Graven Images

[Catholic Crusader]

I gotta be honest with you, and I mean no disrespect, but guys like you frighten me. Seriously. I think you should relax and enjoy beautiful things. You are not going to burn in hell with a pitchfork in your behind if you have a picture of Jesus on the wall.

 

[Imagican]

I gotta be honest with you, and I mean no disrespect, but guys like you frighten me. Seriously. I think you should relax and enjoy beautiful things. You are not going to burn in hell with a pitchfork in your behind if you have a picture of Jesus on the wall.

But what if the picture that I 'choose' is Satan in disguise. Or actually a 'picture of Satan' but 'called Jesus'? Since neither you nor I KNOW what Jesus Looks like, how would we KNOW if the representation was 'righteous' or 'NOT'?

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

But what if the picture that I 'choose' is Satan in disguise. Or actually a 'picture of Satan' but 'called Jesus'? Since neither you nor I KNOW what Jesus Looks like, how would we KNOW if the representation was 'righteous' or 'NOT'?

MEC,

Here is something from Scriptures. What do you think?

For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. Wisdom 13:1-5

Christian art has been used for centuries as an aide to prayer and as a teaching tool. It sounds more satanic to take away all art, rather than discern and keep what is useful.

Regards

 

[Devekut]

MEC,

But what if the picture that I 'choose' is Satan in disguise. Or actually a 'picture of Satan' but 'called Jesus'? Since neither you nor I KNOW what Jesus Looks like, how would we KNOW if the representation was 'righteous' or 'NOT'?

You have a strange, strange kind of theology of art. You seem to take art as the reality that it represents to us. An image of Satan that is drawn precisely to look like the person of Jesus is not really a representation of Satan, but rather of Jesus.

Now if the artist was indeed satanic and wanted to trick us by presenting to us a satan that we took for Jesus he would have to leave clues in the painting, like a small little devil's tail behind the cloak (or possibly something more sublime). If he did not leave those clues than he has failed to represent satan, even secretly, to us.

Art represents to us the reality of some idea or person. In order to represent that idea or person, the art work has to expressly visibly what correlates realistic to that person or idea.

I can not draw a chair, and say that this is in fact, my portrayal of the king, unless of course there is a connection between the king and chair. In this case, the chair is an able symbol for the king's authority and power, and hence, a workable image for the king.

I can not, however, draw the chair and say this is a successful portrayal of the pauper. There is no connection between the two.

So if a painting is of Jesus, and we can see that it is of Jesus, then that is what the painting represents. There are no paintings of Christ that are "invisibly" of the devil.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I gotta be honest with you, and I mean no disrespect, but guys like you frighten me. Seriously. I think you should relax and enjoy beautiful things. You are not going to burn in hell with a pitchfork in your behind if you have a picture of Jesus on the wall.

But what if the picture that I 'choose' is Satan in disguise. Or actually a 'picture of Satan' but 'called Jesus'? Since neither you nor I KNOW what Jesus Looks like, how would we KNOW if the representation was 'righteous' or 'NOT'?

Come on man: A picture? Satan in disguise? Okay. I won't argue with you. But I think Satan is a little more clever than that. He ain't comin' at you where you're expecting him to be. In fact, he ain't messin' with small fries like you and me

 

[GraceBwithU]

Grace, handy,

Please explain to me the 'purpose' behind 'art'. If we ARE to 'create art', please show me it's 'Spiritual benefit'.

Wow…what a ridiculous statement, just because you do not enjoy art doesn't mean it serves no purpose or that it is wrong. Everyone is not that shallow. The expression of art in many of its forms can stir the emotions and the appreciation of the God given talents that some of us have been blessed with, (and for a reason).

I have pointed out WHY it's 'unrigheous'. If you believe differenty, please offer some Biblical evidence to the contrary.

You can’t be serious.

I have already offered that it involves 'vanity'. Self sensuality. And in a sense, worship of the 'creator' and worship by the admirer. If these accusations are 'truth', then why would you 'defend' such?

You must have lived in the 60’s you know the 'twist' well. If you would like to talk about vanity then we should start a thread on the book of Ecclesiastes. Creating art does not automatically indicate any type of worship and I think that is what this thread is about.

