The primary iconoclast argument, within Christendom, was the claim that you cannot depict Jesus Christ, since He is God, and therefore undepictable. The iconodule (pro icon) position instead held that Jesus became human, and that to deny making icons of Christ was to deny His humanity. The iconodule position was upheld by the 7th Oecumenical Council (worldwide council across Christendom).
While Orthodox do venerate icons, we don't worship them. What's the difference? Ask any Orthodox whether the icon is God. The answer will be a firm, "No!" There is no confusion -- these are not gods to be worshiped. Sometimes God might work a miracle through an icon, healings for instance, and people pray focused on an icon, but we're not talking to the icon as if it has power of itself. We're asking someone for help, similar to talking to your grandmother's photo and addressing your thoughts toward her.
It's not worshipping objects. It's recognizing that God works through all aspects of our life, the material world included.
...are not Catholic. Neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholics say this. Eastern Orthodox churches aren't in communion with Rome (though there are some Byzantine Rite Catholic churches that are, such as Melkites) and don't recognize papal authority, regarding modern day papalism as innovation (and therefore extra and external) on the Christian faith. Eastern Orthodox assert that Rome was one of the Christian cities that, regrettably, split off and went its own way.
This is not a modern idea - the 6 day creation theory was already controversial in the early church, and many church fathers discounted it on the grounds that the days referred to time in the "authors" world rather than our world. For instance, Augustine suggested that the six 'days' refer to stages in the angelic knowledge of creation.
Perhaps in the Western Fathers (of which Augustine is one).
The Eastern Fathers (and perhaps the Western ones -- I don't know) were less concerned with nailing down the scientific fine points of creation than with the original relationship of (hu)mankind with God. This is vital theologically, because of the role of Christ as the new Adam, restoring creation to union with God.
That's a large part of the problem of the whole religion/science antagonism. The Bible wasn't meant as a science primer, just as geneologies in the Bible are not exact historically speaking (often conspicuous omissions related elsewhere, by archeology or even other Bible verses) because being an accurate historical record with all t's crossed and i's dotted was not the intention of geneologies until Western thought hit.
I'm one of those rare breeds who sees the creationism/scientism debate as unnecessarily polarized.. who says, "Why not both?" I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in classrooms -- theology and science are for the most part orthogonal to each other -- though at times one may inform the other. I have few qualms with evolutionary theory, and whatever Big Bang theory is in vogue this year.
I wonder what would have happened had the (Western) Roman Catholic Church not tried to make specific pronouncements about anything scientifically early on, and had rather been content to say, "I don't know about that one," as the Eastern Church tends to do (we don't even try to nail down the specific points of transubstantiation because we simply don't know as to the details of how it works). Science and Christianity could have been friends rather than enemies had history played out differently, IMHO.
Hm... an additional wondering that may help illustrate my method of reasoning. The whole pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is also artificially polarized, IMHO. Both sides will tend to agree that abortions aren't a good thing to be pursued. In fact, the majority on both sides agree that fewer abortions is better. There was a study I read once that stated that over 80% of women that had abortions would have preferred to have the baby and would have done it had they had someone who would stand by them. The polarization sadly obscures the societal isolation that, IMHO, should be at least a focus, if not the primary one.
We know in our American bipartisan system that extreme polarization results in less getting done. *sigh*
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Scientist
Being a unification-theory afficianado, I like to think about these things. While I have no substance to back this up, it seems to be possible, and even likely, that if the energies involved were not infinite, then neither does time completely disappear, especially considering that energy and time are coupled uncertainty-principle-wise. If velocity and mass and energy don't "break down" as was the case at the previously impossible T=0, I see no reason time should either.
Didn't you ever notice that these campout events never coincide? Don't tell anyone, but... those Star Wars fans, Lord of the Rings fans, iPhone fans... they're all the same people. They're a hired group of actors who inflate the perceived popularity of a product. All other victims of the consequent group think then aren't insane; they're just conformists.
As for the AIDS and cancer patients, I'd be seriously worried for their health. What are they doing camping out for a day in their condition??
God as defined by these religions may be by definition "supernatural" and "outside nature". I understand that.
What I don't understand is why God is _looked_for_ outside of nature. Wouldn't this God work within nature also and not just outside of it? God of the natural _and_ the supernatural, if you will.
Why is it that proof of God was always looked for outside of nature? That any divine action must be "supernatural"? It seems like an unnecessary distinction.
Similarly, why must it be creationism _against_ evolution? Why could God not have created the evolutionary system?
(Of course "proof of God" in a "God works through nature" schema wouldn't play nice with Occam's razor, but I'm not looking to prove God either.)
Perhaps, but on a deeper level there is the faith in Occam's razor, the faith that "fact" is entirely and only comprised of those phenomena that can be repeated in a laboratory, and the faith that the scientific method is sound and applicable to this domain.
Viewed from the perspective of science, the question is asked, "Can you prove God?"
