On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:15:27 +0200, TC get-enough-spam-already-2498.com>  
<do-not-reply@i-do> wrote:

> Yesterday I stumbled upon some pictures of the Sistine Chapel. And once
> again I was reminded of the hypocrisy of man.
>
> Do not get me wrong - the images are nice and exceptional pieces of art.
> Which means I like them, especially in their restored state. Nonetheless,
> how can it be that the Pope, the steward of Christ, is elected beneath a
> blasphemous image?
>
> When, as a child, I first looked upon the "Creation of Adam", my first
> though was: nice picture. My second thought was: isn't there a  
> commandment
> telling us "thou shalt not make an image of god"? How can it be that in  
> one
> of the most holy places of Christendom there is an image in violation of  
> the
> commandments themselves, a sacrilegious blasphemy beneath which the  
> Vicar of
> Christ is elected?

No, it does not say not to make an image of god:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
  	
Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth:
  	
Thou shalt not bow down thyself 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,
"Deut 5:7,8,9 KJV

It is clear that it says to to make an image of anything at all for the  
purpose of worship. There was artwork on the tabernacle for instance. But  
they were not allowed to worship the art, but God.

>
> I am no believer. "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" would condemn too many
> people for too puny a sin to be just (most Chinese, Indian, Japanese,
> African, all Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, Mormons, Shakers, and
> many, many more). So, as an unbeliever, the image does not offend me.

I suppose this is based on Hebrews 10:26
The Bible doesn't say you can't be saved if you don't go to church. It  
says to watch that you don't fall away from God.

> But to
> any Christian (and any Jew and Muslim) it should be most offensive. Yet  
> it
> was commissioned by a Pope. Hypocrisy.
>
> The pictures are a reminder of the hypocrisy and foolishness of man in  
> yet
> another way. When I was young, the pictures were still in their
> non-restored, dark state. The frescos were plain dirty from the fumes of  
> the
> candles - a state not recognised by most professional appreciators of  
> art.
>
> So Michelangelo was praised in textbooks for the use of muted colours
> befitting such a holy place. Nothing bright and colourful. Woe to the
> student who would say otherwise when writing a test in "Arts" concerning
> this subject.
>
And the colours of the origninal priests clothing was very bright, red and  
blue and gold. I don't know where they got the notion that the Bible says  
you must be sedate in everything....

> Now, after restoration, the colours are bright and beautiful. Lo and  
> behold:
> now Michelangelo is praised for the use of those bright colours,  
> befitting
> such a holy place.
>
> Sorry folks: either the one or the other - all else is just hypocrisy and
> shows the foolishness of man - especially the foolishness of professional
> appreciators of art.
>

People take the Bible and try to use it to control others. You get a  
totally different picture if you only look at the Bible and not how people  
are abusing it.

Frankly, i don't fair to dismiss the Bible because of the way people abuse  
it.

Unfortunately you will get double standards everywhere, not just in  
religion.

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message