I have worked with wood and made furniture for years, (hobby of mine). Some people have told me they were works of art. Sure this made me feel good. But I have yet to worship any dresser, coffee table, hutch, or bookcase that I have built and I doubt if any of the people I sold these items to offer prayers to them before they eat. I have however thanked the Lord for this talent and built things for my church. None of those items are worshiped. Art is all around us in very many forms. If a sculpture or painting brings a tear to someone’s eye because it stirs a reminder of God’s grace and mercy, this is not worship of the art, (As the old saying goes.."a picture is woorth a thousand words"). It is God working through the talent that he gave the artist. Worship of these things and appreciation of them are not the same thing. :wink:

John 2:13-17
13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
KJV

This temple I’m sure contained many sculptures and art work of God. This is not what upset him about the temple.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Imagican or JayR:

Have you ever seen the The Passion Of The Christ? Did you like it? Many protestant churches use it as a teaching tool

Film is art you know. It comes on a piece of celluloid. Was that piece of art the Devil? Was it blasphemous?

You should watch a movie: "The Agony And The Ecstasy" with Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison. It may give you insight into the heart of Michaelangelo.

 

[Imagican]

MEC,

But what if the picture that I 'choose' is Satan in disguise. Or actually a 'picture of Satan' but 'called Jesus'? Since neither you nor I KNOW what Jesus Looks like, how would we KNOW if the representation was 'righteous' or 'NOT'?

You have a strange, strange kind of theology of art. You seem to take art as the reality that it represents to us. An image of Satan that is drawn precisely to look like the person of Jesus is not really a representation of Satan, but rather of Jesus.

Now if the artist was indeed satanic and wanted to trick us by presenting to us a satan that we took for Jesus he would have to leave clues in the painting, like a small little devil's tail behind the cloak (or possibly something more sublime). If he did not leave those clues than he has failed to represent satan, even secretly, to us.

Art represents to us the reality of some idea or person. In order to represent that idea or person, the art work has to expressly visibly what correlates realistic to that person or idea.

I can not draw a chair, and say that this is in fact, my portrayal of the king, unless of course there is a connection between the king and chair. In this case, the chair is an able symbol for the king's authority and power, and hence, a workable image for the king.

I can not, however, draw the chair and say this is a successful portrayal of the pauper. There is no connection between the two.

So if a painting is of Jesus, and we can see that it is of Jesus, then that is what the painting represents. There are no paintings of Christ that are "invisibly" of the devil.

Dave,

You CAN'T be 'serious'? A 'tail'? Horns? So I guess you 'think' Satan is some sort of 'cartoon character'?

Satan was the MOST beautiful of the angels. Do angels have 'tails'? The angels that we MAY have been visited by unaware, were these ANYTHING other than 'people'?

Your explanation is 'weak' to say the least.

Since our discussion on this subject began, I have spent quite a bit of time researching ancient Hebrew or Jewish art. Funny, but it DOESN'T exist EXCEPT in that which was COMMANDED by God UNTIL 'after the Babylonian enslavement'. It seems that the Hebrews/Jews were WELL aware of he commandment they had been given UNTIL they were exposed to 'pagan' religions of those whom they became captive to. Where do you 'think' Arron learned to MAKE a 'golden calve'?

When we read through what was offered through the prophets; Over and over again they WARNED the Hebrews/Jews to ABANDON their 'graven images'. Warning of God's wrath to come if they did NOT do so.

And when one does a cursory study on the original language that the commandments were written in we find that the translation has been altered as well.

Let me ask you this: Is there anything 'wrong' with a swastika? A pentagram? How about pornographic material?

And I notice that the MOST 'feedback' concerning my comments on 'graven images' come from those that have been LED to 'accept them'. The CC's use of 'graven images' is little different than that of the pagan religions of Rome that existed BEFORE the introduction of Christ. These religions were RIFE with idols and sybolisms. It appears that they were simply 'carried over' into Christianity once this 'form' of 'religion' was 'picked up' by those in Rome.

My concern is NOT with art BEING or NOT being 'religious' in context. ALL idols EVER CREATED were 'religious' in nature. What I question is the literacy of the commandment AGAINST 'graven images'. There HAD to be a REASON that God commanded that it NOT BE DONE.

The CC insists that the commandment was ONLY in reference to 'idols'. I question whether ALL artists renditions ARE idols of one sort or another. For the commandment is SPECIFIC in it's definition of 'graven images'. It encompasses EVERYTHING of 'nature or heaven'. EVERYTHING. It is only AFTER the description that the commandment continues with the forbidding of 'bowing' to these items or worshiping them.

