TIME to get RID OF RELIGION

[Belinda]

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.

Immanuel wrote:
"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."

The Jesus of history is not the Jesus Christ of faith, and the Christ of faith is not the Jesus of history. Historians can and do write about the history of the idea of the Jesus Christ of faith. Historians could not ignore this spectacular idea that has vastly influenced man's past.

I wish you did know a lot about iconography, as I love to learn and if you did know you might teach me.

Icons may be persons and also icons may be things. E.g. in Scottish tradition the haggis is an iconic food and e.g. The Beatles are iconic popular song writers and performers. Indeed John Lennon created a furore among Right Wing Americans when he said that The Beatles were more famous than Jesus. If he had said similar in Iran he'd have been put to death for blasphemy.

[Immanuel Can]

"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."

The Jesus of history is not the Jesus Christ of faith,

I'm sorry, B, but this is simply nonsense. I know the literature that puts forward this idea, but it has always struck me as clearly nothing more than a Humanist wish-fulfillment fantasy, and a poor excuse for avoiding facing the reality of the Christ that gives any meaning to the concept of the purported "iconization."

Let me be the iconoclast here. There is no "Christ" but the real one, and He is also the only "Christ" worth having faith in. An "icon" is an invention of man, seeking means to reach the eternal...which man can never do. Icons are tools on a fool's mission. The only Christ there is, is the real Man who lived and walked the Earth. And those who think they can turn Him into an "icon" are thereby admitting that they do not know Him at all.

I wish you did know a lot about iconography, as I love to learn and if you did know you might teach me.

Well, now you know the truth about icons.

...iconic food ...The Beatles...

Yes, and Marilyn Monroe. One's own belly, the drug-addled balladeers, the high-priced prostitute. How tawdry, awful and shallow would we be, if we thought the mere human artifacts we worship were a substitute for the one true God? How pathetic that would be! How unworthy a substitution we would be making!

As for John Lennon, I am always bemused to think of him. However, I simply quote Elvis Costello, who once said, "Was it a millionaire who wrote, 'Imagine no possessions'?" Yes, Elvis, it was. And if he didn't know what a fool and hypocrite he was then, he knows it now. All the worse for him, I would think.

So the "icons" you mention might just be a tiny bit overrated, don't you think?

[Belinda]

"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."

The Jesus of history is not the Jesus Christ of faith,

I'm sorry, B, but this is simply nonsense. I know the literature that puts forward this idea, but it has always struck me as clearly nothing more than a Humanist wish-fulfillment fantasy, and a poor excuse for avoiding facing the reality of the Christ that gives any meaning to the concept of the purported "iconization."

Let me be the iconoclast here. There is no "Christ" but the real one, and He is also the only "Christ" worth having faith in. An "icon" is an invention of man, seeking means to reach the eternal...which man can never do. Icons are tools on a fool's mission. The only Christ there is, is the real Man who lived and walked the Earth. And those who think they can turn Him into an "icon" are thereby admitting that they do not know Him at all.

I wish you did know a lot about iconography, as I love to learn and if you did know you might teach me.

Well, now you know the truth about icons.

...iconic food ...The Beatles...

Yes, and Marilyn Monroe. One's own belly, the drug-addled balladeers, the high-priced prostitute. How tawdry, awful and shallow would we be, if we thought the mere human artifacts we worship were a substitute for the one true God? How pathetic that would be! How unworthy a substitution we would be making!

As for John Lennon, I am always bemused to think of him. However, I simply quote Elvis Costello, who once said, "Was it a millionaire who wrote, 'Imagine no possessions'?" Yes, Elvis, it was. And if he didn't know what a fool and hypocrite he was then, he knows it now. All the worse for him, I would think.

So the "icons" you mention might just be a tiny bit overrated, don't you think?

The haggis is iconic among Scottish foods. When traditional Scotsmen worship the haggis ,as once a year they do, they are not substituting the haggis for God, they are just having a bit of fun.

There is no substitute for God, except that some people like you, Immanuel, try to describe all God's attributes , this is idolatry. Jesus Christ interprets the Father and in order to do so JC has to communicate with peoples two thousand years after he himself died.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry, B, but this is simply nonsense. I know the literature that puts forward this idea, but it has always struck me as clearly nothing more than a Humanist wish-fulfillment fantasy, and a poor excuse for avoiding facing the reality of the Christ that gives any meaning to the concept of the purported "iconization."

