AtheistMommy Posted August 20, 2006 Author Share Posted August 20, 2006 No. That pic is not offensive. It's beautiful. As I understand it it's generally attributed to da Vinci, but may not actually be one of his for sure. Nonetheless it's certainly styled after his work and it's fuckin' gorgeous. People fail to realize that the most primal relationship is that of mother and child. Xians often forget that they don't have a monopoly on using the archetype in their religious art, too. It was around long before the Xians ever got here, and will be around long after they're extinct. In fact I think that the original communion wasn't a male god feeding his blood and flesh to anyone, I think it was a female mother goddess feeding her own child - first in utero, later with breast milk - *literally* with her own flesh and blood. Men can certainly support and nuture children in many ways, but only women are able to *feed* their children from their own bodies. I have to wonder if the process wasn't hijacked by a jealous patriarchal religious caste who were trying to sublimate All Things Female by claiming male gods did them. Absorb the feminine into the masculine and take over... ...but I'm sort of rambling here. Anyway. Fundy nutjob harassing dude is just that: a fucking nutjob. Whatever he said to you is meaningless. You did well to block him. Don't take anything he says to heart; he's a shithead and doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Thank you, I think the painting is beautiful too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightley Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 People give things meaning, not the other way around. The picture can mean to you whatever you want it to. This is true with even crosses, they make some cool gothic ones. I haven't bought one yet, but if I ever do that doesn't mean that I'm a fucking xian. I like gothic stuff. That guy needs to get his head out of his ass. I'd just block him and wouldn't give him the time of day. Don't let him waste your time anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Not offensive at all. There are many different versions of this painting, but Da Vinci's is definitely the weirdest. The baby has the face and head of an adult(Giotti's looks like the baby has an adults head too), but didnt he play games like that with a lot of his paintings? A lot of people believe that the Mona Lisa is a female version of Davinci(self portrait). Anywho, Christians are always going to find SOMETHING to be offended by. Thats why the ignore feature is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtheistMommy Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Not offensive at all. There are many different versions of this painting, but Da Vinci's is definitely the weirdest. The baby has the face and head of an adult(Giotti's looks like the baby has an adults head too), but didnt he play games like that with a lot of his paintings? A lot of people believe that the Mona Lisa is a female version of Davinci(self portrait). Anywho, Christians are always going to find SOMETHING to be offended by. Thats why the ignore feature is there. I agree. I put a few of the different paintings on my myspace. I figure, if he finds that offensive I should just go ahead and put the rest up there. http://www.myspace.com/atheistmommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The painting is okay but the fundie is the utterly offensive one in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaura Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Your picture is OK, it is the fundie's grammar and spelling that is offensive. I wish all these fundie friutcakes would learn to spell. I might would take them a little more seriously. No offense, but if I could spell worth a shit I probably wouldn't have pointed that out. But you do have to admit that sentence structure and spelling do matter when it comes to credibility. I've been on several different forums and there is always someone who harps on these issues. For some reason most Christians tend to have horrible sentence structure and spelling. Not trying to say mine is perfect because after-all to be human is to have flaws. In fact my spelling is pretty horrible, but there is this wonderful program that has been invented called "spell-check." How easy is it to check your spelling? Especially since the computer does it for you. If you have word, you can check your grammar also. Just saying. I don't usually point out horrible grammar when I debate Christians. However, I have somewhat of a hard time understanding them as a result of their lazy grammar. I do understand the point you make about Christians and grammar. A lot of the ones we encounter when we are trying to defend ourselves do tend to be less than articulate. I might add, however, that a lot of Catholics (especially if they've been through parochial school, and double if they've endured Latin) are fairly good at the use of English. I don't know if some of the more "born-again" types just don't spend any real time learning English, or if they're just not that bright, or what. I also can't see my dear old Latin teacher being anything like an evengelist. She was very bookish, and very reserved. I even seem to recall her naming the Roman Gods and Goddesses one day without any apparent angst. Brittana bono dico... Latina....non bono... (I never was Sr. Aquin's best student, but it gets me through scientific names I guess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts