This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 10/27/2009 12:40:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 07/25/2009 2:40:04 AM PDT by Quix
But do you think the intent was to degrade Christ?
Because that is what this all comes down to. Intent.
Exactly.
Ok! (smile)
I don't know if the title is engraved on the statue or if it's the photographer's impression. If it is the latter, then he reacted to the image much as I did, that the image was depicting "Mary's Sacrifice."
So taking it all at face value, it offends me for the reasons I've given.
Because we love Him, anything that is important to Him should be important to us.
The cross was prophesied in Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53. And Jesus' fulfillment changed everything forevermore.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. Colossians 1:15-20
It certainly is, to me.
Just as I show some degree of reverence for the printed Word of God . . . though I still mark the pages up etc.
And I don’t even begin to worship either a cross or a Bible.
I once did get close to idolatry of the Bible, but The Lord brought me up short about that.
Symbols can be useful. They can be hazardous. The attitude of the heart, imho, is crucial.
I prefer a kind of reverence for THE TRUTH OF THE CROSS . . . not per se any physical representation of it.
Though I would take care to protect a cross or treat it with respect OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE ORIGINAL CROSS.
If I had to break up and burn a cross to feed a starving child a hot meal and warm them a bit, I would not hesitate more than a few seconds.
I know you haven’t.
I doubt that any title is engraved on the statue for the simple fact that this is seldom if ever done for statues at grave sites.
Truly I would not go ballistic over needing to retire a cross or a Bible, though I confess to keeping all of them. I specifically collect the deceased family member's Bibles (with lots of notes and inserts), wall crosses, cross jewelry, rosaries and such - all for any future generations who might want to remember what was important to them in this life.
But none of it is to be worshiped.
The symbols are important though to me. I would not use the wall crosses to aerate my potted plants.
So then it’s correct for all those African American Libs to be offended by Rush’s “Barack the Magic Negro” song, eventhough the intent was not to offend blacks. It’s just a consequence and they are right.
Is that correct?
On of the realities of dealing with marble (which this statue is) is that it is very soft and fragile (go to a cemetery sometime and you will see that the marble headstones all look worn, but the granite ones look brand new regardless of age). This is the main reason that Michelangelo's "David" in Florence was moved inside. It would be very difficult to sculpt a marble cross of a significant size and not support it, it would simply collapse during a major storm. Something had to support the cross out of structural necessity. Also, the Blessed Mother is looking AWAY from the cross, that would lead me to believe that she is watching as her Son is taken to His tomb.
I would not expect the things that offend you to offend me or someone else. Nor would I expect the degree of offense to be something which can be conveyed by words.
Technically speaking that is called "qualia" - like pain or pleasure, love or hate. It can only be experienced, it cannot be conveyed. Qualia, btw, is the "poison pill" to artificial intelligence.
Amen to that.
>>As far as I know there is not a right or wrong to offense just a matter of fact, either a person is offended or he is not<<
So the African American libs had a reason to be offended by the song or were they just using that to stir up trouble? Eventhough finding an offense in it is hard to do?
And is it correct to come into a discussion on Rush’s bigotry and use “Barack the Magic Negro” as an example of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.