Is God A "white Man" In A Robe?

[InLove]

Awhhh...I've been holding back on asking this one. But....shall we also burn the books?

I have a feeling this is going to get me in some trouble. I see it as relevant to the conversation, but then, that's just me.

I love all y'all--just remember that, okay?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by InLove

Awhhh...I've been holding back on asking this one. But....shall we also burn the books?

I have a feeling this is going to get me in some trouble. I see it as relevant to the conversation, but then, that's just me.

I love all y'all--just remember that, okay?

Great question inlove!!!!!

It is very revelant to this thread and an excellent interjection.

The books are fine, it's the visual imagery that may or may not be in question.

Book burning might lead to more people having to talk to each other too...lol That was just a side joke if I offended anybody , I humbly apoligize.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN

-My point here is that it may become a necessity to curb all images of any diety to allow people to see those dieties as they wish, without any outside influence. Especially for our children.

Are you suggesting that we outlaw the depiction of God?

luna

[InLove]

Well, then, I worried about nothin' didn't I? I just thought maybe we were getting ready to build a bonfire...

InPeace,
InLove

Edit: hi luna--it's good to double post with you again...

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Are you suggesting that we outlaw the depiction of God?
luna

No, luna...I was just expressing that the depiction of GOD is not exclusive to just a few people.

My original statement to Q, was that

"The "depiction" business should be open to all and if not open to all then no one should be allowed to do it.

What that means is that all depictions should be allowed in the door or none at all.

Does that clear it up for you?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by InLove

Well, then, I worried about nothin' didn't I? I just thought maybe we were getting ready to build a bonfire...

InPeace,
InLove

Edit: hi luna--it's good to double post with you again...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

True, or make the "depiction" business open to "all" .
or "none" at all <<<<<<<<<<<<

I realize that people die over depictions.
Thier have been people killed for a lot less as I said before.
I also feel that it is a tragedy for people to be killed over something like a "depiction".

My point here is that it may become a necessity to curb all images of any diety to allow people to see those dieties as they wish, without any outside influence. Especially for our children.


That's why I put at the end of my statement or "none" at all

If you are asking my opinion...no curbing of freedom of expression, however, common sense should prevail in areas of sensitivity...that is only polite.

With freedom, comes "responsibility". Can't have one without the other...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Most of the world is aware that Muslims do not paint pictures or provide drawings of Muhamed...while there are some out there it is generally against their practices and considered desecrating their religion. We should consider honoring that. Others have prohibitions against burning crosses, and rightly so, we should consider honoring that as well. Some country is even rallying around trying to outlaw burning synthetic cloth made in chinese prisons if it is dyed with red and white stripes...go figure.

No, some just draw pictures of every other person, faith, or religion that does not suit them. And they have no bones about making it ugly. They want it to stop?

They (the few who take up most of the media light), should stop. No one likes to look bad...

They should consider honoring that.

Really wil...A muslim fanatic declares death to all who defame Muhammad?

Gee, perhaps we should declare death to all who threaten our very existence...no? Not politically correct I suppose.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If you are asking my opinion...no curbing of freedom of expression, however, common sense should prevail in areas of sensitivity...that is only polite.

With freedom, comes "responsibility". Can't have one without the other...

Not really askin for an opinion, just repling back to one of my statements that may have been mis-understood.

As far as "common sense" goes that may be a misnomer in this case because what's common to some may not be common to others.

I too feel sensitivity is necessary in the expression freedom. But againg what may be sensitive to some may not be that sensitive to others.

It is truly a balancing act when it comes to freedom of expression.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Freedom ends at the tip of one's nose.

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

It is truly a balancing act when it comes to freedom of expression.

Maybe it all comes down to, as wil was saying before, "drinking" all these things in a responsible manner. Teaching our children to appreciate, or at least teaching them to try and understand where these ideas and sentiments came from, and how it relates to our present existence. To do otherwise might mean "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". As in banning works like "Huckleberry Finn" or--to go even further with the illustration--the Bible or even the Gospel of Thomas?