Viewed from a religious perspective, the statement "There is no God" is a religious belief.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary iconoclast argument, within Christendom, was the claim that you cannot depict Jesus Christ, since He is God, and therefore undepictable. The iconodule (pro icon) position instead held that Jesus became human, and that to deny making icons of Christ was to deny His humanity. The iconodule position was upheld by the 7th Oecumenical Council (worldwide council across Christendom).
While Orthodox do venerate icons, we don't worship them. What's the difference? Ask any Orthodox whether the icon is God. The answer will be a firm, "No!" There is no confusion -- these are not gods to be worshiped. Sometimes God might work a miracle through an icon, healings for instance, and people pray focused on an icon, but we're not talking to the icon as if it has power of itself. We're asking someone for help, similar to talking to your grandmother's photo and addressing your thoughts toward her. It's not worshipping objects. It's recognizing that God works through all aspects of our life, the material world included.
...are not Catholic. Neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholics say this. Eastern Orthodox churches aren't in communion with Rome (though there are some Byzantine Rite Catholic churches that are, such as Melkites) and don't recognize papal authority, regarding modern day papalism as innovation (and therefore extra and external) on the Christian faith. Eastern Orthodox assert that Rome was one of the Christian cities that, regrettably, split off and went its own way.
Perhaps in the Western Fathers (of which Augustine is one).
The Eastern Fathers (and perhaps the Western ones -- I don't know) were less concerned with nailing down the scientific fine points of creation than with the original relationship of (hu)mankind with God. This is vital theologically, because of the role of Christ as the new Adam, restoring creation to union with God.
That's a large part of the problem of the whole religion/science antagonism. The Bible wasn't meant as a science primer, just as geneologies in the Bible are not exact historically speaking (often conspicuous omissions related elsewhere, by archeology or even other Bible verses) because being an accurate historical record with all t's crossed and i's dotted was not the intention of geneologies until Western thought hit.
I'm one of those rare breeds who sees the creationism/scientism debate as unnecessarily polarized.. who says, "Why not both?" I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in classrooms -- theology and science are for the most part orthogonal to each other -- though at times one may inform the other. I have few qualms with evolutionary theory, and whatever Big Bang theory is in vogue this year.
I wonder what would have happened had the (Western) Roman Catholic Church not tried to make specific pronouncements about anything scientifically early on, and had rather been content to say, "I don't know about that one," as the Eastern Church tends to do (we don't even try to nail down the specific points of transubstantiation because we simply don't know as to the details of how it works). Science and Christianity could have been friends rather than enemies had history played out differently, IMHO.
Hm... an additional wondering that may help illustrate my method of reasoning. The whole pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is also artificially polarized, IMHO. Both sides will tend to agree that abortions aren't a good thing to be pursued. In fact, the majority on both sides agree that fewer abortions is better. There was a study I read once that stated that over 80% of women that had abortions would have preferred to have the baby and would have done it had they had someone who would stand by them. The polarization sadly obscures the societal isolation that, IMHO, should be at least a focus, if not the primary one.
We know in our American bipartisan system that extreme polarization results in less getting done. *sigh*
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Scientist Being a unification-theory afficianado, I like to think about these things. While I have no substance to back this up, it seems to be possible, and even likely, that if the energies involved were not infinite, then neither does time completely disappear, especially considering that energy and time are coupled uncertainty-principle-wise. If velocity and mass and energy don't "break down" as was the case at the previously impossible T=0, I see no reason time should either.
Well that would explain the crash. The craft must have been controlled by spoken command.
Didn't you ever notice that these campout events never coincide? Don't tell anyone, but... those Star Wars fans, Lord of the Rings fans, iPhone fans... they're all the same people. They're a hired group of actors who inflate the perceived popularity of a product. All other victims of the consequent group think then aren't insane; they're just conformists. As for the AIDS and cancer patients, I'd be seriously worried for their health. What are they doing camping out for a day in their condition??
These nation things... what bunk. Pangaea can't just be wished away.
Last I checked, learning wasn't a brute forceable. Doing a bad thing efficiently will get you more bad things in the same amount of time.
God as defined by these religions may be by definition "supernatural" and "outside nature". I understand that.
What I don't understand is why God is _looked_for_ outside of nature. Wouldn't this God work within nature also and not just outside of it? God of the natural _and_ the supernatural, if you will.
Diverging a little...
Why is it that proof of God was always looked for outside of nature?
That any divine action must be "supernatural"? It seems like an unnecessary distinction.
Similarly, why must it be creationism _against_ evolution? Why could God not have created the evolutionary system?
(Of course "proof of God" in a "God works through nature" schema wouldn't play nice with Occam's razor, but I'm not looking to prove God either.)
Perhaps, but on a deeper level there is the faith in Occam's razor, the faith that "fact" is entirely and only comprised of those phenomena that can be repeated in a laboratory, and the faith that the scientific method is sound and applicable to this domain. Viewed from the perspective of science, the question is asked, "Can you prove God?" Viewed from a religious perspective, the statement "There is no God" is a religious belief.