Xtians: Reasons For Belief?

[ironhorse]

Excuse me for interrupting this dialogue with Esnd3, but I want to go back to ironhorse for a moment. Ironhorse, you have yet to explain why you believe that the Bible god is real. You can't say that you believe in the bible god because the bible said it is so. That is intellectually dishonest. What makes you conclude without evidence that the bible is true or that the bible, with all of its contradictions and other shortcomings, is more likely true than  either science or some other creator god? That is the real issue. Not whether or not there is a god. It's the Xtian god that I find to be particularly unbelievable. I refuse to believe that the god of the universe is that bad. Nor is it at all believable to me that the bible god (if the bible were true} is not evil. So why do you believe in the biblical god? Eh?   bill

 

 

One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures 

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries. 

[mymistake]

 

Excuse me for interrupting this dialogue with Esnd3, but I want to go back to ironhorse for a moment. Ironhorse, you have yet to explain why you believe that the Bible god is real. You can't say that you believe in the bible god because the bible said it is so. That is intellectually dishonest. What makes you conclude without evidence that the bible is true or that the bible, with all of its contradictions and other shortcomings, is more likely true than  either science or some other creator god? That is the real issue. Not whether or not there is a god. It's the Xtian god that I find to be particularly unbelievable. I refuse to believe that the god of the universe is that bad. Nor is it at all believable to me that the bible god (if the bible were true} is not evil. So why do you believe in the biblical god? Eh?   bill

 

 

One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures 

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries. 

 

 

You are a moron.

[Orbit]

LOfuckingL ^^^

[mymistake]

Oh look

 

Aphrodite the goddess of love is real:

 

http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/aphrodite-and-gods-love-0

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/52.11.5

 

And Zeus is real:

 

http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/K1.1.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blgrk_zeus02.htm

 

and Horus is real:

http://www.google.com/images?q=horus+egypt&client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=fgUJVIG4J6f0iQKh0ICwBQ&ved=0CCUQsAQ

 

 

and the gods and goddesses of cave people are real:

http://www.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=cave+painting+gods&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=xAUJVO-3DMjSiwL3goCoCg&ved=0CB8QsAQ

[Ravenstar]

Good grief you irritate me

 

ART historian here… You can learn a LOT from a people's art  

 

NOT christian art:  http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Art/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropt/hd_ropt.htm#slideshow8

 

 

(I suggest you try to comprehend the DATES here..  these are hundreds if not thousands of years before christianity)

http://historylists.org/art/10-most-distinguished-works-of-ancient-egyptian-art.html

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/cyrus_cylinder/

 

http://www.essential-humanities.net/world-art/mesopotamian/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/india-ancient-art/behl-photography

 

Now.. compare it with pre-renaissance art:

 

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4263/frameset.html

 

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~fellows/hart206/byzantine.htm

 

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3753901

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/art-history-timeline.html

 

 

We have gone over the origins of the Renaissances before… the re-discovery of Roman and Greek writings and art and it's influence on education, the liberal arts and many other aspects.

 

Renaissance art: 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/lstewartderosa/early-high-renaissance-11161212

 

and finally…. Lascaux, France. These incredibly beautiful and elegant paintings date from 20,000 years ago.(Edit.. the cave painting date from 35,000 years ago to 14,000) Let that sink in… 20,000 years ago. Long before we grew any crops, or raised any animals… before writing, before the wheel, before CIVILIZATION as we know it people were painting, with incredible skill and artistic ability. They were also carving animals and figures, mainly female (may be a depiction of a goddess figure) there are THOUSANDS of little female forms from the neolithic era.

 

I would be a very happy artist to be able to capture the grace and essence of these animals like they did. Oh.. wait! Isn't there a COMMANDMENT about graven images somewhere?

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

 

 

Please.. at least read an (one) art history book before you make such an unfounded claim again.

[Orbit]

 

Excuse me for interrupting this dialogue with Esnd3, but I want to go back to ironhorse for a moment. Ironhorse, you have yet to explain why you believe that the Bible god is real. You can't say that you believe in the bible god because the bible said it is so. That is intellectually dishonest. What makes you conclude without evidence that the bible is true or that the bible, with all of its contradictions and other shortcomings, is more likely true than  either science or some other creator god? That is the real issue. Not whether or not there is a god. It's the Xtian god that I find to be particularly unbelievable. I refuse to believe that the god of the universe is that bad. Nor is it at all believable to me that the bible god (if the bible were true} is not evil. So why do you believe in the biblical god? Eh?   bill

 

 

One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures 

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries. 

