Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you think any kid past the age of eleven doesn’t know about human reproduction and thd seamy side of life, I have some news for you.
The best art is controversial, because two or more opposing viewpoints clash, making the student have to consider all sides before forming an opinion. Teachers are there to facilitate the process. Parents need to get the hell out of the schools and let the teachers do their jobs.
You cannot protect children from knowledge, nor should you. Knowledge is the only protection they have against the world.
The far right and the far left are doing it and the courts are backing them up.
What we think doesn't matter anymore.
The extremes are changing society and the courts are on their side.
Drag queens in schools.
Bibles removed from schools.
Just 2 simple examples of each side.
The bigger question...why are courts siding with these two extreme groups ?
On the other hand, can it be used as a counterattack of not being upset at their attempt to outrage one but to see, rather, the worth, if not the beauty in their work?
Two things. First, if someone calls you a pariah, thank them. "A Pariah? People Against Racism in Aboriginal Homelands? I'm not, but thank you for thinking part of so worthy a cause.". How can something be an insult if the other does not take it as such?
Secondly, things change over time although, not necessarily for the good. I was watching this episode of The High Chaparral last night, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0601099/?ref_=ttep_ep19 , where they repeatedly call by name the common term, then, for a gold mine. Since I was watching it on DVD, the word was said though I don't know if it would be said if in broadcast these days. That word? .......... those holes in the wall between booths in an adult book store. Now, for the subject at hand, I don't know how urine might have been used, by humans, in the past.......it's just that people these days seem to be very sensitive.
And finally..........remember what the Lord said about vengeance.
If it was your intent to convince someone that there is hidden beauty, or some obscure value in dunking Jesus into a jar of urine … I must inform you that you’ve failed epically. If only you were nearly as clever as you think you are, you would surely have come up with something a bit more compelling.
Now, if I were to join forces with the satanic left liars for the moment, I might have proposed that the “artist” depiction of Jesus in a jar was simply the abstract reflection of the Artist’s internal struggle to express his distress over society turning its back on Jesus, as it symbolically drowns its savior in its own excretions, coupled with the dichotomy of hope for the purifying aspect of urine, which is scientifically known as being quite sterile, predicting Jesus would rise from the dead yet again, and cleansing mankind of its sins for a second time.
After all, this would better fit the left’s primary modus operandi of using its favorite tactic of Orwellian Doublethink.
The far right and the far left are doing it and the courts are backing them up.
What we think doesn't matter anymore.
The extremes are changing society and the courts are on their side.
Drag queens in schools.
Bibles removed from schools.
Just 2 simple examples of each side.
The bigger question...why are courts siding with these two extreme groups ?
The Bible is full of violence, sex, and incest. Children are regularly killed, and at one point everyone on earth is drowned except for one family. It isn’t fit for children according to the christofascist beliefs.
If kids have never seen people playing dress up, it’s high time they got an education.
The far right and the far left are doing it and the courts are backing them up.
What we think doesn't matter anymore.
The extremes are changing society and the courts are on their side.
Drag queens in schools.
Bibles removed from schools.
Just 2 simple examples of each side.
The bigger question...why are courts siding with these two extreme groups ?
How is drag queens in schools and bibles removed from schools two different sides? Seems to me, that’s one side. Aside that confusion … let me also suggest where you are also quite confused …
This bit about “both extremes”. There is only one extreme, with anyone opposing it, labeled extremists, quite falsely too I might add. This is akin to the rather poignant statement of George Orwell’s …. “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is considered a revolutionary act”. But telling the truth really isn’t revolutionary, but is actually quite normal and rational … and not the least bit extreme, other than in the minds of extreme liars.
Allowing Drag Queen freaks to read stories to toddlers is extreme. Saying no to that isn’t the opposite “extreme”. It’s the opposition to extreme.
The Bible is full of violence, sex, and incest. Children are regularly killed, and at one point everyone on earth is drowned except for one family. It isn’t fit for children according to the christofascist beliefs.
If kids have never seen people playing dress up, it’s high time they got an education.
