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?

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. 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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

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

  Most christian churches like only 9 of the commandments. The second one
(about not doing images of God or anything else) they don't like too much,
so they have tried to get rid of it for almost two millenia. (Of course since
"the 9 commandments" doesn't sound so cool, they split the last one into two
to get a total of 10 once again.) Of course they have come up with all kinds
of explanations why that one commandment isn't *really* a commandment (even
though it's right there among all the others), or how it's not valid any
longer (yet they somehow fail to justify taking another commandment and
splitting it into two). Of course there's nothing in the Bible itself to
justify this.

  I suppose the allurement of making images is just too strong.

  Not all denominations are like that, of course. Some do acknowledge that
one commandment and try to obey it (depending on what they interpret it to
really mean).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Most christian churches like only 9 of the commandments. The second one
> (about not doing images of God or anything else) they don't like too much,

I think here's an excellent distinction between catholic and the rest of 
christianity.  You can immediately tell a catholic church from a protestant 
church, as the catholic will have jesus on the cross and a protestant church 
won't.  There are very few images of jesus in a typical protestant church, 
no saints being worshiped instead of god, no "mother mary" stuff, etc.

 From my early years as a church-goer, the only images of jesus I remember 
is inside the cover of the bible, a head-shot with a halo. Not even the 
crown-of-thorns look-what-youve-done-now kind of picture.

> Of course there's nothing in the Bible itself to justify this.

The most amusing argument I hear is "No, that means don't make idols of any 
*other* gods."

Or "we're not worshiping the idols, we're worshiping what the idols 
portray."   Like they thought the pharoh was worshiping the statue of anubis 
or something.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Most christian churches like only 9 of the commandments. The second one
> > (about not doing images of God or anything else) they don't like too much,

> I think here's an excellent distinction between catholic and the rest of 
> christianity.  You can immediately tell a catholic church from a protestant 
> church, as the catholic will have jesus on the cross and a protestant church 
> won't.  There are very few images of jesus in a typical protestant church, 
> no saints being worshiped instead of god, no "mother mary" stuff, etc.

  Actually most protestant churches don't like the God image prohibition
either, so they have it the same as catholics. For example the so-called
"10 commandments" in the Lutheran church are the same as in catholicism
(iow. the actual second commandment is skipped and the last commandment
is split into two). Luther himself argued why this is ok (but IIRC didn't
explain why is it also ok to make two commandments out of the last one).

  Curiously this is even so for more liberal denominations such as the
pentecostal church and many others, at least here. I don't know how it
is with the big churches on the other side of the Atlantic, eg. with
baptists.

  (Many people argue that the commandments are not actually numbered, and
only vagely referred to as "the ten" much later, so there's no telling
exactly which number goes to what. It still doesn't justify skipping the
image prohibition, though, as it is right there after the first commandment.)

  Some christian denominations (many of who also strongly oppose catholicism)
stress on the importance of not skipping such a commandment and hence maintain
it as the true second commandment.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

a "professional appreciators of art" is just a salesman.  The people who buy are
investors.  You and I are true art appreciators.

The pope is elected by other catholic man, not God.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Actually most protestant churches don't like the God image prohibition
> either, so they have it the same as catholics.

I can only speak for the protestant churches I've been in, which admittedly 
aren't as many, because they're not cool to look at. ;-)  I just know that 
in my personal experience, catholic churches tend to be full of statues and 
paintings, protestant churches it's pretty much limited to a few paintings 
and stained glass work, and synagogues and mosques have no human depictions. 
I've never seen a crucifix in a protestant church, for example.

>   Curiously this is even so for more liberal denominations such as the
> pentecostal church and many others, at least here. I don't know how it
> is with the big churches on the other side of the Atlantic, eg. with
> baptists.

Yeah. I have so little experience with protestant churches that they're all 
just "protestant" to me. Most of my experience is from my childhood when I 
was actually attending such churches.

>   (Many people argue that the commandments are not actually numbered, and
> only vagely referred to as "the ten" much later, so there's no telling
> exactly which number goes to what. It still doesn't justify skipping the
> image prohibition, though, as it is right there after the first commandment.)

There's actually three sets of commandments, one of which is called "the ten 
commandments" in the bible itself, the other two sets being given to Moses, 
as I recall.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   (Many people argue that the commandments are not actually numbered, and
> > only vagely referred to as "the ten" much later, so there's no telling
> > exactly which number goes to what. It still doesn't justify skipping the
> > image prohibition, though, as it is right there after the first commandment.)

> There's actually three sets of commandments, one of which is called "the ten 
> commandments" in the bible itself, the other two sets being given to Moses, 
> as I recall.

  The story itself is told in Exodus 20, and Moses recapitulates it in
Deuteronomy 5 (so the commandments appear in two places, but the latter
is Moses speaking to the people and telling them the commandments again).

  They are specifically referred to as "ten commandments" in Deuteronomy 4:13.

  I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to with "three sets of
commandments".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/05/2010 5:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I can only speak for the protestant churches I've been in, which
> admittedly aren't as many, because they're not cool to look at. ;-)

You are probably thinking about Presbyterian, Methodist or the Society 
of Friends churches. Episcopalian (C of E and Anglican churches), all of 
which are protestant, may have images if Jesus in the church.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> You are probably thinking about Presbyterian,

Yes, that's it.  Wow, it's been so long I've forgotten. :-)

-- 
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

On 27/05/2010 8:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> You are probably thinking about Presbyterian,
>
> Yes, that's it. Wow, it's been so long I've forgotten. :-)
>

You're lucky ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message