 

This shows that you don't think rationally. Nothing more. Why do you bother to post this nonsense?

[ironhorse]

Good grief you irritate me

 

ART historian here… You can learn a LOT from a people's art  

 

NOT christian art:  http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Art/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropt/hd_ropt.htm#slideshow8

 

 

(I suggest you try to comprehend the DATES here..  these are hundreds if not thousands of years before christianity)

http://historylists.org/art/10-most-distinguished-works-of-ancient-egyptian-art.html

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/cyrus_cylinder/

 

http://www.essential-humanities.net/world-art/mesopotamian/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/india-ancient-art/behl-photography

 

Now.. compare it with pre-renaissance art:

 

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4263/frameset.html

 

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~fellows/hart206/byzantine.htm

 

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3753901

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/art-history-timeline.html

 

 

We have gone over the origins of the Renaissances before… the re-discovery of Roman and Greek writings and art and it's influence on education, the liberal arts and many other aspects.

 

Renaissance art: 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/lstewartderosa/early-high-renaissance-11161212

 

and finally…. Lascaux, France. These incredibly beautiful and elegant paintings date from 20,000 years ago. Let that sink in… 20,000 years ago. Long before we grew any crops, or raised any animals… before writing, before the wheel, before CIVILIZATION as we know it people were painting, with incredible skill and artistic ability. They were also carving animals and figures, mainly female (may be a depiction of a goddess figure) there are THOUSANDS of little female forms from the neolithic era.

 

I would be a very happy artist to be able to capture the grace and essence of these animals like they did. Oh.. wait! Isn't there a COMMANDMENT about graven images somewhere?

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

 

 

Please.. at least read an (one) art history book before you make such an unfounded claim again.

 

 

"One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries."

 

 

What was my unfounded claim? I was answering a question and expressing my opinion.

 

Do you not think that Christians have contributed to art, literature and music?

[Orbit]

 

Good grief you irritate me

 

ART historian here… You can learn a LOT from a people's art  

 

NOT christian art:  http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Art/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropt/hd_ropt.htm#slideshow8

 

 

(I suggest you try to comprehend the DATES here..  these are hundreds if not thousands of years before christianity)

http://historylists.org/art/10-most-distinguished-works-of-ancient-egyptian-art.html

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/cyrus_cylinder/

 

http://www.essential-humanities.net/world-art/mesopotamian/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/india-ancient-art/behl-photography

 

Now.. compare it with pre-renaissance art:

 

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4263/frameset.html

 

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~fellows/hart206/byzantine.htm

 

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3753901

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/art-history-timeline.html

 

 

We have gone over the origins of the Renaissances before… the re-discovery of Roman and Greek writings and art and it's influence on education, the liberal arts and many other aspects.

 

Renaissance art: 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/lstewartderosa/early-high-renaissance-11161212

 

and finally…. Lascaux, France. These incredibly beautiful and elegant paintings date from 20,000 years ago. Let that sink in… 20,000 years ago. Long before we grew any crops, or raised any animals… before writing, before the wheel, before CIVILIZATION as we know it people were painting, with incredible skill and artistic ability. They were also carving animals and figures, mainly female (may be a depiction of a goddess figure) there are THOUSANDS of little female forms from the neolithic era.

 

I would be a very happy artist to be able to capture the grace and essence of these animals like they did. Oh.. wait! Isn't there a COMMANDMENT about graven images somewhere?

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

 

 

Please.. at least read an (one) art history book before you make such an unfounded claim again.

 

 

"One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries."

 

 

What was my unfounded claim? I was answering a question and expressing my opinion.

 

Do you not think that Christians have contributed to art, literature and music?

 

Your unfounded claim is implicit "Gods made them create the art". We both know this is a faith-based claim that can't be demonstrated. 

[directionless]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

[mymistake]

 

 

"One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries."

 

 

What was my unfounded claim? I was answering a question and expressing my opinion.

 

Do you not think that Christians have contributed to art, literature and music?

 

 

 

If that was the real reason you believe in the god of the Bible then you would also believe in thousands of other gods and goddesses.  But you don't believe in those other gods.  You call them false gods.  Thus the reason you gave is not the real reason you believe in your god.

