Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Tattoos

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    ... From: Jasper ... interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for religious purposes) does not apply to the
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jasper" <jasperh98@...>
      >
      > Folks, perhaps a brief explanation would be provided on why this same
      interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for
      religious purposes) does not apply to the issue of images of God (that the
      referenced images were for worship purposes). Thank you for your
      helpfulness.

      That one is easy.

      Any image of man, creatures, or creation may be interacted with at any level
      below worship without sin. Hence, images of created beings or things are
      not forbidden.

      Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of
      God would either inspire faulty worship (violation of the Second
      Commandment) or they would not. If they did not, Man would be interacting
      with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and
      majesty; a violation of the First Commandment.

      Larry



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
    • Jasper
      Mr. Bump, thank you for replying. I think the first and second commandments are given as: “Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Mr. Bump, thank you for replying.  I think the first and second commandments are given as:
         

        Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

        Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth:

        Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God��   Deut. 5:7-9

         
        Please bear with me a bit here  -  I do not mean to be contentious.  First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings or things are not forbidden".  That is not what I expected to read and I wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?
         
        Secondly,  when you say "Man would be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way", I appreciate the sensitivity to that issue that you display.  I will give this more consideration.
         
        Thirdly, on the same train of thought, you seem to be saying that in the case where "Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of God" does not inspire faulty worship, then "Man would be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and majesty".  I understand the first part to be describing a false god, but the continuation in the second part says that it actually is God.  Am I just failing to get your meaning here?  help, please.
         
        Thank you for allowing me to pose these few questions.
         
        Jasper
         


        Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jasper" <jasperh98@...>
        >
        > Folks, perhaps a brief explanation would be provided on why this same interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for religious purposes) does not apply to the issue of images of God (that the referenced images were for worship purposes).   Thank you for your helpfulness.


        That one is easy.

        Any image of man, creatures, or creation may be interacted with at any level below worship without sin.  Hence, images of created beings or things are not forbidden.

        Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of God would either inspire faulty worship (violation of the Second Commandment) or they would not.  If they did not, Man would be interacting with God in a  non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and majesty; a violation of the First Commandment.

        Larry

        --


        Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
        Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
      • Larry Bump
        ... The word images means any picture or sculpture. Images themselves are not forbidden, you have them in your home all over the place. The word in
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Jasper wrote:

          > Please bear with me a bit here - I do not mean to be contentious.
          > First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings or
          > things are not forbidden". That is not what I expected to read and I
          > wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?

          The word "images" means any picture or sculpture. Images themselves are
          not forbidden, you have them in your home all over the place.
          The word in scripture does *not* carry the meaning "religious icon".

          Unless one means to say that all photography and/or drawing of living
          beings is forbidden, images per se are allowable.

          > Thirdly, on the same train of thought, you seem to be saying that in the
          > case where "Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual
          > representation of God" does not inspire faulty worship, then "Man would
          > be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously
          > denying His holiness and majesty". I understand the first part to be
          > describing a false god, but the continuation in the second part says
          > that it actually is God. Am I just failing to get your meaning here?
          > help, please.


          Something that represents God *in se* would need to be representative of
          God's holiness and righteousness. If I interact with something that
          *is* God in any meaningful manner without giving the honor due to God I
          would be treating it/Him blasphemously.

          The point is that a picture "of God" either is, or is not a
          representation of God. Sounds like a tautology, but it's not. if it
          is, and I treat it non-Godly, I disrespect God by withholding His due.
          if I treat it Godly, I violate the second commandment.

          The reality of the issue is that nothing can really represent God, so if
          you say something *does*, you have lied, and about Him. Blasphemy.

          Seriously, can you imagine seeing a picture of God (in truth) that would
          *not* inspire worship? Can't be avoided, but must not be done. That's
          why an image of God is absolutely forbidden.
          If the calf did represent Yahweh, then the people would *have* to bow
          before it. The calf was meant to represent Elohim, but that is forbidden.

          Anyway, I believe that there is a reason that jesus lived before
          photography, and in a culture that did not do portraits. and, this is
          why the Shroud of Turin, in my opinion, cannot be the true shroud, with
          true marks.

          Hope this helps; I am rambling a little.

          Larry
        • gmw
          ... First, I am somewhat surprised that you say images of created beings or things are not forbidden . That is not what I expected to read and I wonder if
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
            <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
            > Please bear with me a bit here - I do not mean to be contentious.
            First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings
            or things are not forbidden". That is not what I expected to read and
            I wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?
            >

            Heidelberg Catechism --
            Q97: May we not make any image at all?

