Christ's boner offends churchgoers

This isn't godawful in the slightest, but then there's no qualification in the name of this forum that the news has to be godawful.

Link!

Really, there's not much to say. That is not a "disdended abdomen". Apparently some news sources are censoring the holy wang.

...I can't unsee accidentally misreading this as meaning "Chris-chan".

Another case of the super-religious getting so obsessed with obscenity that they see it where they shouldn't.

Crap, what's the name of that one artist who draws all her male characters' genitals like they're pastede on yay? Half her gallery was linked to on GAFF.

That looks like a dick to me, but mostly because it looks entirely unlike a normal abdomen (even a distended one). Abs don't work that way.

Nihilist wrote:

Just goes to show, the biggest prudes are secretly enormous pervs.

I saw a massive dick, but come on, there's no denying Jesus would be so gloriously endowed.

I just remembered a joke. Unfortunately, it's much funnier if you tell it in person, but it basically goes:
Why was Jesus a hit with the ladies?
Because he was hung like THIS (hold out arms, in a physical double entendre to denote both crucifixion and the fisherman's "it was this big" pose)

It most likely wasn't intentional, but once you see it, you can't unsee it. And I think that says more about the state of our minds than the state of the Church.

Well, maybe the churchgoers' boner for Christ offends me? What do you say to that? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

EileenK98 wrote:

It most likely wasn't intentional, but once you see it, you can't unsee it. And I think that says more about the state of our minds than the state of the Church.

IAWTC. I think this is exactly what's going on. The anatomy is bad, but look at his arms. They look like twigs. Bad anatomy does not a giant belly-penis make, unless his cock and balls are supposed to be under the skin of his chest. <_< talk about touching the Sacred Heart.

It looks like either a badly drawn abdomen or a giant cock.

Hmm...so that's why Mary Magdalene followed Him around!

And thus the Church learned the value of Graphic Design.

rae wrote:

EileenK98 wrote:

It most likely wasn't intentional, but once you see it, you can't unsee it. And I think that says more about the state of our minds than the state of the Church.

IAWTC. I think this is exactly what's going on. The anatomy is bad, but look at his arms. They look like twigs. Bad anatomy does not a giant belly-penis make, unless his cock and balls are supposed to be under the skin of his chest. <_< talk about touching the Sacred Heart.

To be fair, that's Christian art. The anatomy is supposed to be bad. It's actually a very good picture of the genre, considering it's done by a modern artist. It might even be a reproduction from the original.

They're just seeing penis where there ain't, 'cause that's how some people roll.

Sure is Freudian in here

Goat wrote:

To be fair, that's Christian art. The anatomy is supposed to be bad.

I don't think it's quite "bad anatomy", just heavily stylized.

I DON'T SEE A PICTURE AND FEEL I'M MISSING A PART OF INTERNET HISTORY!!1!

Malganis wrote:

Goat wrote:

To be fair, that's Christian art. The anatomy is supposed to be bad.

I don't think it's quite "bad anatomy", just heavily stylized.

Not quite, though that is part of it.

The difference being that, say, Gothic art is 100% stylized, while Christian art is supposed to be fairly "ugly" (notice the quotation marks, please), so that the illiterate masses focused on the devine message depicted, instead of marvelling at the earthly beauty of the human body/art.

Goat wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Goat wrote:

To be fair, that's Christian art. The anatomy is supposed to be bad.

I don't think it's quite "bad anatomy", just heavily stylized.

Not quite, though that is part of it.

The difference being that, say, Gothic art is 100% stylized, while Christian art is supposed to be fairly "ugly" (notice the quotation marks, please), so that the illiterate masses focused on the devine message depicted, instead of marvelling at the earthly beauty of the human body/art.

Divine.

Marveling.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What you need to do is get you a spellchecker of some sort. I had one with the little Google Toolbar, and it's the only reason I saw marveling.

You're spellchecking my posts now? Ugh.

imma stard wrrting liek dis ntil it gits ould

So quit it.

Looks like a "dirt is in the eye of the beholder" (or "Problem Is Located Between Your Ears") case, compounded with a poor understanding of anatony on the artist's part, perhaps. I could take out my Religion schoolbook and testify that I drew better six-packs when I was ten: shading and highlighting does not work that way.
Also: actual medieval crucifixes are even worse regarding the presence of alleged comedies:

1210: Link
1257: Link
1268: Link

Just goes to show Jesus had a hard time on the cross.

This is RIDICULOUS. It's been there for 10 years, it's an image commissioned years ago, and NOW people are getting offended?

Here is one of the less oddly-stylized versions:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You can see where the penis shape came from, but it's actually vaguely abdomen-looking on this one.

Vespers wrote:

Here is one of the less oddly-stylized versions:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You can see where the penis shape came from, but it's actually vaguely abdomen-looking on this one.

It's the eyes that I noticed on this one. Jesus looks like an alien! (Actually, that would explain a whole lot.)

Vespers wrote:

You can see where the penis shape came from, but it's actually vaguely abdomen-looking on this one.

And not only is it not as penis-looking as the modern one, but the way it's painted makes it clear that it's a part of the torso. The modern one uses the same darkness of line for Jesus' pecs, legs, and abdomen, so it's easy for the eye to interpret them either way and let the brain try and pick out the correct interpretation.

Goat wrote:

You're spellchecking my posts now? Ugh.

imma stard wrrting liek dis ntil it gits ould

So quit it.

The thingy underlines misspelled words automatically. So when I hit the quote button and your post was put into the text box, it underlined "marvellous".

I'm so much better at grammar than you I act superior on accident. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You're using software to correct other people's posts? Do it from what you know yourself, you cheater. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]