this issue in his essay, “What Is Art?”:
He wrote, “Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity.”
Maria Popova expands upon Tolstoy’s sentiment in her piece written for the National Endowment for the Arts, “Brain Pickings' Maria Popova on the Value of Arts”.
She writes, “This is the power of art: The power to transcend our own self-interest, our solipsistic zoom-lens on life, and relate to the world and each other with more integrity, more curiosity, more wholeheartedness.”
In essence, Art is a “call and response”. Therefore, the artists and sponsors of “Crowned” succeeded.
That all being said, one would hope to know their congregation well enough to avoid this kind of response. Perhaps discussions with the congregation prior to the final design being accepted would have made all involved more comfortable and open for discourse. 🤷♀️
-
Patti Anne Lisenbee
Have you ever wondered why Jesus is wearing a loincloth on the cross? It's because at some point, the Catholic church deemed seeing men's genitalia was sinful. Look at all the statues that had the penis/testicles broken off. Jesus was actually crucified NAKED. What would your art and necklaces be like if that were portrayed? It would be accepted. Jesus was born exactly like all other humans are. That involves a lot of suffering. I think the statue portrays the humanity of the act very well. Too bad others can't see that. The whole thing with god raping - scuze me - impregnating Mary was to make God half human so he could relate to humans and they relate to him. Showing Jesus's mother in active labor is showing the human side of life. He did not simply appear outside her womb without any angst.
Where were the cameras and guards of the museum when the statue was being defaced? Something is wrong there.
People take art too far. It's time to listen to the artist and the reason behind the concept of the art and understand it from their point of view.
-
Matthew W Meister
It took awhile, but I finally found a picture of the statue we are talking about from an angle that would show what was offending people, or so I thought. It is truly amazing how different from reality the "front view" of the crowning (the medical term for when a baby is presenting it's head outside the mother) really is. It may help some people to have a very important conversation about, "Is that what it is really like?" with those who have never experienced it, but truth is, the answer is, "No, not really." Quite honestly, it looks like a depiction created by someone who has never seen it actually happen. There is so much wrong with the statue, that I find it very elementary. The topic worth discussion, the actual execution of the art? Not so much. Perhaps an even better discussion is, "Why was it so difficult to find a picture of the sculpture from the position that would show what the artist wanted the focal point to be?"
-
Alejandro Medina de Wit
I love to read the posts because mostly always is the same people over an over on endless debates. Some are really good, I must say, like the very first post by one Rev. Dr. Father JJ. Chapeau! to you, sir. Cheers!
-
Daniel Todd Kamm
Since when is child birth a taboo subject?
For the pro-life protectorate, it should be a no brainier to celebrate birth.
There are laws enough (rightly) protecting the viewing of the sexual acts that "artistically" or "less artistically" may result in a pregnancy.
There are zillions of books out there on child birth and every conceivable (pardon the pun) method that can be used to ensure a safe and healthy delivery. Not to mention zillions of baby birthing classes... everywhere.
Maybe the problem has to do with a "virgin" birth? The perpetrator who defaced the exhibit should know that "virgin" is the front end of the process, not the back end. Once pregnant, regardless of the intruder, the recipient is no longer "virgin." And a birth may occur.
It's this stupid line of reasoning or lack thereof that continues to perpetuate violence and rape to this day. Look at the stats in the DRC... the doubling of rapes of women, and both boys and girls in DRC , and we are not much better apparently in our "civilized" western societies.
How many men are present for the birth of their children? And is it some abomination or crime to witness a birth?
We witness death with more sincerity.
Loved the opportunity to rant a little... and as I always say at work: if you drop it pick it up, if you spill it clean it up, use your protection, but if you make it and bake it, later on daddy, don't shake it... because someone's gonna take it and you're going to jail.
About that violence against women thing.....
Peace Out Reb tk
-
Frank Michael Salinger
A duos musical street performance is acceptable in most cities, it’s art. I don’t think any one here would have a problem with that. Any one that did, would be considered ignorant at best. Performance art on a city street, performing a sex act might be frowned upon by most of us and not accepted. Location, location, location is everything.
-
David Sawn Do
Well, this piece was on display in a side chapel of St. Mary's Cathedral in the diocese of Linz, Austria and the cathedral is currently celebrating the 100th anniversary of its consecration. Linz cathedral is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and for that reason is known as the Mariendom (Marian cathedral). In that regard, as it's dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, it's probably the more suitable location if one was to exist within the Vatican II Sect. But, don't get me wrong, in my personal opinion, this sort of alleged "art" probably shouldn't be showcased in a cathedral or church of any kind, at least a Catholic one to say the least, as it would not be an accurate religious portrayal of the birth despite it's purported intended representation claimed by the artist. In that regard, and from a religious standpoint, it fails to recognize the "Virgin Mary" as, well, an everlasting virgin (by Perpetual Virginity and through Immaculate Conception), who was free from original sin and would not have suffered the pain of childbirth. While this may be a Catholic-based view, those who don't believe would generally still have some level of respect for others' beliefs and religious views. Therefore, if the artist and sculptor had perhaps different religious views of Christianity that believed otherwise, then maybe that would be appropriate for them in their own church or cathedral. In which case, your point stands: location, location, location.
-
-
Frank Michael Salinger
Birth is a natural and beautiful event. So is the act that makes it possible. Should statues be placed in public areas depicting that act and would certain positions not be acceptable? Maybe we could just have respect for everyone by not displaying certain human functions in public view.
-
Coleman Wallace
It is a graven image, it should be destroyed according to Text.
-
Quinn R Amaro
What needs to be understood is that the virgin Mary had ONE purpose and that was to be the physical body that gave birth to Jesus.
