For all those who are interested, I am posting an article which explains the Catholic Church's position on the 2nd Commandment against Idolatry.  We follow all the Commandments, and in that light, I believe this post may offer an explanation as to why we have statues and paintings in our Churches.

The Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) issued a clear statement concerning images and statues. According to the 25th Session of this General Council:

The images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the saints are to be had and retained particularly in churches, and due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old by the Gentiles, who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these images represent; so that we through the images which we kiss...or bend the knee, adore Christ and venerate the saints, whom they represent. [The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent (TAN Books, 1978) p. 215-6]

The Church does NOT compel her members to kneel or pray before images. No one is allowed by the Church to pray to images since they have no ears to hear or power to help us. The Church allows for the veneration of images as long as the honor is directed towards Christ and His saints.

On a related issue, some Christians may object to the veneration of images of the saints since they believe that honor should be directed towards God alone and not towards Mary or the saints (1 Tim. 1:17). This objection arises from a confusion between divine honor (adoration - supreme honor proper only for God) and respectful honor proper for men. According to the Bible, the people of God bowed down before King David to show him honor (2 Sam. 24:20; 1 Chron. 29:20; 21:21). Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:7 fell prostrate before Elijah showing him reverence for being a prophet of God. In the Ten Commandments, we are told to honor our mother and father (Deut. 5:16). Even Jesus defended and obeyed this Commandment (Mark 7:9-13; Luke 2:51). At least for Mary, our honor to her is in imitation of Jesus, her Son (1 Cor. 11:1). The Church allows for the veneration of the saints and their images as long as it remains honor proper for men. It is good to honor the saints for their love and trust in God (Matt. 22:31-32; Heb. 11:1-12:1).

"The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the "Second Commandment". The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God's Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments. If this difference is scandalous, it would be interesting to know what the author of the booklet thought of Jesus Christ when He reduced God's Commandments to the Two Great Commandments in Matt. 22:36-40. Finally the Church strictly condemns the adoration (divine worship) of statues, images or even the saints, since this is idolatry and in direct violation of the First Commandment. For Christians a crucifix should not be considered merely as a statue of Jesus hanging on a cross, but as a reminder of the high cost of our salvation as well as His words to us:

"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." [Mark 8:34]"

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/graven.html - http://users.binary.net/polycarp/graven.html

If anyone has any questions or further comments on this subject, I would be happy to try to answer them, or clarify this explanation.

God's Peace.

The Eastern Church has very strict rules on what can be shown and how, but to answer Israfil.  No Prayers are not made TO the Icons, Statues or Mosaics.  Instead they are reminders and focal points.  I'm looking for a story about Icons and a Mongol from Russia.  The story goes something like this....

When sacking a village, the Mongol was tormenting a priest.  He demanded the Priest tell him about his "faith" and the Priest replied.  I will not tell you......But I will show you.  And he took the illiterate man into the Church and before him were all the stories of the Bible.  The Mongol saw and was converted. 

Of course this is legend, but throughout MOST of Christianity, the masses were illiterate and even if they weren't, they often did not read the language of the Scriptures, Latin or Old Church Slavic.  Thus, Icons, Statues, and Mosaics were important teaching tools.  When Christianity came to the Slavs, they did not even have a written language.  St Cyril (cyrillic) and St Methodius had to develop one for them.

http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/ikonidol.htm - http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/ikonidol.htm  

Ikons or idols?

Many Protestants, on visiting an Orthodox Church, are struck by the number of pictures, called ikons. In long-established churches, ikons cover just about all the available wall space and there are also stands with portable ikons. The visitor will notice that members of the church kiss these when they enter the building, and that many bow and touch the ground with their right hand before they kiss the ikons.

Some Protestants are shocked by this, and have been heard to say that Orthodox churches are full of "idols". And if they say this in the presence of Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox are inclined to dismiss the Protestants as heretics and iconoclasts.

During the first centuries of Christianity, Christians held different opinions about pictures of Christ and the apostles. Some rejected representational art, or were uneasy about it, believing that it was prohibited in the scriptures. Others accepted it, and ikons came to be used more commonly in churches. The issue was not resolved until he iconoclastic controversy of the 8th and 9th centuries.

The Iconoclastic Controversy

Those opposed to the use of ikons were increasingly drawn from the heretical fringes of Christianity: the monophysites, who downplayed the human nature of Christ; those with gnostic tendencies, who thought that all matter was evil, and later the possible influence of Islam. The emperor Leo III believed that the use of ikons was hindering the conversion of Muslims and Jews to Christianity, and ordered that they be destroyed. The church was divided, and those who retained ikons (the iconodules) were persecuted by those who destroyed the ikons (the iconoclasts). After the death of the Emperor Leo IV in 780 his widow, the Empress Irene, encouraged the calling of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicaea), which met in 787. The Council finally settled the issue from the theological point of view, and defined the way in which ikons were to be used, and carefully distinguished between the proper use and the misuse of ikons (which would be idolatry).

Many of the theological contributions to settle the dispute came from outside the empire, one of the most notable being that of St John of Damascus. His contribution was all the more significant since he lived in a place under Muslim rule.

Though the Church had settled the matter theologically, there was still opposition to ikons from the secular power, and some of the later emperors also supported iconoclasm.

The meaning of ikons

One of the things that persuaded the Church to accept ikons was John 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." When God became incarnate in human form, when the Word became flesh, then men could see the incarnate God in the flesh, and Christ was the image of God. A picture of Christ, then, was a picture of the incarnate God.

Not only was Christ himself depicted in ikons, however, but so were the saints of the past. When Christians gathered to worship, the ikons of the saints helped to make them aware that we are "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1). The ikons therefore helped to make visible the invisible. They were also a reminder that the Church is a community not bounded by space and time. The ikons remind us that in Christ we have fellowship, communion, with Christians of other times and places.

