Desire Armed

.....the Watch Tower would have a problem with it. Those crazy Jehovah's.

As for me, I am not really sure where I stand. The side of me that works with graphic design all day thinks you did a decent job with the photo shop.

Any other is leaning towards that it really does not matter.

Jesus is well pleased with this.

I was just reading some Kierkegaard and he's lambasting the un-Christianness of imagining Christ as beautiful:

"That he bore the sin of the whole world will not really move the congregation; yet the speaker proclaims it, and in order to make the contrast strong, he describes Christ's beauty (because the contrast between guiltlessness and sin is not strong enough), and the believing congregation is stirred by this totally pagan qualification of the god in human form: beauty"

Socrates was ugly, he then points out.

So I can't decide: the true pagan absurdity/offense of this image is either the beauty of Christ before you malled it, or the beauty of Christ in you after you malled it? Are you the beautiful negation to show the contrast between beauty and ugliness, thus representing - albeit cheaply - the contrast between guiltlessness and sin, or is it the other way round? Perhaps the other Christ image was the ugly, and I suspect more that you are its beauty.

Regardless, I weep at the beauty.

On a more serious note. If our cultural image of Christ is so "aesthetically" pleasing (if not outright sexual/sensual/erotic--I mean, look at half the Christ pictures, not least the more recent homo-phobic Macho-Man Randy Jesus), what would it mean to forsake this paganism? What is so aesthetically dis-pleasing to us today to imagine what the real gaze upon the monstrosity of Christ would be? A Muslim, a Republican, a fag?

Jesus robably looked more like this.

Osama Bin Laden

SNAP!

I think, between the two, you're a far better looking Jesus

And is Sarah Palin depicted on the left of the picture?