-
Frank Michael Salinger
In a civilized society there needs to be limits, not necessarily censorship, but definitely on location. What was the artists intent and purpose to display this piece in a church? It seems to me that the purpose was the intent to offend. Today, any thing related to offending Christian’s and Jews, is acceptable in public. Imagine if the birthing mother was Mohamed’s mother giving birth to Mohamed. Respect for peoples beliefs should be the purpose and intent of every person on earth. Limiting where a piece of work is displayed is not censorship. A certain political party in the USA needs to understand the true meaning of censorship, particularly with literature. Adults should have access to all material available with the exception of child pornography or certain other illegal activities. Limiting what children are exposed to is not censorship. The statue is offensive due to its location.
-
Donna Riccardo
Art is art. Let it be.
-
William F Newby
Disregarding the abysmal quality of this piece, it better belongs in a nightclub not a church. ....and we all know the response if it was in the Manhattan foyer of Planned Parenthood.
-
Gordon Cooper
This art work is entirely within the traditions of Christian art. Marian vulva images have a very long history. Jesus is often shown manifesting from inside a stylized vulva-as are many saints. Art from cultures adopting Christianity maintained mother and fertility art motifs.
-
David Sawn Do
I believe it would be more accurate to state that it is within the traditions of some Christian denominations as not all Christians would agree. While I recognize the reference to vulva images having a very long history and the stylized vulva you may be referring to that maybe some people often confuse it as just some sort of oval back drop, there are many other Christian denominations that would likely disagree, for two reasons: Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. It is believe by some Christians that the pain of childbirth is a punishment instituted by God for original sin, from which the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempt of by a singular grace and privilege by God. (Although I'm not trying to debate and am more so just raising awareness, if it fancies anyone, Genesis 3:16 can be referenced here) Therefore, despite the artists' vague description of Mary "[getting] her body back" as being what's intended to be depicted, the expression shown by her seems more like one enduring the pain of childbirth which contradicts this belief. But, I suppose that's subjective to how one might interpret the expression. As for Perpetual Virginity, the sculpture depicts the Blessed Virgin as giving birth in a natural way, and could be considered a violation of her physical integrity as an everlasting virgin. Although, I must admit I'm not quite sure how "prior portraits of her 'served patriarchal interests'" and if that would apply to what I've mentioned.
-
-
Adelaide F. Davis
Hello, I feel that this should be judged byage groups, mental understanding levels. also biblical training. Everyone can't handle everything.
-
Francis Louis Szot
Thanks for your reply, but you didn't attempt to answer my question. What "teachings" are relevant to the display of the statue? Where is any display of any part of human anatomy forbidden in "church doctrine"? In this case a vagina.
Obviously, there will be private clerical statements, but I am primarily asking about whether there are ANY biblical teachings to be referenced. I am curious, not because I credit the bible as being infallible, or even truly authoritative regarding the majority of aspects regarding Divinity. I want to be informed about the motivation; whether it be biblical, or some source of even lesser universality.
What is the primary source the critic is basing their firm plan for condemnation of the clerics that are hosting the exhibition.
A complimentary question: If ANY church/religion makes the doctrinal claim that GOD is male, what could be the possible objection to depicting an image of that male GOD possessing male genitals?
Just as there are numerous catholic churches named after The Sacred Bleeding Heart, what could be the objection to worship in The Church of the Sacred Penis and Scrotum of Jesus? Is that aspect of the sacred male divinity somehow any less worthy of veneration?
I know there are objections, but once again, such objections arise are from the private experiences, and rather prudish, adolescent views of people who have certain problems accepting the complete human condition, which GOD alone has ordained, IMHO.
According to the Abrahamic religions at least, IF GOD IS MALE, we know what that means in terms of anatomy. Why reject the sexuality implicit and explicit in that dogma? HOW to defend such rejection, such insistence upon secrecy and denial?
-
Pastor George Day
Francis Louis Szot
God transcends gender, embodying both paternal and maternal qualities.
-
-
-
Francis Louis Szot
One critic wrote; "The priests involved should be defrocked for allowing church's teachings to be flaunted in a cathedral."
I can't think of a single "church teaching" that can claim to be "flaunted" by the statue.
From one Oxford dictionary; a definition of "flaunt": to display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
WHICH "teaching" is being flaunted? Which teaching about the act of giving birth is this critic referring to?
In reality, the objection is exclusively based on the prudish mental judgement of the individual making the complaint.
Need we all be reminded that "GOD" created sex and endowed sex, and sex alone, with the existential power of reproduction, and every result of that activity has a sacred connotation. Does anyone imagine that GOD might be "embarrassed", or uneasy, much less condemnatory, in any manner, by the act of birth.
Speak for yourself, and then pray that your opinions do not harm any other person's movement along their path toward Truth. None of us have standing to attempt to place our words into the mouth of GOD.
-
Dennis Paul Shipman
Whether the statue is offensive or not is a purely individual perspective. However, it does starkly remind us that Jesus was truly human.
-
Genevieve Friday Ard
I had to take a sit an think about this... Men created the modern church, not Women, those same Men demonized Women every step of the way and that includes Mary Mother of Jesus... The objection isn't depicting Mary giving birth to Jesus, but of ANY Woman to be seen giving birth. One can only speculate what your average Man knows of Women's biology, and many open their mouths and prove their dearth of Women's Biology in the most mind boggling statements with the most assured air of an academic with multiple degrees on the subject matter... to the point that Women now see Men making ANY statement on Women as foolish, hardy, empty headed if not intentional, idiotic, and even evil. Beheading a statue and providing a lame excuse of 'blasphemy' kind of proves my point. Any Woman giving birth is beautiful, holy, endearing, joyful and ...well... also at the same time quite messy, loud, painful, and in the US quite needlessly expensive.
