# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  How would You Paint God?

## cacian

I have always wondered why in religion especially christianity that all the figures or gods/saints/angels/are all painted and sculpted and yet nothing of God as such is ever.

If you were asked to portray GOD in words and in pictures/paintings
how would you do it?

For example

would you say God is *a he/a she/both...*
if so why.
*You must justify your answer.*

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Jesus Christ has been portrayed in many different ways, and He is God. If you actually want to observe God from the Christian point of view, then He is it. There is also the Father, but as it considered from Exodus 33, Moses was the only one to see God, but only from the back. It is too much for man to see the Glory of God's face.

Of course if the Scriptural considerations aren't what you are looking for, then you must be looking for another god from religions other than Judaism and Christianity.

----------


## cafolini

As a sausage in saurkraut.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> As a sausage in saurkraut.


Is that suppose to be applicable to the discussion?

----------


## cacian

> Jesus Christ has been portrayed in many different ways, and He is God. If you actually want to observe God from the Christian point of view, then He is it. There is also the Father, but as it considered from Exodus 33, Moses was the only one to see God, but only from the back. It is too much for man to see the Glory of God's face.
> 
> Of course if the Scriptural considerations aren't what you are looking for, then you must be looking for another god from religions other than Judaism and Christianity.





> There is also the Father


So what you are saying is seeing Jesus is seeing God .
I was thinking that with pictures/relics of Jesus and all the paintings made about him,it is in a way swaying people from the concept of God.
By adorning an image a picture of a Jesus people are in way in trance with a relic/image and moving/forgetting about the concept of God and what it mean.



> but as it considered from Exodus 33, Moses was the only one to see God, but only from the back. It is too much for man to see the Glory of God's face.


I have heard about this concept of too much to see God'sface.
In Islam they say the same thing about the prophet too much to see his face.

Bu then to see someone's back is not seeing at all..so Moses did not see God.

----------


## KCurtis

> As a sausage in saurkraut.


I saw him in my morning toast.

----------


## Des Essientes

Michelangelo painted God the father touching Adam's finger on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. God has a hoary beard and hair and his arm is around Mary. The OP is wrong to claim God Himself has never been painted.

----------


## cafolini

> Is that suppose to be applicable to the discussion?


Obviously it is. You are questioning it.

----------


## Haunted

> As a sausage in saurkraut.


This is trolling.

----------


## cafolini

> This is trolling.


Why couldn't it simply be how I would paint god? Wasn't that the question?

----------


## cacian

> Michelangelo painted God the father touching Adam's finger on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. God has a hoary beard and hair and his arm is around Mary. The OP is wrong to claim God Himself has never been painted.


I don't know about wrong but I personally never have seen a painted picture of God.
It is not common is what I am trying to say.
By the sound of the Sistne Chapel a God with a hoary beard sounds somehow offputting. :Sosp:

----------


## j.hart

The first thing I think of when I try to imagine God is a shadowy figure, abstract ideas and concepts, and I feel emotions. God is definitely very difficult to portray. 

But if I were somehow obligated to portray him visually, I suppose I would paint nature, and maybe a dove (since the Spirit chose to be in that form when He came upon Jesus), and maybe a rainbow (since that is what God used to remind us of His promise to Noah and the world to never flood it again the way He did in Genesis). 

Good question, btw!

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> So what you are saying is seeing Jesus is seeing God.




John 14:7-11




> 7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.
> 8 Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.
> 9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? *He who has seen Me has seen the Father;* so how can you say, Show us the Father? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

----------


## Climacus

> I have always wondered why in religion especially christianity that all the figures or gods/saints/angels/are all painted and sculpted and yet nothing of God as such is ever.


But he _is_ depicted often enough - God the father, that is. And, not surprisingly, he's depicted in a fatherly way, with a benign hoary-bearded face.

----------


## cafolini

I think today we need something genuiney German to paint god. There will be times when a hard salami with a chunk of provolone could do the job. Who knows, we could even change to mozzarella.

----------


## Scout

Well if it was for money really good a man of course but, really I don't think he is or was real so for fun I would make him well truthfully the same as the others would ( like he is in a church) 
Others think he is or was but how do we now did we see, hear, touch or smell him? No I don't think anyone from our time did.

----------


## Jack of Hearts

With one's own feces.

Just kidding, sry god... 