This is perhaps seen most dramatically in the Paschal Vigil, where we celebrate the resurrection of Christ. Members of the congregation come forward to greet the priest with a kiss, and they also kiss the book of the gospels, the deacon, the ikon of the risen Christ, and one another. We greet the risen Christ and our fellow Christians, both those who are with us in the flesh, and those whose presence is seen through their ikons.

Dead saints?

At this point some Protestants raise another objection. They object to the idea that we should either ask the dead to pray for us, or that we should pray for them. They see this as interposing dead saints as mediators between ourselves and God. Most Orthodox Christians find this objection very difficult to understand. St Paul insists that death cannot separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38-39). Those who raise this particular objection seem to be revelling in being the most pitiable of all men (I Corinthians 15:18-19), for did not our Lord Jesus Christ himself say that "he who lives and believes in me shall never die"? Orthodox Christians therefore usually find such objections incomprehensible, and think that those who make them are denying the fundamentals of the Christian faith, yet still claiming to be Christians.

Windows into heaven

When Christians gather for the Divine Liturgy, they gather at a place on earth, but it is also a place where earth meets heaven. We have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, where millions of angels have gathered for the festival, with the whole church where everyone is a first-born son and a citizen of heaven, with the spirits of the saints who have been made perfect (Hebrews 12:22-23), and when we enter a temple where all the walls are covered with ikons of Christ and the saints and angels, this is made visible to our senses.

The ikons are not simply for decoration; nor are they purely didactic, to teach the scriptures to the illiterate (though they do these things). Their primary purpose is to enable us to see what is normally unseen, to make visible what is normally invisible. So ikons are an intrinsic part of our faith; they are evidence of things hoped for (Hebrews 11:1).

So when the iconoclastic controversy finally ended, Orthodox Christians celebrated the "Triumph of Orthodoxy", and still do so, on the first Sunday of Lent each year, going in procession around the church with ikons.

Veneration and worship

We honour the ikons and greet those depicted there. But the ikon is a window, not a solid statue. The honour given to the image passes to the prototype. We may keep a photograph of someone we love, and, especially when we are far away from that person, the photo reminds us of them. We might even kiss the photo, if the absence has lasted a long time, but it is not the photo that we love, but the person shown in it. So with the ikons. We do not love them for themselves (which would be idolatry), but for the ones depicted on them.

So the Seventh Ecumenical Council decreed that ikons may be venerated, with honour (proskinesis) but we may not give them the worship (latria) that belongs to God alone. That latria is the "latry" in "idolatry".

The veneration of ikons, therefore, is nothing like idolatry, because it is ikons that draw us to worship God. Idolatry, on the contrary, is offering worship (latria) to something other than God, to something that is a substitute for God in our mind. Idolatry is when we worship and serve creatures rather than the creator (Romans 1:25), the gift rather than the giver. Ikons are not idols (except to those who collect them as works of art or as investments). Idols are created things that we substitute for the creator in our minds and hearts and loyalties. Wealth, or a luxurious life-style, loyalty to or family or country, the love of power, these things can become idols. In the world in which we live, idolatry is all around us. Ikons, however, lead us out of idolatry and back to God.

Bibliography

Ouspensky, Leonid & Lossky, Vladimir. 1989. The meaning of icons. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Dear Patty,

I am wanting to post again the same as in the other forum.

You wrote:"worship" an inanimate object is idolatry....a grievous sin.

I am glad to know you understand this. My question was before:But what is your perception of idiolatry? You listed above. Thank you for that. Often Christians think  idolatry is for example only the Golden Calf with Mousa pbuh like I said before.

I had another quesiton from the other forum which I will list. You never answered with all what you typed above. I will ask again :I have another question which is:When you pray to God what picture comes in your head if any? Perhaps Jesus pbuh? Most all Christian faiths pray to God thru Jesus pbuh right? If your answer is "Yes" when you do pray to God a picture of what you think Jesus pbuh looks comes in your head. So, please explain  how do you differentiate that as not being idiolatry? How do you know what he looks like?

Even your picture you have on this website which is supposed to represent Jesus pbuh and Mary God be pleased with her how is that not a form of idiolatry?  I would like to state again that idiolatry is not necessarily to kneel and bow to a golden object which I know you know is wrong. But to comment idiolatry when having a picture in your mind of what you have not seen and praying asking for guidance, etc....well is. Not an opinion. Is a fact. 

Again, many Christians even in my Catholic Family prays to God thru objects (pictures in their heads etc) when they pray:and I know they don't see that as a greivous sin, but it is. Because they do not know what Jesus pbuh looks like.

 Even in my Mothers house their are many different pictures of Jesus different from the other. All is idiloatry.

Patty, please take the time to answer my question that I listed on the other forum and again above. When you pray do you have a picture in your head?

I hope I maybe helped in your quest for the truth. Inshallah (If God Bless)

Hello Suzanne,

You stated this:

"Because they do not know what Jesus pbuh looks like."

No, we don't know "exactly" what he looks like.....but we have a pretty good idea, based on his ethnicity, where he came from, his race, what men looked like during that time, etc.  We know from pictures which have been handed down from the 1st century CE.  We know what features people from the Middle East have, which of course allow for some varience....unless they're identical twins. But seriously, we do have a good idea.

Gotta run....more later.

My interpretation of idolatry, as defined by the 2nd commandment, is the following.

Any image that is directly worshipped for any property or power associated with it.

Yahweh is a jealous God who wanted the full worship of the Israelites and commanded this so that they would not build a golden calf.  The 2nd commandment is directed entirely at ideas associated with the golden calf story.  The Israelites worshipped the calf and attributed their success to it rather than to Yahweh.

Catholics do not attribute any miraculous activity to statues, images, or any other earthly device.  They attribute all divine inspiration and interaction to God.  Statues and images are only as idolatrous as the worshipper allows them to be.  If the worshipper allows a statue to become his god, he puts divine power into the statue itself.

