I only just noticed in this pic that the statue lacks the large, full breasts of Baphomet. Baphomet is a hermaphrodite.
Part of what I like about these guys is that it’s not just “pranksterism.” It’s not about the laffs. They’ve got deeply held convictions that they use Satan as a way to manifest. It’s a religion (as far as that goes), just not a metaphysical one.
That gives it legs and standing where the simple point-n-chuckle of a mischevous needling (a la the Flying Spaghetti Monster) doesn’t.
It hinges on the fact that their opponents aren’t interested in denying their existence or their authenticity - Christian fundamentalists believe that Satan exists and of course would have Satanists who would oppose them and all religion. They are taken fairly seriously, which is an important point.
Dog bless them.
Nice to see somebody actually do what Jesus would do rather than just ask…
edit to add a “than”
Don’t overlook Bruder Spaghettus and his efforts to get the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster formal recognition in Germany.
Apparently the Firesign Theater was right when they said “Give the people a light and they will follow it anywhere.”
I noticed that, but surely that should be one ‘large breast’. The other is ‘male’. Regardless, it’s an interpretation and a work of art. Very Discordian.
My guess is that, as with many things, you can show a lot of violent, crazy, unusual things…but no boobs! Then it falls into the “obscene” category and can be objected to on that basis. So they decided to opt for a statue that wouldn’t shift the discussion from religion to obscenity.
For maximum trolling effect, compare the pose of the Baphomet statue to this one of George Washington:
But I thought the most conservative Christianity is a Pythagorean triune godhead Roman mystery cult with an ethereal god-man Jesus who shares his flesh and blood competing with while absorbing the identity of a monotheist Jewish anti-Roman revolutionary band and human messiah candidate.
The Roman branch would probably love to merge in some Baphomet if they could.
These fine fellows really are doing the Lord’s work. Ironically.
Not really. What “obscene” means is basically “immoral”, and systems of morality have traditionally all been religiously-based. So religious iconography can’t by definition be obscene. Or perhaps the iconography of different religions simply appear obscene to each other. Christian injunctions to “hide one’s shame before god” or some such nonsense can hardly apply to a god themselves.
How about Maithuna, and Yab-Yum, where a god is depicted as really being two beings conjoined in coitus?
Also, it would require a sexist stance to begin with, positing that female breasts are somehow more obscene than male ones are. It’s hardly defensible without admitting to some form of bias or bigotry. XD
I love breasts! The more the better I say. In the flesh, on the canvas, carved in stone!
I’m really starting to think that you’re somehow an alien, new to this planet that is using BB as some sort of study resource for human weirdness and contradictory behaviors.
People constantly take the stance that female breasts are somehow more obscene than male ones (Janet Jackson’s boob being immoral, breastfeeding mothers somehow being anything other than totally normal, natural, and nurturing, and the topic of women being topless on beaches or on the streets of New York or wherever. And they do indeed do this without any hint of self awareness that this is a bigoted and biased point of view. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I simply do not see breasts as being that big of a deal. I mean I appreciate a nicely formed pair as much as the next guy, but no more so that a beautiful face, or really any other show of physical beauty. Why people get their tighty whities in such a ruffle is beyond me. Maybe I’m getting too old or jaded to care enough to get in a kerfuffle about a boob (or two).
I swear I see a pup tent…
It might just be Deep Dreaming.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.