There's a pretty classic image of God. He's definitely old. Tall. Muscular, probably with a big hoary white beard. So why not go with that? Why ruin a good thing?




J

----------


## JuniperWoolf

^Haha, like Zeus!

----------


## Jack of Hearts

Whoops. That might be Disney's _Hercules_ this reader was thinking of.

If you want to do a realist interpretation, you could mix your palette and then just not paint anything.

Personally, this reader would paint Dylan from the '66 tour. 







J

----------


## PoeticPassions

Michelangelo's work: 


Blake's plate: 


Bartolommeo: 





There are so many more... but this is all mainly the Christian God... we have even more of ancient Egyptian and Greek and Roman gods... and other 'Eastern' religions.

----------


## PoeticPassions

As to how I would paint him (if I had the ability to paint well)-- I would paint him as an amalgamation of different images... of Hindu gods and different humans with different skin tones and colors (and genders), and he would be beautiful and grandiose and a mixture of so many different ideas...

----------


## osho

This is abstract and everybody paints God from the image he carries inside him.The image however is borrowed and that is why the painter of God lacks originality

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I would paint him as an amalgamation of different images


Don't make me get a dictionary out...

----------


## thingie

I think God is not something physical and therefore you can't actually _paint_ him. I was christian, but right now I'm not into rites and the like. I imagine God as something blue or black, but it's not a fog or a cloud, it's just... some part of everything.

----------


## cacian

> The first thing I think of when I try to imagine God is a shadowy figure, abstract ideas and concepts, and I feel emotions. God is definitely very difficult to portray. 
> 
> But if I were somehow obligated to portray him visually, I suppose I would paint nature, and maybe a dove (since the Spirit chose to be in that form when He came upon Jesus), and maybe a rainbow (since that is what God used to remind us of His promise to Noah and the world to never flood it again the way He did in Genesis). 
> 
> Good question, btw!


Thank you hart..I am glad you think it a good question.
Interesting that you would not paint a portraybut rather a landscape which makes lots of sense. :Smile5:

----------


## Haunted

> Michelangelo's work: 
> 
> 
> Blake's plate: 
> 
> 
> Bartolommeo: 
> 
> 
> ...


thanks PP for posting these. I was a fine arts student and had studied religious art extensively, so these represent the Christian God for me. I imagine that if I was a person of another faith, I would have a different image in my mind. As such these images speak to me and give God a physical entity I find totally accessible.

----------


## cacian

> Michelangelo's work: 
> 
> 
> Blake's plate: 
> 
> 
> Bartolommeo: 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not like the look of the beard.
What is the significance of a beard on fresco portray of a character?
distracting indeed so much nudity..I am still not sure about why baby angels are in the nude too??

Oh one more ...anyone care to explain the AW significance?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I do not like the look of the beard.
> What is the significance of a beard on fresco portray of a character?
> distracting indeed so much nudity..I am still not sure about why baby angels are in the nude too??
> 
> Oh one more ...anyone care to explain the AW significance?


Those are Greek letter...alpha and omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Jesus said that He was the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega.

----------


## cacian

> Those are Greek letter...alpha and omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Jesus said that He was the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega.


I thank BienvenuDC.
This is very helpfull.

----------


## cacian

> Michelangelo's work: 
> 
> 
> Blake's plate: 
> 
> 
> Bartolommeo: 
> 
> 
> ...


what is the significance 
or 
what is actually happenign in the Blake's Plate Painting?
Thanks!

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> what is the significance 
> or 
> what is actually happenign in the Blake's Plate Painting?
> Thanks!


I found one reference to the plate saying, God as the Architect.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> ^Haha, like Zeus!


Funny you should mention Zeus, because that's exactly where the standard image of God (big guy, muscly, gray hair and beard, etc.) came from. Much like the pagan traditions of Christmas, rather than attempt to destroy the blasphemous image of Zeus, the catholic church made it its own.

----------


## cafolini

> Funny you should mention Zeus, because that's exactly where the standard image of God (big guy, muscly, gray hair and beard, etc.) came from. Much like the pagan traditions of Christmas, rather than attempt to destroy the blasphemous image of Zeus, the catholic church made it its own.


