TIME to get RID OF RELIGION

[Immanuel Can]

There is actually a core of Christianity which pervades all the sects at all times. That core is the iconic Jesus as Christ; an icon that moves from mind to mind, from Attofishpi to Immanuel Can to Belinda . We each of us look at this iconic figure and try to see the good, truth ,and beauty there, each of us in our own peculiar way.

Actually, B., there's no Christian that would agree with that.

What you're describing is only a form of Relativism. And for Relativists, its human beings and their imaginations that are regarded as "sacred," and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own, nothing that people could be obligated to recognize and accept, or to honour. They turn the sacred Name into an amorphous blob that merely means "whatever I wish to imagine." They don't respect the real, historical Christ, or regard Him as having any idenity of His own to which they are obligated to bow.

Can that be "Christian"? Not by any form of Christianity that has any historical or theological plausibility. Maybe in the spoiled, solipsistic, Western mind of today, such a view may have some play. But nobody who has any actual commitment to the historical Jesus Christ, from whatever group or denomination, is going to agree with that. And it's certainly contrary to what the Bible says.

IC wrote:

and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own,

Immanuel, you don't understand what an icon is.

Yeah, I sure do. And I'll warrant I know much more about it than you do.

Do you know what a "real person" is? A "real person" is somebody with his own specific identity and character, that you have to know and take into account if you imagine you know even the first thing about him.

[Belinda]

Actually, B., there's no Christian that would agree with that.

What you're describing is only a form of Relativism. And for Relativists, its human beings and their imaginations that are regarded as "sacred," and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own, nothing that people could be obligated to recognize and accept, or to honour. They turn the sacred Name into an amorphous blob that merely means "whatever I wish to imagine." They don't respect the real, historical Christ, or regard Him as having any idenity of His own to which they are obligated to bow.

Can that be "Christian"? Not by any form of Christianity that has any historical or theological plausibility. Maybe in the spoiled, solipsistic, Western mind of today, such a view may have some play. But nobody who has any actual commitment to the historical Jesus Christ, from whatever group or denomination, is going to agree with that. And it's certainly contrary to what the Bible says.

IC wrote:

and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own,

Immanuel, you don't understand what an icon is.

Yeah, I sure do. And I'll warrant I know much more about it than you do.

Do you know what a "real person" is? A "real person" is somebody with his own specific identity and character, that you have to know and take into account if you imagine you know even the first thing about him.

But the real Jesus of Nazareth is known by oral and written traditions and by historico-anthropological circumstances.

Similarly, who is the real Marilyn Monroe? She is known in exactly the same way plus films and photographs.
She is iconic. please see Andy Warhol's portrayal of Marilyn as icon, a portrayal in the form of a series of screen prints.
You may not be able to understand the phenomenon of iconic status because you fail to recognise that your own 'screen print' is only one of a set of similar pictures all bound together by the one icon.

[Fairy]

IC wrote: Immanuel, you don't understand what an icon is.

Yeah, I sure do. And I'll warrant I know much more about it than you do.

Do you know what a "real person" is? A "real person" is somebody with his own specific identity and character, that you have to know and take into account if you imagine you know even the first thing about him.

But the real Jesus of Nazareth is known by oral and written traditions and by historico-anthropological circumstances.

Similarly, who is the real Marilyn Monroe? She is known in exactly the same way plus films and photographs.
She is iconic. please see Andy Warhol's portrayal of Marilyn as icon, a portrayal in the form of a series of screen prints.
You may not be able to understand the phenomenon of iconic status because you fail to recognise that your own 'screen print' is only one of a set of similar pictures all bound together by the one icon.

Well put B

All thoughts are anthropomorphic.


Mistaking the image on the imageless screen of awareness for reality is a false identification with a representational model of something that is only imaginary.

[Immanuel Can]

IC wrote: Immanuel, you don't understand what an icon is.

Yeah, I sure do. And I'll warrant I know much more about it than you do.

Do you know what a "real person" is? A "real person" is somebody with his own specific identity and character, that you have to know and take into account if you imagine you know even the first thing about him.

But the real Jesus of Nazareth is known by oral and written traditions and by historico-anthropological circumstances.

I don't know what the third of these is supposed to refer to. I don't think it actually means anything at all. But the first one is untrue, and only the second one is right: we know Jesus of Nazareth through the writings of those who met Him.

Have you ever thought about the difference between "oral tradition" and "writing"? Here's the most important difference, B. -- if you have an oral tradition, it inevitably morphs over time, because people's memories get things wrong and add things, and sometimes even embellish. But once a thing is written down, it stays as is. If you write "Belinda is wonderful" on a scrap of parchment, then ten years later, that scrap still says the words, "Belinda is wonderful." Written things stay put.

So what do we have? We have a written record of the things Jesus said and did. We can still question, of course, whether or not the writers got it right, or how to organize the 5,800 or so relevant Greek manuscripts we have, but since they show such a remarkable confluence as they do, we can be quite sure we have a very focused and singular picture of Jesus of Nazareth to which we must respond.