-
Tom Herman
One person's art is another's trash. That's the way it's been for millenia. The lack of tolerance and accepting that others may have different views is a big problem in society. The vandal is a self centered creature who cares for nothing but themselves. I feel bad for the artist who put their love into this art. I hope the vandal gets justice and more importantly, the serious Mental Health treatment they obviously need.
-
Michael Wesley Perrin
"Crowning" is a wonderful statement. The baby's head is just becoming visible, and that is called crowning. At the moment of his birth, Jesus became a king, and so he is being crowned at the same time. If you're able, participate in the birth of your child. 24 hours of coaching, timing contractions, and most of all, being part of the loving act of birth. Oh, and shame on the jealous men who minimize birth because they have no uterus.
-
Betty Jean Wascom
So a women giving birth is obscene? Really? So that pretty much sums up where we are in this world. How else do you think he got here? How does anybody arrive here? Now about depicting the Immaculate Conception, anybody dare take that on. Just asking here.
-
Sara Lizabeth Rawlins
Challenge accepted. I think depicting the immaculate conception would be along the lines of a woman having to conceive against her will, especially if we are to believe Mary was a teenager and still a virgin at the time. (I'm trying to be nice about this, but rape comes to mind, and she had no choice in the matter. What if she refused to submit her body and soul to whatever emissary God sent to impregnate her?) Food for thought.
-
Pastor George Day
The Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. This doctrine is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church and was defined as such in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.
-
-
Mary Lynne Lightowler
Perhaps we ought to deeply consider what is bothering us. . .is it the label on the sculpture? Is it solely the sculpture? We've had controversy before, just thinking back to Judy Chicago's monumental display. So what? Hmm? Blessings always.
-
Mrknowitall
There's right and wrong...This is wrong. If you disagree your probably gay and hate God anyways.
-
Mark D. Maffei
Well we could’ve said it a little better. We don’t need to be calling people go Hirters state your opinion, but don’t be offensive. We all are here to believe what we want to believe and choose to believe we’re not here to belittle one another
-
Amber Fry
As a woman I cannot emagine birthing my child for all to see.Yes, it's a beautiful thing, but it is also a sacred thing that is best left private. I'm not Catholic, however I spent enough time in it growing up that I understand it is also supposedly a faith of modesty and moderation. A little respect for that seems to have been ignored. I'd think this sort of art would be a slap in the face of that modesty and moderation. That said, I would think it up to the Vicar and whatever committee to decide those things for their places of worship.
-
Pastor George Day
Amber Frey
I totally agree!
-
-
Florencio Guevara
This is another example of the brutality and amoral society we live in. Yet, as people walk through the streets, parks, and field with their heads down into their cell phone, they are oblivious to the pupeteers that keep tightening the control strings tighter every day...
-
Patricia Sydney Solis
You just know men made up that idea of the immaculate conception. Immaculate means perfectly clean, neat and tidy. Men can’t handle a women’s bodily fluids, cause women’s menstruation, sex, and birth are messy business.
-
Pastor George Day
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to the belief that the Virgin Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception. It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
My expertise in art is a big fat zero so my opinion on it isn’t worth much. That being said, if I walked into a cathedral and saw this I would probably say, “I can’t unsee that.” I get it… I too think it went too far, but why destroy the thing? Everyone involved in this went too far. The person who requested the statue, the two who created it, the cathedral when they placed it, and the person who destroyed it. USE YOUR WORDS! People need to calm down and stop overreacting. There are worse things happening all around us.
-
Russel A. Kester
Not a chance Paula, feminism is terrible. Even Queen Victoria opposed it as wrong headed back when it was just getting started.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
If, according to you, feminism is wrong (and maybe first tell us what feminism means to you), can you tell us why/what about it is wrong? And then can you tell us what, in lieu of feminism should there be? Is it mannism? Butchism? Masculinism? Testosternism?
Maybe this blog is a teachable moment for you where you can elucidate and perhaps educated those of us who always thought feminism was the backlash from and the antidote to misogyny/toxic masculinity? Or maybe post a sermon.
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, I've written many times that feminism as practiced today is not about equality for all, it's about seeking advantages for girls / women. I've shown how this has played out in our educational system. I've discussed how it destroyed men only spaces while preserving women only spaces. We've talked about its constant efforts to feminize men with cries of toxic masculinity anytime a man acts male. This is where that movement is at during this its fourth wave (though some still consider this a part of the third wave). When I used education as an example you nor any of your ilk actually engaged with the data or expressed any concerns that the current state of affairs is most unequal. Only one person, a woman I might point out, did so. You think that defining something solves the problem. It doesn't. One must look at what is actually done in the name of a particular belief or ideology not close ones eyes to its failures. So you tell me how to treat boys/ men fairly in the face of such man hatred and we might be able to have a conversation. Tell us why fewer boys than girls going to college is unequal and unfair. If you cannot make an argument for the equal education of boys, then you are still part of the problem.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
whoa, someone's t's are in a wringer. maybe stop hating women to start, then stop being so insecure and crybaby about women trying to gain advantages kept from them for centuries.
as for what's been discussed here, I can't even keep track, this website is a reject from the late 1990s.
so let's consider, how has feminism "...destroyed men only spaces...?" because women are allowed in the locker room? because women can join broadcasters in the booth, on the field? exactly what men's spaces, men's clubs?
as for treating men and boys fairly, you mean like after centuries of the world being men only? politics men only? business men only? where are the glass ceiling for men that women are still attempting to conquer? seriously you sound like an (unusually) educated incel and are now taking out your revenge on women by claiming men and boys are being hurt and/or disadvantaged. I'm surprised you're not railing on about how whites are being shutdown and disadvantaged (unless you're a person of color)
man oh man, really, man hatred? if there's any of that it's likely well deserved after the crap women have had to put up with. as for college, dunno, don't have those stats but it's funny because there is some prevailing opinion that college isn't for everyone and that trade schools are a viable and suitable option. maybe boys are going into the trades instead of getting their MBAs and cocking up the world that way. maybe, maybe, there's something going on in your world that makes you feel the way you do (which, btw, is not pretty)
-
Russel A. Kester
As I suspected, you admitted that you do not know the facts and express no interest in learning them. At least that type of a response is honest. However, your comment also showed that you are okay with discriminating against boys alive today for things people now long since dead did hundreds of years ago under very different times and circumstances just because they share the same sex. It's like Ibram X. Kendi's statement that anti-racism means current and future racism against the supposed oppressor class for the racism of those who looked like them in the past. I agree with Morgan Freeman who said that the way to end racism is to not be racist. Period. Full stop.