And I offer again that the PAYING of MILLIONS of dollars of wealth for a 'work of art' IS WORSHIP of a 'sort'. Collecting 'art' IS 'worship of art'. ANYTHING that one 'devotes themselves to' IS 'that which they WORSHIP'. Be it spouses, children, God, Christ, dogs, cats, cars, money, homes, status, possessions, WHATEVER you devote your time and energy towards IS that which YOU worship.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

But what if the picture that I 'choose' is Satan in disguise. Or actually a 'picture of Satan' but 'called Jesus'? Since neither you nor I KNOW what Jesus Looks like, how would we KNOW if the representation was 'righteous' or 'NOT'?

MEC,

Here is something from Scriptures. What do you think?

For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. Wisdom 13:1-5

Christian art has been used for centuries as an aide to prayer and as a teaching tool. It sounds more satanic to take away all art, rather than discern and keep what is useful.

Regards

Fran,

YOU call this 'scripture'. Where do I find; ''Wisdom 13:1-5" What 'book' of the Bible is this?

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Imagican or JayR:

Have you ever seen the The Passion Of The Christ? Did you like it? Many protestant churches use it as a teaching tool

Film is art you know. It comes on a piece of celluloid. Was that piece of art the Devil? Was it blasphemous?

You should watch a movie: "The Agony And The Ecstasy" with Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison. It may give you insight into the heart of Michaelangelo.

And this is JUST HOW FAR the churches have veered from the TRUTH. The 'Passion of Christ' is NOTHING but a 'movie'. Based upon MOSTLY speculation. For those that KNOW better it may not have a TOTALLY negative effect on their perception. But for those that are NOT knowledgable of the TRUTH, such movies can do NOTHING but offer FALSE TRUTHS and for this reason can be VERY dangerous to one's faith.

You know Crusader, MANY have watched The Ten Commandments and THINK that this 'story' is FROM the Bible. The entire depiction of Moses UP TO HIS EXILE is a 'made up tale' in the movie. The first forty minutes or so of the movie is based upon LESS than a 'page of the Bible'. Speculation and inuendo. NOTHING of 'truthful substance' other than 'bits and pieces'. But you know, there are many many people that BELIEVE that this 'story' IS 'straight from the Bible'.

And I have already offered the inherent dangers of 'movies' in previous posts. It is the ULTIMATE form of 'LYING'. An ACTOR 'pretends' to be 'someone that he or she is NOT'. Pretending is LYING. No TWO ways about it. Just because it has become an ACCEPTED form of entertainment BY THE WORLD does not alter in the least the DANGER of exposure to such.

Boy, you folks sure have taken Paul LITERALLY in the freedom which he speaks of. TOTALLY ignoring that which 'comes WITH' this freedom. RESPONSIBILITY. We have NEVER been FREE to SIN. And one MUST be ABLE to resist the devil in order to FACE HIM. Some seem to disregard this IMPORTANT FACT. THinking that they can PLAY WITH THE DEVIL and NOT get burnt. Only one STRONG enough to RESIST could do such a thing. I doubt that even Paul would have ENTERTAINED THE DEVIL. I would venture to say that EVEN HE, as strong as he was in his faith, would NOT have 'entertained the devil'. Sticking one's hand in the cage of the viper is but UTTER foolishness. Tempting fate is NOT how a 'Christian' should live their lives.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

And this is JUST HOW FAR the churches have veered from the TRUTH. The 'Passion of Christ' is NOTHING but a 'movie'. Based upon MOSTLY speculation. For those that KNOW better it may not have a TOTALLY negative effect on their perception. But for those that are NOT knowledgable of the TRUTH, such movies can do NOTHING but offer FALSE TRUTHS and for this reason can be VERY dangerous to one's faith.
You know Crusader, MANY have watched The Ten Commandments and THINK that this 'story' is FROM the Bible........

My qustion was: Is the imagery of the movie itself blaspemous?

And I have already offered the inherent dangers of 'movies' in previous posts. It is the ULTIMATE form of 'LYING'. An ACTOR 'pretends' to be 'someone that he or she is NOT'. Pretending is LYING.............

I guess I won't be going to the movies anytime soon with YOU.

 

[francisdesales]

Fran,

YOU call this 'scripture'. Where do I find; ''Wisdom 13:1-5" What 'book' of the Bible is this?

It is one of the Wisdom books of the OT. It follows the "Song of Solomon" and precedes "Sirach".