This commandment also has something to do with making other things your god.  Who among us makes money our god?  Who makes revenge our god?  Who makes false prophets their gods?  You are missing the point of God's direction if you sincerely believe that he only meant you should not make images and statues your god.

Do you allow earthly concerns to be your god?  Do you live for this world?  The 2nd commandment is concerned with keeping the focus of worship and living on God and not on earthly things.

Jesus told us to worship him.  He said this in the following verse:

"...and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind..."this is the great and first commandment!" (Mark 12:30, NIV). 

I can't say I see a picture of what I perceive as Jesus (as we have been shown he would possibly look) when I'm praying.  I am "talking" to Jesus when I pray, and not necessarily in Church.  I pray to Him a lot when I'm at home, or out in the woods surrounded by the beauty of nature.  I am worshipping Him as I pray to Him.  Sometimes I am totally silent and listen for Him to speak to me through the Holy Spirit.  He said, Be still, and know that I am God."

If you have pictures of your dear friends and relatives, are you worshipping them by looking at their pictures?  No.  You are remembering how much they mean to you, how many good times you've had with them, and how much you love them.  But you are not worshipping them.  Or, if you are, you need to stop it.

So I hope I have somewhat answered your question.  If you want more clarification, please let me know.

God's Peace.

Dear Israfil, you posted this:

"So I take it that when you're in a Cathedral you do not pray to the various statutes in them?"

That's right.  We do NOT pray to the statues in the Cathedral or Church.  We are reminded of that holy person, and we respect the person, that's it.

God's Peace.

Patty wrote: Dear Israfil, you posted this: "So I take it that when you're in a Cathedral you do not pray to the various statutes in them?" That's right.  We do NOT pray to the statues in the Cathedral or Church.  We are reminded of that holy person, and we respect the person, that's it. God's Peace.

I agree with patty and Angela.

About the looks of Jesus, patty can you tell me why then that any pictures of jesus, is caucasian, white skin person, I have not seen any pictures of jesus looking middle eastern. Even status that are made are normally with blonde hair & long and is caucasian.

Angel asked the following:

"About the looks of Jesus, patty can you tell me why then that any pictures of jesus, is caucasian, white skin person, I have not seen any pictures of jesus looking middle eastern. Even status that are made are normally with blonde hair & long and is caucasian."

There are many, many pictures of Jesus portrayed as a man of Middle Eastern descent.  I have never seen a blond haired Jesus.  People from the Middle East have different degrees of color to their skin, just as do Europeans or Americans.  Some are light, and some are dark.  I don't know with 100% certainty what Jesus really looked like, but I have done some research and have a fairly reasonable idea.  Here are two which just happen to be my favorites, for no particular reason, other than I believe these are fairly representative of a Jewish male of the time of Jesus:

                       http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.corder.org/pic.d/Jesus.Face.Ts.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.altbaldspot.com/forums/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D3763&h=200&w=150&sz=27&hl=en&start=384&tbnid=haALIklsnzJb3M:&tbnh=99&tbnw=74&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJesus%26start%3D380%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN -

It really doesn't matter all that much what He looks like anyway, does it?  He taught us the way to peace, love, and compassion.  He was Jesus Christ. 

God's Peace.

Angel said:

"Thanks patty, I perfer the pic on the right, that one has a more friendly face "

Yeah....me too!

Peace to you Angel!

DavidC wrote: Nowdays an artist would be criticized if he depicted Jesus as a 21st century person.

but, but he wasn't  I don't think he has a century, I mean wasn't his birth year 0  

Dear Suzanne,

Those are your precious beliefs, and I truly respect your right to them.  My beliefs are just as precious, correct, and wonderful to me.  We will just have to agree to disagree.  I pray to God and Jesus with a sincere heart.  I ask for mercy and forgiveness.  In my humble, inadequate way, I strive to do His will in my life.  Yes, I have many paintings which show my deep respect and love for Jesus.  I do not worship the pictures at all.  I appreciate the beauty I see in them.  Big, big difference.  My husband is an artist and has "written" as it is called beautiful Byzantine Icons.  Done with gold leaf, as that is his specialty. 

So I wish you all the best in your faith, I sincerely mean that!  I wish you find all that is good and beautiful in this life, and Allah/God grants you many blessings....and your family!

Peace be with you.....

Patty wrote: Dear Suzanne, Those are your precious beliefs, and I truly respect your right to them.  My beliefs are just as precious, correct, and wonderful to me.  We will just have to agree to disagree.  I pray to God and Jesus with a sincere heart.  I ask for mercy and forgiveness.  In my humble, inadequate way, I strive to do His will in my life.  Yes, I have many paintings which show my deep respect and love for Jesus.  I do not worship the pictures at all.  I appreciate the beauty I see in them.  Big, big difference.  My husband is an artist and has "written" as it is called beautiful Byzantine Icons.  Done with gold leaf, as that is his specialty.  So I wish you all the best in your faith, I sincerely mean that!  I wish you find all that is good and beautiful in this life, and Allah/God grants you many blessings....and your family! Peace be with you.....

Hey Patty, I didn't know your husband could write Icons.  Would he do a commission????  There is an Icon that is extremely difficult to find that I would like....I'll PM you about it.

I'm sure he would be glad to.  He has a beautiful one of the Maris Stella.  "Mary, Star of the Sea"

He's rather swamped right now, and has many to complete, but drop me a PM and we'll talk.

Angel wrote: Patty, Is that one of your husband's pictures ?

It's a copy of one of my husband's pictures.  This is how he paints icons. 

