Great – something else about which fundies can get their panties knotted.

A comparison to mock God? There is a difference,just as night is to day.Can you mix evil with good? they that do this are no longer
His children ,but a warped and crooked generation!

He has a look about him that I expect a lot of people find attracting (if they can get by all his murders and his hatred for our freedoms). Probably that contributes a lot to his success and it’s probably part of the reason we stopped showing much of him on US TV.
And since, if Jesus existed, he was a Middle Easterner; who knows, maybe he did look like OBL.

Who cares what someone in Sydney did with their art. Means nothing except what the artist thinks, and Dominique, etc. can have fun poking at Christians of one sort. Bin Laden is who is and our Lord Jesus is who he will ever be to us. So knock yourselves out with glee and laughter in Australia.

“Even more obvious, this artist, knows NOTHING of God.”
>and you know this exactly how?
I think the statement the artist is making has nothing to do with the object’s character, but that of some of their frighteningly ignorant and potentially murderous disciples.

Dominique said, “Well, people are obsessed with both, Christ and bin Laden; there’s no difference.”
Certainly they’re both fascinating, charismatic, and (many) people feel moved to respond with unusual devotion. Both were political figures, the existence of whom threatened the existing power structures. So there’s that.
If she meant there’s no difference between Christ the (divine) person and bin Laden the (extremely human) person, I beg strongly to differ.
If she meant there’s no difference between the obsessive, mindless, steamroller manner in which (some of) the adherents of each behave, well, she’s got a point there.
But not all Christians are mindless fanatics, and not all Muslims are, either. In fact, the vast majority of both are not.
Picasso said, “Art is a lie that shows us truth,” or words to that effect. He was right.

Of course, to anyone with an ounce of sense there is no comparison between the Lord Jesus Christ and the evil Osama bin Laden. Christ has inspired countless multitudes to lead lives of self-sacrifice and service to others in love and compassion. bin Laden has filled the world with violence, destruction and hatred. No Christian, not even a Christian fundamentalist, has ever flown airplanes into major buildings and killed thousands of people in a matter of minutes. It has never happened. Christ inspires the best in His followers; bin Laden the worst. But people are free to mock God. He won’t stop them, at least not for a while. But the Bible does say, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked. What you sow, you will reap.”

The artist is welcome to mock if that is what the artist chooses to do. How one artist chooses to express their artistic ability will NOT make the comparision realistic. All this will do is get more people talking and possiblly more people to go and see the picture to see if they see Christ and OBL in the same picture.
As for Dominique saying “Well, people are obsessed with both, Christ and bin Laden; there’s no difference.”…haha! There is a major difference and if she truly does not see one that is her problem and I actually feel sorry for her because she is missing something in her life to believe that.
I also agree with DeaconScott’s “But not all Christians are mindless fanatics, and not all Muslims are, either.” because I can say I am not mindless. I know what I believe and what I stand for.

Bin Laden and Jesus are both from semitic peoples. Jesus is pictured with long hair and a beard. Bin Laden styles himself in much the same way. There the comparison ends, I think.
So what if an artist wants to do this? There are good and bad uses of art — some uses are trivial and even infantile, like putting Muhammed’s head on a dog’s body in the cartoon recently published in Norway.
The point, to me, is that people ought to be free to express themselves even if what they do is immature or offensive to someone else. We might ignore them if we think their “art” is in bad taste, or if we think it is offensive or vapid. Or we might criticize them for being childish. But, to demand that they be punished, or threaten them with violence, or commit acts of violence against them is ludicrous.

Dominique accomplished her intent. That is to get people thinking and talking and interpreting. That is one of the prime purposes of art. Simplistic representation is another, weaker purpose. I may not like the work – I will try to find a copy of it on the internet – but I cannot argue her success. It seems like she employed a unique medium and technology to accomplish this – also interesting.