Let me be the iconoclast here. There is no "Christ" but the real one, and He is also the only "Christ" worth having faith in. An "icon" is an invention of man, seeking means to reach the eternal...which man can never do. Icons are tools on a fool's mission. The only Christ there is, is the real Man who lived and walked the Earth. And those who think they can turn Him into an "icon" are thereby admitting that they do not know Him at all.

I wish you did know a lot about iconography, as I love to learn and if you did know you might teach me.

Well, now you know the truth about icons.

...iconic food ...The Beatles...

Yes, and Marilyn Monroe. One's own belly, the drug-addled balladeers, the high-priced prostitute. How tawdry, awful and shallow would we be, if we thought the mere human artifacts we worship were a substitute for the one true God? How pathetic that would be! How unworthy a substitution we would be making!

As for John Lennon, I am always bemused to think of him. However, I simply quote Elvis Costello, who once said, "Was it a millionaire who wrote, 'Imagine no possessions'?" Yes, Elvis, it was. And if he didn't know what a fool and hypocrite he was then, he knows it now. All the worse for him, I would think.

So the "icons" you mention might just be a tiny bit overrated, don't you think?

The haggis is iconic among Scottish foods. When traditional Scotsmen worship the haggis ,as once a year they do, they are not substituting the haggis for God, they are just having a bit of fun.

That's why "icon," in that context, is just a hyperbolical metaphor, and isn't at all literal.

...some people like you, Immanuel, try to describe all God's attributes....

You mean like the Bible describes God's attributes? Yes, I do agree that God has specific attributes -- just as the Bible describes, actually. But of course, you don't believe in a real God, one with his own characteristics, nature and will... you just believe in the "iconic" God, of the fertile human imagination, right?

How do you keep "the iconic God" from becoming simply anything anybody can wish to imagine?

[Fairy]

I'm sorry, B, but this is simply nonsense. I know the literature that puts forward this idea, but it has always struck me as clearly nothing more than a Humanist wish-fulfillment fantasy, and a poor excuse for avoiding facing the reality of the Christ that gives any meaning to the concept of the purported "iconization."

Let me be the iconoclast here. There is no "Christ" but the real one, and He is also the only "Christ" worth having faith in. An "icon" is an invention of man, seeking means to reach the eternal...which man can never do. Icons are tools on a fool's mission. The only Christ there is, is the real Man who lived and walked the Earth. And those who think they can turn Him into an "icon" are thereby admitting that they do not know Him at all.

Well, now you know the truth about icons.

Yes, and Marilyn Monroe. One's own belly, the drug-addled balladeers, the high-priced prostitute. How tawdry, awful and shallow would we be, if we thought the mere human artifacts we worship were a substitute for the one true God? How pathetic that would be! How unworthy a substitution we would be making!

As for John Lennon, I am always bemused to think of him. However, I simply quote Elvis Costello, who once said, "Was it a millionaire who wrote, 'Imagine no possessions'?" Yes, Elvis, it was. And if he didn't know what a fool and hypocrite he was then, he knows it now. All the worse for him, I would think.

So the "icons" you mention might just be a tiny bit overrated, don't you think?

The haggis is iconic among Scottish foods. When traditional Scotsmen worship the haggis ,as once a year they do, they are not substituting the haggis for God, they are just having a bit of fun.

That's why "icon," in that context, is just a hyperbolical metaphor, and isn't at all literal.

...some people like you, Immanuel, try to describe all God's attributes....

You mean like the Bible describes God's attributes? Yes, I do agree that God has specific attributes -- just as the Bible describes, actually. But of course, you don't believe in a real God, one with his own characteristics, nature and will... you just believe in the "iconic" God, of the fertile human imagination, right?

How do you keep "the iconic God" from becoming simply anything anybody can wish to imagine?

How demands an answer.

There is no answer for a How question…that assumes there is something existing outside of you that you are attempting to communicate to.

There’s no answer existing out there.

Try it, ask the out there the How question ..and listen for the silence, which will be your answer.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no answer for a How question…

Well, I wasn't talking to you anyway, so that's just fine.

[Belinda]

I'm sorry, B, but this is simply nonsense. I know the literature that puts forward this idea, but it has always struck me as clearly nothing more than a Humanist wish-fulfillment fantasy, and a poor excuse for avoiding facing the reality of the Christ that gives any meaning to the concept of the purported "iconization."

Let me be the iconoclast here. There is no "Christ" but the real one, and He is also the only "Christ" worth having faith in. An "icon" is an invention of man, seeking means to reach the eternal...which man can never do. Icons are tools on a fool's mission. The only Christ there is, is the real Man who lived and walked the Earth. And those who think they can turn Him into an "icon" are thereby admitting that they do not know Him at all.