I’ve never understood why the hypocrisy is so frequently overlooked and dismissed, let alone never suspected to be what it more likely is, which is clearly two separate and distinct philosophies which could not have been referring to the same God, unless God is schizophrenic.
Now, I reckon I’ll be rankling everybody’s sensibilities here, from the Godless atheists to the devout Judaic -Christians, but the Old Testament, or the Tora, and the New Testament are unlikely the first and second acts of the same play, or speak of the same God.
And since I don’t ascribe to the notion that God would insist for thousands of years that the imperfect beings he created imperfectly, must behave perfectly, else he cast them to the fires of hell for all eternity, only to change his mind a couple thousand years later, and tell them that they didn’t actually have to be good, they just had to feel bad when they were not being good, and say they are sorry, and accept Jesus as their savior, as he had already accepted responsibility for all of the bad things they have done, and would do in the future. That story doesn’t make sense to me.
No, I think it’s more likely that this rather temperamental, violent, blood thirsty, and jealous fellow named Jehovah, isn’t the same figure we know as Jesus, and that we are dealing with two different books, talking about two different Gods.
None of Jesus’ teachings contain any of those horrible things you cited. That was the God of the Jews.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 06-12-2023 at 04:05 PM..
It isn't religious defamation. It is an artistic expression of how x-tians really are.
In Matthew, Jesus commands that prayer be done in private and Jesus says those who pray in churches or in public are total hypocrites and they get their just desserts, meaning their prayers deserve to go unanswered.
But, we have x-tians who disrespect Jesus -- pee on Jesus-- by insisting we violate Jesus and go against his words and pray publicly in schools so that we can all be hypocrites and disrespect Jesus and marginalize Jesus.
That is just one of many many hypocrisies that particular artistic expression symbolizes.
Most amusing is that x-tians scream, "Islam!" while ignoring the fact that Jesus would tell them people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, meaning the x-tians need to get their act together before they accuse another.
Are you suggesting the existence of hypocrites among the Christian community? Oh my, what an astounding revelation! Please astound us again by revealing the identify of another group totally free of such types? Oh, you probably can’t, because there is no such group to cite. Hypocrisy is as much apart of human nature as every other flaw, including those who claim to be non-Christians, atheists, liberals, conservatives, and none so hypocritical as the alphabet people. In fact, I doubt any of us would live long enough to comprehensively list the many examples of hypocrisy that seems almost as common as breathing. But I have yet to personally identify a group more prone to it than today’s progressive liberals. They seem to have perfected hypocrisy to a fine science.
And because of that truth, with all other things being equal, I’d rather be surrounded by Christians, as neighbors and friends, than Godless liberals who don’t know which restroom to pee in, or understand that a jar full of urine is no place to put Jesus.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,474 posts, read 12,487,658 times
Reputation: 10441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
He wasn't censored, though, and the school district caved to give the little snowflake his way. The image will no longer be used in the curriculum, although it will be used as a discussion point. From a link provided upthread:
I hadn't read every single post in this thread so I don't know if you're referring to the video in the OP or to something in a different post. But going by the video in the OP, yes they did censor him and their only caving was to "remove it for a single semester".
The video also addressed that the school was outraged over a piece of "artwork" that had a swastika in it. Do you also call those who were outraged about a swastika artwork "snowflakes"? And do you also denigrate the left's "cancel culture" for them wanting to do away with that piece of art? ... after all, art is art, right? Or is it only art when those on the left approves of the suject matter?
Quote:
Score one for conservative cancel culture. How can you discuss a piece of art you haven't seen? Even if the work of art disgusts you, and/or you don't think it's art, at least you've looked at it in order to form an opinion.
I guess every kid in the class will have to look up the image on their phones?
There are three components to art, subject matter, the form used to create it and the artists intention when creating it.
That person didn't like the subject matter. One doesn't actually need to see it to not like the subject.
It would be no different than if that artist had taken a live puppy and drowned it in a bottle of his own urine and then taken a picture of it and called it art. Many people without looking at the 'artwork' would not like that subject matter and would probably speak out against it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