Long before the Romans stole the books from the Jews, they stole everything from the Greeks. Around 100 BC, Zeus was already becoming the leader of a fallen Olympus and the Romans were beginning to see Jupiter (their version of Zeus) as a monotheistic God. Around half a century later, Cicero wrote about the Roman obsession with monotheism. Zeus (Jupiter) is tacitly implied. So it is probable that many of the images came from the Greeks, although the Romans stole everything they came across and served any rationalized purpose.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I actually like that about the Romans. Why seek to destroy something (religion, culture, stories, ritual, ect) when you can assimilate it? That works much better, much less resistance and loss.

----------


## cafolini

> I actually like that about the Romans. Why seek to destroy something (religion, culture, nationality, ect) when you can assimilate it? That works much better, much less resistance and bloodshed.


That was a funny one, JW, considering the rivers of bloodshed and the slaughterhouses the Romans left all over in order to do it.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

It could have been worse. They could have wanted everyone and everything on earth to be "Roman," which would more closely resemble the war-makers of the last century. There goes everything.

----------


## Darcy88

> That was a funny one, JW, considering the rivers of bloodshed and the slaughterhouses the Romans left all over in order to do it.


I read Caesar's _Commentaries on the Gallic Wars_ a while back and was appalled by the scale of the butchery told of. They say a million died and another million were enslaved, at a time when the population of Europe wasn't all that high. I have difficulty thinking of other examples of prolific widespread slaughter on the Romans' part though.

----------


## cafolini

> I read Caesar's _Commentaries on the Gallic Wars_ a while back and was appalled by the scale of the butchery told of. They say a million died and another million were enslaved, at a time when the population of Europe wasn't all that high. I have difficulty thinking of other examples of prolific widespread slaughter on the Romans' part though.


Tha depends on how well you grasp the advent of the Third Reich. The Romans were behind it up to their knees. I already gave enough information about this in another thread.
And what about the crusades? What about the persecution of Jews throughout the middle ages and the inquisitions?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Not everyone reads every thread....

----------


## Darcy88

> Tha depends on how well you grasp the advent of the Third Reich. The Romans were behind it up to their knees. I already gave enough information about this in another thread.
> And what about the crusades? What about the persecution of Jews throughout the middle ages and the inquisitions?


By Romans I assumed you meant the Roman Republic and Empire. 

Getting back to the original question of the thread, I think I would paint God in an abstract way, with lots of bright colour. Or maybe to reflect my atheism I'd merely leave the canvas blank.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I think it'd look sweet to do a kabbalistic thing, there are so many symbols that you could use and I like their concept of god the most out of any modern religion. I'd paint a scene from a city park or something, some pigeons, people, dogs, grass, trees, &c, then I'd superimpose little gold threads throughout everything, winding around everything and inside all of the people and plants and animals. If it's the kabbalah then we've got to use some symbolism, so I'd put a dull little everyday sun in the sky but I'd lace it with the same gold color. I might chuck some lion statuary into the park fountain or fences or something too.

----------


## cafolini

> It could have been worse. They could have wanted everyone and everything on earth to be "Roman," which would more closely resemble the war-makers of the last century.


But they did want that. Dig into the meaning of the word Catholic. Don't confuse the number of casualties in the 20th century due to better weapons with the intentions of the Catholics.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> But they did want that. Dig into the meaning of the word Catholic. Don't confuse the number of casualties in the 20th century due to better weapons with the intentions of the Catholics.


That's too late in the time frame. I obviously can't admire ALL of ancient Rome, the kingdom, republic and empire span over two thousand years altogether. I like how they dealt with (most of) their conquored nations when they were at their prime before they got overzealous. During their expansion they COULD have just razed every non-Roman city to the ground simply for being "not Roman," expunged everything like they did with Carthage, but they didn't. Why put in all of that work to erase a society when it has something to offer? They saw value in the nations that they conquored, not just in it's resources and labour but in the cultures themselves. They were able to admire things which were different, stories, styles and philosophy &c. and so these societies live on (unlike the Carthaginian empire).

----------


## stlukesguild

I do not like the look of the beard.
What is the significance of a beard on fresco portray of a character?

The beard clearly suggested age and wisdom... and as others have suggested, was quite likely based upon Greco-Roman models of Zeus as well as images of Homer, Aristotle, etc... and other individuals seen as bearing great wisdom. The initial images of Jesus, on the other hand, were based upon the Greco-Roman God Apollo. 

distracting indeed so much nudity..I am still not sure about why baby angels are in the nude too??

