Luckily Michealangelo had a sence of humour, he painted God's rear side, and the
pope's didn't notice...
http://markmux.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/gods-bum-at-the-sistine-chapel/

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos wrote:
> 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.

I think most people complaining about the bible wouldn't be complaining if 
others weren't trying to use it to control them.

You can give a lousy review of a cookbook, but nobody really cares because 
nobody force-feeds you what's described in the recipes.

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

Yeah, actually, it is.  For a book that's supposed to provide absolute 
morals and be divinely inspired, it sure has an awful lot of conflicting 
interpretations.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

"Joost" <nomail@nomail> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:web.4bffdbc0f7da0a092a36ae330@news.povray.org...
>
> Luckily Michealangelo had a sence of humour, he painted God's rear side, 
> and the
> pope's didn't notice...
> http://markmux.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/gods-bum-at-the-sistine-chapel/

LOL - I never noticed. It's not a fake, it's really there.

For those who do not believe it, below is a link to a really nice 
Flash-Panorama of the Sistine chapel. The first really good use of flash I 
ever encountered...

ROTFL - using this we flash panorama we can see him flashing his...

http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
>
> 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?


When people note some hypocrisy, and actually care about faithfulness to the
source material, they start a Reformation.

Post a reply to this message

TC 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?

Depends on what you mean by "image."  Under the law in which that 
commandment appears, "image" meant an idol, made for the purposes of 
worship.

A painting on a ceiling is an "image," but not in that sense of the word.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 27-5-2010 18:05, Darren New wrote:

> Or "we're not worshiping the idols, we're worshiping what the idols 
> portray."   

That is sort of the dogma in the orthodox church. As I said elsewhere, I 
was in a monastery, a Greek orthodox one. When a Greek orthodox person 
enters a church, first thing he does is locate the icons and venerate 
(kiss) them. Enter an important church and he will be busy for half an 
hour. Add some more time if there are also relics on display.

Even during a church service I have seen random people stand up from 
there pray chairs, kiss an icon and go back. I am from northern european 
Roman Catholic descent, never seen anything remotely like it in a church 
here.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 27-5-2010 18:05, Darren New wrote:

> > Or "we're not worshiping the idols, we're worshiping what the idols 
> > portray."   

> That is sort of the dogma in the orthodox church. As I said elsewhere, I 
> was in a monastery, a Greek orthodox one.

  Am I too cynic if I say that's just playing with words to get around
the prohibition?

  If they were serious about obeying the commandment, then it wouldn't make
much sense to be playing with it, see how far they can go without breaking
it and taunting fate. It would make more sense to stay at a safe distance
and not have any such idols at all. At least that way they would be a lot
surer about not breaking the commandment.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-6-2010 16:44, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 27-5-2010 18:05, Darren New wrote:
> 
>>> Or "we're not worshiping the idols, we're worshiping what the idols 
>>> portray."   
> 
>> That is sort of the dogma in the orthodox church. As I said elsewhere, I 
>> was in a monastery, a Greek orthodox one.
> 
>   Am I too cynic if I say that's just playing with words to get around
> the prohibition?

Yes, I think so. You implicitly assume that they know they are trying to 
get around the commandment. As far as I can tell they really believe 
that via the icon or relic they come closer to the saint, jesus, but 
mainly the virgin Mary.

>   If they were serious about obeying the commandment, then it wouldn't make
> much sense to be playing with it, see how far they can go without breaking
> it and taunting fate. It would make more sense to stay at a safe distance
> and not have any such idols at all. At least that way they would be a lot
> surer about not breaking the commandment.
>

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 5-6-2010 16:44, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 27-5-2010 18:05, Darren New wrote:
> > 
> >>> Or "we're not worshiping the idols, we're worshiping what the idols 
> >>> portray."   
> > 
> >> That is sort of the dogma in the orthodox church. As I said elsewhere, I 
> >> was in a monastery, a Greek orthodox one.
> > 
> >   Am I too cynic if I say that's just playing with words to get around
> > the prohibition?

> Yes, I think so. You implicitly assume that they know they are trying to 
> get around the commandment. As far as I can tell they really believe 
> that via the icon or relic they come closer to the saint, jesus, but 
> mainly the virgin Mary.

  It's fortunate that kind of reasoning doesn't work in a more earthly court
of law with more earthly crimes...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 27-5-2010 18:05, Darren New wrote:
> 
>>> Or "we're not worshiping the idols, we're worshiping what the idols 
>>> portray."   
> 
>> That is sort of the dogma in the orthodox church. As I said elsewhere, I 
>> was in a monastery, a Greek orthodox one.
> 
>   Am I too cynic if I say that's just playing with words to get around
> the prohibition?

I'm also pretty sure that when people made statues pre-YHVH, they weren't 
really worshiping the statues either.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message