Don't you love Jesus?

[Nowhere]

About this part:

The article that JW linked had some interesting ideas. It said that Catholics believe the rule was against images that were worshiped, not just any image that could be worshiped. It used the Cheribum as an example of what would otherwise be considered a graven image. I've done some googling into that issue and haven't found a satisfying Jewish explanation for them yet. I'll ask some of my more scholarly friends about this.

To answer your question more directly. I don't believe that just any old image should be considered graven. Just the ones that could easily cause someone to get confused.

[schmosef]

I am in no way being intentionally offensive. However, you are being arrogant and talking down to people as though you alone have the answers to all things, to which I do take offense.

And your last comment is pure and total bullshit, and utterly offensive as well. No one has been able to invalidate my life experience here. Many of you huff and puff and hem and haw about things I say, yet you can't really refute them as totally invalid, because they aren't. I challenge every conventional point of view I see that needs challenging, because conventional thought is not thought AT ALL. And majority does not rule in argument.

btw, you're right in that I kind of crossed the line. I should have found a nicer way to say that just because it's not in your experience, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Sorry.

Your post about the Sistine Chapel was very thought provoking.

[schmosef]

About this part:

Ok, so now explain the connection to "assuming". Sorry, I don't mean to be so dense; I'm just not sure what you're asking.

[Nowhere]

...
I'm not trying to invalidate Christianity. I'm trying to see if modern Christian practice is actually in line with Christian doctrine.

The problem is, you get into semantics by doing so. Because what's "Christian doctrine"? If we assume it's the one from first centure, I'd say that no (or almost) modern Christian practice follows it. And while that assumtion is probably sensible...each and every sect of Chrisianity will claim that their doctrine is the true one. So of course they'll claim they follow Christian dcotrine...not much point in arguing with that...

[Nowhere]

Ok, so now explain the connection to "assuming". Sorry, I don't mean to be so dense; I'm just not sure what you're asking.

Well, perhaps more precizelly "attaching some greater meanig to symbols", one could call it 'assuming", presence of God for example.

Anyway, I think I'm loosing it myself, need more sleep

[schmosef]

I don't mean original doctrine. Brian is correct on his point that all religions have changed over time. Judaism perhaps more than others (there are very few sects, only one that I know of, that still practice animal sacrifice).

I meant common Christian practise verses current RCC doctrine and other major sects. I wanted to know how they compare and contrast each other on this point. I'm only able to provide a comparison to Judaism, somehow some people have thought I was attempting to say that one religion was better than another, and that's not the case. It's just that we both have the 2nd commandment and we both obviously observe it differently.

Umf had something interesting things to say on the matter.

Now what did you mean by assuming?

[schmosef]

Well, perhaps more precizelly "attaching some greater meanig to symbols", one could call it 'assuming", presence of God for example.

Anyway, I think I'm loosing it myself, need more sleep

If you're trying to say that Judaism doesn't like symbols that could easily be assumed to contain the "presence" or "spirit" of God or have a God-like connection, then yes, I'd agree with that.

[KvHagedorn]

It's just that we both have the 2nd commandment and we both obviously observe it differently.

As I said, we could discuss forever what God truly meant here. It's not surprising that different sects interpret it differently. As has been put forth, it would seem Protestants have more in common with Judaism in this case than they do with the RCC or Eastern Orthodoxy.

I too must sleep.. I forgive you, knowing what it's like to hold up one side of an argument all by oneself here.

[GNEP]

I'll try and add my thoughts here... coming from an "athiest but raised catholic" viewpoint.

Images and statues of christ, the saints, god, little fluffy lambs, trees on fire and so on are all doing exactly the same as any religious or scientific or philosophical text is trying to do. That is, represent an idea, a concept, a collection of thoughts, in an imperfect way. Because we still haven't developed a way of perfectly storing and transmitting a human "state of mind" to communicate with one another across space and time.

