[presidio9]

There is also a considerable amount that portrays female angels, which the word of God denies, and human looking angels in ‘heaven.’

Oh man, where do you people come from? I took a break from FR for a few months. I came back, and suddenly its like the short bus had an accident, so the hockey helmet crowd escaped and decided to take over this website.

There is also so-called "Catholic" art that portrays saints walking around with gold platters suspended above their heads, Semitic people looking like Norwegians, Moses having horns, people habitually covering their private parts with fig leafs (or, for that matter just being naked all the time), and, in possibly the greatest example of "Catholic" (or perhaps any) art of all time, the Blessed Mother looking like she's half the age of her dead Son. It's called artistic license, dumbass. Not to be confused with catechism

[presidio9]

For that matter, Michelangelo included his name and address on the sash across Mary's chest, the only time he ever signed a sculpture.

Or, are we meant to believe that the artist had a time machine, was present in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, and presented this sash to Mary to express his condolences?

[867V309]

Pietà always breaks my heart.

[Carthego delenda est]

“It’s called artistic license”

Glad you wrote that post. Last night when the arguing started, and one suggested something like he got most of it from images posted on FreeRepublic, I started thinking that by using that logic, there may be some people in for a very rude awakening if they actually believe (and they most certainly don’t) that some of the “artistic license” being used by talented FReepers isn’t actually the real thing. LOL! Examples being Cruz in a superhero costume, or Trump brandishing an M-4. Again, good post!