192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 02:59 pm
@McGentrix,
Christ is almost always portrayed in churches and contemporary illustrations as being caucasian. It's a part of the myth structure of western notions of the man. And it is, consciously or unconsciously, racist. Obviously. But he is portrayed similarly in medieval art as well.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/74/3f/ec/743fec3addbbadb9bd402bf74e88891c.jpg

Many more HERE

Would you like me to try and find examples of how Muhammed is currently illustrated in the Muslim world?
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:05 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
They sure are.


Why are you taking offence? All I'm pointing to is how we in the west make big conceptual errors about the real world based on prejudices. That's an inarguable fact and I'm providing an example of this. But you seem to take it as an insult where it is meant as a reminder (though you do perceive my impatience with a common failure of people to be honest about this)

It was a Greek who observed that "if bulls and lions were to speak about god they would doubtless tell us that he was a bull or a lion"
0 Replies
 
tony5732
 
  0  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:06 pm
@blatham,
Like I said, the sources kinda suck. It seems like an almost secret subject. I'm going to keep doing some digging.
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:14 pm
@tony5732,
Quote:
It seems like an almost secret subject.

I think not a secret subject so much as tales spun out of nothing other than phobia about Muslims. Be careful what you accept as truth.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:17 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

You could have used this image for Jesus

Instead you chose what you believed would be the most insulting image when compared to what could be a more "actual" representation of men of that region at that time.

Why? Just to insult those on A2K that may be Christian on Christmas Eve?


Sadly, that indeed appears to be the case. One can only speculate on the motives implied here, but I wonder what might have been Blatham's reaction to something more or less equivalently offensive and mocking toward homosexuals, or Moslems for that matter.

Perhaps it's just lonely and boring for him up there in BC this winter. In any event there is a certain, perhaps compulsive, meanness evident in this, that can also be detected in his endless posts mocking and criticizing the politics and values of people in a neighboring country, not his own.

Very hard to see all this as a result of mere academic interest, though I do recognize the much overplayed pretense that it is just that. Narrow-minded intolerance, masquerading as "intellectual analysis" by the uninformed and uncomprehending.

Merry Christmas to all.

blatham
 
  5  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:23 pm
@georgeob1,
So, what's the offence? Why are you offended?
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:36 pm
If either of you two get around to trying to figure out just why you are offended, let's remind (or note for those unfamiliar with the illustration I posted). The following (which includes that illustration) was from an issue of Popular Mechanics from 1 1/2 years ago...
Quote:
There is the additional problem of having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe for DNA. In the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been left to the imagination of artists. The influences of the artists' cultures and traditions can be profound, observes Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi, associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta. "While Western imagery is dominant, in other parts of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or Hispanic." And so the fundamental question remains: What did Jesus look like?

An answer has emerged from an exciting new field of science: forensic anthropology. Using methods similar to those police have developed to solve crimes, British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists, have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image of the most famous face in human history.
LINK
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 03:50 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

So, what's the offence? Why are you offended?


That is your problem, not mine -- a question you should contemplate yourself.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to note that you have a ready borrowed source to hide behind. Cowardly.
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 04:25 pm
@georgeob1,
Then I suppose I'll just have to have faith that your christian ethos must inevitably lead you to forgive me for offending whatever part of your mind is involved here.
Below viewing threshold (view)
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 04:30 pm
On the ever-interesting subject of contemporary media and propaganda, this piece by David Bell, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Johns Hopkins, is invaluable. Bookmark it or save the page for reference to read later (it's on the long side) because it is exceptional and it is right on the money.
Quote:
From all the recent hand-wringing about “fake news,” you would think that the hand-wringers had never stood in a supermarket checkout line, surrounded by 72-point headlines about alien abductions and miracle cures. Fake news has been around as long as real news, as any historian of early modern Europe can tell you (Renaissance readers gobbled up stories about women giving birth to rabbits, and men from Africa with faces in their chests). Social media has certainly transformed how fake news circulates, speeding up its circulation and extending its reach and impact. The temptation to blame many of our current ills on it—and by extension, on Mark Zuckerberg—is understandable. But the hand-wringing has in fact distracted attention from a much more important problem involving the American media. That problem is not fake news but the continuing delegitimization of real news by American conservatives. This delegitimization has been taking place for a long time (as The Nation’s Eric Alterman has meticulously reported, and as even some conservative media figures have admitted), but during the past year it has taken a frightening new turn. If the mainstream American news media are to have any hope of avoiding potentially catastrophic results—both for themselves and for American democracy—they need to change how they report on American politics, and on the ideological apparatchiks they continue to describe, misleadingly, as “journalists.”
LINK here

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 04:31 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It will indeed. You should think about that too.

2 way street, bub
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  5  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 05:02 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Yet you find a much older rendition of Muhammad... I assume he's the one in the middle holding what could be a head?


It's a depiction of Mohammad with the black stone in front of al-Kaaba.

Mohammad in the center, placing the stone on a carpet held by by representatives of the four tribes. In the background, two men are lifting the black curtain to the sanctuary.

It's about Mohammad resolving a dispute over who would have the honor of lifting the black stone into position.
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 06:16 pm
@old europe,
That's not very exciting. Perhaps it is a bowling ball from a bowling alley run under Sharia Law?
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -4  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 06:17 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0eJO-DUQAAzfR4.jpg:large
giujohn
 
  -3  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 06:35 pm
@Frugal1,
End of the terror.
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -4  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 07:00 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0e8Jj7XcAAq5nE.jpg
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 07:31 pm
@blatham,
I thought Muslim were not allowed to portray people in art which is why there is so much geometric paintings and such?

I am looking it up now. Apparently it doesn't extend to Muhammed. I think. Not sure.

Islamic Art and Depictions of Muhammad
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 24 Dec, 2016 08:31 pm
According to the DNA found in what I believe to be conclusive evidence that was Jesus' osery, he was swarthy with dark kinky hair.
0 Replies
 
catbeasy
 
  1  
Sun 25 Dec, 2016 12:02 am
@ossobucotemp,
Quote:
Atheists don't need a proper referent for authority.


Yes, they do, all people do. For some Christians their God is good enough. It is in our nature to have to justify everything we do. I don't see this as being controversial. It comes with our package.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.88 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 08:25:15