Just like written scriptures are an attempt at this, so are pictures and sculpture. The ideas that they are trying to point to are fairly profound though, which is why I may well agree that words may well do better than a picture. Although having tried to read Wittgenstein I rather think that words don't exactly suffice sometimes

And so is it offensive/blasphemous/graven (again, there isn't a phrase that perfectly encapsulates my meaning here as far as I know) to have a picture of a christ on a napkin or whatever? Well, probably only as much as a phrase from the OT/NT bible or q'ran on a t-shirt. Which to some people is a lot, and to others not a lot. And to some it is a celebration of the idea behind that picture or phrase.

To each their own; all there is IMVHO is a burning need in the human mind to believe in more than just themself.

Now a question that I would love your (collective) input on: Does an idea Exist? If all humankind were wiped out, would the concept of something like love still be?

[Umfriend]

And then there is a muslim-sect that has a trinity as well (god, muhammed and Ali if I remember correctly).

I wonder how many varieties of Atheism there are and whether I should study these and make a choice?

[Nowhere]

...
Now a question that I would love your (collective) input on: Does an idea Exist? If all humankind were wiped out, would the concept of something like love still be?

Considering that there are individuals who lack (somehow...more below) true understanding of this idea, I wouldn't be too optimistic.
Furthermore, the idea itself varies among cultures, it definately varied in the past also. So it's not unjustifiable to say that also those individuals mentioned above simply have different views on it. It seems that the only thing we can agree with is (almost) universally are somatic symptoms, though they aren't cosidered love everywhere. However, considering this one common denominator simply evolved (at least that's our state of understanding), it wouldn't remain if we woulkd be gone.
But here it gest more complicated - it's safe to assume that soem higher mammals are close to us in this regard, and it could evolve again.

(i hope I'm making sense here, really need some sleep)

[Nowhere]

And then there is a muslim-sect that has a trinity as well (god, muhammed and Ali if I remember correctly).

I wonder how many varieties of Atheism there are and whether I should study these and make a choice?

Muhammad Ali?


Seriously, which Ali is it?

[Brian Ellis]

I wonder how many varieties of Atheism there are and whether I should study these and make a choice?

Well, there's the variety that believes, "There is no God, but I say that quietly in case He hears me!". Then I suppose that animists are basically atheistic in that they attribute a living soul to plants, inanimate objects (even stones) and natural phenomena but they have no notion of any being(s) in control of the said souls.

Interestingly, living a few km from where Aphrodite was supposed to have risen from the waves and where Adonis crack-boomed her, I see some residues of the ancient Greek polytheism having survived within the Cypriot Orthodox church. To explain, although the Cypriot church is essentially Greek Orthodox, it is autocephalous and can therefore go beyond the edicts of the Metropolitan. It has probably named more saints/km² than any other church, with direct links back to Saints Paul and Barnabas (whose tomb I've seen at Salamis). This was the first country in the world to have officially adopted Christianity in c. 45 AD, when the Roman Proconsul, Sergius Paulus, decreed thus, having listened to Paul and seen his miracle-working. OK, he had his knuckles rapped by Rome and he had to un-decree it back to Roman polytheism (including a theistic emperor) within a few months. But you can imagine that the two religions became thoroughly intertwined before evolving to what Orthodoxy is, today.

And, for Schmo, praying to saints is not elevating saints to a God-like status. They are intercessionary, just as a priest is. It is an established hierarchy, in some churches, that the peasant cannot pray directly to God; he asks the priest to intercede (such as during confession etc.). He can also superstitiously pray to those who have died and whom he believes are in heaven (i.e., saints) to have a word on his behalf in God's ear. In these churches, generally, only priests can administer the sacraments. In churches of Zwinglian and Calvanist character, to a lesser extent Lutheran and to a still lesser extent, Anglican, any believer can administer them and can pray directly to God, without intercessions by priest or saint. Yes, most of them have ministers whose role is one of guidance, by long training, and who generally administer the sacraments, but they are NOT priests and they have no exclusive functions; they are pastors. Having, at one time, been ordained myself as a deacon of the Presbyterian Church, I could have conducted religious services, including sacraments, (I've done neither) but I have actually spoken from the pulpit, as could any member of the congregation.

[Gurm]

Ok a couple thoughts, since this has spiraled way out into the stratosphere since last I looked at this thread - less than 24 hours, by the way!