The first thing I thought of when I read this article is the comparison of different sides of fundamentalism. I think the artist was somewhat flippant with her “there’s no difference” statement. Honestly, having Christ’s face suddenly turn into bin Laden’s is powerful – it reminds me how thin the line is between holy and wholly evil.
Windsor’s Child, have you forgotten the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Protestant Persecution of Catholics in England? Abortion Clinic Bombings? Christian history is not lily white and pure. Christians have – and still do- kill in the name of Christ.
The bottom line is that Art is subjective. We are allowed to come away from a piece thinking and feeling something completely different than perhaps the artist wants us to. Art is often a medium that encourages discourse and, certainly, intense feelings.

My thoughts were similar to yours, bdcthic, when I read the post of Windsor’s child. There have been many wars and horrible things done “in the name of Christ”. Religions of all types have fought and done just plain “bad” things in the name of their holy leaders. Christianity is no exception.
As to the controversial painting? Artists are just that, artists. They should be allowed to paint,draw,sculpt etc. as they see fit. NO one is forced to buy or go see what they have created. I don’t always “appreciate” some artist’s works, but admire the fact they can create.

OK, now go back to the article about the Swedish Moslems upset about the cartoon contest. We as Christian get so righteously indignant when we are offended, but expect others to simply laugh it off, as something of no consequence. The is hypocracy in its purest form – at least we got THAT right.
One of the reasons I think there is a prohibition against graven images is that representational art removes any sense of subjectivity from the topic. In other words, once you see an image and accept it, no other image will be good enough (as with the Sallman Jesus – all doe-eyed, long haired, and placid). So highly subjective, symbolic, even metphoric images are used in place of God (like Hitchcock using a steam train in place of a showing what happens in a sex scene). What is the artist saying and why does it effect you so much?
Would it be worse if Jesus morphed into a single, illegal alien mother cashing a welfare check? We are to fear God. God is our fear. If you are afraid of binLaden, then he becomes the face of God. Once you are no longer afraid that face fades from significance. God’s face may, if your faith is strong enough and you release all your fears, appear as someone/thing/else wonderful and impossible to portray. Then, and only then, will you have followed by faith to God (the very definition of discipleship). Luke 14 (the appointed Gospel for Sunday) includes Jesus saying you must “hate” life itself – live without the fear of death – live fearlessly. Sure it is almost impossible, but it is an honorable goal.
I believe the artist Dominique is actually trying to get people to do just this – to live fearlessly. Of course, by doing this she has shown a bright light on our fear, the tapeworms that feed on our Spirit. Again, it is clear that she has accomplished her goal.

oh who cares?!?
i LOVE my Lord, but i DONT know what He looked like and i’m not going to get all worked up by someone expressing their inner artist (even if i dont see the artiness of it- not really a fan of mod-art).

jestrfyl, that’s an interesting point about graven images, yet most people are capable of understanding that the symbol is not the thing itself — it merely “stands in for” or points to something different and usually larger.
I’ve always felt the emphasis on graven images was a literalist interpretation of a healthy prohibition against making an idol of anything — such as a book. By that definition, those who see the Koran or the Bible as the literal, perfect, unchanging word of God are engaging in what I personally feel is a much more dangerous form of idolatry.

Alicia,
Your point is the very reason that I itch whenever someone is compelled to swear they are being honest by placing a hand on the Bible. It is then reduced to the status of magical talisman of truth. That was not the intent, I am quite sure. It may not then be a graven image, but the effect is the same. Imagine the hubbub in a courtroom if I, a genuine, certified, ordained pastor, were to refuse to guarantee my integrity and honesty by swearing on a Bible. (I may even become my own B’net article – it hasn’t happened yet, but I can hope)
Do people get the whole symbol stnading in for another object? Given the level of insistence on literal understanding of the Bible, I doubt it. There are people who swear by the Weekly World News as the factual honest truth, too.

jestrfyl,
Exactly. The Bible is used as a magic talisman. A year or two back, people were using the “Prayer of Jabez” as an incantation to bring wealth and happiness. Yet many of those people were probably fundamentalist or conservative Christians who would have been absolutely horrified if you told them what they were doing was much more of the occult than reading Harry Potter.