SWIM Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 Graven images. All the christians reading this know immediately what I am talking about. Example: How is a statue of jesus on a cross *NOT* a graven image? After all, you think he is god, and you made a statue of him, bleeding an all... Virgin mary? Saints? statues of them all in catholicism... OK here is the PAT ANSWER all chrisitans seem to give on this subject, and I challange this: "we are *NOT* worshiping the *image* or the statue, we worship what it represents, namely christ on the cross." Do you *really* think that *ANY* people worshiping graven images are worshiping the *images* or are they worshiping what the symbolic meaning attached to it is? NEVER EVER has there been presented *any* evidence that people built statues and worshiped *the statue* instead of what it symbolized. It is a ridiculous argument. If we thought a blob of gold was *holy* we would not need to shape it into an image, just worship the blob! There is no way around it at all. Kissing the feet of a bleeding statue or parading it around your neck with pride *IS* worshiping a graven image *AS* and *in context* of what the bible specifically condemns and says you should not do. So, do you folks as christians feel you are above this, it does not apply to christ the saints or mary, or are you blindly disobeying it like you disobey things like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", or other such biblical total nonsense stuff that you conveniently choose to ignore? Make your mark here, why is a *cross* not a graven image? (please don't use the stupid illogical pat answer above, it will only be met with ridicule if addressed at all). Give us a *REAL* answer. We are waiting....
mwc Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 Well, first it depends on the xian and image. Catholics normally have the little fellow up on the cross and Protestants have him off. As a former latter it's about the empty cross and how he rose again. As for other images, like paintings, those aren't "graven images" as he actually came to earth as a person so we are making images of the earthly representation of jesus and not the heavenly (and unknown) "god" critter. The former is just fine (a picture of a man) the latter is forbidden (a picture of "god"). The fact that we don't know what jesus looked like isn't an issue since it's like the Last Supper. It's "in remembrance" so "artistic license" is built-in (like in other memorials...they are rarely verbatim and that's understood). mwc
SWIM Posted October 16, 2007 Author Posted October 16, 2007 Well, first it depends on the xian and image. Catholics normally have the little fellow up on the cross and Protestants have him off. As a former latter it's about the empty cross and how he rose again. As for other images, like paintings, those aren't "graven images" as he actually came to earth as a person so we are making images of the earthly representation of jesus and not the heavenly (and unknown) "god" critter. The former is just fine (a picture of a man) the latter is forbidden (a picture of "god"). The fact that we don't know what jesus looked like isn't an issue since it's like the Last Supper. It's "in remembrance" so "artistic license" is built-in (like in other memorials...they are rarely verbatim and that's understood). mwc Yeah but mainstream christianity in general thinks that the christ on the cross statue is OK. And a picture IS a graven image. It is *engraved* on *something*. Even if it is more adding (putting paint on canvas) rather then taking away (knocking out peices to make a satue) the *spirit* of the act is the same. You are making an *image* however you do it, of what you worship. Plain and totally first-grade simple. How do christians deal with this breach?
SWIM Posted October 16, 2007 Author Posted October 16, 2007 . It's "in remembrance" so "artistic license" It's the same as the *PAT ANSWER* we worship what it symbolizes, not what it *is*, which is what *EVERY* graven image ever was. You used the "pat answer" but I wont ridicule you since you aren't a christian anyway.... How bout a christian I can sink my teeth in? Got an answer?
Brother Jeff Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired me to make this glorious graven image of Kryasst. What do you think? Glory!