Michelangelo would have quite likely have painted God and all the angels naked had he been able to. Why should God, the most perfect being, who created Man and Woman in his image... naked and without shame... need to cover himself? Michelangelo endured heated debates with various clergy during the painting of the Last Judgment as a result of his insistence on painting everyone nude. He argued quite persuasively that surely souls freshly risen from the dead would not be clothed. The church leaders, however, could not abide a nude Virgin Mary or a nude Christ and one of the artist's followers was later employed to add concealing draperies in the more "extreme" areas.

Of course Michelagelo's attraction to the nude also owed much to his own sexuality... a conveyed a great deal of his internal turmoil and frustration... the conflict between physical and spiritual desire.

The "baby angels" or putti (plural of putto) were initially representatives of profane or non-spiritual desire... the desires of the flesh. They were initially employed in art and literature as assistants to Eros/Cupid (and ultimately to Aphrodite/Venus, goddess of physical and erotic love) in promoting physical desire between specific individuals. Later... especially in the Baroque era... they came to be confused with "Cherubs" or "Cherubim" who represented the second order of Biblical angels, and they were employed to represent the presence of God.

----------


## PoeticPassions

Having thought about it more...

I think, at this point, I would paint God the same way I would paint Love. Though I am not sure what love would look like... It is difficult to capture a concept.

----------


## cacian

> I do not like the look of the beard.
> What is the significance of a beard on fresco portray of a character?
> 
> The beard clearly suggested age and wisdom... and as others have suggested, was quite likely based upon Greco-Roman models of Zeus as well as images of Homer, Aristotle, etc... and other individuals seen as bearing great wisdom. The initial images of Jesus, on the other hand, were based upon the Greco-Roman God Apollo. 
> 
> distracting indeed so much nudity..I am still not sure about why baby angels are in the nude too??
> 
> Michelangelo would have quite likely have painted God and all the angels naked had he been able to. Why should God, the most perfect being, who created Man and Woman in his image... naked and without shame... need to cover himself? Michelangelo endured heated debates with various clergy during the painting of the Last Judgment as a result of his insistence on painting everyone nude. He argued quite persuasively that surely souls freshly risen from the dead would not be clothed. The church leaders, however, could not abide a nude Virgin Mary or a nude Christ and one of the artist's followers was later employed to add concealing draperies in the more "extreme" areas.
> 
> ...





> Of course Michelagelo's attraction to the nude also owed much to his own sexuality... a conveyed a great deal of his internal turmoil and frustration... the conflict between physical and spiritual desire.


*stlukesguild*
Thank you for such eloquent explanation.
It makes sense about Michelangelo's frutrations one hope that he did found solace in his own great gift as a painter.
It is quite interesting to think he got away with it because of the religious strict moeurs at the time.
I mean it must have been a sensation to have with such allowances of flesh and nudity especially with regard to the religee themselves.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I like how South Park depicted God:



Randy: [taken aback] That's God?
Jesus: Yea, 'tis my Father, the Creator. He is the Alpha and the Omega.
[A snake's tongue lashes out from God's mouth]
Jesus: The Beginning and the End.
Mr. Garrison: Well, yeah, but that?
God: What did you expect me to look like, my son?
Mr. Garrison: [thinks for a moment] Well not like that!

----------


## MarkBastable

If, like me, you were brought up in the Nonconformist Protestant tradition of the European Baptist Church, you wouldn't paint God at all, because that would amount to a graven image, and God's explicitly against them. 

This is also why there are no stained glass windows in Baptist churches, and why we think that a crucifix is pretty much equivalent to a Golden Calf or a statue of the Whore of Babylon.

We Baptists don't mess about when it comes to Commandments, I can tell you.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> That's too late in the time frame. I obviously can't admire ALL of ancient Rome, the kingdom, republic and empire span over two thousand years altogether. I like how they dealt with (most of) their conquored nations when they were at their prime before they got overzealous. During their expansion they COULD have just razed every non-Roman city to the ground simply for being "not Roman," expunged everything like they did with Carthage, but they didn't. Why put in all of that work to erase a society when it has something to offer? They saw value in the nations that they conquored, not just in it's resources and labour but in the cultures themselves. They were able to admire things which were different, stories, styles and philosophy &c. and so these societies live on (unlike the Carthaginian empire).