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Where do I find; ''Wisdom 13:1-5" What 'book' of the Bible is this?

Its in the Old Testament. Here is a link:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/

 

[GraceBwithU]

MEC,

Here is something from Scriptures. What do you think?

For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. Wisdom 13:1-5

Christian art has been used for centuries as an aide to prayer and as a teaching tool. It sounds more satanic to take away all art, rather than discern and keep what is useful.

Regards

Fran,

YOU call this 'scripture'. Where do I find; ''Wisdom 13:1-5" What 'book' of the Bible is this?

MEC

Fran

I must agree with what Mec is implying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the CC also recognize the 66 books of the KJV. I think your points will be better accepted if you stick to common scripture.(66 books). You will never make a point to a Protestant by using some CC ONLY canonical reference. Read them if you wish, but it is illogical for you to expect any Protestant denomination to accept it as having any authority.

No offense intended
:wink:

 

[Vic C.]

And I have already offered the inherent dangers of 'movies' in previous posts. It is the ULTIMATE form of 'LYING'. An ACTOR 'pretends' to be 'someone that he or she is NOT'. Pretending is LYING. No TWO ways about it. Just because it has become an ACCEPTED form of entertainment BY THE WORLD does not alter in the least the DANGER of exposure to such.

MEC

Man MEC, you had to have known this would cause a lot of flack. How far are you willing to take your form or legalism? Acting is not the ultimate form of lying, that's the role of the criminal defense lawyer. ;-) All kidding aside, pretending is only lying when there is intent of deceit. If "you" are feeble-minded enough to watch actors and assume they are trying to trick people into thinking they are for real, or worse, "you actually watch actors and believe they are who they portray, then "you" shouldn't be going to the movies or watching TV or go to a play or musical... or be here.

There may be pretenders here too and you may have engaged them, thinking they were sincere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see Grace has added to the thread. I agree they (the extra books) are of little value when compared with "inspirational" writings, which is the reason they are rejected by most "Prots". Jews rejected them (and this is from studies I've done in the past... and from memory) because of some overwhelming Messianic references. Now this should be cause for "Prots" to embrace the books but the lack of inspirational style seems to be more of a factor against them.

They do have some historical value. For instance, when studying End Times, they (Macc i & II) are a great source on information concerning Antiochus. Without those books, some of Daniel is misunderstood.

 

[Imagican]

I know it certainly 'seems' extreme in this day and age. We have become SO caught up in PLEASURE and it's pursuit that few are even able to recognize what we are SUPPOSE to be 'doing', (or NOT doing concerning this debate).

Are we to simply LIVE like EVERYONE else in this world? Partaking in it's pleasures REGARDLESS of what we have been TOLD?

Vic, I ask you: HOW are we to 'separate ourselves FROM THE WORLD'. Simply 'STATING' that Christ is our Savior? Is this ALL we NEED do in order to follow what we have been TOLD? Seems to me that each successive generation becomes MORE AND MORE lax concerning WHAT we are and are NOT to do. And it seems that EACH generation FORGETS how things WERE the generation BEFORE.

The LAW is NO LONGER unto DEATH. BUT, we have been TOLD that faith without works is DEAD. Exactly what are 'works' of 'faith' my friends? And HOW are we to SEPARATE ourselves FROM the World?

I WATCH movies, I listen to MUSIC, I admire art. HOW ELSE do you suppose that I UNDERSTAND what I have offered in this thread? What SEEMS to be the MAJOR difference in myself and others is a matter of honesty. I admit OPENLY that I am a 'sinner'. But isn't the FIRST step towards being ABLE to follow in TRUTH the ability to UNDERSTAND IT?

We have become a 'loathsome' lot. And NOT through ANYTHING other than our ACCEPTANCE of the world and PARTAKING in it. About the ONLY difference between those that profess Christ as their Savior and those that DENY His existence now days is THAT; those that profess Christ as their Savior simply profess Christ as their Savior. Otherwise it would be difficult to TELL the difference unless one were to ASK.

I see the Christian Community holding grudges against others. Lying, stealing, worshiping idols, living for this world. Is this REALLY what 'following Christ' is ABOUT? From what I see we have become about as LUKEWARM as IS POSSIBLE. And then you would tell me that what I offer is EXTREME? I guess so.