Patty wrote: Angel wrote: Patty, Is that one of your husband's pictures ? It's a copy of one of my husband's pictures.  This is how he paints icons.

nice, very artistic

I find Catholics to be very iconoclastic in regards to religious figures. Patty popular consensus tells a much different story than how you're explaining it. Perhaps you are speaking for yourself and not Catholicism. You say that you do not venerate the images in the churches but respect them, however your late Pope John II (whom I respect) constantly kissed the crucifix stick that he is always seen with. Although I'm sure his intentions are purely different then what I'm presenting here the point is regardless what you call it it is still a veneration of an image. Mexican Catholics constantly worship Mary and many of them portray her in their churches and kiss at the feet of these statues and actually talk with these statues. I see them cry and bow before these statues.

Catholic history as I learned in Art class had some beautiful painting and sculptures but we know historically that the Catholic empire in Europe was very iconoclastic which is also became apart of the Catholic faith itself. The Jews have no image of Moses except through the images of late Jewish artist. Also when I see painting of Jesus on the walls it sickens me. Maybe because I know the history why Jesus is portrayed as a light skinned figure with long flowing hair......

The bad part about all religion is that ther eis too much cultural influence in them.....This is why portraying images even if its for pure intent is still bad. We cannot avoid being biased because we see things according to our own perspective.

DavidC wrote: I imagine when the Pope gets off stage his crucifix stick gets parked in a broom closet or umbrella stand.  It's not like he is waving the thing around a'la Harry Potter. Now can we discuss idolatry as it relates to that Dutch cartoon?  Or the way some Muslims venerate their physical copy of the Qu'ran?

I know you are being sarcastic, but seriously, this is why the Prophet forbade drawing religious symbols and emblems. People have a very real need to visualise and texturalise things. They want to be able to see and feel for themselves.

It is not much of a leap from drawing a picture of a Prophet, to visualising that Prophet when you pray, to praying to that vision. In order to avoid this all together, it was just forbidden.

To me, the Quran is a book. It is the Word of God in print, so it should be treated with respect, but it is a book. It is not a holy object.

As for the cartoons of the Prophet, come on. They were meant to be as offensive as they could possibly be, then reprinted to cause further offense. That really has nothing to do with idolatry. It has to do with purposefully denigrating a religion.

BTW, I have heard the the Pope soft-shoes it with his stick: a la Fred Astaire...

DavidC wrote: [quote]BTW, I have heard the the Pope soft-shoes it with his stick: a la Fred Astaire...[/quote I needed that...great visuals!

And he doesn't take off his hat....

I posted exactly how Catholics feel about the statues, pictures, painting, etc.  You can choose to believe they worship these items, or you can choose to believe we appreciate the beauty in them, and we respect and honor them. 

Anything else I would say, as a life-long Catholic, would not mean anything to you.  You know more about Catholicism than a Catholic, so that's fine.  You're quite free to believe what you want.

And it's true, no one knows what Jesus really looked like.  We have ideas of what he may have looked like, and that is what we use in our pictures, statues, etc. 

As a devoted Catholic I can truly tell you that for a Catholic to worship the STATUE would be to deliberately send our souls to hell, as this is a mortal sin in our religion.  How sad that so many really nice, intelligent people choose to believe lies and twist the truth of the Catholic faith.  I would never consider doing such a thing to Islam.  For us to worship any inanimate object is commiting the great sin of blasphemy also.  You do not know the truth about the Catholic doctrine in this matter.

Peace to you.

Patty,

I was teasing about the Pope. I hope you didn't get offended. My Grandfather and Aunt were very strict Catholics. My mother went to Catholic school, but it didn't stick.

My Aunt was a beautiful woman, and I loved her very much. She was always my favorite and she had the kindest heart of anyone. I could never believe anything bad of her. I do not believe for a second she worshipped statues or idols.

But, I do live in Texas, and have seen Catholics here making shrines to trees, windows, and other objects where they believe they can see images of Jesus or Mary. In fact, this is not uncommon here.

Perhaps this is not mainstream Catholicism. I don't know. I do know that priests have held masses at some of these shrines.

Dear Mishmish said:

"I was teasing about the Pope. I hope you didn't get offended."

Of course it saddens me when people make jokes about the Holy Father.  Why would you think otherwise?  If I were to joke about Mohammed (which I never would) do you think it might bother you?

The (mainly) Hispanic people believe they see many visions of Mary and some of the Saints.  Mostly it is not accepted as Truth by the Officials of the Catholic Church.  It takes years and years for a vision to be proven as authentic, or not.  Like the little girl who saw Our Lady at Fatima, or the three little children who saw Mary at Madjagori (sp).  But no one can prevent them from saying what they believe they saw.  The priests out of respect will come say a Mass.  Very few "visions" are taken as the truth.....any vision is subjected to years of study before a decision is made as to its authenticity.  These are good people, perhaps a little overzealous, who would really LOVE to see a vision, and (imo) convince themselves that they have.  Is it true?  Only God Himself really knows.

It's no problem, Mishmish.  I know you are a fair and decent person with a good heart.

Peace be with you always.....

Israfil wrote: And I'm not? I assume your comment before the one addressed to Mishmish was addressed to me. In response to your comment I have worked in a Catholic hospital for 6 years. Every single day I had to talk with the fathers and nuns of the Hospital! When I take breaks to pray I came into the chapel with various statues and yes I know the intial thought of Catholics is to respect religious figures of history but one can do that without creating images! one does not need to create an image of the saint Mary (the holy Mother of Jesus) to respect her. You can bow and show respect without having to kneel in front of a statue. Can you not?

Dear Israfil,  Certainly you are a most kind and decent person too.  I just got caught up in the post from Mishmish.  You are one the most kindest and good hearted here on this forum.  Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely up to you, of course.  But we do NOT worship these pictures, statues, and paintings.  We kneel in front of them because it seems (at least to us) to be more sacred and holy to kneel to pray to God.  We do try to respect and honor the Holy Mother Mary and the Angels and Saints.  Looking at a beautiful picture of them is a way to "feel" closer to them, to "feel" peaceful.  It's like when I look at my tiny granddaughter.  She lives very far away from me, but when I look at her picture, I feel closer to her.  I love her and honor and respect her for the beautiful little human she is.  I DO NOT WORSHIP HER.  I hope you can see the difference.  I have done my best.  And it's utimately your personal decision to believe what you want.  That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?