            A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures,
            though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or
            keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve
            God by them.[1]

            1. Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4;
            John 1:18

            gmw.
          • Larry Bump
            ... From: gmw ... Context and definitions, context and definitions. What cognitive load does the word images have in what
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>> >
              >
              > Heidelberg Catechism --
              > Q97: May we not make any image at all?
              >
              > A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures,
              > though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or
              > keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve
              > God by them.[1]

              Context and definitions, context and definitions.
              What cognitive load does the word "images" have in what I wrote, and how
              does that relate to the meaning of the word as used by Heidelberg?
              The place I was quoted was referring to "images", ie, pictures and
              sculptures, of all sorts and in all contexts.

              Larry



              --
              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
            • Jasper
              Larry Bump wrote: Hope this helps; I am rambling a little. Yes, you have helped. Thank you kind sir. J Larry Bump
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
                Hope this helps; I am rambling a little.

                 
                Yes, you have helped.   Thank you kind sir.
                 
                J
                 
                 

                Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:


                Jasper wrote:

                > Please bear with me a bit here  -  I do not mean to be contentious.  First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings or things are not forbidden".  That is not what I expected to read and I wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?

                The word "images" means any picture or sculpture.  Images themselves are not forbidden, you have them in your home all over the place.   The word in scripture does *not* carry the meaning "religious icon".

                Unless one means to say that all photography and/or drawing of living beings is forbidden, images per se are allowable.

                > Thirdly, on the same train of thought, you seem to be saying that in the case where "Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of God" does not inspire faulty worship, then "Man would be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and majesty".  I understand the first part to be describing a false god, but the continuation in the second part says 
                that it actually is God.  Am I just failing to get your meaning here?  help, please.


                Something that represents God *in se* would need to be representative of God's holiness and righteousness.  If I interact with something that *is* God in any meaningful manner without giving the honor due to God I would be treating it/Him blasphemously.

                The point is that a picture "of God" either is, or is not a
                representation of God.  Sounds like a tautology, but it's not.  if it is, and I treat it non-Godly, I disrespect God by withholding His due.  if I treat it Godly, I violate the second commandment.

                The reality of the issue is that nothing can really represent God, so if you say something *does*, you have lied, and about Him.  Blasphemy.

                Seriously, can you imagine seeing a picture of God (in truth) that would *not* inspire worship?  Can't be avoided, but must not be done.  That's why an image of God is absolutely forbidden.
                If the calf did represent Yahweh, then the people would *have* to bow before it.  The calf was meant to represent Elohim, but that is forbidden.

                Anyway, I believe that there is a reason that jesus lived before photography, and in a culture that did not do portraits.  and, this is why the Shroud of Turin, in my opinion, cannot be the true shroud, with true marks.

                Hope this helps; I am rambling a little.

                Larry

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com

              • gmw
                Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were saying. gmw.
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were
                  saying.

                  gmw.

                  Larry Bump wrote:

                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>> >
                  > >
                  > > Heidelberg Catechism --
                  > > Q97: May we not make any image at all?
                  > >
                  > > A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures,
                  > > though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or
                  > > keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve
                  > > God by them.[1]
                  >
                  > Context and definitions, context and definitions.
                  > What cognitive load does the word "images" have in what I wrote, and how
                  > does that relate to the meaning of the word as used by Heidelberg?
                  > The place I was quoted was referring to "images", ie, pictures and
                  > sculptures, of all sorts and in all contexts.
                  >
                  > Larry
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
                  >
                  >
                  > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  > click here
                  > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129b1dpgv/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1109909984/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
                  >
                  > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
                  >
                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                  >
                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                  >
                  >
                • Larry Bump
                  ... From: gmw ... Oh, OK. ;-) I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes than others. Larry --
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>
                    >
                    > Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were
                    > saying.

                    Oh, OK.
                    ;-)

                    I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes
                    than others.
                    Larry



                    --
                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
                  • gmw
                    ... Don t worry about it. Unfortunately, this is a problem with a forum like this --- we read things and aren t sure how to take them, or even what they mean
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                      <lbump@b...> wrote:

                      > Oh, OK.
                      > ;-)
                      >
                      > I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes
                      > than others.

                      Don't worry about it. Unfortunately, this is a problem with a forum
                      like this --- we read things and aren't sure how to take them, or even
                      what they mean sometimes! Let's all be quick to view each other in
                      charity.

                      BTW, I think you guys did a bang up job in that last thread about the
                      differences between denominations -- that had all the workings of an
                      ugly fight, but it didn't turn out that way. Way to go, folks.

                      gmw.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.