Sistine Chapel Blasphemous?

[Cobra]

I personally doubt that Michelangelo painted this to be directly worshiped or anything but…

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto 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 water under the earth.  (Depending on translation)

Personally I don’t know what to think… what are all your thoughts? =P

[HairyHeretic]

If you're going to take that approach, then any piece of religious inspired artwork could be considered blasphemous. I've never considered artwork to be something you would worship though.

[Trieste]

I dunno. That makes any crucifix in the world a blasphemy.

I believe that commandment actually was to prevent idolatry of alternate gods, most notably Baal (if I'm remembering correctly) and to head off incidences like the Golden Calf.

[The Great Triangle]

Speaking of graven images to be worshipped, your new avatar is completely blasphemous Tri!

*giggles and does something vaguely inappropriate*

[Celestial Goblin]

Religious art being blasphemous was one of the things protestants and catholics were in disagreement over. During the religious wars there were instances of protestants destroying sculptures and paintings from catholic churches.
So not only people did argue over this, but it was a part of a larger argument that led to a lot of bloodshed and suffering.

It's also worth noting that reneissance art drawn inspiration from ancient art and 'God' has a look taken from how Zeus was imagined. Someone who knows more than me could probably say is an 'strong old man with beard' wasn't a default image of god(s) in even older cultures.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto 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 water under the earth.  (Depending on translation)

Amusing: in Polish translation of the Catholic bible(perhaps others as well) the 'idols' mentioned somewhere around that part are translated as a word that commonly means snowmen. So the bible here says "Thou shall not give worship snowmen".:)

[Sherona]

*sheepishly brushes snow off her knees* I wasn't worshiping snowmen I promise!!!

[Celestial Goblin]

What else would you be using the carrot then!?  >:(

[Sherona]

Obviously cause my cucumber spoiled and they are out of season..duh..*laughs*

[ShrowdedPoet]

. . .I learned a little about this in Fine Arts.

The Protastants didn't want their symbol for their religion to be worshoped so they picked the cross.  Anyway, that passage is about worshipping idols.  Whether false or not.  Unless people are worshipping that picture it is not blasphamy.

[Cobra]

All good points....

now what about this?  *pulls dollar out of his wallet*  :o

(Nice avvatar btw Heretic, that man is my fav actor)

[ShrowdedPoet]

All good points....

now what about this?  *pulls dollar out of his wallet*  :o

(Nice avvatar btw Heretic, that man is my fav actor)

*bows down to the almighty green man* 

Really though, I don't worship money. . .money holds very little power with me besides needing it. . .I'm soooo unimpressed!

[Cobra]

I don't enjoy living in a capitalist world to say the least :\

Unfortunantley my life can be summed up as a consumer as well...  I don't know how long I could survive without it  T_T

[ShrowdedPoet]

I don't enjoy living in a capitalist world to say the least :\

Unfortunantley my life can be summed up as a consumer as well...  I don't know how long I could survive without it  T_T

Well, seeing how we need money to survive (food, shelter, etc. . .) I wouldn't survive without it either. . .but money just doesn't hold any power with me outside of that. . .I've been called an idealist for that very reason.

[Cobra]

Well we could survive without $$$, but it would be very difficult and would take us out of our comfort zone.

[Valerian]

*ahem*  *rerails thread*   ;)

Just to clarify, the Protestants (at least in England, during Henry VIII's reformation) weren't against religious art entirely, they were simply wanted to limit its use and scope.  They felt the large, ornate sculptures and paintings favored by the Catholics were too distracting, especially in a church, and also helped to increase the divide between the clergy and the parishoners; but they had nothing particularly against religious illustrations in books, for example.