Well, now you know the truth about icons.

Yes, and Marilyn Monroe. One's own belly, the drug-addled balladeers, the high-priced prostitute. How tawdry, awful and shallow would we be, if we thought the mere human artifacts we worship were a substitute for the one true God? How pathetic that would be! How unworthy a substitution we would be making!

As for John Lennon, I am always bemused to think of him. However, I simply quote Elvis Costello, who once said, "Was it a millionaire who wrote, 'Imagine no possessions'?" Yes, Elvis, it was. And if he didn't know what a fool and hypocrite he was then, he knows it now. All the worse for him, I would think.

So the "icons" you mention might just be a tiny bit overrated, don't you think?

The haggis is iconic among Scottish foods. When traditional Scotsmen worship the haggis ,as once a year they do, they are not substituting the haggis for God, they are just having a bit of fun.

That's why "icon," in that context, is just a hyperbolical metaphor, and isn't at all literal.

...some people like you, Immanuel, try to describe all God's attributes....

You mean like the Bible describes God's attributes? Yes, I do agree that God has specific attributes -- just as the Bible describes, actually. But of course, you don't believe in a real God, one with his own characteristics, nature and will... you just believe in the "iconic" God, of the fertile human imagination, right?

How do you keep "the iconic God" from becoming simply anything anybody can wish to imagine?

"The iconic God" is an absurd notion. Icons are based on things or persons, whereas God does not, never did ,merely exist , but is existence itself . Please look into the meaning of 'word' in the context of discussing God; God's word means his immutable diktat. God is a determinist's concept, to the effect that the world does truly exist as a patterned, causal, nomic , structured entity which we may discover but not invent.

God has how many names does Islam say?---- ninety -two or thereabouts ? Which is clearly a trope about how God has infinite names. That is why God has a holy prophet, Jesus Christ or Muhammad , to explain to us how to live good lives in accordance with God's holy word. Therefore God is not "anything I wish to imagine" but must be explained to me by an acceptable prophet before I even know what I am even talking about.

The Bible seems to contradict itself unless the reader reads it a historical development of God which ,including the New Testament, show how the God idea has developed through the centuries from a tribal deity to a universal deity. Consider how when Jesus entered Jerusalem in triumph he was actualising a prophecy from Isaiah. History, Immanuel, matters!

Could you control your proclivity to sarcasm please. And I'd prefer if you did not misrepresent what I write.

While it's true that any icon is an invention of man, iconography and icons are useful heuristics . The most usual application of an icon is as an aid to prayer. Symbols that attain iconic status do so for a reason and part of that reason is social need. Another part of that reason is artistic expression.

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to express what I think about.

[Fairy]

There is no answer for a How question…

Well, I wasn't talking to you anyway, so that's just fine.

This is an open forum for readers to respond to.

Don’t be so condescending the world doesn’t revolve around just you and your ideas. Rude!

[Fairy]

There is no answer for a How question…

Well, I wasn't talking to you anyway, so that's just fine.

By the way, stop asking for answers to the How

As if you are appealing to some authority that exists out there beyond your own knowledge, that doesn’t.

How long is a piece of string?

Try to be accommodating of other’s participation in these open discussions…. This forum doesn’t belong to you exclusively, it belongs to all of us. Try being nice for once in your pompous self righteous life. It’s not that difficult.

[Immanuel Can]

The haggis is iconic among Scottish foods. When traditional Scotsmen worship the haggis ,as once a year they do, they are not substituting the haggis for God, they are just having a bit of fun.

That's why "icon," in that context, is just a hyperbolical metaphor, and isn't at all literal.

...some people like you, Immanuel, try to describe all God's attributes....

You mean like the Bible describes God's attributes? Yes, I do agree that God has specific attributes -- just as the Bible describes, actually. But of course, you don't believe in a real God, one with his own characteristics, nature and will... you just believe in the "iconic" God, of the fertile human imagination, right?

How do you keep "the iconic God" from becoming simply anything anybody can wish to imagine?

"The iconic God" is an absurd notion.

Well, I agree: but "the iconic Jesus" is every bit as silly an idea.

God is a determinist's concept...

Most Christians, myself included, would tell you you're wrong about that, and plainly so.

God has how many names does Islam say?

Islam says many silly things. It's almost never right, in fact.

History, Immanuel, matters!

It's the Christ of history I'm pointing out to you.

While it's true that any icon is an invention of man, iconography and icons are useful heuristics .

