hi to all the forgotten australians

( steel man ) , i was not commenting on you it was for (STEEL)

hope this eases your mind , steel man ,, i replyed to his comment steel made so take it easy ,

if i have to make a point to anyone i will and always refer to that persons user name ,

why im here my opinion is still the same and won't change

regards huffnpuff

Hi CJ... I note your comment:

<much of the identifiably Christian comment at OLO is rather more extreme than most of us would encounter in daily discourse.>

This is quite true.. the reason is the format/context. We have not knocked on anyone's door.. grabbed them by the lapels in the street... cornered them at some function... blasted them with a loud PA system...

When we comment here, people can 'change the chanel' :) or just choose to ignore. The best response for me though, is interaction, even when it involves disagreement.

I guess the thing which draws various enthusiastic members of the anti GB brigade into the fray is the worrisome thought that what we say is going out to a lot of people.

You might have noticed that some who disagree with me (and Gibo,Philo or Runner) are able to do so without colorful negative adjectives or demeaning personal attack.. Oliver springs to mind there, it's always a pleasure to debate him. Some of his questions though would require a library of response..and that usually results in him wondering why some questions are not addressed.

The problem with 'Christianity' and Henson is that we really only have a mandate to 'legislate' so to speak within our own fellowships, not the wider community. So, no matter what we feel about such works as Hensons.. (certain works only mind you) it's a bit of a moot issue because we simply would never have such works on the walls of our Churches and hopefully our homes.

For us, the real way of addressing all such things, is more to 'be' rather than to fight with all the lovers of erotic art around the place.
The more people we can draw to Gods love in Christ, then, the less who will find such nude portrayals of people interesting or beneficial.

Boazy: << So, no matter what we feel about such works as Hensons.. (certain works only mind you) it's a bit of a moot issue because we simply would never have such works on the walls of our Churches and hopefully our homes. >>

Boazy's sidestepping the issue. Presumably the "we" he uses refers to Christians, but as this thread shows, there are Christians out there who don't have any problem with Henson's artworks - refer in particular to the comments from GrahamY and Steel Mann. Also, prominent conservative MP Malcolm Turnbull, who is a practising Christian, not only has some of Henson's works in his collection, but also defended the artist publicly. No doubt there are many others.

So what is about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by Boazy, Gibo, runner, Philo et al? Since there's apparently no theological or biblical reason to decry Henson's images, on what basis do the frootloop fundies join in the moral panic surrounding Henson's art?

Boaz stated above: ” You might have noticed that some who disagree with me (and Gibo,Philo or Runner) are able to do so without colorful negative adjectives or demeaning personal attack..”

Boaz, you reap what you sow. Your very first response to an opinion I had expressed to Philo, started as follows:

“FRACTELLE... are you fractured ? I'm beginning to think so……”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1514&page=0#28326
The remainder of Boaz’s post is above. It was in response to my post below. Although it did not engage with any of the points I raised. Boaz was responding to me simply because he could not respond without resorting to “colorful negative adjectives or demeaning personal attack..”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1514&page=0#28317

Once again Boaz is caught out behaving with the hypocrisy of which he accuses others.

Boaz’ contribution to the topic is only to be found in his final paragraph. I can only conclude that he is saying if we believe in god, we will lose all interest in nudity.

ROFL

Hi Fractelle.. well I have to concede that 'fractured' remark looks bad :)

Was mean't to be a play on words re your nick.. ie... a fractured argument.

Fortunately your readers can look up the links and find this:

"The ONLY people thus far who are saying anything about 'all Muslims' is Foxy... when claiming that others are condemning them all.. and YOU who is for some strange reason claiming in the complete absense of actual evidnce the same thing."

So, my point was that you were asseting something that was not true, and 'fractured' seems like a reasonable description of that.
i.e.. what you said was 'separated' from reality.. fractured.

It was an attack on your argument, so perhaps I should have said "Your argument is fractured"..hmm would you have considered that a personal attack and demeaning?

CJ.. you asked:

<So what is about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by Boazy, Gibo, runner, Philo et al?>

This the wrong question. I don't think any of us have condemned 'Hensons art' completely. We raise questions about his motives for the images using young children naked... but the rest must stand on their artistic merits.

In general, art should contribute to beneficial values in the community in my view. Sometimes being confronted with the dark side of humanity can achieve this also. But it's a very subjective area.

If we try to define and legislate for every human situation we will end up with laws bigger than the Tax act or become like the Pharisees who would not eat an egg laid on the Sabbath.
Perish the thought.

Unfortunately, we have secular Pharisees and Scribes hard at work to try to codify all human behavior into neat legislative parcels.
"No innappropriate touching".. so a teacher cannot give emotional encouragement to a student from a broken and loveless home by giving him/her a hug.

Boazy:

<< CJ.. you asked:

<So what is about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by Boazy, Gibo, runner, Philo et al?>

This the wrong question. >>

No, it is obviously a question you're either unwilling or unable to address, but it's the question I posed and which remains unanswered.

<< I don't think any of us have condemned 'Hensons art' completely. >>

Now that's just bulldust. While Boazy has tended to sit on the fence in the Henson debate, his fundy cohorts have posted some of the most inane and/or offensive comments in the discussion at OLO on this topic.

So, I repeat - what is it about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by the fundamentalists at OLO?