[Ravenstar]

 

Good grief you irritate me

 

ART historian here… You can learn a LOT from a people's art  

 

NOT christian art:  http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Art/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropt/hd_ropt.htm#slideshow8

 

 

(I suggest you try to comprehend the DATES here..  these are hundreds if not thousands of years before christianity)

http://historylists.org/art/10-most-distinguished-works-of-ancient-egyptian-art.html

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/cyrus_cylinder/

 

http://www.essential-humanities.net/world-art/mesopotamian/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/india-ancient-art/behl-photography

 

Now.. compare it with pre-renaissance art:

 

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4263/frameset.html

 

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~fellows/hart206/byzantine.htm

 

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3753901

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/art-history-timeline.html

 

 

We have gone over the origins of the Renaissances before… the re-discovery of Roman and Greek writings and art and it's influence on education, the liberal arts and many other aspects.

 

Renaissance art: 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/lstewartderosa/early-high-renaissance-11161212

 

and finally…. Lascaux, France. These incredibly beautiful and elegant paintings date from 20,000 years ago. Let that sink in… 20,000 years ago. Long before we grew any crops, or raised any animals… before writing, before the wheel, before CIVILIZATION as we know it people were painting, with incredible skill and artistic ability. They were also carving animals and figures, mainly female (may be a depiction of a goddess figure) there are THOUSANDS of little female forms from the neolithic era.

 

I would be a very happy artist to be able to capture the grace and essence of these animals like they did. Oh.. wait! Isn't there a COMMANDMENT about graven images somewhere?

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

 

 

Please.. at least read an (one) art history book before you make such an unfounded claim again.

 

 

"One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries."

 

 

What was my unfounded claim? I was answering a question and expressing my opinion.

 

Do you not think that Christians have contributed to art, literature and music?

 

You did not have the time to actually GO THROUGH even a portion of the material I posted.

 

EVERY culture throughout human existence has created art… the vast majority of the best art is non-christian. The early christian era (pre-renaissance) is one of the worst periods in art history, as far as art goes… sculpture, painting, perspective, balance… the golden mean… all gone for the most part, even their metalwork is lacking some of the sophistication of earlier eras. (excepting some of the architecture, but even then they lost a lot of what their predecessors had accomplished… however, I am a fan of gothic architecture). It's flat, juvenile, lacking in depth, proportion and atmosphere. The human form is almost a caricature…perspective is almost unknown…no, christianity did not advance the arts, in itself. (Although, I do give credit to the Irish monks for the advancement of calligraphy and illumination)

 

So I have to challenge your basis… you believe in god because of the christian artists? Really? When the most christian era (400 AD to 1400 AD) was a pretty dark one in the art world? Being somewhat knowledgable in this area I have to protest. I didn't even bring up the rebellion of some artists to the church (and it's stranglehold on the arts) or what happened to them when they didn't paint, sculpt, write, create.. 'acceptable' art. You DO know that artists, along with intellectuals/scholars and minorities, are the first ones to be persecuted when ideological tyrants abound, right?

 

I didn't even post the art of the Islamic world… gorgeous stuff.

 

I have supplied you with a crash course in art history… a brief summary… take advantage of it.

[Orbit]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

 

Horseshit.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Who was it on here who was promoting Mel Gibson's Passion movie as a reason, or at least, inspiration for faith?  Then he was banned but came back under another name and gave himself away by promoting that same movie again.  

 

I have to admit that Faure's Requiem made me more disposed to become a Catholic.  It never provided a ground for belief, though!

[Guest end3]

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

 

Horseshit.

 

You can't Biblically exclude it O...

[Orbit]

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

 

Horseshit.

 

You can't Biblically exclude it O...

 

I'm not being Biblical. I'm being scientific. You can't measure "god's willingness".

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

 

Horseshit.

 

You can't Biblically exclude it O...

 

I'm not being Biblical. I'm being scientific. You can't measure "god's willingness".

 

Yes, but he said "from a Christian perspective".

[ironhorse]

Who was it on here who was promoting Mel Gibson's Passion movie as a reason, or at least, inspiration for faith?  Then he was banned but came back under another name and gave himself away by promoting that same movie again.  

 

I have to admit that Faure's Requiem made me more disposed to become a Catholic.  It never provided a ground for belief, though!

 

 

It will be difficult for future film directors to create a piece of art like Gibson did in The Passion of the Christ.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

 

Horseshit.

 

You can't Biblically exclude it O...

 

I'm not being Biblical. I'm being scientific. You can't measure "god's willingness".

 

Yes, but he said "from a Christian perspective".