Once you take the time to do a little research into the topic of gender equality for boys, I hope we can have a fruitful conversation. Until then, those who think as expressed in your comments will continue to be part of the problem not part of the solution.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
you simply keep repeating gibberish about discrimination against boys without anything backing you up other than your own circular reasoning.
the way you 'tell' it it's only boys being discriminated against today? seriously? just and only boys?
Discrimination against boys - misandry "The term misandry started to be used in men's rights literature and academic literature on structural prejudice in the early 1980s. It has been used on the internet such as usenet, and blogs since at least 1989. Usage of the term misandry in the internet age is an outgrowth of antifeminism and misogyny."
Your sole interest appears to be boys being discriminated against. Yet you seem to have no problem waltzing past discrimination against girls, against women, against people of color, against immigrants, against elderly, against handicapped so I am again compelled to ask you what about this claim of yours resonates so strongly in you and why are you so laser-focused on this 'pressing issue' to the extent of ignoring all other forms of discrimination?
-
John P Maher
FATHER J J, IT IS A WAIST of TIME and BREATH to ARGUE WITH IGNORANCE and HYPOCRITES !!!
-
Pastor George Day
John P. Maher,
Why do you shout?
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Because the regressive Bible thumping types are hard of hearing. Must be considering their heads in are their butts a lot of the time.
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, you wrote that I "keep repeating gibberish about discrimination against boys without anything backing you up other than your own circular reasoning." Let me remind you that I have provided data to support my statements. Like the following stat:.
"In 1979, about 200,000 more women were enrolled in college than men. By 2021, that difference had grown to about 3.1 million more women than men in college."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/08/07/women-continue-to-outpace-men-in-college-enrollment-and-graduation/
I've referred to the difference as percentages both before the feminization of schools and after. Your failure to review them isn't my fault, it's yours as I have provided them aplenty.
You accuse me of waltzing past discrimination of girls as you do of boys in order to avoid engaging with my comment by reframing the issue from boys to girls.
But let us see if we can find a point of agreement. Do you concede that the above quote from Forbes magazine published in August of this year shows boys are lagging behind girls in education?
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
first of all, other than in this comment, you never made mention of the forbes article and so how would I have known your stats or source until only now?
as for the difference, could be explained by enrollment in trade schools and the military. as for women in college, the top 2 areas of study are health professions and education.
as for why more males aren't going to college, I have no answer neither did forbes other than, "Girls significantly outperform boys in tests of reading in early grades. Girls complete more college-preparatory courses than boys in high school."
so maybe it's the family, maybe they push for college for girls and other for their boys.
as for "...the feminization of schools..." on what do you base this comment? classroom wall colors? number of female instructors? more girls sports offered?
you still don't seem to be getting it, do you. go back 50 years, 100 years, 200 years and education was almost entirely for males. now over the last few years or so more women than men go to college and you cry some sort of discrimination, feminization of school, some horrible conspiracy to emasculate 'Murican men.
what about institutional racism? is that a thing for you? or do you only see 'institutional discrimination against boys?'
given the shape of the world right now, the political conditions globally and nationally, it's seems a fools errand to be railing on about boys not going to college (remembering that there is nothing to keep them from going, unlike the way it once was where women weren't allowed to go, nor blacks)
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, I have posted facts and statistics ad nauseum which even my critics should be able to confirm as they have seen my posts over and over again. But here's the cliff notes version. Before 1972 when Title IX was enacted a greater percentage of boys went to college than girls. Title IX changed the school system in ways that benefited girls and disadvantaged boys. Now a greater percentage of girls are going to college than boys with a greater disparity than existed before 1972.
Your comment shows that you don't know why this is so. Worse, you don't care about this inequality while finding any other inequality in favor of boys to be utterly deplorable. Hypocrisy doesn't even come close to describing such a deplorable attitude in a comment.
Your comments display a true and unadulterated misandry.
I do sincerely hope that one day your comments will express love for both boys and girls equally and stop expressing the idea that its okay to mistreat boys alive today for something you believe men did hundreds of years ago.
-
Merlin Pendragon Betts
Title IX also equally prohibits discrimination against males... don't see how you can say that's favouring women.
Males performing worse than females in education is certainly interesting, but doesn't prove anything about misandry or misogyny. It's a pretty neutral bit of information on its own, with many possible explanations and implications.
-
Russel A. Kester
Merlin, first let me say it's a pleasure to exchange posts with you.
Yes, Title IX should have created learning environments that provided for equal educational opportunities. However, as practiced in reality that seems to not be the case. From what I've learned, and expressed above, prior to its enactment more boys than girls as percentages went on to college and the reverse is true today. The reason is that school systems changed the learning environment to favor how girls learn thus disadvantaging boys because their brains process information differently and their levels of maturity are different. What should have happened, in my opinion based on my readings on this subject, is that schools should've separated classes into single-sex classes that would have allowed the classes to be trailered to the age and sex of the children. Those schools that tried to implement such a plan were sued by the AAUW (American Association of University Women), the ACLU, and quite a few other feminist organizations under the belief that only co-ed classes would result actual equal education. I think they knew that was false because they system was changed based on their input. But even if they didn't, once the data came in that boys were lagging behind under the new changes, they should have shown as much concern for boys lagging behind as they did for girls. They didn't. This is a strong indicator that claims by them of merely seeking equality were vacuous marketing ploys.