Very useful to the elaboration of walls, ceilings and floors, to art museums, to metaphors about morally-debased pop culture heroes and local cuisines, to various delusions, and particularly to the practices of idolatry.

Useful they are, in all those capacities...but not to faith, and not to truth.

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to express what I think about.

You're most welcome.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no answer for a How question…

Well, I wasn't talking to you anyway, so that's just fine.

This is an open forum for readers to respond to.

Don’t be so condescending the world doesn’t revolve around just you and your ideas. Rude!

If you had an idea, I'd comment on it. But they above is more typical of what you've been offering lately, and it means nothing. In fact, it's just flatly untrue...and having to simply contradict an idea that's just so wrong it cannot be reformed is just really boring. It doesn't make for good conversation, at all.

I'm convinced you're capable of better. But until you offer something more in keeping with what you are capable of, I have no interest in what you're writing. Why waste the time?

I can simply say once, "This is nonsense," and it will stand for all the rest.

[Fairy]

Well, I wasn't talking to you anyway, so that's just fine.

This is an open forum for readers to respond to.

Don’t be so condescending the world doesn’t revolve around just you and your ideas. Rude!

If you had an idea, I'd comment on it. But they above is more typical of what you've been offering lately, and it means nothing. In fact, it's just flatly untrue...and having to simply contradict an idea that's just so wrong it cannot be reformed is just really boring. It doesn't make for good conversation, at all.

I'm convinced you're capable of better. But until you offer something more in keeping with what you are capable of, I have no interest in what you're writing. Why waste the time?

I can simply say once, "This is nonsense," and it will stand for all the rest.

Said the very annoying guy. . notice there’s always somehow one annoyingly arrogant guy with like 24739 posts who still doesn’t know what an idea is. He openly confesses I have no idea. So can’t really comment on what doesn’t exist, so his 24739 comments offer nothing either.


If I have no idea. What makes you so certain you have one?
You have no idea what an idea is do you?

Prove me wrong, or else carry on offering nothing to anyone.

[Immanuel Can]

This is an open forum for readers to respond to.

Don’t be so condescending the world doesn’t revolve around just you and your ideas. Rude!

If you had an idea, I'd comment on it. But they above is more typical of what you've been offering lately, and it means nothing. In fact, it's just flatly untrue...and having to simply contradict an idea that's just so wrong it cannot be reformed is just really boring. It doesn't make for good conversation, at all.

I'm convinced you're capable of better. But until you offer something more in keeping with what you are capable of, I have no interest in what you're writing. Why waste the time?

I can simply say once, "This is nonsense," and it will stand for all the rest.

If I have no idea.

That's exactly what I said.

IF there's no idea worth having in what you write, I'm not at all interested. Nor, to your great surprise, will anyone else with half a brain be.

[Fairy]

If you had an idea, I'd comment on it. But they above is more typical of what you've been offering lately, and it means nothing. In fact, it's just flatly untrue...and having to simply contradict an idea that's just so wrong it cannot be reformed is just really boring. It doesn't make for good conversation, at all.

I'm convinced you're capable of better. But until you offer something more in keeping with what you are capable of, I have no interest in what you're writing. Why waste the time?

I can simply say once, "This is nonsense," and it will stand for all the rest.

If I have no idea.

That's exactly what I said.

IF there's no idea worth having in what you write, I'm not at all interested. Nor, to your great surprise, will anyone else with half a brain be.

What is an idea ?

Until you know, you have no idea worthy of offering to anyone else.

[Fairy]

If you had an idea, I'd comment on it. But they above is more typical of what you've been offering lately, and it means nothing. In fact, it's just flatly untrue...and having to simply contradict an idea that's just so wrong it cannot be reformed is just really boring. It doesn't make for good conversation, at all.

I'm convinced you're capable of better. But until you offer something more in keeping with what you are capable of, I have no interest in what you're writing. Why waste the time?

I can simply say once, "This is nonsense," and it will stand for all the rest.

If I have no idea.

That's exactly what I said.

IF there's no idea worth having in what you write, I'm not at all interested. Nor, to your great surprise, will anyone else with half a brain be.

No human being knows what they are talking about including you.

Knowledge is synthetically created by the brain.. it’s literally just sound heard as words.

Words are an auditory illusion of light and sound when two material surfaces rub together. There’s nothing more to it than that.

The brain interprets sound as a story, and that’s all it is, a fictional story superimposed upon the silence behind the story.

BTW… I have little to zero interest in talking to a robot anymore.

I just popped in briefly to remind you there is no answer to How.

But you cannot do anything with silence can you, so I agree don’t waste your time.

Bye.