Someone has accused this poster of being blasphemous, for altering "biblical artwork". While I think that claim is absolutely ridiculous, for a variety of reasons, I was wondering what other people would think of it.

biblical? is it in the bible?

I see nothing wrong with it... piousness irks me.

Heh, same here. Altering that image in this way is not defiling God. Oddly enough, plenty of Michelangelo's works were "blasphemous" enough to start with... if you know what to look for :p

I'm gonna have to say "no", Bob.

Not blasphemous.

Only someone who takes things at face value would find that blasphemous.

No, I like it.

I think it's actually a very good alteration. It represents that God can reach metalheads. Whoever thinks it's blasphemy is either very fundy or something like that.

Ah - the beauty of words having multiple definitions. Lets throw perception and interpretations in there too!

I've seen the definition of blasphemous as:
the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God

...which is definitely not the case. Its referencing a painting.

Another definition is:
irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs.

....which could be the case. I personally don't see Michelangelo's "Adam and God" work as a holy relic. This person might. This person might just see it as "irreverence" or satire that's a little too close to "holy" for comfort - I don't know.

I think its fine. Hell, I even think the LOLCAT Bible is hilarious.
Some people on here had a problem with it.

I guess what some people saw as "irreverence" in that, I interpreted as "humorous".
Definitely humorous.

Referencing something in a albeit strange manner doesn't automatically mean it's a mockery of it.

Can I point out that there is no such thing as "biblical artwork"?

No art was in the bible. So, in relation, if someone calls something blasphemous because its altering "biblical artwork", they're altering the Bible.

In sort, they're the ones blaspheming.

people are so sensitive its ridiculous

Thanks for the response guys. It's just as I thought, the accusations had no basis in truth.

I think it is very cool. Besides, for it to be blasphemous the depiction of God would have to be 'literal' or even 'factual'. And it that case it would then make it idolatry to assign holiness or divinity to a depiction......oh the cycle could go round and round.....

It's cool and I think metalheads wouls appreciate it.

IronGuardian wrote:

Heh, same here. Altering that image in this way is not defiling God. Oddly enough, plenty of Michelangelo's works were "blasphemous" enough to start with... if you know what to look for :p

hahaha totally, some people, srysly, stop pretending like stuff outside of the bible is god

The gig was a bit of a flop number wise, but the crowd that did turn up had a great time, and there was a good vibe all night.