My comment about misandry was not about Title IX, it was referring to the comments made by my opponent.
I totally favor an educational system that is fair to both boys and girls. My progressive opponents who seem to always look to equity (the equality of outcomes) on every other topic from wages to race seem to ignore the unequal outcomes of our current educational system. I believe they do so from misguided misandry.
I don't know if I've responded to your comment with enough to encourage you to look into this further, but I hope I have so that you can form your own opinion.
-
-
Michael Hunt
Men aren't being oppressed by women. When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression. If one needs more help than the other, it's not racism or inequality that is occurring. It's the needs of the most needy being met.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, if your statements were true, then feminism would be demanding that schools change to help boys who are being injured by the the changes made starting back in the '70's to make schools more accommodating to girls learning styles and less to how boys learn. But it's adherents do not. Feminists don't care if boys have fallen behind because at heart it is a misandrist ideology.
-
Michael Hunt
As a boy myself, I have never felt as though the schools I attended were more accommodating to girls' learning than boys' learning. If anything, it was boys who were given more leeway in classes and girls who were expected to do more for the same grade.
Again, when you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, your experience is very subjective. However, actual statistics are objective. Look at the statistics. And no one alive today is in the privileged position you propose. Again, come into the 21st century. Egads.
-
Michael Hunt
So many people are in positions of privilege today. Men have the privilege of walking down the street without the fear of being sexually assaulted. White people have the privilege of not being racially profiled by police. If you think these things aren't happening in the 21st century you're blind.
Just because you are willingly blind to it doesn't make you right. You're part of the problem.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, your comment is off topic. The topic is a school system that is failing boys. I've asked before and I ask again, looking at the data can you agree that boys are falling behind girls in school? It's a really simple question.
-
Merlin Pendragon Betts
hey Russ. What data?
If you're saying you have some significant evidence to provide here, then link it please.
-
Russel A. Kester
Merlin, finding this information is quite easy. I asked Google AI which responded:
Yes, boys are falling behind girls in schools across the United States: Reading and writing: Boys are typically one to one and a half years behind girls in reading and writing. The gap is most pronounced in eighth grade. High school dropouts: Boys are 80% of high school dropouts. College enrollment: Boys make up less than 44% of college populations. Grades: Boys earn 70% of D's and F's, while girls earn 30%. Grade repetition: Boys are 50% more likely to be held back a grade than eighth-grade girls. Suspensions: For every 100 girls suspended from public schools, 215 boys are suspended.
Some suggested changes to help boys include: Creating safe academic and emotional spaces, Increasing opportunities for success, Revising discipline strategies, Diversifying lesson plans, and Expanding mentorship opportunities."
https://news.fullerton.edu/2023/06/child-development-expert-why-boys-are-falling-behind-in-education/
I've also referenced two books people can read "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers and "The Boy Crisis" by John Gray, PhD. They are a bit dated but filled with a lot of solid information.
As far as the feminization of boys and the masculinization of girls, you can read this article.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201803/feminizing-boys-as-we-masculinize-girls
I've posted this information before, but it seems there are some who don't look at it and then later claim that I've never provided any such information. So here it is, in the record, and no one should again say that I haven't given any information, books, or links.
-
Russel A. Kester
So, only crickets. Not one comment that said something like, "hey, I didn't know that" or "wow, maybe there is a problem with that." This is an example of why the left is problematic. If an issue isn't part of their narrative they disengage.
-
Michael Hunt
Yeah there's better reasons for why boys are falling behind besides schools are prioritizing girls, which they're not, and the feminization of boys. Some of it is actually a result of the type of toxic masculinity that doesn't view being intelligent as a positive male trait compared to being athletic and powerful. Your fullerton.edu source states this. Nowhere does it equate boys becoming more feminine as the problem or even that it's schools failing boys.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, your comment fails to explain the reversal of the inequality to which I referred. It references the much abused idea of toxic masculinity and ignores the reality of toxic femininity. Both are unhealthy. It also failed to address how the changes to the educational system after Title IX affected both boys and girls and the reasons it was implemented. You subtly reframed my statement from "feminization" to "feminine." They are not the same at all. Again, you show no concern for boys or their achievements. You do seem to be quite misandrist.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
lol. Toxic femininity is your silly way of trying to mirror the problem of Toxic Masculinity. It’s a pathetic attempt at deflecting from the problem that men designed patriarchy. A system which men resent on a daily basis but blame women for because it’s all they’ve ever known.
The truth is that since the 60’s women have been raised to be their own persons with all the potential good and bad. Something which has been by and large only taught to men in the west for several thousand years now. In short, straight men don’t like the competition and don’t like that they’re getting a taste of their own medicine.
Your accusation misandry is just a confession of your deep seated misogyny. You’re not the first gay mab I’ve met with mother issues.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kathryn Diane Taft
WHO CARES? There are so many more important things to debate right now; especially in America!
-
# Jesusislove?
Just an idea although it may not be received well by anyone. How about put Joseph standing beside her and the Holy Spirit (Dove) above both of them then another statue of baby Jesus in the manger and a few animals surrounding the manger? Actually when I think of the scene this way it actually puts a little perspective on what Mary endured during the child birth of Jesus plus the manger and the Dove and show the Glory of God and his Son Jesus.
And btw....when I first joined this group I was a Wiccan but have since become a believer in the Son of God Jesus Christ.
-
Lionheart
That’s totally okay to leave one group full of myth, to join another. Some actually start off with the Jesus thing and then later become Wiccan. Our needs and minds do some weird things….right?