SWIM Posted October 16, 2007 Author Posted October 16, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired me to make this glorious graven image of Kryasst. What do you think? Glory! OMG!!!!! Another priceless rendering!!! Surely the spirit moves DEEP within you.... GLORY!!!
mwc Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 Yeah but mainstream christianity in general thinks that the christ on the cross statue is OK. I dunno...I was always a little creeped out by the little guy on the cross. I preferred the empty one myself. I have to admit to not putting much thought into this though. And a picture IS a graven image. It is *engraved* on *something*. Even if it is more adding (putting paint on canvas) rather then taking away (knocking out peices to make a satue) the *spirit* of the act is the same. You are making an *image* however you do it, of what you worship. Plain and totally first-grade simple. How do christians deal with this breach? But one is making an image of a totally unknown and unknowable "thing" (ie. "god") and the other is making an image of a knowable "thing" (ie. a man...albeit the actual details of said man are unknown). So by making an image of "god" you have you are forcing "god" into some form (you are probably never close but could never know it even if you were since "god" is supposedly unknowable). By making an image of jesus you are at least in the ball-park when you make an image of a man (any man, but a Jewish man gets you even closer I would imagine since these details are "revealed" to us). So the "cross" and the (Jewish) "man" details are known but the "god" details in general are unknown and cannot be known by us. So to make an image would be wrong. Now, of course, this doesn't get us past the ever so famous image of "god" reaching out to man gracing the ceiling of a chapel. That painting is borderline heresy since it portrays "god" and not jesus (and casts him in the image of man but if you believe we were made in his image it's not altogether wrong). Anyhow, I'd like to hear from xians on this too but I doubt you're going to get much so I figured I'd argue with you. mwc
mwc Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired me to make this glorious graven image of Kryasst. What do you think? Glory! I almost fell for it because it's a really good likeness...but there's no wound in the side where the sword went in. Deceiver! mwc
SWIM Posted October 16, 2007 Author Posted October 16, 2007 Yeah but mainstream christianity in general thinks that the christ on the cross statue is OK. I dunno...I was always a little creeped out by the little guy on the cross. I preferred the empty one myself. I have to admit to not putting much thought into this though. And a picture IS a graven image. It is *engraved* on *something*. Even if it is more adding (putting paint on canvas) rather then taking away (knocking out peices to make a satue) the *spirit* of the act is the same. You are making an *image* however you do it, of what you worship. Plain and totally first-grade simple. How do christians deal with this breach? But one is making an image of a totally unknown and unknowable "thing" (ie. "god") and the other is making an image of a knowable "thing" (ie. a man...albeit the actual details of said man are unknown). So by making an image of "god" you have you are forcing "god" into some form (you are probably never close but could never know it even if you were since "god" is supposedly unknowable). By making an image of jesus you are at least in the ball-park when you make an image of a man (any man, but a Jewish man gets you even closer I would imagine since these details are "revealed" to us). So the "cross" and the (Jewish) "man" details are known but the "god" details in general are unknown and cannot be known by us. So to make an image would be wrong. Now, of course, this doesn't get us past the ever so famous image of "god" reaching out to man gracing the ceiling of a chapel. That painting is borderline heresy since it portrays "god" and not jesus (and casts him in the image of man but if you believe we were made in his image it's not altogether wrong). Anyhow, I'd like to hear from xians on this too but I doubt you're going to get much so I figured I'd argue with you. mwc It does not matter. Whatever reasoning you use, kissing the feet of a cross, putting it over your bed and kneeling before it, is *still* worshiping a graven image. It does not matter the *why* in the bible. All your reasoning's still translates into the basic "we worship what it symbolizes, not the image itself". Does not matter at all if the basis for the image is based in reality or not. Christians think jesus is god, so worshiping an *image* of god, no matter *how* you extrapolate the image to be, it is still the same, you are worshiping a graven image as defined by the bible. Known or unknown is *NOT* specified in the bible, so I cry FOUL!!! You cannot use your reasoning to excuse it. It's cool to argue with me since it is highly likely that no christian will mcw. There is no correct answer to this question btw, no matter the leap of logic, the bible does not allow the leap of logic, it clearly state you cannot worship graven images. Justifying is irrelevant... I guess this was a trick question on my part since no christian can *really* answer it at all, because they are totally guilty of this, no way around it. Had the *beloved* bible gone into more detail, maybe then, but since it's their "Word of God" it cannot be wrong. So christians, explain it. Me an the others here can go round and round with it, but the bottom line is there is *no* way around it, it is a direct violation. Any christian takers? Don't be scared I won't bite.. (hard anyway).
