Graven Images

[mutzrein]

Imagican,

Suggestion...get rid of your cat pic, it's satanic art. You will have some atheist that logs in here downloding it and worshiping it

Just a joke

Did you know that the only domestic animal not mentioned in Bible is the cat?

How about this? Leviticus 7:24 The fat of an animal found dead or torn by wild animals may be used for any other purr puss, but you must not eat it. :-D

 

[GraceBwithU]

Imagican,

Suggestion...get rid of your cat pic, it's satanic art. You will have some atheist that logs in here downloding it and worshiping it

Just a joke

Did you know that the only domestic animal not mentioned in Bible is the cat?

How about this? Leviticus 7:24 The fat of an animal found dead or torn by wild animals may be used for any other purr puss, but you must not eat it. :-D

Good one. If God created us in His image he must surely have a sense of humor. I know this for sure when I look in the mirror in the morning.

Now back to the subject...God is the greatest artist of all. His creation that we all witness every day....WOW!

Just a thought.

 

[Imagican]

A-Christian, Fran, Crusader, HOW DARE YOU each for such statements as, "WE CREATED THE WORD"....

What? I said "WE CREATED THE WORD"? I would never say such a thing. Which post did I say that in?

by A-Christian on Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:29 pm

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.

This is the statement to which I refered. And both you and Fran seemed to back it up in your subsequent posts.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

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?

I'm with Vic here: you have completely confused and even blended the ideas of being in the world and being of the world. In doing so you are having difficulty with what is of God and what is not.

Scripture is clear that God created pleasure and intended for us to have pleasure. The problem is that the world has taken much of the pleasure that God made good and perverted it. However, this in no way means that we are not to enjoy pleasurable things, within biblical bounds of course.

As I have shown very clearly with Scripture, which you have failed to even attempt a response to, God has made us as creative beings and art is of him. Of course that has been perverted, which you have shown, but that in no way whatsoever means that all art is wrong or evil.

I strongly suggest that you read Money, Sex and Power (tellingly known as Poverty, Chastity and Obedience in Europe) by Richard J Foster.

I was replying to this post. I don't see any scripture offered. But if you are refering to scripture that commands the making of the 'ark' I HAVE answered this OVER AND OVER again.
MEC

 

[Imagican]

A-Christian, Fran, Crusader, HOW DARE YOU each for such statements as, "WE CREATED THE WORD". What kind of 'self righteous', 'self saturated' egotism is this? [/quote]

Say what? That cat has put a spell on you or something... You making stuff up again?

Your entire rant borders on the ridiculous....

And I'm quite sure to YOU that you offer valid speculation concerning the matter. For you have 'bought into' a 'religion' that has taught for centuries that it's OK to place one's concerns upon images of 'man's hand'. So what I offer would most definitely be considered by those trained so to BE LUDICROUS. I am well aware of the importance the CC has placed on art and symbols since their inception. And it only stands to reason that my words would be accepted in such a manner.

God commands an Ark to be built, using the finest wood and gold and craftmanship.
God commands a Temple to be built, taking years and years to build.

Now, unless you subscribe to some demiurge theory, I would have to say you are WAY out of bounds here. "All art is evil"? That makes God the creator and supporter of evil. You have just left Christianity, my friend.

No, your inability, due to 'your religion', to UNDERSTAND what I have ALREADY offered concerning the 'ark' does NOT invalidate what I offer. God COMMANDED this 'particular art'. CoMMANDED it's EVERY detail. There IS a 'difference' between what God would WILL and what we DO ON OUR OWN. And I would also offer that the 'ark' was ONE SPECIAL instance. And ONE of the ONLY ones that we have information concerning the 'encouragement of 'art'. And it WASN'T designed simply for the 'sake of sensuality', it was in a PARTICULAR PLACE and was ONLY seen by VERY FEW. It was SUCH an holy object that to TOUCH it without PERMISSION was instant DEATH.

How dare you make such a pompous tirade with a feline avatar staring at me...[/quote]

Now I've asked and so far it has been ignored. Name ONE piece of 'art' in existence today that IS a 'true' depiction of ANYTHING religious. Either in heaven or on earth JUST ONE that is a 'true' representation of either God, Christ, His apostles, Mary, ANYTHING other than what the CC considers 'modern saints'. I'll be waiting.......................

And Fran, there's NOTHING pompous about UNDERSTANDING the TRUTH. And there's NOTHING pompous in STANDING up for it. Christ COMMANDED us to suffer EVEN physical death in the defense of The Word. That I am WILLING to be 'honest with myself and others' concerning The Word does NOT make me 'pompous' by ANY stretch of the imagination. Only in the minds and hearts of those in 'denial' of the TRUTH would this even be considered.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

As woman is NOT to usurp the authority of man, neither is MAN to attempt the usurp the authority of God.