 

And that perspective is incompatible with science.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

Excuse me for interrupting this dialogue with Esnd3, but I want to go back to ironhorse for a moment. Ironhorse, you have yet to explain why you believe that the Bible god is real. You can't say that you believe in the bible god because the bible said it is so. That is intellectually dishonest. What makes you conclude without evidence that the bible is true or that the bible, with all of its contradictions and other shortcomings, is more likely true than either science or some other creator god? That is the real issue. Not whether or not there is a god. It's the Xtian god that I find to be particularly unbelievable. I refuse to believe that the god of the universe is that bad. Nor is it at all believable to me that the bible god (if the bible were true} is not evil. So why do you believe in the biblical god? Eh? bill

One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries.

That is the biggest non-answer I have ever seen in my life!

 

Wait! I'll anticipate your semantic game, IH. That was an "answer." But your "answer" answered the question with the same relevancy as the following:

 

Q: Why do you believe Hitler's actions were bad?

 

A: Because banana's are yellow.

[mymistake]

 

Who was it on here who was promoting Mel Gibson's Passion movie as a reason, or at least, inspiration for faith?  Then he was banned but came back under another name and gave himself away by promoting that same movie again.  

 

I have to admit that Faure's Requiem made me more disposed to become a Catholic.  It never provided a ground for belief, though!

 

 

It will be difficult for future film directors to create a piece of art like Gibson did in The Passion of the Christ.

 

 

 

 

The Passion of the Christ was S&M pornography.  Not, that there is anything wrong with Gibson's pornography.

[mymistake]

 

So I have to challenge your basis… you believe in god because of the christian artists? Really? When the most christian era (400 AD to 1400 AD) was a pretty dark one in the art world? Being somewhat knowledgable in this area I have to protest. I didn't even bring up the rebellion of some artists to the church (and it's stranglehold on the arts) or what happened to them when they didn't paint, sculpt, write, create.. 'acceptable' art. You DO know that artists, along with intellectuals/scholars and minorities, are the first ones to be persecuted when ideological tyrants abound, right?

 

I didn't even post the art of the Islamic world… gorgeous stuff.

 

I have supplied you with a crash course in art history… a brief summary… take advantage of it.

 

 

You can lead IronHorse to the truth but you can't make him think.

 

 

It's not the first time I have said this.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

Who was it on here who was promoting Mel Gibson's Passion movie as a reason, or at least, inspiration for faith? Then he was banned but came back under another name and gave himself away by promoting that same movie again.

 

I have to admit that Faure's Requiem made me more disposed to become a Catholic. It never provided a ground for belief, though!

 

It will be difficult for future film directors to create a piece of art like Gibson did in The Passion of the Christ.

 

 

The Passion of the Christ was S&M pornography. Not, that there is anything wrong with Gibson's pornography.

It was a beautiful piece of catholic art.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

So I have to challenge your basis… you believe in god because of the christian artists? Really? When the most christian era (400 AD to 1400 AD) was a pretty dark one in the art world? Being somewhat knowledgable in this area I have to protest. I didn't even bring up the rebellion of some artists to the church (and it's stranglehold on the arts) or what happened to them when they didn't paint, sculpt, write, create.. 'acceptable' art. You DO know that artists, along with intellectuals/scholars and minorities, are the first ones to be persecuted when ideological tyrants abound, right?

 

I didn't even post the art of the Islamic world… gorgeous stuff.

 

I have supplied you with a crash course in art history… a brief summary… take advantage of it.

 

You can lead IronHorse to the truth but you can't make him think.

 

 

It's not the first time I have said this.

I almost went there with the Muslim art. And yes, it is quite beautiful!! Their poetry is moving as well.

 

IH, you should look up what Dawkins has to say about "Christian art." Maybe you have. He says artists have to make a living too. Those great artists went to the place that had the money at the time, the church. It was the wealthy Catholic Church that hired these artists to paint themes they wanted. They would have just as easily painted exclusively nature themes if some Natural Society had all of the money instead of the church. Artists went were the patronage was. Oh, perhaps you'll cite more modern examples. In which case I will point out that they have contemporaries from every other conceivable ideological back ground. Nothing makes Christians better artists than the rest. I sense a "Christianity contributed to the advancement of the arts" debate just like the "Christianity contributes to the advancement of science" debate. I would actually concede that point, in all honesty. Christianity did indeed contribute to some of the world masterpieces (the Sisteen Chapel ceiling for example). But so did many other organized religions. It just does not validate the Christian belief system. Just like science, art is a fundamentally human thing, not a Chriatian thing.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

Good grief you irritate me

 