Oldjew Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired me to make this glorious graven image of Kryasst. What do you think? Ah Kryasst I beseech ye! Bless these unbelievers that know not thee. Oh holely one I fall down on my knees before as I weak kneed and I know you will answer my prayers because your a know it all, a nosey know it all. This I say in your most holely name. Key...................riced!
Brother Jeff Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 The Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him magically inspired me to make this glorious graven image of Kryasst. What do you think? Glory! OMG!!!!! Another priceless rendering!!! Surely the spirit moves DEEP within you.... GLORY!!! Hall-lay-LOOH-Yah, Brother! Glory!
Brother Jeff Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 I almost fell for it because it's a really good likeness...but there's no wound in the side where the sword went in. Deceiver! mwc It's a miracle, Brother MWC! The Holy Farter magically healed the glorious wound in Kryasst's side after He Magically Undeadened Him. Glory!
Thurisaz Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 I predict a mysterious silence on behalf of the morontheists in the rest of this thread, however long it might be.
white_raven23 Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 Wasn't there some historical anxiety regarding ANYONE's portrait as a graven image? Then someone decided religious pictures were "okay" and the artists commemorated their patrons by using their likenesses as representing John the Baptist, or using their benefactor's wife's image as the face of the Virgin Mary. I know the Medici men in particular are well represented in religious paintings. People sitting for their own portraits (as just themselves) actually came later.
mwc Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 Whatever reasoning you use, kissing the feet of a cross, putting it over your bed and kneeling before it, is *still* worshiping a graven image. Ahhh...well now you're just being dismissive. But I was never involved in any of this kind of thing so maybe if I were I'd understand it better. The cross was more decoration than anything else. What you describe is much more Catholic from what I understand. Sure it held a place of honor in my church but it never was used in any ceremonies or anything like that much less what you describe. It would be like the American flag. It was in the church but we never soluted it or even referenced it (what it represents elsewhere is debatable of course but in that context it simply was there). The same goes for the cross. It simply was present and there were no images of jesus at all that I can remember. Of course outside the church proper is a different story. It does not matter the *why* in the bible. All your reasoning's still translates into the basic "we worship what it symbolizes, not the image itself". Does not matter at all if the basis for the image is based in reality or not. Christians think jesus is god, so worshiping an *image* of god, no matter *how* you extrapolate the image to be, it is still the same, you are worshiping a graven image as defined by the bible. Known or unknown is *NOT* specified in the bible, so I cry FOUL!!! You cannot use your reasoning to excuse it. Correct. Known or unknown is not specified. It is left to interpretation. To reason. When "god" handed down the rule in the "OT" it would have been the "Father" or the "unknowable" version of "god" that did so. When the "son" decided to become a human this altered things. The "unknowable" is still just that and is still forbidden. But now there is the "knowable" too. Images of the "father" are off limits. Images of the "son" are not. But, let's forget that for a moment. Moses crossing the Red Sea. Pillar of Smoke/Fire. Can we paint it? Technically a graven image. Likewise the burning bush and most all the Exodus moments. We paint them anyhow. No one makes a fuss. Why not? Because the book describes those events. Can we say with absolute certainty that the bush we paint is THE bush? No. Can we say that the man we paint is THE jesus? No. It's close enough to remind us of the event(s) that supposedly occurred. So close that come people become highly emotional as a result. Where do we draw the line? If paintings are the same as graven images. Then, as we know, a painting is worth a 1000 words. So the 1000's of words that make up these stories could be the same as graven images too. Since, don't they really just describe that graven image in your minds eye? Any mention of "god" in any medium could technically violate this rule. mwc
1oddmanout Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 Calvin wrote extensively against this form of idolatry (and most of the early Reformed churches weren't even adorned with crosses). I won't cutand paste volumes; jst look for Calvin's Institutes (Mcneill edition) Book 1, chapter 11 & 12, specifically 1.11.9 "any use of images leads to idolatry". (Ah, the ex-Reformist in me still pops up once in a while).