The making of 'graven images' offers undue honor to 'creation'. We are NOT to offer LOVE of this world. To create and admire 'art' IS to offer submission and love to the THINGS of THIS WORLD. Regardless of the Catholic teaching and even that of the Protestant denominations, EVEN those PICTURES of 'Christ', 'God', the 'apostles', etc........ ARE NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS, than FALSE representations of 'things of this world'. For God IS NOT 'physical' BUT Spiritual. So there is absolutely NO WAY that a 'true' representation of GOD can be 'painted' in the LIKENESS of MAN. IMPOSSIBLE.

Since NO ONE knows what Christ LOOKED like, then I propose that ALL depictions of our Savior are FALSE images. And regardless of the 'professed LOVE' for these items by those that refute what I offer, we have been TOLD not to DO IT.

What's MORE important folks; Our DESIRES or God's will? The sensual appeal of 'art' offers NO honor or glory to God. These are ONLY physical images created from the IMAGINATION of mankind. And mostly FALSE imaginings so far as 'religious art' is concerned. For if there is ONE 'true' representation of depictions of God or Christ, PLEASE inform me of the ONE that is accurate. For there is NO way that Christ could 'look' SO different in SO MANY 'different' renditions that exist. So WHICH ONE is the 'true Christ'? See how LUDICROUS your perceptions TRULY are?

You would 'have me believe' that these 'pictures' of Christ are a 'good' thing in that they are able to 'bring us closer to Christ'. I say that to look at a 'false impression' of ANYTHING can ONLY steer one FURTHER from the TRUTH and in NO way bring one 'closer'.

And fran:

From wikipedia:

The book is believed to have been written in Greek, but in a style patterned on that of Hebrew verse. [2] Although the author's name is nowhere given in the text, the writer was traditionally believed to be King Solomon because of unmistakable references such as that found in IX:7-8, "Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters: Thou hast commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount..." The formulation here is similar to that of Ecclesiastes I:12, "I, Koheleth, was king in Jerusalem over Israel," which also fails to denote Solomon by name, but leaves no doubt as to whom the reader should identify as the author. However, the traditional attribution of The Book of Wisdom to Solomon has been soundly rejected in modern times. Says the Catholic Encyclopedia: "at the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David." [3]Scholars believe that the book represents the most classical Greek language found in the Septuagint, having been written during the Jewish Hellenistic period (the 1st or 2nd century BC). The author of the text appears well versed in the popular philosophical, religious, and ethical writings adopted by Hellenistic Alexandria.

So this is a 'book' that the CC even acknowledges as written 'through a literary FICTION'. Don't think I'll 'take this one to heart'. But thanks anyway.

To offer UNDO honor to that which was CREATED is to place the 'creation' in a position that it was NEVER meant to hold. What is 'painted' or 'sculpted'? Those things that are NEAR AND DEAR to one's heart. Now, HOW important to God do you BELIEVE 'art' IS? For WHAT is the 'Spiritual GAIN' of one spending their TIME painting a 'picture of a ROSE'? And what does it OFFER to those that 'admire it'? We were told to be dilligent in our walk. Do you honestly mean to offer that 'painting' or 'sculpting' is a 'dilligent' pursuit of that which is 'Spiritually elevating'? That the 'painter' or 'sculpter' IS DOING GOD'S Work?

MEC

 

[Biblereader]

Here's an eye opener for you:

av·a·tar (v-tär)
n.
1. The incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in human or animal form.
2. An embodiment, as of a quality or concept; an archetype: the very avatar of cunning.
3. A temporary manifestation or aspect of a continuing entity: occultism in its present avatar.

Pretty scary, isn't it? This is an excellent topic. I pray that all who read it will be given eyes to see, and ears to hear, and will run and search their Holy Bible for guidance.

 

[francisdesales]

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

This is the statement to which I refered. And both you and Fran seemed to back it up in your subsequent posts.

You are making a false assumption, MEC. The Catholic Church does NOT discard the Bible when making decisions or definitions. It refers to the bible profusely. Thus, it is a mistake to place the Bible in contradistinction to the Church. The two RELY on each other in a large sense. The Church vouces for the veracity of the Bible as God's Word, and the Bible is the "textbook" for learning our faith. When A-Christian says that the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, can you post a Scripture that refutes that? Thus, your admonishing of Catholics is incorrect.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

And fran:

From wikipedia:

... However, the traditional attribution of The Book of Wisdom to Solomon has been soundly rejected in modern times. Says the Catholic Encyclopedia: "at the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David." [3]Scholars believe that the book represents the most classical Greek language found in the Septuagint, having been written during the Jewish Hellenistic period (the 1st or 2nd century BC). The author of the text appears well versed in the popular philosophical, religious, and ethical writings adopted by Hellenistic Alexandria.

So this is a 'book' that the CC even acknowledges as written 'through a literary FICTION'. Don't think I'll 'take this one to heart'. But thanks anyway.

LOL!!! You sure you want to delve into this subject on "who wrote what"???

Does modern scholarship accept that David wrote ALL of the Psalms?
Does modern scholarship accept that Paul wrote Hebrews? WHO wrote it then?
Does modern scholarship accept that Moses wrote about his death and penned Deuteronomy?
Does modern scholarship accept the first 2 chapters of Genesis as LITERAL history?
Does modern scholarship accept Jonah as LITERAL history?
Does modern scholarship accept Job as LITERAL history?

Not necessary. It is the author's intent and acceptance by the community that identifies it as "Word of God".

The acceptance of a writing as Scripture is not entirely based upon WHO wrote it. It is the CONTENTS that makes it holy. The author plays only a secondary role, giving the writing more authority. But if the contents are heretical, it doesn't matter who the supposed author is.

Wisdom was not written by Solomon. But it was common for men to write in the name of another to give a writing more authority. Modern scholarship agrees that this was the case with the Pastorals, and perhaps even Ephesians and Colossians... Yet, they are accepted as written under the authority of the Pauline community.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Folks,

If we were told NOT to be a 'part' of this world. NOT to live 'for it'. Then WHY would we be 'drawn' to 'art', (no pun intended)? What IS 'art' other than our rendition OF THIS WORLD? From 'impressionism', to 'classical', what IS 'art' other than a 'duplication' of the 'things' of THIS WORLD? And so far as 'religious art', I have already offered that we are UNABLE to offer, (no matter HOW 'appealing' to the senses), ANYTHING of 'heaven' that is ANYTHING 'but' a 'false' representation of that which we CANNOT comprehend. The 'carnal nature' is CERTAINLY able to 'imagine' that which is; 'heavenly'. But in REALITY we are UNABLE to even fathom what exists there.

Sensuality such as that which exists in 'art' is NOTHING other than 'of this world'. There are NO 'boundaries' to 'art'. And THIS in itself should POINT directly to it's FALIBILITY so far as 'righteousness' is concerned. For there is NO WAY for the 'admirer' of art to discern WHAT was or IS in the heart of the 'artist' who created that which we 'admire'. There is NOTHING but the 'carnal' intuition of the beholder to GUIDE the INTERPRETATION.

I will ask again: Is there ANYTHING 'wrong' with the use of a 'swastika'? Or a 'pentagram'? How about the posting of a picture of a 'beautiful angel' named Satan?

Warm fuzzies do NOT signify 'holiness'. Regardless of the 'feeling' you get when you admire a 'picture' or piece of 'art', that does NOT 'make it RIGHTEOUS. For Satan is certainly able to offer 'excitement' or 'sentimentality' in one's DEVOTION to him. He is CERTAINLY able to offer one the APPEARANCE of 'holiness'. And to GIVE one the 'feeling' that they are in the presence of that which is 'righteous'. But the 'feeling of righteousness' means NOTHING if not obtained within the boundaries of that which is God's WILL. ANYTHING else is just a 'shadow' or 'symblance' of that which IS holy.

Satan KNOWS these things. He KNOWS what's in our hearts and he uses it to his BEST ADVANTAGE. So many are duped into an 'un-holy' worship through allowoing THEIR 'feelings' dictate what is 'good' or 'what is bad'. Instead of relying on The Word or The Spirit to BE their guide, they will allow ANY 'spririt' to 'guide them' so long as it brings 'good FEELINGS' to them. And THAT is the 'nature of the beast'. To offer sensual pleasures to satisfy the 'carnal nature' of mankind. Give us WHAT we WANT in order to secure our devotion.

Tell me, WHAT does art offer in LOVE? ONLY that LOVE placed by the 'artist' for his CREATION, or the LOVE offered in admiration of the one beholding it. There is NOTHING that offers 'true' love of God or your neighbor in 'art'. Only 'sensual pleasure' in the admirer, or the 'pleasure' to the 'creator' of the admiration offered by others.

I can't believe that this is SO HARD to 'understand'. We were designed to WORK for FOOD. PERIOD. We were NOT designed to work for FAME of fortune or admiration of others. We were told to till the soil for our bread.

Let me ask this: Does the 'space shuttle' offer honor or glory to God? Does it offer LOVE to one's neighbors? Regardless of the 'worldly' benefits that those that created it will TELL you it has produced, was it created in LOVE of God or LOVE of neighbor? NO, it was created for the GLORY of the 'creators'. PERIOD. When you 'break it down' to it's 'religious' implications it is NO DIFFERENT than the 'tower of babel'. There was a 'reason' that the attempt to 'build a tower to heaven' angered God. Do you KNOW 'what' that 'reason' WAS?

Satan uses our 'idle' time for HIS benefit. ANYTHING that he can offer to 'take the place' of that which we SHOULD be 'doing' is WHAT he will offer. And he will even offer REWARDS to those that are able to influence OTHERS to do the same.

What IS our PURPOSE on this planet? To 'make the best of it'? To 'get what we can' out of it? To live life to it's FULLEST? Or is there a 'greater calling' for those that accept Christ into their hearts? Should NOT our time and efforts be spent in the 'edification' of others. And I DON'T mean 'earthly edification'. I mean in the 'offering to others' that which we are ABLE in order to LIFT THEM UP SPIRITUALLY. Isn't THAT what we are SUPPOSE to DO in order to be able to offer TRUE testimony of Jesus Christ and His Father?

But what the 'world' has taught us is to 'look out for number one'. To 'just be ourselves'. To 'let it all hang out'.

I find it difficult to believe that those that have actually READ The Word are able to dismiss the RESPONSIBILITY that has been bestowed upon us. Take the 'good' words and eat em up. But simply IGNORE the difficult words and 'pretend' that they don't even exist.

We were told that we CANNOT LOVE THIS WORLD and LOVE God as well. For we are ONLY abled one master. You either LOVE God and HATE the World. Or you love this world and the god of it.

MEC

 

[GraceBwithU]

MEC,

Help me out here; are you saying that all art is wrong or just spiritual art?
If you are talking about SOME spiritual art you could have a point, even though I don't agree with the extreme view that you are presenting. There is a big difference between appreciating spiritual art and placing it somewhere, lighting candles around it, burning incense or whatever, and bowing in front of it to worship. The artwork is no mediator.

1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
KJV

Let's talk about one thing in particular, images of Jesus.

We do not know what Jesus Christ looked like, and that may not be an accident. While of course there were no cameras at that time, we do know what many people of 2,000 years ago looked like from drawings, statues or coins that were made of them. And yet none of the many Christians who actually saw Jesus Christ ever produced such an image of Him that we can see today. Perhaps it was because it might have been idolized. We are to worship, bow down to, and pray to God, not to some lifeless picture or statue that is not God or His Son.

I still believe however that the first three commandments can be better understood if read together. Three by the way is another number in the bible that is meant to indicate completeness or perfection. There are ten commandments. The first three complete our commandments of worship to God. The remaining seven, (another completeness number), perfects our commandments to interact with other human beings and our deeds.

Thought, word, and deed, complete the sum of human capability.

Three denotes divine perfection;
Seven denotes spiritual perfection;

Just a thought.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

As woman is NOT to usurp the authority of man, neither is MAN to attempt the usurp the authority of God.

Well, I can agree to that at least.

The making of 'graven images' offers undue honor to 'creation'.

Gensis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good

We are NOT to offer LOVE of this world.

okay

To create and admire 'art' IS to offer submission and love to the THINGS of THIS WORLD.

WRONG: To say that is akin to saying the the gifts God gives to artists are evil, and you thus make God the creator of evil. That reasoning is most erroneous.

Regardless of the Catholic teaching and even that of the Protestant denominations, EVEN those PICTURES of 'Christ', 'God', the 'apostles', etc........ ARE NOTHING more, NOTHING LESS, than FALSE representations of 'things of this world'.

How can a representation of Jesus be a representation of things on the world? And if that is so, how could God command that golden Cherubim be fashioned for the Old Ark? Again, you make God evil with your twisted reasoning.

For God IS NOT 'physical' BUT Spiritual.

What happened to Jesus' glorified body that ascended into heaven? Did it disintegrate in the Ozone?

Oh man, I can't go on with the rest of your post. Its too way out for me.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Can someone tell me what is evil about this?

Manger Scene

 

[Vic C.]

Can someone tell me what is evil about this?

Manger Scene

You mean, besides being too small to see? :-D

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You mean, besides being too small to see? :-D

LOL :

 

[GraceBwithU]

Can someone tell me what is evil about this?

Manger Scene

I see nothing wrong with this pic, all babies look alike basically, like I said I truly believe the first three commandments were meant to be understood together. The point in these three commandments is worship of God, period. God could have given only the 1st and the 2nd commandment and went on to the 4th. But he did not, he instead further explained the 2nd with the 3rd. All three of these commandments complete the understanding of how we are to worship our Lord.

However, I must repeat:

"We do not know what Jesus Christ looked like, and that may not be an accident. While of course there were no cameras at that time, we do know what many people of 2,000 years ago looked like from drawings, statues or coins that were made of them. And yet none of the many Christians who actually saw Jesus Christ ever produced such an image of Him that we can see today. Perhaps it was because it might have been idolized. We are to worship, bow down to, and pray to God, not to some lifeless picture or statue that is not God or His Son."

Why did none of the Christians that followed Jesus ever make a drawing or sculpture of him. They knew what he looked like. We do not. It is just something we should think about....why did they not do so? Were they doing this totally because of the second commandment? Or perhaps only responding to the emotions of the times?

:wink:

 

[Abimael]

Why did none of the Christians that followed Jesus ever make a drawing or sculpture of him.

Could it not have had something to do with the fact that been a Christian got you executed and that there was no safe place to keep such images as they would have been desecrated by the authorities if found and the person likely executed, fed to the lions, crucified, used as a human torch etc etc. And even then they did decorate the catacombs where they were forced to worship due to the persecutions with religious paintings.

Certainly as soon as the persecutions were ended Christians set about using art to give witness to their faith.

 

[Imagican]

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

This is the statement to which I refered. And both you and Fran seemed to back it up in your subsequent posts.

You are making a false assumption, MEC. The Catholic Church does NOT discard the Bible when making decisions or definitions. It refers to the bible profusely. Thus, it is a mistake to place the Bible in contradistinction to the Church. The two RELY on each other in a large sense. The Church vouces for the veracity of the Bible as God's Word, and the Bible is the "textbook" for learning our faith. When A-Christian says that the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, can you post a Scripture that refutes that? Thus, your admonishing of Catholics is incorrect.

Regards

I would beg to differ here Fran. I can show you quotes from some of the LEADERS of the CC that have offered that the Bible is little more than 'stories' that are NOT to be taken literal. Beware of the statements that you make for they could likely come back to haunt you.

Scripture TELLS us to discern the 'Spirit' of ANY that would offer teaching. That we are to JUDGE the 'fruit' of those that we would ACCEPT as our 'leaders' in Christ. With this in mind, I think that the CC's PLAINLY offers the ANSWER to these methods of discerning TRUTH. A 'cursory' study of it's history is ALL that is NEEDED to plainly see where it's collective 'heart' resided.

If you would like to discuss this issue so far as 'scripture' is concerned so be it. But if you continue to 'bring this Catholic perception INTO it, then by all means you should be aware that it opens up the proverbial 'can of worms' that you 'may not' wish were opened. For to use a CATHOLIC perspective in this conversation is to bring into play WHETHER the CC is following 'truth' or teaching and following 'something else'. I am more than willing to discuss this 'other issue' but I think that it would most certainly 'take away' from the focus of this thread.

So, would you LIKE to point out ONE realistic PIECE of 'religious art'. ONE painting, sculpture, etc, that is an ACTUAL depiction of Christ, God, the apostles, or Mary. One PIECE of 'religious art' that is ABLE to offer ONE 'bit' of LOVE towards God or our neighbors.

Or would you simply continue with irrelevant comments that have NO bearing on the TRUTH of this subject?

MEC

 

[GraceBwithU]

Could it not have had something to do with the fact that been a Christian got you executed and that there was no safe place to keep such images as they would have been desecrated by the authorities if found and the person likely executed, fed to the lions, crucified, used as a human torch etc etc. And even then they did decorate the catacombs where they were forced to worship due to the persecutions with religious paintings.

Certainly as soon as the persecutions were ended Christians set about using art to give witness to their faith.

Excellent point...But still what if you are wrong. I'm sure that his image could have been passed among Christian brothers. They proclaimed the named of Jesus an were killed for this...but left out images of him to be passed down through history...hum sounds like you are simply assuming and making excuses. My question was not answered by your response.

Persecutions have not stopped.

I still do not agree wiht Mec's extreme position on art...but the question still remains a mystery of why we have no clue what Jesus looked like.

 

[mutzrein]

...but the question still remains a mystery of why we have no clue what Jesus looked like.

Some folk seem to think that having an image that represents Christ (whether it be a statue or painting or even a cross) is the symbol of their relationship with Him.

Jesus didn't say "My sheep will have an image of me." He said, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

So what's the mystery?