ART historian here… You can learn a LOT from a people's art

 

NOT christian art: http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Art/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropt/hd_ropt.htm#slideshow8

 

 

(I suggest you try to comprehend the DATES here.. these are hundreds if not thousands of years before christianity)

http://historylists.org/art/10-most-distinguished-works-of-ancient-egyptian-art.html

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/cyrus_cylinder/

 

http://www.essential-humanities.net/world-art/mesopotamian/

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/india-ancient-art/behl-photography

 

Now.. compare it with pre-renaissance art:

 

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4263/frameset.html

 

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~fellows/hart206/byzantine.htm

 

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3753901

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/art-history-timeline.html

 

 

We have gone over the origins of the Renaissances before… the re-discovery of Roman and Greek writings and art and it's influence on education, the liberal arts and many other aspects.

 

Renaissance art:

 

http://www.slideshare.net/lstewartderosa/early-high-renaissance-11161212

 

and finally…. Lascaux, France. These incredibly beautiful and elegant paintings date from 20,000 years ago. Let that sink in… 20,000 years ago. Long before we grew any crops, or raised any animals… before writing, before the wheel, before CIVILIZATION as we know it people were painting, with incredible skill and artistic ability. They were also carving animals and figures, mainly female (may be a depiction of a goddess figure) there are THOUSANDS of little female forms from the neolithic era.

 

I would be a very happy artist to be able to capture the grace and essence of these animals like they did. Oh.. wait! Isn't there a COMMANDMENT about graven images somewhere?

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

 

 

Please.. at least read an (one) art history book before you make such an unfounded claim again.

"One of the main reasons I believe in the God revealed in the scriptures

is the art, literature and music created by believers through the centuries."

 

 

What was my unfounded claim? I was answering a question and expressing my opinion.

 

Do you not think that Christians have contributed to art, literature and music?

Oh my good fucking god!! Here we go again. Yeah, you "answers" the question, but you did not answer the damn question. You were asked what makes you think the Christian god is real. You literally answers with -Chriatians make art-. That explains absolutely, fucking nothing about what makes you think the Christian god is real. What? You are moved by Christian art? So fucking what? How does that support or demonstrate the claim that the Christian god is real? It does not in the least. If it did, then I'm moved by Babylonian art. There gods must be real! You do understand that you can be moved by art that describes and depicts fictional things, right? Yes, to play your "that's my honest answer" bullshit game, I give you credit for giving an honest answer. But it is still an absolutely shitty answer that does not provide an explanation that is relevant to the question. Since you have a hard time giving logically coherent answers, let me rephrase Bill's question. What evidence (not your subjective feeling or point of view about art. objective evidence) do you have that leads you to believe the Christian god is real?

 

Let me answer for you. You have none. You accept it on faith. That's what you should have said.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

Apparently the people praying knew nothing about the patient other than a name, and the words of the prayer were even partially scripted. I know that this type of prayer is sometimes practiced in monasteries, but it isn't normal prayer that most Christians would consider valuable. Also one critic mentioned that the study had no way of controlling for the prayer efforts of loved ones. Maybe the poorer performance of those who were prayed for through the experiment resulted from the loved ones slacking-off in their personal prayer efforts on the assumption that their loved one was already getting enough prayers as part of the experiment.

 

If I was designing a prayer experiment, I would first study anecdotal evidence of answered prayers and try to duplicate those conditions as closely as possible. The conditions of this investigation seemed to have been designed primarily for simplicity of data collection or something IMO.

 

Also from a Christian perspective God needs to grant the prayer request. God must be willing for the scientific study to show evidence for the efficacy of prayer. God might not want to perform like a trained poodle for the scientists.

Horseshit.

You can't Biblically exclude it O...

Right End3. That's the very thing that makes the

claim "god answers prayer" not scientific. That claim is non-falsifiable, because Christians assert that any outcome is an answer to prayer, in some way or another. This covers all possible outcomes! You could do nothing (not pray) and still get an outcome. Some outcome will occur Independant of prayer. Since this covers all possible outcomes, the proposed mechanism for the outcome (prayer) can never be causally linked to any outcome. That's the consequence of non-falsifiability, it makes any results uninterpretable and meaningless.

 

Note: The prayer study was studying the question of whether or not prayer had any positive health effects on patient outcomes. This is falsifiable (because it does not predict ALL outcomes as a result. It predicts one type of outcome that can be distinguished from other possible outcomes), and it's completely independent of asking whether or not "god answers prayer."