SWIM Posted October 17, 2007 Author Posted October 17, 2007 Images of the "father" are off limits. Images of the "son" are not. Yeah but... Aren't they supposed to BOTH be god? Gottcha! And it does not say "go ye forth and reason". It simply says no graven images. And it does not say no graven images of "god" it says not to worship graven images. Well we would not "Worship" a painting of mosses, but people DO worship paintings of jesus, I have seen my own grandmother pray to a painting, and also saw her kiss the feet of a statue. There again, the PAT answer, she worshiped what it symbolized etc etc. ALL graven images that ever were are symbols.
L.B. Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 I think the idea that an image of Jayzus is "close enough" because it represents the idea or the event in time is a misleading one. In Buddhism, f'rinstance, no one argues that the average image of "the Buddha" is really representative of his actual physical likeness. The open admission is that the physical features are designed to tell spiritual truths or concepts without having to use concrete words. That's in line with what the Buddha taught. The buybull, on the other hand, is supposed to be THE WORD of 'god'. Therefore, while some may rationalize the corpse-on-a-stick as presenting the CONCEPT of Jayzus and his giving up of the spook (Bro Jeff, you're funny as hell), the fact is that the Holey Book never tells us what Jayzus looked like or how many whip-marks he had or how the crown of ouchies was made, so any creation that defines by its very existence those biblically-undefined parameters is, de facto, adding to the WORD of 'god', which is a damnable thing to do. As soon as a person admits that their fave image of the levitating Kosher Corpse-Man is not TOTALLY accurate, they are admitting the possibility that they are worshipping/venerating/admiring/liking/tolerating a totally false image, because according to the buybull, a little wrong equals 100% wrong. Glow-RAY! Jeff's picture made me wanna sing out in my heavenly tongue! Dohhh-ray-mee-fah-SO-laa-tee-dohhh. Botta-honda-shooda-botta-hunday. (edited for punctuation errors)
mwc Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 And it does not say "go ye forth and reason". It simply says no graven images. And it does not say no graven images of "god" it says not to worship graven images. Maybe it's time to find out what it really does say. This is what it says (from two different translations): Exodus 20 3 You are to have no other gods but me. 4 You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth: 5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters; (BiBE) ... 2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of 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; 4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy 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; (JPS) The actual command appears to be not to make any (graven) images of basically anything at all. The question becomes does that mean that you can't make an image only if you plan to worship it (from the next verse) or simply do not make images of anything at all ever (based on some of the scrolls I saw at the DSS exhibit it seems some took it to be the latter much like the Muslims and they formed text into shapes to hedge the rule). Verses in Deuteronomy echo the above rules (no surprise since it contains another copy of the commandments) and also say to destroy others graven images. It also has this: Deuteronomy 15 Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and setteth it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say: Amen. (JPS) Well we would not "Worship" a painting of mosses, but people DO worship paintings of jesus, I have seen my own grandmother pray to a painting, and also saw her kiss the feet of a statue. There again, the PAT answer, she worshiped what it symbolized etc etc. ALL graven images that ever were are symbols. Again, I've only seen this from afar so I'm not sure how the mindset works. Ask your grandmother if she was worshiping those things. I've seen movies/video of people breaking down in tears, among other things, at the sight of Elvis or the Beatles. Worship? Perhaps. I can't say. My mind doesn't work that way. Something "powerful" was going on that's for certain and I most certainly didn't understand it. Anyhow, based on the verses it seems that it would be nearly impossible to make an image of anything for any reason (including a photograph) if the verses are taken in their broadest sense. If taken more narrowly (ie. creating with intent to worship) then most everything is just fine. Whether or not the image is of "god" or not is irrelevant. Seems I wasted a bit of effort arguing a non-issue. So it seems figuring out what the proper interpretation of those instructions are is the solution to this problem. mwc
SWIM Posted October 17, 2007 Author Posted October 17, 2007 LOL yeah that's pretty good clarification! Even MORE restrictive then my original post! I guess that explains the deathly, erie christian silence in this thread. Good job mcw, I thought about diving in with a research post like that, but didn't bother since no xtians are biting.
