Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Tattoos
- 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:
> 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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were
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.
> 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.
> 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*
> click here
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>
> Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were
I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes
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
- --- In email@example.com, "Larry Bump"
> Oh, OK.Don't worry about it. Unfortunately, this is a problem with a forum
> I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes
> than others.
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
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.