Monthly Archives: April 2007

Birthday Competition: The Nun Game Challenge

Posted on by
7

As it’s my birthday today (thanks, chaps, you really shouldn’t—oh, that’s right, you didn’t), and I’m in a good mood, how about a quick round of the Nun Game?

Twenty-five points and one of my spare Moleskine™ notebooks to the first person to spot a nun hidden away in my recent photos from Rome and Florence. Answers in the comments please.

Simply post the URL (web address) of the Flickr page containing the nun photo into the comment’s text. (Note: There should only be one photo on the Flickr page in question. If there is more than one photo shown, click your chosen photo to be taken to its unique page.) Oh, and don’t forget to include your email address in the comments field provided, so I’ll be able to contact you (it won’t be published).

For the avoidance of doubt, there are no tricks involved. There is at least one photo of a real, live nun, who is very clearly a nun, and not just some indistinguishable speck/blob in the background.

Think of it as Where’s Wally, but with nuns.

The judge’s decision is final, no correspondence will be entered into, etc., etc.

Good luck!

Oh, is it empty already? Next bottle, I think.

Postscript: We have a winner. Congratualtions, Philip. The nun photo is here.

Ginger Jesus!

Posted on by
9

Ginger Jesus 1

Ginger!

OK, even I’m starting to get bored of all this Italy stuff now. But, before I finish, I must explain my theory that Jesus was a carrot-top:

When you’ve traipsed through as many medieval art galleries and churches as I have in the last couple of weeks, you begin to notice certain themes developing.

Ginger Jesus 2

Ginger!

For example, it is quite clear that Jesus was an extremely ugly baby. Out of the (literally) hundreds of Madonna and Childs and Nativities that I saw, there wasn’t a single one in which Baby Jesus didn’t look boss-eyed, deformed, or just not-quite-right-in-the-head. He had the sort of face that only a mother could love. And he’s nearly always clutching some poor goldfinch in his mitts. What the hell is that about? Some sort of religious iconography I can’t be bothered to look up, I’ll bet. [Postscript: Actually, I've now looked it up, and very symbolic it is too.]

The Virgin Mary, Sanata Croce, Florence

Even his poor mum!

And very often, the Virgin Mary is shown with two kids. It turns out the second one is Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist. Presumably he was Jesus’s cousin on his mother’s side. I suspect Mrs The Baptist was a working mum. Either that, or she and the Virgin Mary took it in turns to look after the kids while the other popped down the shops.

The other thing you soon begin to notice in these old painting is that Jesus was extremely white, and unforgivably ginger. I don’t mean in just one or two painting; I mean in practically all of them (with one notable exception: a Russian iconographic painting in which he looked decidedly swarthy).

I mean, even his poor mum looks ginger in some of the paintings. As if she didn’t have enough to worry about, the poor woman!

I rest my case. Here endeth the lesson.

Holey temple

Posted on by
Reply
The Pantheon, Rome

The Pantheon.

I have wanted to visit the Pantheon in Rome ever since I saw some slides of the place in an archaeology lecture in 1985. Remember slides? As domes go—properdomes, that is, not silly tents in Greenwich—the Pantheon’s is the daddy. I am delighted to report that it was every bit as fantastic as I’d hoped it would be. The Romans knew a thing or two about domes—and about concrete, from which it is made.

The Romans also knew a thing or two about ecumenism and diversity: as its name implies, the Pantheon was originally a temple to all the gods. Then the Christians came along, nailed up a few crosses, and converted the place into a church. Don’t you just hate it when they do stuff like that?

As an atheist, I have rejected all gods as being a silly idea. Compare this with Christians, Moslems and Jews, who have rejected all gods except one. It’s that last step that’s the hardest, apparently. Come on in, chaps, the water’s lovely!

But it seems to me that, if we aren’t all going to see the light and become atheists, pantheism has got quite a lot going for it. If you accept, as the Romans did before Constantine sold out, that there are literally hundreds of gods, all of which/whom/whatever deserve some element of respect, then you are far less likely to cause a ruckus by claiming that your particular favourite god is the one true god. Panthism is bound to make you a tad more tolerant. Even more tolerant than us liberal atheists, who think everyone else is totally fucking nuts, but fully respect their right to be stupid.

When they invaded Britain, for example, the Romans heard about the local goddess Sul who was supposed to inhabit a water spring in the South West. Rather than say pish and tush, they adopted Sul, saying she sounded a bit like Minerva to them, and named the spring Aquae Sulis in her honour. We now call the city that grew up around the spring Bath. The Romans were particularly good at assimilating other religions into their theology.

The Christian/Moslem/Jewish god (if He is indeed the same chap), on the other hand, is a jealous god: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” He said. But note the implication of the one true god‘s Commandment Numero Uno to Moses: no other gods… The Lord in His infinite wisdom was clearly acknowledging that other gods did exist. Furthermore, He was not saying that you shouldn’t respect other gods; just that you shouldn’t rate them higher than Him.

Which kind of makes you wonder why on earth people make such a big deal about monotheism.