mwc Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 I guess it's more restrictive depending on how you interpret it. One way to look at it would be that anything man-made or abstract is just fine. That way plans for buildings, cars or other objects would be fine for instance. At the same time the restrictions on things in the heavens (sun, moon, stars, etc.), on the earth (plants, animals, etc.) or in the waters under the earth (fish, etc.) would put a restriction on all natural items in the universe. This would include humans of course. This could be taken to mean that the "god" of the OT is saying "I am not a natural item in the universe that you occupy." Combine this with the verse that says (roughly) "I am not a man that I may not sin" and you've removed "jesus" (as a god) from the equation for good. In that case jesus cannot equal god but must be something else. The above makes perfect sense considering the pagan competition the rule was most likely written in. Asherah was most commonly a grove of trees or a sacred animal like a serpent. El was commonly a bull and the ba'als to several forms depending on the local tradition. Egypt had a whole host of animals as well (frogs, snakes, birds, etc.). I'm sure they didn't want their "god" being mixed back into some local tradition and this made it easy to prevent that. I just sort of expanded on it to get rid of "jesus." mwc
sojourner Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 ok Ill bite I honestly never have been one to worship at statues or light candles and stuff like that. Ive never belonged to a church that does those things, like the catholic church for instance. I dont wear crosses nor have a bobble head mary or Jesus in my car that makes me feel all safe. This is my answer coming from being a christian but not one that has been involved in such When God is seen as out there, and Jesus is seen as up in heaven and such folks want to be able to touch something they cant see nor feel. To get the comfort of being closer to God or Jesus that is far above them they use a touchpoint if you will. However, Im not one of those believers. I dont need some inanimate object to represent a God that is very far away from me for to me He is ever present within me and all around me. sojourner
SWIM Posted October 24, 2007 Author Posted October 24, 2007 ok Ill bite I honestly never have been one to worship at statues or light candles and stuff like that. Ive never belonged to a church that does those things, like the catholic church for instance. I dont wear crosses nor have a bobble head mary or Jesus in my car that makes me feel all safe. This is my answer coming from being a christian but not one that has been involved in such When God is seen as out there, and Jesus is seen as up in heaven and such folks want to be able to touch something they cant see nor feel. To get the comfort of being closer to God or Jesus that is far above them they use a touchpoint if you will. However, Im not one of those believers. I dont need some inanimate object to represent a God that is very far away from me for to me He is ever present within me and all around me. sojourner OK I'll bite? You asked no question and explained you are totally innocent of the violation... OK, whats the response then? Other then, "I'm innocent of this"? This was more a question on how do chirstians get around the "graven images" doctrine. Well if you don't read it, don't believe it, and are not guilty of it, then.... uhm... what am I missing?
sojourner Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 well when you said christians, I lumped me in there but as a christian I dont do those things but do think I know why the majority of them do.......of course I could be wrong too lol you cracked me up, maybe I should have kept that to myself and waited till a cross wearing candle lighting one showed up to explain sojourner
SWIM Posted October 24, 2007 Author Posted October 24, 2007 well when you said christians, I lumped me in there but as a christian I dont do those things but do think I know why the majority of them do.......of course I could be wrong too lol you cracked me up, maybe I should have kept that to myself and waited till a cross wearing candle lighting one showed up to explain sojourner So, I take this to mean that you are a True christian, and all the rest are false? Is that what you are saying?
Recommended Posts