I think the sentiment on the T-shirt is wonderful, YO, but I think what Q is trying to point out is that if you wear this shirt in certain situations, say, walking around in a Muslim community, there would be those who would appreciate what your heart wants to do, but many would most definitely not agree. And you could actually invite violence by some extremists. This could be true of some Christian communities, as well. This is sad, in my opinion, but too often the case. I am glad, however, that I do live in a society where it is lawful to wear the T-shirt of my choice. But I'm not going to try wearing it beyond certain temple gates, so to speak. Now, that might be what I'd call "irresponsible". (And I'd like to add that I thought it was extremely irresponsible of the cartoonists mentioned here and the media to keep pushing the stuff, knowing full well what the implications might be. Had they been ignorant, it might have been different, but they weren't. )

And Q, you never told us where you first saw that painting?

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by InLove

And Q, you never told us where you first saw that painting?

InPeace,
InLove

Which painting?

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Which painting?

"Our Pilot". I asked earlier. Just curious.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by InLove

Maybe it all comes down to, as wil was saying before, "drinking" all these things in a responsible manner.

Thats why I said that "It is a balancing act".

Originally Posted by InLove

Teaching our children to appreciate, or at least teaching them to try and understand where these ideas and sentiments came from, and how it relates to our present existence.

If that were true, then alot of the images that used to exsist would still be around. Prime example, smoking is deemed unhealthy and a lot of the "images" that we used to see on TV and on billboards have been curb or out right eliminated from the mainstream media. Cigarettes are still legal, but the only thing that has happened is that some of the "images" have been removed. Again, the images have been removed but not the cigarettes.

I agree that teaching about images is important. The images we use should be throughly examined before we use them, because it may be mistaken for disrespect and bad thing happen when that occurs. My point is that some of the images may be unhealthy for our children, and maybe for us as well. Originally, this Post started out questioning "Is GOD A "white Man" In A Robe?" and I guess we answered that question. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Originally Posted by InLove

To do otherwise might mean "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

How about if we just "change the bathwater" and leave the baby alone.

Originally Posted by InLove

As in banning works like "Huckleberry Finn" or--to go even further with the illustration--the Bible or even the Gospel of Thomas?

No one said "ban the books" This thread is not about banning anything, It's about the images we have or have been "trained" to have when it comes to picturing "dieties" and questioning that "imagery" As for Huck Finn, I found that book to be total offensive. I would not let my child read it. I do tell her about some of the "racisim" I have experienced and let her know that it could happen, but I surely would not draw her a "picture" of the people who I think could be racists toward her. I let her know that she should take each individual as they come.

Originally Posted by InLove

I think the sentiment on the T-shirt is wonderful, YO, but I think what Q is trying to point out is that if you wear this shirt in certain situations, say, walking around in a Muslim community, there would be those who would appreciate what your heart wants to do, but many would most definitely not agree. And you could actually invite violence by some extremists. This could be true of some Christian communities, as well.

This thread is about images and how they are precieved and reacted to and questions weather we should have them at all. It is not about taking the world by storm by wearing something you "positively" know will be offinsive to others. I was never questioning Q, about weather images can be offensive or not. I just asked "Is GOD A white Man In a Robe?". I am sure Q, realizes that some images can lead "some" people to do bad things. I do too. No suicied missions here, just a discussion of the effects of images on us and our children.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

By the way Inlove, have you seen the movie "Malcolm X". It's pretty good check it out when you can. I think his book should be placed next to Huck Finn.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

By the way Inlove, have you seen the movie "Malcolm X". It's pretty good check it out when you can. I think his book should be placed next to Huck Finn.

I agree, unless you are suggesting that we ban them (and I think both have been in the past). I thought Malcolm X was great. The book, the movie, and the man. I also think that Mark Twain was trying to say something beyond the obvious in his writings.

I'm truly sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to. I see art (I include literature) as a kind of roadmap of the ages. It points to history. I agree with you that Huck Finn should not be presented to children because of the nature of the language. But you know, think of who the real hero in that book was.

And I was not equating it in any way with any holy book.

And I can't seem to put cigarette ads in the same category as the human individual who tries to express something regarding the realm of the Spiritual.

I gotta go cook some dinner, and I'm not sure that I have said things very well here. But I thought I should make an attempt. After all, I did open that can of worms, didn't I? (Not for dinner, you understand.)

InPeace,
InLove