All God's Peace to You!

If you said the Prophet Mohammed danced soft shoe I would not be offended. But, Muslims don't believe Mohammed is holy or a conduit to God. He is a man.

I am not sure, other than the dancing, what I wrote that has upset you so much. I merely answered DavidC about the cartoons and the Quran.

Annie posted this:

"Hi Patty,

Israfil is a real gentleman and a credit to his religion.

Annie"

He absolutely is.  He is an outstanding example of how we should all be tolerant of others, kind, and understanding.  I really like him!

Peace be with you.....

Assalamu alaikum Family,

I really love this discussion, But if you really wanna know alittle about what Jesus(PBUH) looked like just turn to Revelations 1:13-15 and you can get a glimpse that Jesus(PBUH) was not Caucasian

No, Jesus was a Jew.  He would have had Olive skin, dark hair, but it could have been any shade from black, to dark brown to dishwater blond.  I've seen ethic Jews with all these hair colors.  He was probably dark eyed, I'm not sure if green or hazel are prominent among the Mediterranean but its possible.  It really depends on this bloodline through Mary and such.  Really, just because the picture on the wall shows someone more Caucasian doesn't mean anyone really believes that.  Besides, race is a by product of the environment we all live in.  Dark skin denote more exposure to the sunlight, blond hair less, heavy lids more cold and wind....but in the end we are all human and so someone's outward appearance has no bearing on their soul or purpose.  Muhammed could have been black as night and we'd never know unless there was some description of him.  Jesus was a Jew....thus we must assume he had a beard like an orthodox Jew and he probably had long hair since that was the style for most men back then. 

(On a side note.  I would like to state, there are very few people who are CAUCASIAN....unless you're family is from the Caucases, like Georgia, Armenia, etc...then you're European decent.  Thanks...just wanted to get nit picky for a minute)

DavidC wrote: I don't think the issue about images in Islam has anything to do with idolatry.  It seems more about not imitating God by creating something. The Prophet Muhummad scolded Aisha for embroidering an animal on a pillow.  That's not idolatry; Aisha was a pious woman.

Actually it does. The making of statues, religious emblems, and the raising of graves was forbidden to keep people from turning them into places of worship.

The drawing of pictures of animate objects was forbidden for this reason and to keep people from feeling pride of creation.

Aisha was pious, but what is forbidden is forbidden for everyone.

Christians have always believed that Jesus is from the Middle East.  We've never believed he was a Caucasian.  He is often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth.  I don't think of him as light complexioned or light haired.  Just the opposite.  Actually, I'm more concerned with His teachings than His looks.

God's Peace.

Peopel we must understand that Arabia like the people of Europe before the coming of the Elightenment period believed in all sorts of things. You have Soothesayers (much like some today) who will offer advice and predictions on the future. You have poets such as those that existed in Mecca that would use the art form of words to conduct diplomacy. Even in some battle Muslims would use poets to ridicule their enemies before battle! What it boils down to it the expression of faith. God being close to us knows that we do not worship pictures or graven images. If this is truly a wrong thing why does God give us talents of artistry? To have aesthetic artistry is not a spontaneous gift it exist from birth. In the early years of my life I have concluded that God has so many forms to other people and people see God in a variety of ways. The important thing is to know that people have faith in something.

In the age we live in today to maintain just a belief in something is so difficult so its important to at least start there.

Thank you, Israfil.  Very good post.  (My husband is an artist, and I know he was born with this creative gift.  Pictures he had drawn of cowboys on their horses when he was only 6 years old look like a drawing done by an adult.)

Gods' Peace.

But the pictures of Jesus are always the ones of a white blond man with blue eyes....

STAFELLAH!

Muslima:  up to this point, I have, with increasing ongoing and daily difficulty, restrained myself from responding to your ever growing posts (160 something in 10 days - get a life woman!), but now I can keep quiet no longer.  No, I'm not Muslim, I disagree with almost everything you have written (and by that token you may happily send me to hell - at least I'll have chance to talk with intelligent and open-minded people.  Really, I don't mind. I believe in God, and you know what?  God believes in me!).  We have all been too polite on this forum to tell you what we really think (and wouldn't you just love it if I did!)  Your posts are counter to every attempt at bridge building I have ever learned - and it is for that very reason I joined this forum, as has just about everyone else whose posts I have read here in the last three weeks, (just two more weeks have I  been here than you!)  I, at least have had the respect to listen to those who have had this interaction much longer than you have. What kind of affrontery barges its way to the front and pushes aside those who through respect and conflict and open interlocution have achieved a genuine respect for each other regardless of their differencies. I am appalled at your effrontery! To the topic (one of the many you have pushed you way into:  Daniel Dworsky take note): Every religion makes a mistake in trying to show an image of the Divine.  How can we?  How dare we? I agree. Just as we hold ourselves in jeopardy when we try to put a divine message into words.  Language is man's construct - and forgive me please, my other Muslim friends, but I am really angry at this point - when we put images into human language we are limited by those words, and then have to qualify and justify them, (and what happens when we attemptto translate them!  Even worse - I don't know about translations of the Qur'an, but we sure have twisted a lot of points in the New Testament - lost in translation, and how to rectify it?) and I wouldn't be surprised if the Messenger Mohammad (whom I grow to respect more and more each and every day I am on this Forum) knew those limitations. But how else to bring God's word to us? And how we have sullied it with out interpretations and additions!

Read the Tao te Ching:  "He who speaks, does not know: he who knows does not speak".  And why not? Puny Human Language!