🦁❤️
-
Danny D. Maynard
I think it proves that all of these religions are just pure plain old mythology, and usually warmed over.
-
Lionheart
Yes, it’s amazing what mankind needs, and to satisfy those needs, they will create anything in their heads, which ultimately becomes very real to them, and to the point where nothing can pull them away from what they insist on seeing as total truth, even when there is no demonstrable evidence to support that truth of theirs.
🦁❤️
-
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart
Regrettably, it seems some are inclined to dig their own graves.
-
Lionheart
Don’t we all, in one way or another. As for me, I plan on being cremated. I figured I may as well get used to that burning inferno 🔥 that people like to think I’m going to. 🤭
🦁❤️
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart,
I implore you not to! One should never wish hell upon even their worst foe!
-
Lionheart
Awww, it’s so nice to feel loved, Sir George. ❤️ Okay, I’ll quench that fire 🤗
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
-
Rev. BH
Comment removed by user.
-
Rev. BH
Comment removed by user.
-
-
Theresa C. Marquess
We all know how we got here, Baby Jesus came the same way that you and I did, but I don't believe it needs to be displayed in a church, or even a museum, either. The very same holds true for the recent paintings of Jesus. Where has respect gone? Where has decency gone? The paintings and statue have nothing to do with a feminist movement, et al, but an obscene display. I wouldn't have wanted my young children, grand children, or great-grandchildren to walk into a building and encounter anything of that nature. Where is humanity going?
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
I find it sad that you think of this statue of a woman giving birth is “obscene.” If my kids or grand kids saw it I would use it as a teachable moment. Oh well.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Elizabeth, Good for you, using that as a teachable moment. I can see that we are from totally different generations. I respect that, but I also hope that you can find it in your heart to respect my opinion as well. Giving birth is not obscene; it is the public display of it that I find obscene. To give birth is a beautiful experience in a woman's life, but I see it as a loving, private experience between a mother and her child. Sure, there are doctors, nurses, etc. present, but the moment belongs to the mother and her newborn infant, not to the public for its shock value.
-
Matthew W Meister
Such an interesting concept. Birth is not obscene, but then you claim it was used for shock value. I am with Elizabeth. What a great discussion with your children about the beauty of bringing forth life, but also recognizing the difficulty of the event and how strong women must be to endure it. I would guess between you and I, the generational thing is probably not your excuse. I do respect your right not to look at a public display of childbirth of any human if you choose not to, but to declare the public display of it obscene and wanting it removed is not respecting the rights of others.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Hello Matthew, I'm happy that you can agree with Elizabeth, however, I wish you would respect my opinion enough to let it go there. I never did say that I wanted the statue removed, I was, simply put, believing that there was no need for such a statue to be displayed. Yes, we women have to be strong to endure the gestation of our children and the struggle that it entails on our bodies, and then the grand finale of childbirth which is an extraordinary experience for a woman and for the babe as well. Been there, done that, but have you, Matthew?
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
I find your grasp of censorship a bit clerical and repressive. If you do not like what you see, turn your head, walk away and/or close your eyes. You have plenty of choices.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Of course there are choices, Danny. Life is full of them. I've made mine and I ask that you make yours by minding your own business! Have a blessed day!
-
-
Pastor George Day
Theresa C. Marquess
All that comes to me is the perception of Mary in that moment. Remember the message from Gabriel?
What joy it must be to be the mother of the Lord!
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Yes, George, I agree that it must have been a pure joy to have been the mother of the Lord. I still see it differently. I have too much respect for the woman that Mary was for me to want to witness her giving birth. That is such an unbelievably sacred moment between a mother and her child. A very private moment.
-
-
-
Pastor George Day
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
I wouldn't call it obscene, but rather unnecessarily immodest.
-
-
Sara Lizabeth Rawlins
Well, you wouldn't have to fumble through explaining where babies come from to your children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren.
-
-
Colleen McAllister
Personally I believe this is simply in poor taste. Beheading it goes a bit too far. Says more about the beheader than the subject does of the artist.
-
Pastor George Day
Colleen McAllister
I completely concur. That indeed is a step too far.
-
-
Rev. BH
"for allowing church's teachings to be flaunted in a cathedral" - where else should they be seen? RAK once again beefs about females being involved in the church. And pretty much anywhere, apparently. I do find the statue pretty amateurish however, though no more offensive than any woman giving birth.
-
Pastor George Day
RAK ? What's that?
-
Rev. BH
RAK or R.A.K. aka Russel A. Kester
-
-
-
John P Maher
THE PROBLEM PERSE I HOME, FAMILY EDUCATION, if YOUR PARENTs SUCK THEN MORE CHANCE YOU WILL ALSO,NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS !
-
Rev. BH
Uh, what?
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
What’s ‘perse’ mean?
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
- Oh…
- perse
- adjective (1)
- ˈpərs
- of a dark grayish blue resembling indigo
-
-
Pastor George Day
John P. Maher, do you consistently raise your voice and employ harsh language when you preach?
-
-
Russel A. Kester
The statue went way too far. But what should decent people expect from two feminists when their motives were not religious in the least but rather purely activist? How interesting that the only pictures showing the supposed art in this article covers the virgin's crowning vagina. Why? Because even here the staff knows it's indecent as do most people. The priests involved should be defrocked for allowing church's teachings to be flaunted in a cathedral. It seems the Catholic Church is experiencing an identity crisis after allowing more female voices to be heard in the Church. But there seems to be strong movement from sincere and devout Catholics to help restore the Church.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Why don’t you stick with your interest in the health of young men, and leave feminism out of your vocabulary. As a matter of fact, stay away from women altogether! We will all be happier.
