This is pretty distasteful in my opinion. I know it’s not meant to portray Jesus actually sleeping with his mother. It’s two random people who wake up next to each in well-known “Jesus” and “Mary” positions. Still, incest isn’t funny, even if only implied.
Your thoughts?
Viagra is for the treatment of inability to get or keep an erection and similar states when erection is of low quality. When you buy remedies like cialis from canada you should know about cialis online canada. It may have a lot of brands, but only one ATC Code. Erectile dysfunction, defined as the persistent impossibility to maintain a satisfactory erection, affects an estimated 15 to 30 millions men in the America alone. Sexual health is an substantial part of a man’s life, no matter his age etc.
I didn’t think she was his mother, I’ve immediately thought of Magdalene.
I thought the same. If it was meant to be his mother Mary, why is she relatively the same age as he? Unless agelessness is a supposed quality of Mary of which I’m not aware…
Thought the same thing.
Unnecessary and offensive. This is clearly one of those “stick it in your face, because we can” kind of things. The proverbial middle finger at people of faith.
I’m with Luke. I thought of Magdalene as well. His mother never crossed my mind. I don’t see such a problem anymore with borrowing from biblical/Byzantine imagery. We don’t get offended when the Simpsons do it. What goes for the jugular, I suppose, is the implication of sex where Jesus is involved.
I guess, as a religion, we’re still not past the awkward relationship between Christianity and sex.
As I also wrote on fb: I think a diamond studded cross necklace that was made possible by modern slavery in Africa is far more offensive.
AM I the only one who thought this was an add for pizza?! Kidding. Seriously though, my first thought was that the woman was Mary Magdalene… I never would have considered it as Mary, the mother of Jesus, had you not told me.
On a side note… now I want pizza.
Random thought to add to the discussion… New Zealand’s culture leans atheist in the same way that the U.S. leans Christian (from what my New Zealand friend has told me). This wouldn’t mean the same thing in New Zealand as it would in the U.S.
I am posting a quick knee jerk reaction. It actually did NOT offend me in the least. I also did not think of His mother. I thought of Magdalene. If I sit with this photo and try to figure out what the ‘artist’ is trying to say to me, if I even can, I might be offended. But initially, no, I’m not.
My initial thought, too, was that the woman was meant to be Mary Magdalene, not the Blessed Virgin. The white-and-blue color motif certainly fits better with Mary, Mother of God, though. However, with the ongoing “Jesus was married” craze, the former is a more likely candidate.
I will say that even if the artist intended to portray the Virgin, I doubt he or she intended to depict an incestuous act. Rather, the implication seems more of an effort to play off of well-recognized figures and rattle the cages of their devotees instead of positing any deeper theological point. In as far as it is meant to be offensive for the sake of offense, it is little more than kitsch.
Is it a particularly funny joke? Not more so than anything South Park has done. Is it good art? No. So why waste the time getting offended over it? Especially when blood is being shed over the minerals in our rosaries and altar pieces.