Yet, I am forced to speak.  I chose my Forum name carefully: "She who tells the truth but whom no-one believes."  Cursed by Apollo for rejecting his advances.

Yes, there will be those of you who will vote me off.  I don't care!  I have achieved what I set out to do, or if I have not.....well, that's another story, and perhaps a sad one.  I have learned much, and in a short period have learned to love many:  Herjihad, Lameesh, Angela, Patty, and Mishmish....what you have taught me will stay with me forever!  But I am tired of this "Muslima" who is totally incapable of seeing anything outside of her own, sad, limited, and unfulfilled world.

I have described myself elsewhere as a Happy Heretic:  No, Patty, you and I would have a lot to disagree with but I respect your beliefs: Angela, you are wonderful, and although I could never be a Mormon I have known some and I resect you enormously:  Herjihad:  I think we may be twins (never mind other "twin" conspiracy theories!), Mishmish, you have made me think in a short time more deeply than my Philosophy professors made me do in 7 years! 

Right, Cassandra has taken several deep breaths, and will never respond to Muslima again.  I advise you to think otherwise before she undermines you all!

Whatever your views, please PM me, if you like.  This woman has had enough attention already

P.S. It's the end of term.  I have desperate kids and Mums on my doorstep worried whether they will be accepted into next year  Important on a global scale?  Not if Bush gets his way.  But for me, yes.  This is time I don't have, but having had my say, I consider it well spent.  Moderators, "estoy a sus ordenes."

  -  Cassandra, somewhere in Spain ( and happy as a clam!)

Cassandra:

BRAVO!

Israfil said:

"However as it is socially taught around the world, to have lighter skin is to be more bautific than having darker skin...."

Really?  I've never thought that.  Since I originally came from Londonderry, Ireland, I have blond hair and blue eyes.  I get a terrible sunburn if I'm out long!  Even when I was a little girl I always felt the dark complexioned people were the beautiful ones.

I don't care if Jesus is green and purple....His teachings are what matters.  Not  His looks. 

(I guess we're all beautiful in God's sight.)

God's Peace.

Israfil wrote: DavidC wrote: Muslima wrote: But the pictures of Jesus are always the ones of a white blond man with blue eyes.... STAFELLAH! Part of the reason Jesus is depicted as he is (in all cultures) is that as we were made in the image and likeness of God, we depict him as ourselves.  Look at Caravaggio, Rembrandt, etc - all depictions were made as contemporaries.  Wouldn't you find it more objectionable if we were to depict Jesus as how he really looked?  Personally, I think he looked like Arafat   Brother DavidC although that is ideal I don't think that is the case...... Most cultures look at God as they see themselves yes, however many Catholics I talk to at the Catholic hospital I used to work at used to say that the images on churches throughout America are partially accurate. If Jesus had feet the color of brass I would assume his complexion to be darker than the average "Anglo." However as it is socially taught around the world, to have lighter skin is to be more bautific than having darker skin....

After the shroud of Turin was discovered, pictures of Christ began to imitate it.  It is only recently that the shroud was proven to be a fake.  This is why Jesus looks the way he often does in pictures.

Even if Jesus looked like Geraldo Rivera, I'd still believe in his message though.

But I sure hate Geraldo.

I find olive skin the prettiest....oooooh and those African women who are so dark their skin looks like ebony.  White skin is not what its cracked up to be.  It burns, gets splotchy and shows every hair and blemish.

But, I've never viewed Christ as blond haired and blue eyed.  I would say most pictures I've seen follow Aquinian's theory of the Shroud of Turin. 

Did you know the reason Icons have that odd look to them is because it was forbidden in early Eastern Orthodoxy to paint a living person.  The odd features were to separate them from the actual person.  And they all look the same (for the most part), its the clothing, setting and pose that lets you know who it is.

Angela wrote:

"Did you know the reason Icons have that odd look to them is because it was forbidden in early Eastern Orthodoxy to paint a living person."

Why was this forbidden Angela?

Here is a portion of an article.  I suggest you read the whole thing Mishmish, because the Orthodox Church gets a bit lengthy when explaining things.