And Vic, (not singling you out here in a 'personal way'), we HAVE the examples in WRITTING of HOW we are SUPPOSE to LIVE. I ask you, (or ANYONE), name me ONE of the examples that lived FOR THE WORLD? Please SHOW me that it's OK to 'be a painter' or 'a sculpter'. Show me that it's it's OK to be a Rosie fan or a Bennie Hindi fan. Show me WHERE it's offered in scripture that it's OK to BE LIKE everyone else.

What I understand when I read The Word is that we have been COMMANDED to 'sacrifice' in order to 'follow Christ'. That we MUST 'give up' being like 'everyone else' in order to offer the example that Christ 'gave us'. How is it POSSIBLE for someone that is FOLLOWING Christ to BE LIKE everyone else?

Our example as offered by the apostles is one of WORKING, FASTING, PRAYER and testimony. I don't recall as SINGLE 'party' that Paul mentions attending. I don't recall ANY 'artwork' that he possessed or even admired. I don't recall him mentioning sitting around reading FICTION. Everything that I have read concerning what our TIME is to BE spent DOING is GODWARD or HELPING others.

Is 'watching tv' any different than idle talk? YES, it's EVEN MORE DESTRUCTIVE. And we have been told that we will be held ACCOUNTABLE for EVERY SINGLE WORD that we mutter. Bodily exercise? We've been told that it is of LITTLE value so far as the 'Spirit' is concerned. A PRIME indication that for one to 'take the time' is NOTHING more than VANITY. Yet I have encountered Churches that have 'body builders', and 'muscle man' gymnasiums.

So, is it TRULY me that is confused? Am I 'reading something into The Word' that is NOT there? We were told to 'work out' our salvation. To serve with FEAR AND TREMBLING. To RUN the race like we mean to WIN IT. Not JUST 'jog along', but MEAN TO WIN IT. Do these words have NO significance? Were they offered as simply 'idle chatter'? I think NOT.

And Satan must be having a 'field day' in this time of ours. He has offered SO MUCH 'temptation' that it's no longer even recognizable to those that PROFESS to know and LOVE God.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I must agree with what Mec is implying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the CC also recognize the 66 books of the KJV. I think your points will be better accepted if you stick to common scripture.(66 books). You will never make a point to a Protestant by using some CC ONLY canonical reference.....

If I can toss something in: This is why it is a mistake for Catholics to allow ourselves to be forced to play on your home field, as it were: The Sola Scriptura field. Innevitably, regardless of the topic, it will always come to the issue of "authority: Where does the final teaching authority lay: With the Church, or with the Bible? That is the crux of every other debate.

 

[A-Christian]

Where does the final teaching authority lay: With the Church, or with the Bible? That is the crux of every other debate.

Bingo. That is the key. It all boils down to that.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the Church or the NT?
The Bible is the book of the Church. Because of that, the Church has the authority to interpret its own book. Catholics do not believe that Christ would leave us to bounce around off each other in some kind of religious chaos, each with his own version of things. Because we feel the Church has the authority to interpret its own book, we are ok with art as used by the Church.

 

[Vic C.]

C'mon MEC, you are clearly generalizing. No one in this thread said they were fans of Rosie and Hinn! Geesh. Get off your high horse already! You hive me the appearance of the one pointing an accusing finger:

Luke 18:9-14

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; We all know that and admit it.

You are confusing being in the world with being "of" the world. Maybe the best thing for us to do is live in a cave. :-?

 

[francisdesales]

I must agree with what Mec is implying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the CC also recognize the 66 books of the KJV. I think your points will be better accepted if you stick to common scripture.(66 books). You will never make a point to a Protestant by using some CC ONLY canonical reference. Read them if you wish, but it is illogical for you to expect any Protestant denomination to accept it as having any authority.

No offense intended
:wink:

The Catholic Church recognizes the 66 books found in the KJV, although it does not consider the number or the translation to be correct or superior to other translations, such as the Douay-Rheims, which came first.

Hmm, have you thought of the symbolism of the number "66"? Doesn't the number "6" mean something is incomplete? Add 7 more books, a perfect number, to make it a perfect canon! I find it interesting! :P

Well, I'll leave it at that and abide by your suggestion. I am not offended, just thought the "passage" would make pretty good sense. But I think with all that has been said, I don't think my 2 cents is going to make a difference!

That darned cat - that's what it is... I don't trust that cat. I wonder if it attends witches' potlucks at night while MEC is sleeping? Maybe it is whispering in his ear to throw off ALL art?

MEC, you need to get rid of that cat. It's dragging you down! :P

Just kidding,

Regards