She is iconic.

No, that's not what a true "icon" is. You're actually mistaking the merely-metaphorical and hyperbolical use of the word for the reality. People will likewise say that any popular figure is an "icon." But it's purely an analogy, not a reality.

Monroe is not an actual "icon." She's not a statue in a temple, with people bowing down to her and kissing her and sacrificing to her in a literal way. All you mean is that she is a figure much remembered and celebrated by the public. That's not actually an icon. Nor is Andy Warhol a creator of icons in the true sense. He's just one of various Pop Art painters, and nobody's accusing him of "making icons" or worshipping him, either.

But let's take dear old Marilyn. Who would you say are the people who "really knew her"? Would they be the people who actually met her, lived with the real woman, knew her as Norma Jean, maybe...or the people of today, who only know her as an "icon" called "Marilyn Monroe"?

That's the difference between a "real person" and an "iconic public figure." The "icon" crew actually doesn't know who they're talking about, but the people who know somebody as a real person do.

[Alexiev]

[

But let's take dear old Marilyn. Who would you say are the people who "really knew her"?

Joe Dimaggio? (Unfortunately, Joltin' Joe is lost and gone away. Hey, hey hey.)

[Belinda]

Yeah, I sure do. And I'll warrant I know much more about it than you do.

Do you know what a "real person" is? A "real person" is somebody with his own specific identity and character, that you have to know and take into account if you imagine you know even the first thing about him.

But the real Jesus of Nazareth is known by oral and written traditions and by historico-anthropological circumstances.

I don't know what the third of these is supposed to refer to. I don't think it actually means anything at all. But the first one is untrue, and only the second one is right: we know Jesus of Nazareth through the writings of those who met Him.

Have you ever thought about the difference between "oral tradition" and "writing"? Here's the most important difference, B. -- if you have an oral tradition, it inevitably morphs over time, because people's memories get things wrong and add things, and sometimes even embellish. But once a thing is written down, it stays as is. If you write "Belinda is wonderful" on a scrap of parchment, then ten years later, that scrap still says the words, "Belinda is wonderful." Written things stay put.

So what do we have? We have a written record of the things Jesus said and did. We can still question, of course, whether or not the writers got it right, or how to organize the 5,800 or so relevant Greek manuscripts we have, but since they show such a remarkable confluence as they do, we can be quite sure we have a very focused and singular picture of Jesus of Nazareth to which we must respond.

She is iconic.

No, that's not what a true "icon" is. You're actually mistaking the merely-metaphorical and hyperbolical use of the word for the reality. People will likewise say that any popular figure is an "icon." But it's purely an analogy, not a reality.

Monroe is not an actual "icon." She's not a statue in a temple, with people bowing down to her and kissing her and sacrificing to her in a literal way. All you mean is that she is a figure much remembered and celebrated by the public. That's not actually an icon. Nor is Andy Warhol a creator of icons in the true sense. He's just one of various Pop Art painters, and nobody's accusing him of "making icons" or worshipping him, either.

But let's take dear old Marilyn. Who would you say are the people who "really knew her"? Would they be the people who actually met her, lived with the real woman, knew her as Norma Jean, maybe...or the people of today, who only know her as an "icon" called "Marilyn Monroe"?

That's the difference between a "real person" and an "iconic public figure." The "icon" crew actually doesn't know who they're talking about, but the people who know somebody as a real person do.

If you write "Belinda is wonderful" on a scrap of parchment, then ten years later, that scrap still says the words, "Belinda is wonderful." Written things stay put.

Yes, but the written word is not as influential as you believe. In ten years time or sooner Belinda's admirers may well say she was an idiot and a liar, others will scan and scroll down or turn the page as of no interest. However Belinda, unlike Marilyn and unlike JC , is not iconic . When B is dead and al the people who knew her are dead there will by nothing left of the concept of Belinda. But Marilyn Munroe and JC will persist as icons , Marilyn less so than Jesus Christ because the JC icon has peculiar staying power through the centuries and several parts of the globe.

BTW the definition of icon does not include people kowtowing to it. Neither you not I bow to a traditional Greek Orthodox icon, however we know what it is and what it looks like.

But let's take dear old Marilyn. Who would you say are the people who "really knew her"? Would they be the people who actually met her, lived with the real woman, knew her as Norma Jean, maybe...or the people of today, who only know her as an "icon" called "Marilyn Monroe"?

IC
The people who really know Jesus of Nazareth knew him as fellow countrymen and as an an itinerant rabbi. Or maybe even as a covert freedom fighter against the Romans in Palestine.
These backgrounds now no longer exist. But obviously something of JC is still a psychological and political force , and that force is JC as icon.

Warhol did not create an icon, Warhol portrayed the nature of iconography.

[Belinda]

[

But let's take dear old Marilyn. Who would you say are the people who "really knew her"?

Joe Dimaggio? (Unfortunately, Joltin' Joe is lost and gone away. Hey, hey hey.)