In formulating a theology of icons, the Fathers addressed two distinct periods of iconoclastic misbelief: the first extending from the outbreak of officially supported iconoclasm to the Seventh �cumenical Synod (730-787); the second period beginning about 815 and ending with the restoration of the images under the empress St. Theodora (843). During the first period, the main spokesman for the iconodules, though by no means the only one, was St. John of Damascus (ca. 675-ca. 749).  In the second period, the same can be said about St. Theodore the Studite (759-826). The First Iconoclastic Period. St. John Damaskinos, in his apologetic discourses, concerns himself mainly with the accusation of idolatry leveled against the Orthodox by the iconoclasts, who, of course, had in mind the Old Testamental prohibitions against the making and worship of graven images. Examining the relevant   passages from the Old Testament, St. John sees these Scriptural prohibitions as providentially anticipating their own abrogation. The prohibition in Deuteronomy against the fabrication and deification of images of creatures, be they beasts, birds, creeping things, fish, or astronomical bodies�all of which are simply creatures, or created things�, is immediately preceded by an explanatory passage which justifies the prohibition and, at the same time, intimates its undoing: "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.... Therefore, take good heed to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire" (Dt. 4: 12,15). "What is mysteriously indicated in these passages of Scripture," St. John asks: It is clearly a prohibition of representing the invisible God. But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human aspect. When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, becomes visible, then represent the likeness of Him who has appeared.... When He who, having been the consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2: 6-7), thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint  and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible. Paint His birth from the Virgin, His Baptism in the Jordan, His Transfigura tion on Mt. Tabor.... Paint everything with words and colors, in books and on boards. (3) Thus, if God is directly revealed in the Old Testament only by word ("you heard the sound of words, but saw no form" [Dt. 4: 12]), for St. John He is made manifest in the New Testament by both word and image, and so must be depicted and conveyed ("Paint everything with words and with colors, in books and on boards"). St. John of Damascus and, of course, Orthodox in general thus see a quantum distinction between the Old and New Testaments. Quoting St. John, who in turn cites the Apostle Paul, Leonid Ouspensky, the great Russian commentator on iconographic theory and theology, puts this very succinctly: [The Israelites had] ...a mission consisting in preparing and prefigur ing that which was to be revealed in the New Testament. This is why there could be only symbolic prefigurations, revelations of the future. 'The law was not an image,' says St. John of Damascus, 'but it was like a wall which hid the image. The Apostle Paul also says: "The law was but a shadow [skian gar echon o nomos] of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities" (Hebrews 10:1).' In other words, it is the New Testament which is the true image of reality.... That which David and Solomon saw and heard was only prophetic prefigurations of that which was realized in the New Testa ment. Now, in the New Testament, man receives the revelation of the Kingdom of God to come and this revelation is given to him by the word and the image of the incarnate Son of God. The apostles saw with their carnal eyes that which was, in the Old Testament, only foreshadowed by symbols. (4) Hence there are three stages in God's post-lapsarian relations to man. The first is depicted in the Old Testament and is characterized by symbol and shadow�symbolic prefigurations of the "good things to come." The second stage is embodied in the New Testament, which is characterized by the iconic (by image). Here we have the "true form [eikon, or icon] of these realities." The third stage of this relationship will, of course, be the Kingdom of God to come, in which man will see reality itself, "face to face." Clearly, with regard to iconography, the "symbolic" can occupy only a secondary position, since the significant quality of an icon par excellence is the fact that it constitutes a real image of that which it depicts. The image is in some way a "true" form of the prototype, participating in it and integrally bound to it. In the second stage of the iconographic controversy, as we shall subsequently see, St. Theodore the Studite elucidated this profound relationship between image and prototype. But before examining this relationship, let us look at yet another aspect of the icon as St. John of Damascus understands it, that of iconic function. It is readily apparent from his writings that the depiction and veneration of icons is not, for St. John, something casual and optional. Both he and the iconodules in general envision the attack on sacred images as a veritable denial of Christ's Incarnation itself. For them, the iconoclastic controversy focuses on Christological issues, and those who reject the sacred images are but counterparts of the earlier Christian heretics who distorted or misrepresented the true nature of Christ and His Incarnation. Such a rejection is tantamount to a denial of man's salvation, for, the iconodules reasoned, in keeping with the tenets of Orthodox soteriology, salvation is possible only if man can partake of the Divine. If Christ was not fully God and man (Theanthropos), then man (a created being) can never come to partake of the Divine (of the uncreated). The fact that "the Word became flesh" is the very meaning of the icon, and to deny the use of the Church's icons, the iconodules further argued, is comparable to a denial of Sacred Scripture itself. The icon functions to reveal, embody, and express the Incarnation of Christ and the soteriological consequences thereof. The Scriptural message of the Incarnation and the icon are analogous, as two forms of Christian revelation, both acting to convey the salvific message to mankind: ...We who do not see Him [Christ] directly nor hear His words nevertheless listen to these words which are written in books and thus sanctify our hearing and, thereby, our soul. We consider ourselves fortunate and we venerate the books through which we hear these sacred works and are sanctified. Similarly, through His image we contemplate the physical appearance of Christ, His miracles, and His passion. This contemplation sanctifies our sight and, thereby, our soul. We consider ourselves fortunate and we venerate this image by lifting ourselves, as far as possible, beyond the physical appearance to the contemplation of divine glory. [Emphasis added.] (5) Whatever the particular faculty of perception (hearing or seeing), the net result is the same, the sanctification of the soul. Scripture and sacred images are both part of the redemptive plan. And this sanctification is precisely, again, the result of participation in the divine energies, so that "contemplation," in the passage above, might better read "participation." Thus, the iconoclastic challenge against the painting and veneration of icons does nothing other than jeopardize the Church's very teachings about the nature of Christ and, at the same time, the sanctification of the faithful, which are both accomplished and established through the function if the icon. The didactic and sacramental function of the icon is further developed by St. John as he continues the foregoing argument with specific reference to Orthodox anthropology:  Since we are fashioned of soul and body, and our souls are not naked spirits, but are covered, as it were, with a fleshly veil, it is impossible for us to think without using physical images. Just as we physically listen to perceptible words in order to understand spiritual things, so also by using bodily sight we reach spiritual contemplation. For this reason Christ assumed both soul and body, since man is fashioned from both. (6) The visible image, then, is just as inescapable and, in fact, as necessary as the audible word in spiritual life. This is because human beings are not "naked spirits," but are comprised of both immaterial and material components. These components, we should note, are ideally reconciled in the restored human being. Indeed, Orthodox thought arduously avoids any sort of dualism or the notion of an intrinsic or enduring opposition between spirit and matter or soul and body. Both the material and the immaterial find themselves on the same side of the chasm which separated the created and uncreated, this chasm being the only line of demarcation between qualitatively different realms.The material and the spiritual ideally exist in a harmonious (and in fact eternal), albeit hierarchic, relationship. They exist in a relationship which the icon reifies. We can see the link between the spiritual and material especially in the Orthodox view of death. Death, the separation of the body from the soul, is not for the Orthodox thinker�as it is in ancient Greek thought and much modern religious philosophy�a release or escape from the imprisonment of the spirit within the body, and thus something positive. Rather, as it was for the Jews, death is a tragedy linked to a violation, a tearing apart of man's proper nature, and it is transformed only in mystical imagery, when it is envisioned as the completion of one's baptism into the death of Christ. The full restoration of man in Paradise is realized ultimately by the proper restoration of the relationship between the material and spiritual in the linking of the soul once again with the body (though now a new and spiritual body�a body of spiritualized matter, as it were). The permanent harmonious relationship between the body and the soul, embodied in the material and spiritual bond which is the icon, accounts for the fact that man  must always relate to the spiritual through the physical, be it the visible image or the audible word, through which each of us is led to "spiritual contemplation," or any other Mystery of the Church. These two components will always necessarily be present. Let us cite the words of St. John of Damascus: "Likewise baptism is both of water and of Spirit. It is the same with communion, prayer, psalmody, candles, or incense; they all have a double significance, physical and spiritual." (7) As we have noted, the spiritual and the physical exist in a hierarchical relationship in man's restored state, the spiritual enjoying the ascendancy. Ideally, then, the body serves, and does not hinder, the spirit, as the latter worships, prays, psalmodizes, and performs good works or acts of asceticism and self-denial. If matter plays an important, or even essential, role in man's salvation, and if, to the extent that it rightly fulfills its role, it is to be esteemed, at the same time matter must not be equally esteemed with the spiritual. Otherwise, the proper hierarchical relationship between the spiritual and the physical would be broken down, if not reversed. It is an acknowledgement of such natural hierarchical structures that underlies St. John of Damascus' classical distinction between worship (or adoration), which is appropriate to God alone, and veneration (or honor), which is proper to the Saints, the Cross, icons, relics, etc.: Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all, there is adoration, which we offer to God, who alone by nature is worthy to be worshipped.... But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter.... I honor it, but not as God. (8) The veneration that is proper to everything instrumental in our salvation, other than God Himself, among which St. John also sees an hierarchical order of sorts, must be understood as a veneration rendered not to a thing (or person), in and of itself, but through the thing to that which sanctifies it�ultimately, of course, to God. We honor the Cross, therefore, because of the One crucified on it. We honor a Saint because of Him whose friend the Saint is. As for icons, We venerate images; [but] it is not veneration offered to matter, but to those who are portrayed through the matter in the images. Any honor given to an image is transferred to its prototype, as St. Basil says. (9)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orth_icon.aspx - http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orth_icon.aspx

