Have you seen Poleteismo?

[butitoy]

---

unsa gud tawon ang sala ni Kristo niya?

dili man na sala ni Kristo ang sala sa mga pari, ang sala sa mga conquestador, ang sala sa middle age inquisitioners.

ahh.sala ni Kristo kay gihimo niya ang tao ug gitagaan niyag freedom to insult HIM.

pait.

[tylerdurden]

hay kapoya ning magdali ug type...nahimong technical ang question..

ok

because its not offensive for you , his blasphemous work of sh*tb, because its not pictures that are sacred for you, that are being violated and for now , you would not post ur pics because just chickens, not GOD yet?

Hehehe, that's an improvement - not much but, I'll take what I can get. thanks!

Okay, to clarify, you are saying that I consider poleteismo to be non-offensive because the picture is not sacred for me and I don't think it violates anything.

Furthermore, you are saying that, for the moment, I would not post my pics because (guessing wildly here) I am chicken and I am not god yet.

If that's what you mean, then my answer is this: No, I am not chicken (assuming you mean I am a coward. If you are saying that I am an actual chicken, I don't know what's going on anymore.).

I am not going to post my pics because, what would be the point? Taking my picture and putting *****es on it (large ones, hopefully - to reflect my actual and factual manhood) would not in anyway be comparable to what is going on here.

Why?

Because I am not a cultural/religious icon and I do not have the popularity and presence of Jesus. This is why I said that I would post my pics only
"when i'm god - in the roman catholic sense of the word, of course (to keep within context and all that)."

Please note that I specifically pointed out "in the roman catholic sense of the word".

[tylerdurden]

unsa gud tawon ang sala ni Kristo niya?

dili man na sala ni Kristo ang sala sa mga pari, ang sala sa mga conquestador, ang sala sa middle age inquisitioners.

ahh.sala ni Kristo kay gihimo niya ang tao ug gitagaan niyag freedom to insult HIM.

pait.

This is tiresome to point out but here I go again, trying for some enlightenment...

It's doubtful if the artist set out to "sin" against Jesus. How can his work really do that? Consider two points:

point #1: that's not Jesus. That's a picture. If you think that's Jesus, that's because of cultural/religious bias. Try and research if that's what anyone of Jesus' ethnicity would look like.

point #2: if you're a christian like you claim you are, then you probably subscribe to the idea of intelligent design. Given said intelligent design, why would the p3nis be offensive at all to the one who designed it?

If Jesus were actually looking at this, he'd be laughing at this.

If you're going to say that the artists is punishing Jesus because of the sins of the priest/the church, that's outright overreaction and just self-indulgent. Why? Refer to the above and to the fact that the work of this artist is clearly not to insult but to educate.

Again, the work is an attempt to make you and other people think about their faith, their religion. The keyword here is think!

Finally, Jesus gave you freedom and everyone else. What do you think were we supposed to do with this freedom? We're supposed to enjoy life, live life, discover life, celebrate life, embrace life, make life our own. That's the ultimate worship, the ultimate thank you to Jesus.

But instead what are people like you doing? You're tying down your lives to the teachings of organized religion (the church). You've chosen to blind yourself instead and now you can't even summon the humility, the clear-headedness, the fairness of looking at this artist's work and appreciate it for what it is - an attempt to make you think!

[pugak_79]

hay kapoya ning magdali ug type...nahimong technical ang question..

ok

because its not offensive for you , his blasphemous work of sh*tb, because its not pictures that are sacred for you, that are being violated and for now , you would not post ur pics because just chickens, not GOD yet?

mahog nga nagsunod sunod naka ni Cruz ana. Dili na original imu artwork. Wala nay value in terms of originality.

[handsoff241]

I'm so sorry but I just had to take this.

1.1 I don't think you understand what "imply" means. I think you meant "impart". To imply means you are suggesting the idea but not stating it explicitly. In the context of your arguments, its hilarious.

1.2 no comment

2. Yep, nothing can hinder you from reacting, alright. Not even a little humility or some level-headedness. Everything for you is just react, react, react.

3. It's ironic to me that you seem to get the meaning of "Different folks, different strokes" and yet still be in an uproar over this poleteismo thing. Given your reaction, what you wrote comes across as severely hypocritical.

Mao na pataka lag hamag, magpaka-uwaw jud sa kaugalingun. Read back before you bark.

[rd_heredia]

although naka understand ko sa viewpoint sa artist, i think sayop lang iyang means. we should respect freedom of expression but at the same we must be considerate sa consequences. dili man pud nato gi-curtail iyang rights as an artist pero he should be responsible enough to consider kung naa bay ma affected sa iya work. mao lang na. respect lang from both sides arun happy tanan.

[anubiz]

ayaw lage mo pakig lalis anang dili mo too ug ginou kapoy2 lang mo apilon man mo ana niya sa iyahang ka walay dyos.. hhehehehe

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

Ok ra na masuko ang mga taw ug pari ni cruz oi. Si rizal bitaw pagbuhat niya sa Noli ug Fili nasuko sad ang mga pari... kay mga naigo man...

Na-igo man gud sa heart mao nasuko...

The catholics have a right to be angry, they have the right to react... pero OA ra gyud kaayo ang mga poltko na gamiton ni na isyu... LOL...

mao man gyud ang use sa art, make people think and react. Postive, negative, violent or not-- reaction gihapon...

parehas ra na sa mga nude sculpture... its either masuko ang usa ka taw kay na scandalize sila or maghan ang taw...

Pero dili lang unta sakyan sa mga pulitiko...

Right to Freedom of Expression. Dili tungod na offend ang mga katoliko kay dapat na icurtail ang right, kay bisan ako ma-offend man gani ko wala man ko right para i restraint ang taw ug ang iya right tungod na offend ko sa iyang existance...

Ang ako lang masulti naa ba actual DAMAGE sa Catholic Church na hitabo tungod sa art work or na scandalize ra sila?

[3nZ0y]

unsa gud tawon ang sala ni Kristo niya?

dili man na sala ni Kristo ang sala sa mga pari, ang sala sa mga conquestador, ang sala sa middle age inquisitioners.

ahh.sala ni Kristo kay gihimo niya ang tao ug gitagaan niyag freedom to insult HIM.

pait.

Do you even understand the word 'poleteismo'? Kapoy og spoon feed sa mga tawo who claim they know enough. Please try to google the meaning.

While it is true that art may be understood differently and one may or may not be offended by it, this specific art did not mean to offend anyone or any beliefs. Far from it; it could even be the opposite.

You see, in the ancient times, phallus is revered and worshiped. Putting the p3nis beside Jesus' picture is no difference than putting Qur'an next to a crucifix or a picture of a sun with the sculpture of Zeus.

Poleteismo is a rough translation of Polytheism or the belief or worship of many deities. That was the meaning of the art work. How one reacts to it defines his/her personality.

For me, it is even a shame when we start thinking 'green' in the mention of pen1s. It is a part of the reproductive organ and ancient people (esp. in India) has high respect for it. As some pilosopo say, 'Kung dili tungod ana wala ta diri so dili na bastos'. Quite true, wouldn't you agree? What makes is bastos is our lust...and did I say libido?

[pugak_79]

^^^ in addition to the above post, heres a documentary on how phalluses mean in Olango and some parts of the country. >>> Hindi Ito Bastos (1) - YouTube

Howie Severino's controversial documentary on the the women of Kalayaan, Laguna who perform a nearly 200-year old ritual that consists of playfully parading and displaying wooden phalluses during weddings. The ritual celebrates marriage and binds communities. The MTRCB found the documentary to have "offensive content" and suspended the award-winning documentary program for two weeks.