Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI is upset over the displaying of a sculpture of a crucified frog in an Italian museum. Read about it here.
I can’t really see what the big deal is. Sure, Jesus was crucified, but so were a lot of other people, and perhaps even some animals. Who knows? But I don’t think that a sculpture of a crucified frog is any worse than a sculpture of a crucified Jesus. My advice to anyone who is offended by such a thing is, lighten up; Jesus isn’t on the cross anymore anyway.
B”H
I’m deeply offending. I’ll see to it that everyone else is. I think we need to come up with some sort of punishment. Any suggestions?
Nick, I love, and I believe we need to lighten up and enjoy the humor. :-p
By: tc robinson on August 28, 2008
at 5:39 pm
“Sure, Jesus was crucified, but so were a lot of other people”
But the only reason anyone cares about or even knows about crucifixion is because Jesus was crucified and the picture of it has become a powerful symbol for the Christian faith (especially for Catholics).
Plus it’s just crappy art.
I’m with the Pope on this one.
Bryan
By: Bryan L on August 28, 2008
at 7:16 pm
TC: I suggest crucifixion!
Bryan: Nonsense. People knew about crucifixion before Jesus was crucified, and we’d know about it had he never been crucified. Christ crucified is the powerful symbol, not a frog crucified, so I can’t really see that it’s anything worth getting up in arms over. And crappy art or not, the pope needs to take it easy.
By: Nick Norelli on August 28, 2008
at 7:20 pm
“People knew about crucifixion before Jesus was crucified, and we’d know about it had he never been crucified. ”
You missed my point. The fact that Jesus was crucified is the only reason anyone cares about it. Otherwise it would have just been some odd way one nation killed criminals and this person would have chosen another way to express his angst.
“Christ crucified is the powerful symbol, not a frog crucified, so I can’t really see that it’s anything worth getting up in arms over.”
It’s a powerful symbol and thus showing a frog crucified with a beer mug in his hand is a powerful mockery. That’s why we have something like the Alexamenos Graffito from the first century mocking a Christian with the words “Alexamenos worships (his) God” and a picture of Jesus with a donkey’s head being crucified. It obviously was a powerful mockery by outsiders then as it is now.
What if it were something else instead? What if it were a depiction of Mary as whore who got knocked up and had Jesus? What if it were Jesus having a homosexual relationship with his disciples? What if it were a cross in a jar of piss (or maybe a symbol of the Trinity in the jar of piss)? I’m sorry but I don’t think people should just have to lighten up when people make a mockery of the things that are most important to them even if it is in the name of “art”.
Bryan
By: Bryan L on August 28, 2008
at 7:56 pm
Bryan: No, Jesus’ crucifixion is the main (not even only) reason that Christians care about it. Secular historians care about crucifixion as a matter of historical inquiry. I’m sure the families of the people who were crucified before and after Jesus had a vested interested in this strange execution ritual as well.
And the major difference between this frog art and the Alexamenos Graffito is that the latter was intentionally mocking Jesus and the Christian religion (with the phrase Alexamenos worships god). If you read the article above, this frog had nothing to do with Christ, it was about the artist himself. You can interret it however you’d like and get all worked up about it if you want, but to do so is unnecessary.
And all of those examples you listed wouldn’t bother me a bit. People are free to depict whatever nonsense they’d like to. I’ve seen the Alexamenos Graffito (on p. 141 of Timothy Paul Jones’ Misquoting Truth) and wasn’t offended, so why should I start being offended now?
By: Nick Norelli on August 28, 2008
at 8:07 pm
“I’ve seen the Alexamenos Graffito (on p. 141 of Timothy Paul Jones’ Misquoting Truth) and wasn’t offended, so why should I start being offended now?”
I don’t think you have to be offended. You can feel whatever you want. I’m not really offended myself (I have pretty thick skin and am pretty apathetic about a lot of things, especially crappy “art”).
But I will defend my fellow brothers’ and sisters’ right to be offended about this mockery of their faith and don’t think they need to just lighten up. That’s their prerogative and just like this “artist” can express his emotional angst however he feels these people who are offended have the right to be offended and feel emotional outrage at this if they want. If we’re gonna argue for artistic freedom then lets argue for emotional freedom too and not tell people how they should feel or react.
Bryan
By: Bryan L on August 28, 2008
at 8:20 pm
Bryan: But I’m not saying that people don’t have the right to get upset. I’m saying that “my advice” to those who do get upset would be to lighten up. Jesus isn’t on the cross anymore, he’s alive! And if it is in fact a case of mockery, then Galatians 6:7 sits in the back of my mind. Apparently the jokes on them…
By: Nick Norelli on August 28, 2008
at 9:34 pm
I don’t see any humor in it but I don’t think it’s worth the Pope’s time, or ours to read about it (referring to him not you) every time someone does something like this. I think seeing Mary in tree bark and Jesus in a butterfly are just as bad or worse.
Jeff
By: Scripture Zealot on August 28, 2008
at 10:45 pm
Jeff: I see some humor in it, although I don’t find it particularly funny. I don’t find it particularly offensive either though. It’s just a frog on a cross with a beer in one hand and an egg in the other. It kind of reminds me of some of my Ninja Turtle action figures from when I was a kid. But anyway… I have to agree, I don’t think it’s worth the Pope’s time either.
By: Nick Norelli on August 28, 2008
at 11:03 pm
Ok, I can be quite disturbing.
By: tc robinson on August 28, 2008
at 11:08 pm
You’d think they would’ve at least waited to put this story out at Easter time. ;) Not something I’d want to hang in my office. I could probably think of some far more offensive things to crucify besides a frog. I’ll definitely rank this as weird. In the very least, I think it’s disrespectful and we Christians should at least be somewhat offended.
By: Shaun Tabatt on August 29, 2008
at 9:12 pm
TC: I believe you, really, I do!
Shaun: Yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me if the story gets resurrected (no pun intended) around that time. My thing is that I don’t even think it’s disrespectful. It’s not like it’s an intentional jab at Jesus.
By: Nick Norelli on August 29, 2008
at 10:25 pm
Nick, after reconsidering the context, I saw how it could be.
By: tc robinson on August 29, 2008
at 11:07 pm
TC: Could be what? Offensive? Or taking a jab at Jesus?
By: Nick Norelli on August 29, 2008
at 11:23 pm
Could be both, Nick. What you think?
By: tc robinson on August 30, 2008
at 12:22 am
TC: I don’t think it was intended to mock Jesus, but I can see how people would be offended by it, although I don’t think they should be. As I see it, if the artist did intend to mock Jesus then the joke is ultimately on him since he’s got to stand in judgment before Jesus one day.
By: Nick Norelli on August 30, 2008
at 12:43 am
True! True!
By: tc robinson on August 30, 2008
at 1:02 am