There is this beautiful scene in the movie Malcolm X where he check out the way words are used by society (in this case american society but this is true for every society unfortunately) and how anything to do with the word Black is negative, evil, ugly and anything to do with white is from God, is good, is beautiful.

STAFELLAH!

This is an absolute sin! If you think that God created you in his imgae (STAFELLAH! JUST SAYING THIS IS A SIN FOR ME) then how come, people who have been christianised in Africa have also a white, blond, blue-eyes Jesus? I am never seen a black or dark skinned jesus anywhere.

Cassandra, of course we cannot agree because we are discussing politics and religion and we are very different. I do not have any problem with having a different point of view because I am comfortable being a Muslim.

I have the right to write a smuch as I want on this forum. Just as you do.

salam,

Muslima

Muslima wrote: This is an absolute sin! If you think that God created you in his imgae (STAFELLAH! JUST SAYING THIS IS A SIN FOR ME) then how come, people who have been christianised in Africa have also a white, blond, blue-eyes Jesus? I am never seen a black or dark skinned jesus anywhere.

Then you haven't looked so hard.  There are quite a number of people who believe in the "Black Jesus".  Sarah, the wife of Abraham was an Ethiopian.  I have seen Icons from that area that have very dark skin tones to both the Mother of Christ and Christ himself.  I on the other had have been thinking and I've never seen a "BLONDE" Jesus.  All the pictures I own or have seen have him with dark brown hair.  I've seen sandy brown hair, but never blonde. 

Jesus was a Jew from Nazerath, to think he was Black like someone from Central Africa is just as wrong as thinking he looked like a Scandinavian. 

Hello! Ever been to where Jesus lived???? I have, they are all dark, they are all Arab or of Arab decent. THey are not white with blue eyes and golden hair...........That is an artists rendition of what Christ looked like. Visit sometime and look at all the people. Even the Jews look like the Palestinians. They were all "arab".

Lameese

No akm, this is a right not a privilege.

Just like education: this is a right, not a privilege.

Some kind of people think everything the white man allows them to do is a privilege, but this is not correct. We all have rights.

ak_m_f

Your penguin's twin brother will be working for me, occasionally!

Lameese wrote: Hello! Ever been to where Jesus lived???? I have, they are all dark, they are all Arab or of Arab decent. THey are not white with blue eyes and golden hair...........That is an artists rendition of what Christ looked like. Visit sometime and look at all the people. Even the Jews look like the Palestinians. They were all "arab".   Lameese

And we're telling you that's the case!  I don't know any Christian (personally know) that believes Jesus was blond and blue eyed. 

A lot of people think he is blond. Once I laughed my head off because an English guy was saying that Jesus was white and blond.

My algerian friend said; can't you see this is the actor from hollywood who's blond?!

He still would not believe it, saying all the pictures he saw of jesus were like this and he knew what Jesus looked like.

Honestly, it was really funny!

Angela wrote: And we're telling you that's the case!  I don't know any Christian (personally know) that believes Jesus was blond and blue eyed.

You don't know many people, do you? Or you have not really been out much. Many many many think this is the case.  And I know a lot of them that do.

Lameese

akm, shall I say "images" instead of "pictures"?

I am not sure there was polaroid at his time;-) STAFELLAH!

Great post, Israfil!

Peace be with you.....

Israfil,

I tell you why you are not supposed to eat with your left hand. This is because you are supposed to use this hand to wash your parts in the washroom. Do you see what i mean? We wash with watter.

You cannot use your right hand to do that because you use your right hand to do Shahada, with the finger.

This is the reason why. We also say when you give money, only your right hand should know how much you are giving. of course, this is just to say you should not brag about it, but the right hand is suppowsed to do cleaner things if you want than the left hand.

Salam brother.

Dear Muslima,

What about left-handed Muslims?

bmzsp wrote: Dear Muslima, What about left-handed Muslims?

Intravenous feeding?