Okay, full disclosure, don't look if you don't want to. It's not excessively gory or unpleasant, just excessively sentimental. It shows Jesus weeping while holding a tiny aborted foetus in his hand. Here it is:
http://family.webshots.com/photo/1008239637021399146JqnZTUNGDp
This isn't asked to get opinions about either side of the abortion debate (though I don't suppose that will stop some of you). There have been plenty of posts about that and it's not going to get resolved here. I want to know reasons why anyone would want to indulge in such grotesque mawkishness. What is in it for you?
(And no, I'm not concealing my opinion of the picture, it's repellant.)
_
2006-12-03 13:36:50 · 10 answers · asked by Bad Liberal 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Porn for Christians
2006-12-03 13:49:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I didn't look at it and I have no desire to!
Why the heck aren't there any pictures of Jesus weeping over starving children in Bengledesh?
Why aren't there any pictures of Jesus weeping over the 100,000 or more dead Iraqi civilian mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters?
I don't believe in abortion as birth control, however, I think there are many more pressing issues. And also, something for the abortion nuts who will surely already have given me a thumbs down to consider. If the republican party really cared about the issue of abortion...they have had most of thirty odd years to do something about it and they still haven't. Don't you think it might be because they need that voting issue to manipulate you into voting for them so they can enact other policies which you wouldn't agree to under any other circumstance?
2006-12-03 13:59:22 · answer #2 · answered by peacedevi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A central purpose of most art is that it is supposed to challenge us.
Photographs like those of the rubble of 9/11, a Quaker exhibit that displays one pair of boots for every soldier that has died, traveling displays about the horrors of the Holocaust, and movies like "The White Man's Burden" about how Native American boys were stolen from their parents, are not created so that people can get satisfaction out of looking at them. They are created to break through our natural apathy, which arises partly from how busy we are, and get us to stop, and be horrified, and think.
I find it pretty silly to say, as another poster said, that it is supposed to appeal to emotion. As I said above, art is supposed to get us emotionally involved so that we do not let the subject matter disappear from our lives when we leave the exhibit and get on with our lives. Who has ever seen a piece of art that does not target emotion???
I am pro-choice, but I do not see this as a illegitimate piece of art, or that they are "indulging in grotesque mawkishness" any more than anyone who makes a piece of art to illustrate what *they* see as a massive injustice.
~ Lib
2006-12-03 13:55:28 · answer #3 · answered by LibChristian 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I personally haven't seen the picture and I know that I never will want to see it. I think that people will look at it for their own curiosity or because they have sick and twisted minds. If it's because they have a strong curiosity about it then I guess that they probably have a sick and twisted mind too. Any way you try to reason with it is strange. What I want to know is who came up with the disgusting idea for a picture like that. I'm guessing that they thought they would get a strong point across, when in fact they made themselves look horrible!
2006-12-03 14:00:29 · answer #4 · answered by booellis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you can't make a successful argument using logic or facts, you can always appeal to sheer emotion.
There are many examples of this, from Mao's campaign in the 60s to current advertising. This is just one more.
2006-12-03 14:03:53 · answer #5 · answered by silvercomet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Im pro-life but stuff like this bothers me too. Those who feel guilty about what they do, dont need to feel more guilty... those who dont, certainly wont feel guilty because of such a picture. It's just morbid and does no good.
2006-12-03 13:48:08 · answer #6 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand.. what is this picture MOCKING?
why is it grotesque?
Just gown down to you local abortion mill and take a look in the dumpster.... ....this pic will then look like a monet, or van gough
2006-12-03 13:47:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's most revolting isn't it. Could they have and agenda to push?
2006-12-03 18:43:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yet more emotional appeals. That's what religion is all about, no facts, just emotion.
2006-12-03 13:40:21 · answer #9 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Looks like you.
2006-12-03 13:40:08 · answer #10 · answered by robert m 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