-
Russel A. Kester
Nope. Feminism is a terrible ideology and this horrible statue is further evidence.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Feminism is one of the few things keeping men like you away from women! It is only “terrible” to misogynists, of which you are a charter member. Please don’t speak of things about which you know nothing, which means that you should be quiet for a long time.
-
Russel A. Kester
Paula, I once heard the thought that insults are the last resort of the desperate. Thanks for the object lesson. Seeing feminism as a terrible ideology is not tantamount to misogyny. Now, if we're done with amateur hour, perhaps you could expound how feminism is keeping men away from women. This should be very interesting.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
If insults are the last resort of the desperate, then consider your salty self, hyper thirsty in a desert, Kester. You insult entire groups of people with your fool’s opinions. You’ve proven yourself to be neither expert nor accomplished when it comes to the theology or debate. You whine with one breath about insults then dish out insults the next breath. The only amateur here as alway, is you.
-
-
-
-
-
Sunshine DayDreamz
Just curious why you think birth is indecent. How else did you get here along with the rest of humanity?
-
Russel A. Kester
Sunshine, birth itself is not indecent, but putting it on public display is. I don't expect my friend's to show home movies of their children being born. That's private, and I don't need to see it. Same with the statue. Wrong intentions and wrong ethics.
-
Tunde Whitten
Is not crucifixion more obscene than birth? The tortures, murders, and laments of the saints? And yet these are displayed in grisly detail (often by historically brilliant artists) in nearly every cathedral throughout the world. Your strong reaction to the raw and bloody business of creating Christ’s human form belies a deep discomfort with the divine feminine, which is emblematic of how Catholicism became a political and imperial institution (imbuing kings with divine right and funding the era of conquest). The actions of the church throughout the centuries is such that I’m not sure Jesus lets popes into heaven.
-
Russel A. Kester
Tunde, crucifixions and torture were abominable acts to be sure. No one is praising them. They were painted by great artists and put into cathedrals and churches because most of the people of those times couldn't read but they could understand the paintings, statues, and stained glass windows which told the story of their faith. Showing the baby Christ in a manager tells the story of his human form adequately, showing his mother's vagina is gratuitous indecency. You wrote of the divine feminine equating a vagina with it. So if artists wanted to speak of the divine masculine I suppose you would be on board with their showing a fully erect penis. It's a simple truth that this statue had nothing to do with Christianity and its beliefs in its intentions.
-
James Michael Garrison
The churches were the primary employers of artists in those days. Artists did as they were told if they wanted to prosper in the public eye. There were plenty of starving artists then as well.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
So do you favor the navel birth scenario?
-
Pastor George Day
Russell A. Kester
That was very well articulated!
-
-
-
-
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
a crowing baby is indecent??? outrageous! it's natural, it's childbirth. it's prudes that think that sex, and birth is 'dirty'. it's not dirty, only in the minds of some is it labeled dirty.
and as far as the cathaholic church goes, LA diocese just settled for $1.8 billion, BILLION dollars for crimes against children! so yea, "sincere" cathaholics to help restore the church...snigger
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. Dr. Father JJ,
I am not certain if you are aware, but the Christian group with the majority of sex abuse scandals is actually the Watch Tower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses, not the Catholic Church.
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Eat Dirt, Russell. Showing the birth of someone is indeed graphic, but it’s showing everyone just how human and not divine the life of Yeshua actually was. It wasn’t his fault the Catholic Church took his message then twisted it for political control. Really no different than what you’re doing now with your pearl clutching.
-
Robert Gagnon
It is unnecessarily graphic. Might as well put Joseph defecating next to her. Sure we all do it, just unnecessary to express the act in art. Another artist trying to gain notoriety for content instead of talent.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Defecation has nothing to do with birth. Well, unless Mary is doing it. That happens sometimes, right?
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Only because you have a weak constitution, Gags. When one has a more superstitious understanding of the human body than a clinic one, of course basic child birth seems unnecessarily graphic. It’s not actually unnecessarily graphic, it is as graphic as it needs to be. Child birth is a traumatic process to the human body, but it doesn’t need to be dramatized by jealous woman haters like Russell, and know nothings like yourself, Gags.
-
Robert Gagnon
I was there for my child's birth, watched the whole thing, and remember it well. I thought it a personal 8 hour period that didn't require filming or memorializing. That's what birthdays are for. Having a part of yourself brought into this world is something I've experienced, have you? Who's the know nothing?
-
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Get real. Giving birth is private not a public event people bring popcorn to watch.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
It’s private bc humans are hung up about sex.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Really? In an ideal setting the whole family is nearby awaiting the birth of the little one. You only want it hidden away because you think girls have cooties, Kester. An that’s me putting your jealous hatred of them nicely.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, how nice to hear from you. A family waiting nearby and watching the actual birth are two different scenarios. A woman doesn't need spectators during her child's birth. She, the father, and necessary attendants are all that are needed.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
She doesn't need the father, either. He would probably be in the way. Having men present during their children's birth was not at all common in American culture 50 years ago.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
That’s up to the woman giving birth. Some women are private, others have deep bonds with their families that they can share in these moments with. It’s giving birth, not sex, ya dirty perv. I understand why you’d not want to watch the birth of another human. Jealousy and Envy are ugly things.
-
-
-
JPrime
However, historically speaking, it was exactly that. Specifically, royal births were witnessed by the court to ensure the legitimacy of the baby (no switcheroos). It was only officially done away with in1948. So “public” births have been a thing. And as Dr Z mentioned, humans have become very squeamish around sex. So there’s that too. If depictions of Christ’s death aren’t shocking (which they ARE, tantamount to snuff, imo), then his origin shouldn’t be either. Tolerating the former and vilifying the latter is just hypocrisy. Or are you threatened by the feminine ability and power to bring forth life?
