Christian Idolatry

Will the fair-skinned, blue-eyed, gentle Jesus surrounded by children, flowers and butterflies please move over and make way for Macho Kick-ass Jesus.

Jesus w tattoo

The new, tattooed and gym-ripped Jesus. Photograph: Copyright Stephen Sawyer/

A very muscular brand of Christianity

Guardian – TANITH CAREY – Aug 28, 2011

When you hear the name Jesus, is the first image that comes to mind a dewy-eyed pretty boy with flowing locks? If so, think again. After 2,000 years, the Messiah is getting a makeover.

This time he’s less “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” and more of a kick-ass action hero – a Chuck Norris in sandals.

…The macho Jesus movement has been bolstered by books like No More Mr Christian Nice Guy and The Church Impotent – the Feminisation of Christianity. But it’s artist Stephen Sawyer, whose paintings of the Son of God as a tattooed biker and boxer have captured the imagination of Christian men searching for a more manly role model. Go to story

“Do not try to see a saintly person. You try to hear a saintly person.”

excerpt from lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.4-8, Tokyo, April 23, 1972

…We have to know actually from authentic shastra what is the actual thing. Shastra-chakshusa. You don’t see with your, these blunt eyes, rascal eyes We see through the shastras. That should be. That is real knowledge. What is our capacity of these eyes, these senses? They are all imperfect. So whatever knowledge you gather, the so-called scientists, they are all imperfect. Real perfect knowledge is here, Veda. Vedaish cha sarvaiḥ. Therefore you should see through the Vedic version what is actually the fact. …

Similarly you cannot understand what is the form of God. You say, “Oh, God is false.” But from the shastra we can understand. Here it is said that rupam sa adi-devo jagatam paro guruh. Brahmane darshayan rupam. So if God has no form, how He showed His form to Brahma? He has form. Brahma has attained the perfection to see the form of God, and the rascals who have no such perfection, they say “No form.” That is the position. They, with their imperfect senses, all rascal theories, they are thinking that they have become perfect. But they are not perfect. First thing is that the senses with which you are studying, they are imperfect. What is the value of our eyes? Unless there is sunlight, you cannot see. So how can you say that “Our seeing is absolute”? It is relative. So whatever knowledge we are getting, they’re all relative knowledge. Relative means according to my power I am studying, “This is this. This is this.” But they are all wrong. You do not know what is actually the position. Therefore the conclusion is that we have to take knowledge from the perfect. Shastra-chakshusa. Actually we are doing that. Now, directly we are seeing the sun. We see just like the disk. But when you go through scientific books, geographic and other authorities, astronomy, they say, “No, the sun is fourteen hundred thousand times bigger than this planet.” So actually we are understanding about the sun not by our direct eyes but through the authoritative knowledge, through the shastra, through the books.
Shruti-pramanam. That is evidence, shruti-pramanam. Shruti means Veda. In the Vedas it is stated… Just like Brahma. He is receiving Vedic knowledge from, directly from God, Krishna. Brahmane darshayan rupam. This is the process of understanding. Brahma, how Brahma is receiving knowledge? Directly he sees there is nobody there, but he is receiving knowledge. Directly he could not see. Upashrinot, upashrinot. Upashrinot: “He simply heard.” Upashrinot. Ear, not the eyes. So therefore knowledge has to be gathered by aural reception, not by the eyes. My Guru Maharaja used to say, “Do not try to see a saintly person. You try to hear a saintly person.” If you see a long beard and very strong man, he is a great sadhu… that’s it? No. You have to hear. What does he speak? Then you understand. Upashrinot.

This entry was posted in Religion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply