Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 12 of 13)

*sigh*

quote:

---

Ehtheist: Ram, your 'inability to fathom' is no reason for anyone else to follow suit. For whatever reason, you seem to need that myth and welcome to it.

---

One, did I ask you or anyone to follow suit? Two, who said anything about needs? Third, thanks to welcoming me to my myth, I do appreciate it. Now how about a little tolerance rather than suppositious superiority? (And please do not come back at me with "All you xians are intolerant rabble")

quote:

---

AS for presuming to know what you do not...you and every religious individual on the face of the earth are the current master practitioners of that special art.

---

You are spinning man. Go back and look at the context in which I said "You presume to know that which you do not." It was in reference to you presuming to know me enough to make the statement I was responding to. I will say it again to the generalization made above, you presume to know that which you do not.

Context my boy, context. Very important.

Again, to be clear, exactly as I said above; I don't pretend to know the truth or believe that I hold any keys. Shall I repeat it? I don't pretend to know the truth or believe that I hold any keys. I don't pretend to know the truth or believe that I hold any keys. I don't pretend to know the truth or believe that I hold any keys. Did it get through yet? lol

You are reading with your eyes closed, and simply want to incite detrimental argument. I've been there, done that, incited it myself, and am tired of it. Count me out.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-21-2005 07:56)

quote:

---

I see no reason whatsoever to rule it out either, since we don't know for certain. I ask you, is it possible? Dismissing that possibility and answering no, while not knowing, seems, IMO, to be jumping to a conclusion. It is the complexity of the universe, down to the design of the simplest of things, the symmetry and majestic beauty, which I just cannot fathom without an outside intelligence of much greater magnitude. If this was all the creation of non-intelligence then we, as intelligent beings, should not have a hard time grasping it, yet we do.

---

You ask if it is possible - anything is possible, but that is not a relevant argument.

Instead, we must look at what we have found out so far, and examine if there is a pattern, or a logical path to follow, to make a reasoned conclusion - and that is what I posted here - We see in all the things that we have discovered to date, that there is no magic, no sign of a creator - that everything occurs naturally that we know of, and follow natural laws. To me, that is a huge indication, that everything else that we don't know, follows along the same lines.

If there was a creator, if there was intelligent design, then there would be evidence of it. Why haven't we found any? In fact, what we have discovered, is exactly the opposite - a total lack of evidence that there is any intelligent design, or evidence thereof, that there is a creator.

To your ponderance about intelligence grasping a creation from non-intelligence, this is exactly why it is so hard to grasp. You stumble over the answer to your own question, without recognizing it. If everything had been created from intelligence, then it would be easier for us to understand.

quote:

---

You ask if it is possible - anything is possible, but that is not a relevant argument.

Instead, we must look at what we have found out so far, and examine if there is a pattern, or a logical path to follow, to make a reasoned conclusion - and that is what I posted here - We see in all the things that we have discovered to date, that there is no magic, no sign of a creator - that everything occurs naturally that we know of, and follow natural laws. To me, that is a huge indication, that everything else that we don't know, follows along the same lines.

---

I knew there would be a "but" in there, just wanted to hear you say it.

You are right, it is not a valid argument, today. Anything is possible tomorrow though, especially that which is currently beyond our comprehension, and that is all I am asking you to acknowledge. If a thousand years ago a person claimed it was possible to duplicate a sheep, it may not have been relevent or deemed probable with fact at the time because of incomprehension, but it was still possible.

Point being, all the dogma and religion aside, a creator cannot be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts may indicate that it is all nature, and our examination of nature may show no signs of a creator, but without a total understanding of the force which drives nature itself, how can we be certain of anything? What if we are asking the wrong question? What is nature? Can we rule out higher, albeit different and incomprehesible, intelligence inherent in nature, thus making nature God and Creator. God is everything, nature is everything, one in the same.

God/Nature is the Universe, everything, everywhere, throughout all of time; Christ was the son of God/Nature and God/Nature simultaneously because he was begotten by God/Nature and was a part of God/Nature and had a higher understanding of God/Nature, genetically; the Spirit is in all of us because we are all connected to God/Nature in much the same way, and only through God/Nature can we find the true path. The afterlife is simply another dimension, a higher plane of existense. Everything else in doctrine is the spin and corruption of humanity over time. Pantheism with a twist of lime and we are all at least half right? lol, sacrilage, evil thoughts begone.

As you said though, scientifically, this is all irrelevent, today. Tomorrow never knows. I am off in philosilly land and need some shock therapy, or at least sleep. I hope what I am rambling about makes sense tomorrow when I wake up.

quote:

---

To your ponderance about intelligence grasping a creation from non-intelligence, this is exactly why it is so hard to grasp. You stumble over the answer to your own question, without recognizing it. If everything had been created from intelligence, then it would be easier for us to understand.

---

Touche. Although in pondering the last sentence I do not agree. Perhaps you can elaborate further. We are presuming there is only one type of intelligence based on the intelligence that we humans possess. If created by an intelligence well beyond our means to understand, it may seem like non-intelligence, although in my perception there is intelligence of some sort, I honestly cannot explain it though.

Perhaps I can though. They recently discovered a God gene, or so they say, so in those people whom posess said gene, they are able to feel that life force, that higher being, and this feeling, deep in the DNA of their being, are compelled to believe.

quote:

---

Dr Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in America, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe. The higher their score, the greater a person's ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Dr Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene, VMAT2.

snip

"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."

---

Very interesting.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-21-2005 11:02)

quote:

---

I see no reason whatsoever to rule it out either, since we don't know for certain. I ask you, is it possible? Dismissing that possibility and answering no, while not knowing, seems, IMO, to be jumping to a conclusion. It is the complexity of the universe, down to the design of the simplest of things, the symmetry and majestic beauty, which I just cannot fathom without an outside intelligence of much greater magnitude. If this was all the creation of non-intelligence then we, as intelligent beings, should not have a hard time grasping it, yet we do.

---

Yes the natural is beautyful. You certainly already wondered how/"who" made the beautyfull fur coats and shell patterns on animals.

Check Have you ever seen the results of some reaction diffusions ? that's some differential equations, inspired by chemistry, which produces some sheeta, girafe, leopard, jaguar, ... fur coat patterns. Sorry I only managed to find these links :

• How the leopard got its spots
• Reaction Diffusion Equations and Animal Coat Patterns

For the patterns on seashells, molusk shells check these :

• Elementary Cellular Automaton
• Cellular Automaton
• Making Hard Problems Easy

I've read a special edition a Scientific magazine dedicated to these patterns, and organized movements. It explained that the patterns on the shells are merely the result of some chemical reactions. A molecule oxydes/colors the shell and modify locally its composition which switch from activator to inhibitor state. It gives a new basis for the forthcoming growth of the shell ... thus the cellular automaton patterns.

As for the fact that we don't have all the answers, I think we're progressing at an incredible pace.

quote:

---

Point being, all the dogma and religion aside, a creator cannot be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Actually, because there is no evidence, whatsoever for a creator, one can rule it out beyond a reasonable doubt.

This does not erase the possibility totally, however, as has been posted anything is indeed, possible.

Intelligence does not create and build according to whim, especially not grand structures, that are built on complex rules. If we examine the creator of the bible, we can see that this being is a methodical one, that first plans and then carries them out (re : Genesis). Structual processes.

If reality is a result of intelligent design, then we should already have evidence of this, even at this relatively young stage of Scientific knowledge.

As for the "god gene", that just adds more support to a natural universe - it is not magical, or some "unexplained supernatural" thing, but a gene that is responsible, if true. It could be, that this gene may store "ancestral knowledge" in it, which might result in that which we see in some types of people down through the ages.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There were very large groups of early christians (Paul among them) who declared
sex absolutely bad, even among married couples for the sake of procreation.

---

Way back up there was this comment. I do not doubt there were groups who took this position (no pun intended!), but this was in no way true about Paul. I would like to see where you see Paul declaring marital sex, which is where it belongs, as sinful. He specifically says that it is NOT sin. What I see him speaking against is sexual immorality, not sex itself. His theme was that virtually nothing in and of itself is sinful, but that everything be done according to God's purposes and perfect will.

[edit]

From my perspective as a xian, what is sin? I prefer this working definition, "Sin is anything that hurts you, hurts others, and/or hurts God." How is hurt defined? For xians it is based on the moral teachings contained in the bible. For others it comes from many different sources, parents, other sacred texts, or just one's own conscience. It would seem to me that all humans know about right and wrong whether they are religious or not. In fact, in my experience some of the people who were the most obsessed with morality have been atheists.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-21-2005 17:59)

quote:

---

Point being, all the dogma and religion aside, a creator cannot be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Actually, yes it can, as WS pointed out. Lack of evidence = lack of existence, until demonstrated otherwise...

What cannot be done is to prove that such a creator *does* beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bugs - I apologize, and must issue a slight retraction. The texts to which I was referring do carry Paul's name...but have been shown to be a forgery.
Of course many of the texts in existence are forgeries of one kind or another, and it is likely that many texts both in and out of the bible were not written by the name attached to it.

It's also pretty difficult to figure out Paul's view in a lot of cases. I do not have specifics to refer to at the moment, but he seems to issue a lot of contradictory statements...

Thanks, DL. I would be very interested in exploring some of his teachings as they are tricky sometimes and do seem contradictory. There are several books in the NT that we're quite certain were written by Paul and that is what I am basing my understanding of his teachings upon.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ram, If I mis-read your context I humble myself before you and tremble in the presence of your wrath.

The god gene thing though merely concretizes a belief I have always held regarding religion.

It seems to me they have homes for people who imagine themselves Naopleon etc. or hear voices or see things which simply ain't there.

According to this theory, religion is just another form of mental disability.

When one reads the Gids and Jades of the world, the concept is not difficult to embrace.

Incite discussion? Nothing wrong with that.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Scientists don't buy Intelligent Design

A very interesting accounting from 4 different scientists on Intellent Design, and the hysteria sweeping Kansas and the States.

quote:

---

When we are faced with a puzzle or wish to accomplish some task, we switch to the mode of methodological naturalism and seek natural explanations or solutions. Scientists do this. Bankers do this. Farmers do this. In fact, just about everyone does this. Imagine if I went to my auto mechanic and he said: "Well, it might be the brakes or it might be an evil spirit."

---

No, no, no... don't you get it? There are no evil spirits. God is making my brakes squeal! If only I had put more money in the collection plate last Sunday maybe He wouldn't have done this to me!




(Edited by briggl on 03-22-2005 12:48)

Back to the sin stuff...

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

As for minor thefts I never feel guilty about them at all, when did you last
take a pen or pencil home from your employer? Or more likely, eat a little
something at the hamburger stand you work at without paying for it?

---

I can't remember. To my knowledge I haven't, and if I have, I did feel guilt about it.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Small social lies are the glue which help hold societies together.

---

I would like to disagree. I have found that any lie comes back many times worse. Like in your illustration, if that dear were your wife, now she thinks the outfit does not make her look fat. I am assuming this a lie, and it does. Well, what if she gets laughed at, or humiliated for her clothing? What if someone else makes a comment that makes her feel really bad? Then it was your lie that allowed it to happen. If you had told the truth in the first place, then she would not have encountered the humilation later.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Of course I have transgressed minor moral strictures I just don't feel guilty
about it.

---

So you do admit it then? You have transgressed laws set forth in the Bible. Even if you don't believe what the Bible says, you have still transgressed it, correct?

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

You ask me if I have transgressed any religious laws...I AM AN AETHEIST! I
CANNOT TRANSGRESS THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

---

So religious laws do not exist?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon:

quote:

---

So religious laws do not exist?

---

It's straight forward. Religious laws are irrelevant for ahteist, simply because they have no religious belief. You're trying to apply a religious concept to a group who have no ( or reject ) religious beliefs. Ok, in your eyes some atheists may be sinners, but there's all the chances they live quite happily that way.

quote:

---

So you do admit it then? You have transgressed laws set forth in the Bible. Even if you don't believe what the Bible says, you have still transgressed it, correct?

---

You did not read what we said about cultural/ethical standards, did you ? There is ethic outside of the Bible.



(Edited by poi on 03-22-2005 15:50)

Gid, you are a fool IMHO!

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

briggl said:

No, no, no... don't you get it? There are no evil spirits. God is making my brakes squeal! If only I had put more money in the collection plate last Sunday maybe He wouldn't have done this to me! (Edited by briggl on 03-22-2005 12:48)

---

please don't confuse bad religion/theology with christianity

sad that this is how a lot of people view things, but due to how a lot of "religious" people act and think about things i totally understand why they do.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

sad that this is how a lot of people view things

---

I understand the point you're making with your post - but you have to understand that this *is* eactly how a great number of christians present their own religion.

I hope you realize the sarcasm in briggl's post.

But I really hope you also see that there are *so* many christians out there whose real view is not far off from briggl's exageration.

Like people who really think god is on the side of their football team...and the like...

quote:

---

please don't confuse bad religion/theology with christianity

---

If you read the history of Christianity, the things that were done in the name of Christ, the things that have formed Christianity into what it is today, you will plainly see that Christianity is bad religion/theology.

OK, I didn't get satisfactory answers to my previous questions, so lets try this one, from the Ten Commandments:

quote:

---

Exodus 20, verse 4:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

---

This law was followed for thousands of years. So when Christianity came along, all of a sudden it was OK to make crucifixes -- images of Christ, and therefore, according to Catholic doctrine, these are images of God! So why is this OK?

[edit]Oh, yeah, I forgot about all those statues of the saints, etc.[/edit]




(Edited by briggl on 03-23-2005 03:29)

Man I love you people. This stuff's good reading too.

Thanks for the links poi, although I was roughly aware of how those things were formed, I did not know the specifics. Now I do.

These facts still do not rule out that such things were planned, in my mind. I never really denied science in the first place, I pretty much embrace and welcome it, it is part of creation, it is part of God. No need to comment, that is belief.

As I said before, circular debate. I tell you why I believe, something not easily conveyed by words, you tell me where science says I am wrong. There is no sense in trying to debate belief. Two perceptions which will only ever get along if they agree to disagree. I am perfectly comfortable and happy in my belief, and that is all that really matters. It's a personal thing, and that is where I try to keep it, with few exceptions.

I do think it sad that all throughout the ages the name of Christ has been defiled by those shouting his name in glorious and often bloody justification, and doubly sad over the backlash, division, and generalizations it has created. That a message which was quite simple and spoke of love, tolerance, peace, and generally being good to one another would be twisted and malformed into such a conglomerate of crime, lies, death and oppression spanning nearly two millenia is something so horrible no words can begin to describe. I simply wish that certain people were able to distinguish between the two more often and not look down on, judge, or ridicule the good-hearted xians based on the actions of others who have or continue to defile faith.

I will continue read all or most of what is posted, as I always try to do, but this is just not my cup of tea, there are more important, immediate concerns which envelope my mind. In short, I just don't have it in me.

Remember, I am still coming to terms with living in a near police state...

quote:

---

briggl: So why is this OK?

---

Because the church leaders deemed it so, and they know better than God. The common believer has simply had the wool pulled over their eyes, most do not investigate for themselves or live up to the standards set by Christ because their inhibitions are capitalized on by hatemongers who are masters of manipulation. The message has turned into an agenda, and the truth has been discarded, selectively chosen and/or malformed. Is that what you were looking for? If so, I agree.

Not that you couldn't already answer this question yourself beforehand.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-23-2005 08:44)

quote:

---

That a message which was quite simple and spoke of love, tolerance, peace, and generally being good to one another

---

Yah, sure:

Take your son, your only son ? yes, Isaac, whom you love so much ? and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18)

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)



So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A truly loving god, a warm and fuzzy message.

You sure do live in a police state. Now the Theocracy has passed a bill requiring the courts to do what the government says.

Much to their chagrin, the courts are telling them, to stuff it.

I guess Dumbya will just have to elevate Benny Hinn to the bench.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

i caught the sarcasm DL, no worries, and i do realize that the actions of many people do re-emphasize that, as unfortunate as it may be (hence the second half of my original sentence).

and briggl, you're confusing christianity with religion in general. things done in the name of christianity, or its organized "face" in the form of some churches, religious groups, etc., don't have a thing to do with christianity. christianity at its base is simply "christ follower", which if followed is an incredible peaceful, loving thing. unfortunately politics, personal bias, and corruption are sometimes woven in just like in other things that started out pure. taking action "in the name of *whatever*" doesn't mean that you're necessarily following whatever's teachings or beliefs.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Excellent question Briggl. To elaborate, and quell another argument, here is the commandment from Exodus 20:

quote:

---

4 " You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 " You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

---

Now first is the question of what is an idol? Some people I have talked to say an idol was one of those stone or wooden gods made in the ancient times by people desperate for some sort of diety. In more recent times, an idol is something that can be worshiped. For instance: a movie star, a sport star, video games, musicians, school, job, money, etc. can potentially become an idol, thus the reference to "Heaven above (angels perhaps) or on the earth beneath (those cited above) or in the water under the earth (draw your own conclusions from this one)."

Since those things can become idols, God commanded not to serve them. So the real commandment is to not worship these idols like they are God.

But I do seem to recall a verse of scripture saying to not make any images of God. That verse's reasoning was that since no man has seen God's face, then there should be no image of God (images mascaraded around as though they were God). In this instance, then yes, making those images of Jesus on the cross is wrong. Especially since no-one knows what Jesus looked like anymore! And also it is my belief that worshiping anyone but God is idol worship, and is wrong in the eyes of the Ten Commandments.

He is a very unfair God, I think, because He says that He will give lovingkindness to a thousand generations of one who loves Him and keeps His commandmets, but only three or four to those who hate Him! Wow, that seems kinda unfair, doesn't it?

Well, now we know what verses taken out of context look like...

quote:

---

briggl said:

If you read the history of Christianity, the things that were done in the name
of Christ, the things that have formed Christianity into what it is today, you
will plainly see that Christianity is bad religion/theology.

---

Well, like Ramasax said, it depends on what side you are looking at. Are you looking at those who have devoted their lives to Christ, or those who are manipulating the followers of Christ? Many dastardly deeds have been done "in the name of God!" While those deeds might have had a reason for them, it wasn't a Christian reason.

quote:

---

poi said:

It's straight forward. Religious laws are irrelevant for ahteist, simply because
they have no religious belief. You're trying to apply a religious concept to a
group who have no ( or reject ) religious beliefs. Ok, in your eyes some
atheists may be sinners, but there's all the chances they live quite happily
that way.

---

Okay, I understand what you are saying, that since Atheists do not believe in God, that exempts them from those rules, is that right? My question was, are those laws/rules still there? Written down. Whether they believe that God was the one to write them or not, Atheists aren't going to be ignorant enough to believe that there aren't rules written in a book? Perhaps, since the Atheist does not believe in God, then they have never read those rules. Perhaps, they have, and don't believe they apply to their lives. But they still acknowledge that they are there, correct?

quote:

---

poi said:

You did not read what we said about cultural/ethical standards, did you ? There
is ethic outside of the Bible.

---

Yes, I read that, but was not focusing on it. It was a good argument, one which I will agree with. Social sins like murder and rape, correct? Sounds right to me.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon: Atheists are not dumb. They know believers obey to some divine laws. But since they don't believe themselves the rules attached to those beliefs do not apply to them. Period. Why the hell would they obey the rules made to worship a God in which they don't believe/give a s**t ?

You do not obey the rules of the Satanists ? do you ? No. Go figure that atheists do not obey the rules of Christianity, or of any other cult.


I don't know exactly to which rules you are refering. If you mean the ten commandments, almost everybody, even atheists, knows some of them. And actually aside the purely religious ones ( the first ones ), they are common sense.

I asked google about the ten commandments, to see the ones I ignored/forgot. And found the 2nd one quite interresting : "You shall not make unto you any graven image". The conscequences of its transgression are detailled and makes it an extremely important one. Yet, it's been violated countless number of times across history. One of the most famous transgression ( sin ) of the 2nd commandment is the fresco ceiling by Michelangelo in the Chapel Sistine.

quote:

---

poi said:

You do not obey the rules of the Satanists ? do you ? No. Go figure that
atheists do not obey the rules of Christianity, or of any other cult.

---

No, but I do admit that I may transgress some of them.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon, I think the commandment is pretty specific. God said not to make and/or worship ANY graven image. But Christians workship the crucifix and statues of saints every day. For people like you who want to follow a strict reading of the Bible, you still seem to be able to pick and choose the things you want to follow.

Briggl

to understand this whole idol thing. We must look carefully at history.

Christianity was officially developed in Roman Empire, Romans have adopted pretty much an entire Greek culture, which includes arts, architecture and religion.

Greeks have worshiped nature and perfect image of man.

Now Christianity is based on Judaism a belief that originated from Middle Eastern Pagan religions. Which also were very much nature based.

Since man is and has always been in awe of nature and it's power, he tried to imitate it, worship it, admire it, study it.

Jewish on the other hand started developing a very different philosophy and interpretation of deity. As we all know it is about invincible father figure who is angry at people for worshiping nature etc ( see old testament)

so now Christianity philosophically formed on Jewish faith and took it's final development in pagan Roman Empire. This of course led to great deal of borrowing from them . That includes architecture, (ever wondered why churches resemble Parthenon/Pantheon so much?), politics (Roman's had very complex political system no wonder we have all those Bishops, popes, priests and the entire complex clergy system etc)

Christianity became official religion overnight, things could not so simply be abandoned. So what they did instead is replace the marble statues of Gods with statues of Saints, replace a statue of Emperor with the statue of Jesus (Yes Jesus imagery was very much based on Roman Emperors, beard and purple toga with gold stripes on the edges.)

Pantheon was closed down and eventually turned into a church.

As roman empire deity out everything was forgotten, and we enter the dark ages where everyone is convinced that The end of the world will be in the year 1000.
People stopped doing arts and almost never built anything out of concrete. Everything was wooden and temporary.

As the year 1000 passed people began to revive the roman/greek antiquity and again imitating Roman artists and reviving classical philosophy.

Church took advantage of arts to educate public about Christianity. Great deal of people were illiterate and imagery was very important in bringing people to understand about religion.
No wonder 800 years of arts were based on bible

During the renaissance humanist philosophy became very popular and cities like Florence. Those cities had gained a lot of power, which further led to development of arts, education, etc.

Now classical myths imagery was mixed with Christian arts and that?s how we have cupids, angles (pretty people in togas and wings) , nudes, etc.
I think western civilization (Europe itself) could never fully adopt southern philosophy simply because it has very rich roots of humanist ideas.

Just my 2 cents

actually briggl you need to do a bit more research.

quote:

---

Gideon, I think the commandment is pretty specific. God said not to make and/or worship ANY graven image. But Christians workship the crucifix and statues of saints every day. For people like you who want to follow a strict reading of the Bible, you still seem to be able to pick and choose the things you want to follow.

---

first off, statues of saints are a catholic tradition, not a christian one, you won't find anything resembling that (with the exception of maybe a painting somewhere) in any baptist/protestant/non-denominational christian church. in the catholic church saints are prayed to but not worshipped. the catholic church's view of the virgin mary is another matter altogether.

christians also don't worship the cross. it may be used as a reminder, a memorial of sorts, but it's not worshipped. i read poi's link and i think it takes a rather liberal interpretation of the commandment. it's aimed at two primary things, the first being to discourage the israelites from worshipping statues and other false idols (in the literal sense) like the neigboring countries tended to do. the second is to discourage things like angel worship ("any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above") that had also become common in the israelites.

the author of that section regarding the second commandment seems to sort of contradict himself, he nails it when he says:

quote:

---

This commandment deals specifically with using physical images for worship or as representations of anything related to worship. This does not condemn the existence of statues or pictures in general?only their use for worship.

---

but then goes on to say:

quote:

---

Therefore, using any statue or picture to represent God is expressly forbidden. Man is to worship, bow down to and serve the Creator God. God does not allow man to transfer this same honor to an image representing Him.

---

how the conclusion that because there is an image representing God that that image is being worshipped is beyond me...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Damn Ruski! A lot more than 2 cents and one of the most succinct sumaries of the last 2000 plus years I have ever read. Well done.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

how the conclusion that because there is an image representing God that that image is being worshipped is beyond me..

---

Ok, there is the Cross, and there is normally a figure on that Cross, Jesus.

Jesus, is not God.

In most Xistian Churches, there is no image of God (Cistine Chapel is the exception), thus, that is being followed, at least.

But Fig, you are very, very wrong, when you say that Jesus on the Cross does not get "worshipped". I have known many to come into a Church, and pray and plead and beg Jesus on the Cross (the figure there) to help them, etc. Not God.

"Help me Jesus!"...why not "Help me God?"

Or, "Thank you, Jesus!", not "Thank you, God".

This is a form of worship. You can paint it anyway you wish, but it is a form of worship. And it is not the worship of God. It is the worship of a Cross with a figure on it named Jesus.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't worship of God in a Xistian Church - there is, of course. But there is also worship of the Cross and Jesus, and according to the Second Commandment, this is wrong.

quote:

---

how the conclusion that because there is an image representing God that that image is being worshipped is beyond me..

---

1) But your'e not even supposed to be making them.
2) If they are not being worshipped, why make them in the first place?

quote:

---

Jesus, is not God.

---

One of the main tenents of the Judeo/Christian beliefs is that there is ONE God. If Jesus was resurrected and went to heaven, He would be a God along with His Father. Now we have two Gods. The Christian religion has come up with the merging of God and His Son into one being (along with something called the "Holy Ghost") to maintain monotheism. There can be only ONE God, so even though He sent His only Son to us, the Son is really just a part of the Father. So Jesus is God. You see this statement (Jesus is God) or something similar in a lot of places.

To make a distinction between what is, in pretty common terms, worship of things like the cross, the saints, mother mary, etc, and say that "well, it't not really worship, we only actually worship god - we just do things that look like worship for the others"

just really doesn't cut it.

It's a matter of semantics at best to argue such a thing.

kneeling down and praying to an image of a cross, or of jesus, or of any number of saints....and praising them, bowing to them, calling their names, etc....seems to pretty clearly fall under the category of worship, IMO.

It's also important to note that even among the protestants and others, the catholics are still the ones who determined a great deal of what the christian faith consists of...having been the group who determined what your bible would consist of, hand selecting your scriptures from the vast array that was available.

But it alsi seems pretty clear, in my bible, that the commandment says firstly that you shall "make no graven image". It adds afterward that you shall not worship such images. But first it blatantly says, without qulaifiers, that you shall not make them at all. And as stated, it was taken very seriously for a very long time. And still is by some religions.

{{also, yes, jesus = god. as briggl states, this view was adopted to ensure the existence of only one god. there are three, but really only one. recall the nicen creed -

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Recall also the Arian "heresy" which stated that god created Jesus, that he was not one and the same but a seperate being created (not begotten) by god. that idea would ruin everything!
}}



(Edited by DL-44 on 03-24-2005 13:31)

Of course, every representation of xist or Mary is also said to represent the xian god and so can fairly be said to be graven images of it.

It strikes me though, that since this supposed god is claimed to have created man in his own image, all those statues of Michealangelo's, Rodin's and others and all those bronze avian pissoirs in parks all over the world ought to be hauled down by the ultra-religious as being in fact 'graven-images".

Heaven forfend!

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

2nd commandment:

quote:

---

Exodus 20:4-6 records the Second Commandment. Here is God?s explicit directive: ?You shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.?

---

10th commandment:

quote:

---

Exodus 20:17: ?You shall not covet your neighbor?s house, you shall not covet your neighbor?s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor?s.?

---

Isn't God coveting the worship of other divinities and graven images ? isn't it clearly violating his own commandment ? In other words : "For I the Lord your God order you to do what I say, no what I do!"



(Edited by poi on 03-24-2005 15:39)

^ the commandment doesn't talk solely about images of god - it talks about all manner of things -

quote:

---

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

---

not exclusive to images of god, and not exclusive to worshipping, it would seem...

so my doodles of daisies on my note pad are going to send me to hell

(I've coveted my neighbor's ass from time to time as well.... )

If you look carefully at Judaism and Islam, their work of art consist only of patern designs, mostly non representational imagery. Those two religions located in Middle East have strictly obeyed this rule.

Now as Europe mixed two opposite philosophies, humanist/judeo-christian

you get pretty much what catholic church has done....

The art had it's reasons for being produced, the commandment is purely fucking stupid IMO =)

add:

DL you cracked me up

(Edited by Ruski on 03-24-2005 17:26)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
But Fig, you are very, very wrong, when you say that Jesus on the Cross does not get "worshipped". I have known many to come into a Church, and pray and plead and beg Jesus on the Cross (the figure there) to help them, etc. Not God.

---

well, one this would get into the idea of the trinity, is jesus God, etc., which is a whole separate other topic onto itself that DL has briefly covered. the general understanding is that jesus intercedes on our behalf and there's nothing wrong with including both God and christ in your prayers. as i said, a whole other discussion tho.

the main problem here is that we're again confusing the two very different branches of protestant christianity and catholocism. my church (nor any other nondenominational/protestant/baptist church i've been to) doesn't have a cross in the front of the church, there's no icon there whatsoever. if there were statues or crosses being prayed to then yes, i think you have a logical argument. but in protestant christianity there's not.

the issue of making any sort of religious imagery at all with regards to the commandment is an interesting one,i'm going to try to look up some of the original hebrew translation to get a better feel for the exact language used.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I know of many protestant churches that do have the cross hung behind the puplit.

The main difference between most protestant churches that I have seen, and catholic churches, is the catholics have jesus on the cross, whereas the protestants have just the cross (again - this is from what I've seen...not necessarily standard...).

definitely possible, haven't noticed it in the majority of the churches i've been to tho. my point is more than in the catholic church the cross at the front of the church tends to be a focal point, something that might be prayed to. generally not so in the protestant church.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Catholic churches tend to be shaped like crosses. It is generally accepted that the cross is pretty damn important to catholics.

Dan @ Code Town