As an interesting comparison, the Islamic faith has, at many times and places in its history, had similar, very strict prohibitions against putting any figures, human, animal, or plant, into its artwork, even secular art.  Representations of the prophet Muhammed are quite rare, having nearly always been forbidden (and look at the furor over that cartoon featuring Muhammed a while back in Europe), but living things in general aren't often painted or sculpted, calligraphy being the most common art form in most Muslim cultures.  There's no clear prohibition in the Qur'an, but it does say that honoring anything alongside God is a sin.  Some sects also feel that it's sacriligious in another way, because the artist dares to think that he or she can reproduce something that was made by a divine hand and/or in the image of Allah.

[Celestial Goblin]

Just to clarify, the Protestants (at least in England, during Henry VIII's reformation) weren't against religious art entirely, they were simply wanted to limit its use and scope.  They felt the large, ornate sculptures and paintings favored by the Catholics were too distracting, especially in a church, and also helped to increase the divide between the clergy and the parishoners;

I think the destruction of the art would mostly be during religious wars and riots, or when a community would change their alliegance and wanted to demonstrate it.
And you are right that the resentiment against opulent religious art had roots in issues like the church gathering wealth and clergy keeping the lay people at a distance.
(Weren't Protestants the first to push for mass to be held in native languages and not Latin?)

[Valerian]

In England, the fastest way to get on Henry's good side was to turn over the loot intact.  ;)  But yes, sometimes in riots the art would just be destroyed, deliberately or accidentally.

I'm not sure about the Mass -- I know they were among the first, but I'm not sure if they were the first.  I know the first complete English translation of the Bible was Wycliffe's, in the 14th century -- that was a very popular book, in spite of its existance being officially denounced by the church.

[Trieste]

*ahem*  *rerails thread*   ;)

Just to clarify, the Protestants (at least in England, during Henry VIII's reformation) weren't against religious art entirely, they were simply wanted to limit its use and scope.  They felt the large, ornate sculptures and paintings favored by the Catholics were too distracting, especially in a church, and also helped to increase the divide between the clergy and the parishoners; but they had nothing particularly against religious illustrations in books, for example.

As an interesting comparison, the Islamic faith has, at many times and places in its history, had similar, very strict prohibitions against putting any figures, human, animal, or plant, into its artwork, even secular art.  Representations of the prophet Muhammed are quite rare, having nearly always been forbidden (and look at the furor over that cartoon featuring Muhammed a while back in Europe), but living things in general aren't often painted or sculpted, calligraphy being the most common art form in most Muslim cultures.  There's no clear prohibition in the Qur'an, but it does say that honoring anything alongside God is a sin.  Some sects also feel that it's sacriligious in another way, because the artist dares to think that he or she can reproduce something that was made by a divine hand and/or in the image of Allah.

I believe part of the problem with representations of men and the Prophet in Islam is that it is considered taboo/blasphemous to make an image of God, and since man is made in God's image, it carries over.

Then again, man being made in God's image is from the Bible. So maybe it isn't Islam. Judaism? Some sort of messianic religion. I don't recall which one - but your post reminded me of the rule.

[Valerian]

It's the same in the Qur'an -- there are quite a few similarities between that and the Old Testament of Christianity and Judaism, actually.   :)

[HairyHeretic]

Not really surprising. They're all worshiping the same god, aren't they?

[Cobra]

Yup...  sad how theyve all schismed so T_T

[Cobra]

I believe part of the problem with representations of men and the Prophet in Islam is that it is considered taboo/blasphemous to make an image of God, and since man is made in God's image, it carries over.

Then again, man being made in God's image is from the Bible. So maybe it isn't Islam. Judaism? Some sort of messianic religion. I don't recall which one - but your post reminded me of the rule.

It's the same in the Qur'an -- there are quite a few similarities between that and the Old Testament of Christianity and Judaism, actually.   :)

Surah XCV (95 - M.H. Shakir Translation)

The Fig

I Swear by the fig and the olive,
And mount Sinai,
And this city made secure,
Certainly We created man in the best make.
Then We render him the lowest of the low.
Except those who believe and do good, so they shall have a reward never to be cut off.
Then who can give you the lie after (this) about the judgement?
Is not Allah the best of the judges?