The historical Marilyn Munroe is not of great interest, as you say she known by Joe Dimaggio. But the iconic Marilyn is well portrayed as icon, by Andy Warhol the famous artist.

[Fairy]

Icons

I am a con

Awareness is a complete inference. If you try to look for Awareness, you will find nothing.


You’ll not find yourself among the meat and bones lying in your coffin either


The mind is a beautiful thing. An invisible universe all to yourself.

[Alexiev]

The historical Marilyn Munroe is not of great interest, as you say she known by Joe Dimaggio. But the iconic Marilyn is well portrayed as icon, by Andy Warhol the famous artist.

Oh, come on! Was Marilyn murdered by the Kennedys? That's pretty interesting.

I think IC is using the religious definition of "icon" -- a person or thing regarded as a symbol worthy of veneration. He's right that you are using a more metaphorical definition (although the word has morphed so that the metaphorical definitions are now common). In Eastern Christianity Icons (of Jesus) were worshipped, and the Iconoclasts protested. I suppose Warhol did "venerate" beauty and celebrity, but not in the same way that religious icons were venerated.

[Immanuel Can]

[

But let's take dear old Marilyn. Who would you say are the people who "really knew her"?

Joe Dimaggio? (Unfortunately, Joltin' Joe is lost and gone away. Hey, hey hey.)

Well, here's to you, Mrs. Robinson.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but the written word is not as influential as you believe.[/quote]
I didn't say "influential." I said "stable." And it is, obviously.

But if you want to talk influential, how about the biggest bestseller in human history, a book that so outsells every other every year, that "bestseller" lists long ago simply excluded it, so it didn't win EVERY year? What book would that be, B?

BTW the definition of icon does not include people kowtowing to it.

Actually, it does. An object does not even become an "icon" unless somebody worships it, or, to put it Orthodoxly (is that a word?) "through" it.

The people who really know Jesus of Nazareth knew him as fellow countrymen and as an an itinerant rabbi. Or maybe even as a covert freedom fighter against the Romans in Palestine.

That's pretty funny, B. You clearly haven't read any of the gospels, I guess.

[Fairy]

The Bible Book.

The story is inseparable from the Book.

God is the storyBook

God is on record forever playing life infinitely for eternity.

Now we know, what we never not knew.

[Belinda]

The historical Marilyn Munroe is not of great interest, as you say she known by Joe Dimaggio. But the iconic Marilyn is well portrayed as icon, by Andy Warhol the famous artist.

Oh, come on! Was Marilyn murdered by the Kennedys? That's pretty interesting.

I think IC is using the religious definition of "icon" -- a person or thing regarded as a symbol worthy of veneration. He's right that you are using a more metaphorical definition (although the word has morphed so that the metaphorical definitions are now common). In Eastern Christianity Icons (of Jesus) were worshipped, and the Iconoclasts protested. I suppose Warhol did "venerate" beauty and celebrity, but not in the same way that religious icons were venerated.

Immanuel believes that his own interpretation of the icon that is JC is the only one.
But if he knew religious iconography he would know that as a matter of fact JC has been portrayed in many different media and styles each appropriate to its time and place.
I introduced the Warhol screen prints of Marilyn Monroe because if there had been an iconic photo of Jesus(as there was of Marilyn) then an artist could make just such a series of screen prints of it. Each of these screen prints would then be like one cultural image of the iconic photo(had such a thing existed), one of many such cultural images .

NB Warhol did not make these prints of Marilyn to venerate beauty and celebrity, his intention was to explain iconography which is a main function of art. He does it rather well.

[Immanuel Can]

The historical Marilyn Munroe is not of great interest, as you say she known by Joe Dimaggio. But the iconic Marilyn is well portrayed as icon, by Andy Warhol the famous artist.

Oh, come on! Was Marilyn murdered by the Kennedys? That's pretty interesting.

I think IC is using the religious definition of "icon" -- a person or thing regarded as a symbol worthy of veneration. He's right that you are using a more metaphorical definition (although the word has morphed so that the metaphorical definitions are now common). In Eastern Christianity Icons (of Jesus) were worshipped, and the Iconoclasts protested. I suppose Warhol did "venerate" beauty and celebrity, but not in the same way that religious icons were venerated.

Immanuel believes that his own interpretation of the icon that is JC is the only one.

It's more basic than that, B. I don't believe that Jesus Christ is an "icon." Neither do the majority of historians. They all seem to think he was a real person -- even among those who want to argue about what they think He did or didn't say or do. So you're swimming against the whole stream on that one, really.

But if he knew religious iconography he would know that as a matter of fact JC has been portrayed in many different media and styles each appropriate to its time and place.

I'm quite certain, B., that I know WAAAAY more about iconongraphy than you probably ever will.

The issue is not an "icon," however: it's a person. And that, you should know, is quite a different matter.

[Fairy]

God is a person in Jesus name.

The named one is an illusion.

The named one is the role God is playing in Jesus name.