To “depict a physical manifestation of God” is not something that the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) would do, and some would assure you that it’s a major no-no even to try (i.e. against the Commandment not to make graven images).
Ah, a representative of the school of thought that Catholics, Orthodox and CoE/Episcopalians aren’t Christians, I see… we have Christs all over the place!
My (white, Irish) uncle was a Catholic missionary in both Peru and Liberia for many years, and he brought home numerous pieces of Peruvian folk art in which Jesus looked like an Indian and African art in which Jesus looked black.
Since nobody knows exactly what Jesus looked like, I assume most Christians throughout history have pictured Jesus looking pretty much like them. And whether that’s accurate or not, it doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s fine by me if Peruvian Catholics envision Jesus as brown-skinned and Liberian Catholics picture Jesus as black, any more than it bothered me that Renaissance painters portrayed Jesus as an Italian nobleman.
With all due respect though, that’s not the question which you were asking. In fact, you specifically said, “Christianity, for example - as far as I am aware - doesn’t show God as being black, or Far Eastern.”
Then the teachers didn’t do a very good job conveying the nature of the Resurrection & Ascension. Catholic doctrine teaches that Jesus, as well as His Mother, are in immortal but physical bodies.
If God isn’t American, why does he bless us?
Exactly- the Church has taught that Jesus is “True God and True Man.” The idea that Jesus was just God in disguise is actually a heresy!
But the Church has long done a terrible job of teaching its core beliefs. Smal wonder that even kids who went to Catholic schools for 12 years often have no idea what the Church teaches.
well, clearly He no longer does :eek: . The last 10 years were disaster after disaster with no end in sight.
The Christian God may be Jewish, but that’s not how he’s traditionally portrayed. I do wonder if there are any gods who are specifically described as looking foreign. You know, places, where the artistic depictions always show someone who human but vastly different from the people who worshiped it.
The first idea I had was Quetzalcoatl, but Wiki seems to indicate that the identification of that god with Cortes may have been a Spanish addition to the myth. This guy sure doesn’t seem Spanish or even light skinned to me.
Well yeah. But think how much worse it would have been without his blessing.
Docetism to be precise.
Nothing new under the sun, I suppose. But the nature of Christ is such firmly and clearly decided doctrine, I’m shocked that that any member of the wouldn’t know it. Of course I once had a discussion with a very well educated Catholic who described the Trinity as three distinct and wholly separate beings who shared not the tiniest essence or substance. So your point about the church being a poor educator is well taken.
However, he was said to have “made man in his image.” Further the way the early Bible goes, it seems that the non-Jewish, non-Muslim races are descended from a “cursed” branch of the early family tree (wasn’t there something about God making one of Onan’s children black, or something?). That would seem to imply that God looks like your average Jew or Middle Eastern dweller circa the Old Testament.
If Catholics and Orthodox aren’t Christian then no one is, as the rest of the Christains use and believe decision the Bishops of the early church thought it was their right to decide what was the word of God and what wasn’t. there fore their belief is an empty belief in the humans that wrote and taught it. That religion had many sects until the 300’s when Constintine wanted a united Christian Church.
Im the year 1,000 The Orthodox and Roman church split, then in Luther’s time he in trying to reform the Roman Church, and many Christian church sprang up after that, now I once read there are about 200 divisions of Christianity.
America must not be blessed or people wouldn’t always be saying God Bless America, it it is alredy blessed then why keep on asking. The words God Bless(anything) seems unnecessary. Unless people think God doesn’t lnow what they need. A child of a good father doesn’t have to keep asking the father(if he knows everything) and has fed his child, and provided the necessities,nor granted anything that would harm them and humans can only guess at what a child needs!
A spirit is like looking at the air,no image! But according to the Psalmist 82d in kjv everyone is god.
Wouldn’t cargo cults come under this category? Maybe not always, but surely in some cases.
Onan didn’t have children; that was kind of the point of his sin. You may be thinking of the curse of Ham and its far-fetched interpretations, as discussed in this Staff Report.
That’s a good idea (I didn’t think of cargo cults), but are there any monotheistic ones? I thought that cargo cults were based more around a foreign leader and his followers, and am not sure to what extent the leader is considered divine and the followers of the leader (e.g. the troops that once came) are considered non-divine.
I’m sorry, this is just plain wrong. Ever heard of Michaelangelo’s Pieta? It sits in St. Peter’s Basilica, in fact. Or, perhaps, you’ve never seen a crucifix, which technically is distinguished from a mere representation of the Cross by having a “depiction of the physical manifestation of God” during his Passion (i.e., the corpus)? Here’s the Pope praying under such a depiction, and if that isn’t official sanction for depicting the physical manifestation of God, I don’t know what is. Oh, wait! I know an even better example of official endorsement: The Sistine Chapel frescoes, commissioned by Pope Julius II which centrally features a depiction of God the Father, not merely the Son.
Depicting the physical manifestation God has been one of the most prominent themes in sacred art since the Middle Ages. The prohibition on worship of graven images in Catholic thought is tied directly to the primacy of God:
[QUOTE=Catechism of the Catholic Church]
2113. Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc.
[/QUOTE]
{emphasis added}
Creation of images of God is, in fact, specifically encouraged and has been since the Council of Nicea:
[QUOTE=Catechism of the Catholic Church]
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:
[/quote]
Considering that these are the official positions of the largest Christian denomination in the world, I think it can safely be said that depiction of the physical manifestation of God is not something Christians just would not allow.
Actually, that’s the Second Council of Nicea that you’re referring to. The Council of Nicea, without any numerical qualifier, refers to the one which was held in AD 325. The Second Council is accepted by Catholics and certain Orthodox groups, but not by Christendom at large.