Impaled Nazarene

Susperia said:
Jesus isn't being crucified in my signature, he's being flagellated.


your signature is a piece of total fantasy....and not to be taken seriously as art goes..its pure religious and racial propaganda.

Jesus with ginger hair...!!??? HAHAHAHA:lol: :lol:

anyway... Impaled Nazarene Rule !! especially the Motorpenis EP !!:kickass:
 
LOS MAGANDOS said:
your signature is a piece of total fantasy....and not to be taken seriously as art goes..its pure religious and racial propaganda.

Jesus with ginger hair...!!??? HAHAHAHA:lol: :lol:

anyway... Impaled Nazarene Rule !! especially the Motorpenis EP !!:kickass:


You're incredibly ignorant if you think Bouguereau shouldn't be taken seriously. So what if he stretched the truth? The truth isn't the point. It's art. It doesn't have to be truthful. It can be fantastic and still be taken seriously!! It is the beauty of what he's created that is worthwhile. I love Bouguereau because of how he painted-- the beauty and ubelievable skill of it. No one has painted quite like Bouguereau, before or after. His people look like actual people, not just paint on a canvas.

I also like the religious/mythical aspect of his work. Who cares what color hair Jesus has?? Christ it's pretty obvious how bitter you are about that.
 
Susperia said:
You're incredibly ignorant if you think Bouguereau shouldn't be taken seriously. So what if he stretched the truth? The truth isn't the point. It's art. It doesn't have to be truthful. It can be fantastic and still be taken seriously!! It is the beauty of what he's created that is worthwhile. I love Bouguereau because of how he painted-- the beauty and ubelievable skill of it. No one has painted quite like Bouguereau, before or after. His people look like actual people, not just paint on a canvas.

I also like the religious/mythical aspect of his work. Who cares what color hair Jesus has?? Christ it's pretty obvious how bitter you are about that.

its not the actual "art" i have a problem with.. yes its very beautiful... its the historical lies that it presents that i have a problem with...

Jesus was not white.. the reason he was portrayed in that way was to perpetuate the western European churches myth that white man is the image of God. I have a big problem with misrepresenting history..History is very important and once you start lying about it and distorting it..it leads to big big problems.

"First - if the past 2,000 years of Western art were the judge, Jesus would be white, handsome, probably with long hair and an ethereal glow.

Second - it can almost certainly be said that Jesus would not have been white. His hair was also probably cut short. And Jesus probably did have some African links - after all the conventional theory is that he lived as a child in Egypt where, presumably, his appearance did not make him stand out."
-By Giles Wilson
BBC News Online Magazine

PS. im white myself.

anyway this is off Topic...

...or is it?? since we are talking about "Impaled Nazerene":heh:
 
Everybody knows that, buddy. You're not saying anything a fucking monkey doesn't know by now. It just doesn't matter though.

EDIT: OH YEAH there's also the fact that Jesus didn't exist. So yeah. But based on textual descriptions of the character of Jesus in the Bible, anyone that has actually read it and isn't in denial knows that he was never supposed to be portrayed as a white man.
 
but jesus married mary magdalene so the fact that he isn't the son of "god" (emphasize the lower case) doesn't prove he never existed there pal.
 
I'm pretty sure there is evidence of a man named Jesus existing at the time... who had a lot of followers and said pretty much what Jesus says in the Bible. There's also evidence that this man, along with the two theives, was crucified. However, there is just no evidence as to his holiness, or that anything he said was/is true.