KvH:

All rhetoric aside, Schmo was a little insensitive. You do, however, have a tendency to make arguments that go "since my small town well-intentioned brand of protestantism doesn't believe in this..." - that's all. When he said that we've already established on this forum... blah blah... there have been numerous prior threads where folks have said "this is how it is for the majority of American protestantism" and it has directly contradicted your life experience. This doesn't denigrate your life experience, in fact I think we'd ALL prefer it if all the "Christians" in the USA were as good-natured as the folks you've been associated with!

Now, although other people might have missed it, I couldn't help but breathe a sigh of relief the other day when you inadvertantly let slip (in the bad sex thread) that you have, in fact, gotten laid.

Schmo:

You mentioned that Judaeism is "less concerned with the afterlife". Interestingly enough, up until the exile to Babylon, Jews didn't even BELIEVE in an afterlife. Instead, there was the concept of "Sheol", and after death we all returned to dust. Judaeism has ALWAYS been a religion of THIS life. A celebration of THIS life, good works in THIS life, not fervently holding out for a reward in the NEXT life.

Now of course we could also discuss what OTHER elements of "modern Judaeism" were in fact borrowed from Zoroastrianism... but that's left as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

JW:

You said something back on page 2 or 3 that I have to take MINOR exception to. Jesus (Joshua, Immanuel, whatever) did NOT "change the rules". The rules are still the same. "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill the law". Many Christians choose to believe that the "fulfillment" of the law means that it's over and done with, but Jesus never said that. In fact, he was a tirelessly faithful Jew, and expected all of his followers to be as well. All of the major events of the first four books of the New Testament are centered around Jewish celebrations and high holy days.

Of course now we COULD devolve into one of my new favorite "let's make the Christians uncomfortable" areas - Jesus' sex life. Because at the ripe old age of 33, nobody would take an unmarried rabbi seriously back then. This whole "chastity" thing is a middle-ages Church invention.

But...

At any rate, ALL rhetoric aside, I have to say that my personal stance on things - not that anyone ESPECIALLY cares - leans heavily towards Judaeism these days. After careful reflection I am confronted with the following series of logical steps:

1. It is highly unlikely that the universe simply "happened" all by itself. All possible theories hinge on there being something there already. Big Bang? Well the universe was all there, just in a tiny little dot. The idea that maybe there are big bangs and big crunches in an endless cycle... how did the cycle begin? Other theories of the origins of the universe are laughable. The "solid state hydrogen" theory is particularly crazy.

2. Given that the universe did not just "happen", one must logically accept a prime motivator. I choose to refer to this prime motivator as "God".

3. Here is the article of faith. The faith comes not from believing in God - which is a somewhat logical process as described above - but from believing that God WANTS TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH US.

Given that I have chosen to believe, on faith, that God wants to interact with humanity... the task is to figure out HOW he wants to interact with us, and HOW we should interact with him. Right now I am most comfortable and/or happiest with the Judaeic system.

[Jessterw]

schmo, I'm not worried about your motives, rather the tone of your comments and how it may sound others. Numerous times I made mention that said tone might very well have not been intended.

My irritation, if you will, has arised from several posts explaining the Christian view (at least one of them) on graven images and the involvment of Santa in the Christmas celebration, being largely ignored in your posts. I doubt it was intentional and was likely a result of the varying levels of detail in the number of posts, as well as you're attempting to reconcile or compare Christian beliefs with those of Judaism.

The problem, as has been stated, is that Christianity is a far more diverse religion than most others in terms of the differing beliefs and practices of the various sects. It has been used as a tool for control and oppression throughout modern history, and is so far removed from Christianity of Jesus' time and shortly thereafter, not ignoring the fact that while Jesus was alive, Christianity was still Judaism.

I respect your beliefs and your attempt to understand those of another religion, but I've always felt that when you have much faith vested in your religion, it is harder to fully comprehend (not intellectually mind you) the beliefs of another. I've tried to offer some insight into some of the Christian beliefs, but I've seemingly failed to explain them comprehensively, based on your having continued to ask the same questions when they'd already been answered. I think as a whole, however, that the beliefs in question have been thoroughly explained by the postings as a whole. No one's beliefs will be changed here, but there comes a point when you have to accept that these are their beliefs and these are yours.