-
Russel A. Kester
Ah, JPrime, your last sentence is the telling one. Feminine ability to bring forth life? God brings forth life. And there is no baby to be birthed without a man to inseminate a woman. Furthermore, science informs us that a zygote attaches itself to the walls of a woman's uterus and it's growth thereafter is more akin to that of a parasite than anything to do with a woman's femininity. So there is no power to bring forth life as you wrote. If there is anything related to a power for birth it is in both the egg and sperm which together begin forth a new life at the moment of conception. So this power you speak of is that shared by both males and females.
-
Matthew W Meister
This may be the most confusing thing I have ever read from you. God brings forth life, then you say this power is shared by both males and females. You make mention of science, but then deny science when you say no baby is to be birthed without a man to inseminate a woman, which is weird since science has plenty of work arounds for that. Then you talk about a zygote being more akin to a parasite, but you have always maintained as you do here that a new life begins at the moment of conception. You made my head spin!
-
Russel A. Kester
Matthew, where to begin? My comment must be read along with JPrime's as I was responding to that text wherein JPrime questioned if I was "threatened by the feminine ability and power to bring forth life." I therefore showed that there is no such ability (power) reserved solely to women.
To JPrime's assertion that somehow femininity has some inherent power to bring forth life, I responded that it is God who brings forth life. A claim I believe to be valid as no other entity has such a power save God .
Hereafter you don't follow the order of my comment and its reasoning which might be why you failed to understand it. My next comment was the biological fact that it takes both a male and a female to create a new lifeform (I've rephrased my original comment to help you.) This too is a true statement as it takes both an egg and a sperm for the generation of a zygote.
I followed up by relaying the basics of fertilization which showed that once fertilized the new zygote continues developing without aid from the woman who at this point is pretty much a passive incubator which is a far cry from some special power JPrime believes women possess.
I hope I have now made clear to you that God is the sole author of life, and that He allows men and women to share in creating a new being (life form) via procreation wherein the life He bestowed in both the egg and sperm combine. It is a privilege on God's part to allow humans to share with Him in this process, and of ourselves we can do nothing. And it is His life in the zygote that causes it to attach itself to the wall of the uterus to continue its journey on Earth. That wasn't so hard to understand was it?
As far as your statement that there are other ways to cause a pregnancy than sex, it is merely rhetorical sophistry as it intentionally ignores that the material from the gametes of both genders is how we exist and procreate naturally.
I ended my comment by referring back to JPrime's comment by writing the IF there be any such power AS SHE WROTE, then it is a shared power inherent in both males and females not solely to females as she had indicated.
The comment that my post was confusing seems, at face value, to have been rather disingenuous.
-
Danny D. Maynard
Your rabbit hole of misunderstandings is infinitely deep now.
-
Russel A. Kester
Danny, your comment made no claims that could be assessed as either true or false.
-
Pastor George Day
Danny D. Maynard,
Why can't we simply be nice and agree to disagree? Would you rather be right or be happy?
-
Danny D. Maynard
I am correct and happy. I will never be "right"!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pastor George Day
Russell A. Kester
Had this been depicted in a Protestant cathedral, would you have considered that more acceptable?
-
-
Chris
What a bunch of easily offended people. They're starting to sound like Muslims threatening violence against anyone who makes an image of their prophet, especially one they don't like.
If you don't like it, don't look at it. Go somewhere else. Isn't that what they tell everyone who doesn't like what they do? I hope this "courageous man" gets charged for vandalism and has to pay restitution.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
LOL so depicting a nearly naked man, tortured, beaten and nailed, NAILED to a cross is something people don't even think about. But the crowing head of lil baby jebus coming out of mother mary's 'gyna and people are having conniptions?
First we're supposed to believe in an immaculate conception, now there's supposed to be an immaculate birthing? No amniotic fluid? No blood? No placenta? bebe jebus just 'appeared' beneath mary's skirt like magic? LOL goat herders, the lot of ya
-
Lionheart
You are absolutely right on, Sir. I’m impressed, I couldn’t have said it better. 🙌
🦁❤️
-
Mark D. Maffei
Well we could’ve said it a little better without calling people names, state your opinions, state your beliefs, but let’s respect one another.
-
John P Maher
AND THE QUICK HYPOCRITE, SINGS B S, M D MARFEL, DRY UP !
-
-
Pastor George Day
Lionheart,
I believed you understood the factual basis of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, you could have expressed it more accurately.
-
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Hahahahahaha! Too funny!
-
Rev. Klaire ThD, MA
Bravo! 👏👏👏
-
Kevin Oconnell
You pray in front of a cross that show a half naked man nailed to a cross, the act of violence we worship at the feet of, but yet you cry about the most beautiful thing a lady does in her life time ( giving birth ). My God people need to grow up and stop acting so dam righteous for once
-
-
OG Steve
Perfectly said. Birth itself is the most miraculous thing. Why are so many humans still today 2024, so afraid of Truth? Who's truth is it that will set you free?
-
Pastor George Day
Rev. Dr. Father JJ,
While you may consider yourself astute, your assertions reveal a lack of understanding. A simple search would reveal that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not about the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but rather concerns Mary's freedom from original sin, a concept distinct from predestination and unconditional election.
It would be prudent to verify your facts before making such statements. Just a piece of advice.
-
The birth of Jesus is characterized in both Christian and Islamic teachings as a virgin birth. According to these doctrines, Mary, his mother, conceived Jesus through the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit, without the act of sexual intercourse. This does not imply that Jesus's birth process was different from other babies, but rather that his conception was miraculous.
It’s absolutely incredibly amazing what some people will actually believe to be true by reading a book, isn’t it?
Let’s hope they don’t ever get to read the Harry Potter series of books. 🤭
🦁❤️
Lionheart,
The Bible has existed for millennia, addressing life's profoundest queries. Now, let's examine how Harry Potter stands up to the same scrutiny!