This sounds a bit like you're romanticizing Roman imperialism. Later European imperialists also grew fascinated with the stories, aesthetic/styles, and philosophies of the East, nor did they raze everything, but that doesn't mean they didn't brutally murder, arrest, enslave the native populations when it suited their purposes. 

The Romans might have tolerated some cultural elements and individuals might have adopted certain aspects of other cultures (particularly cults/religions), but social treatment in the larger Roman society generally correlated with how much of Roman culture you adopted.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> This sounds a bit like you're romanticizing Roman imperialism.


Totally, I'm grateful that we can still read ancient Greek philosophy. So much could have been lost but they were practical about their raping and pillaging which was right decent of them. Really though I'm interested in the brutality and grit of Ancient Rome as well the aspects of high culture. Carthage is actually my favorite story, imagine blotting a great civilization out of history, _literally_ salting the earth. Enthralling stuff.

----------


## cafolini

> That's too late in the time frame. I obviously can't admire ALL of ancient Rome, the kingdom, republic and empire span over two thousand years altogether. I like how they dealt with (most of) their conquored nations when they were at their prime before they got overzealous. During their expansion they COULD have just razed every non-Roman city to the ground simply for being "not Roman," expunged everything like they did with Carthage, but they didn't. Why put in all of that work to erase a society when it has something to offer? They saw value in the nations that they conquored, not just in it's resources and labour but in the cultures themselves. They were able to admire things which were different, stories, styles and philosophy &c. and so these societies live on (unlike the Carthaginian empire).


I don't think you know much of what went on. One only has to look at what they did to England with the Norman invasion and the reconstruction with the invention of Shakespeare, and what it actually took for Elizabeth I to kick them and their Mary of Scotts out for keeps. And when it came to torture of individuals, they invented the most ingenious machines, protocols and devices. And what do you know about The Glorious Revolution and what it took Newton and Co to finish with the conspiracy involving Leibnitz as the inventor of the calculus. Case closed.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> And when it came to torture of individuals, they invented the most ingenious machines, protocols and devices. Case closed.


I know, and that part was fun to read about too. I'm not saying they were cuddly bunnies, I'm saying they were able to recognize and preserve what was important. What was your case again?

----------


## cafolini

> Totally, I'm grateful that we can still read ancient Greek philosophy. So much could have been lost but they were practical about their raping and pillaging which was right decent of them. Really though I'm interested in the brutality and grit of Ancient Rome as well the aspects of high culture. Carthage is actually my favorite story, imagine blotting a great civilization out of history, _literally_ salting the earth. Enthralling stuff.


Alright, alright. My leg can't stretch that long.

----------


## cacian

> If, like me, you were brought up in the Nonconformist Protestant tradition of the European Baptist Church, you wouldn't paint God at all, because that would amount to a graven image, and God's explicitly against them. 
> 
> This is also why there are no stained glass windows in Baptist churches, and why we think that a crucifix is pretty much equivalent to a Golden Calf or a statue of the Whore of Babylon.
> 
> We Baptists don't mess about when it comes to Commandments, I can tell you.





> a Golden Calf or a statue of the Whore of Babylon.


never heard of this.

----------


## cacian

> I like how South Park depicted God:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy: [taken aback] That's God?
> Jesus: Yea, 'tis my Father, the Creator. He is the Alpha and the Omega.
> [A snake's tongue lashes out from God's mouth]
> Jesus: The Beginning and the End.
> Mr. Garrison: Well, yeah, but that?
> ...


Hehe....funny :Biggrin5:

----------


## Alexander III

> That was a funny one, JW, considering the rivers of bloodshed and the slaughterhouses the Romans left all over in order to do it.


As opposed to every other empire in human History which expanded with love and doves and hippies and never shed a drop of blood....




> Totally, I'm grateful that we can still read ancient Greek philosophy. So much could have been lost but they were practical about their raping and pillaging which was right decent of them. Really though I'm interested in the brutality and grit of Ancient Rome as well the aspects of high culture. Carthage is actually my favorite story, imagine blotting a great civilization out of history, _literally_ salting the earth. Enthralling stuff.


I agree. I like the Romans, for their sense of honor. I don't think any empire has ever been as Honor focused as the Romans. The example with Carthage is perfect, if I am use an analogy.

Rome had had many wars with the Carthaginians, but then all of a sudden, instead of fighting wars like all the ones they had fought with them before, they went out to eradicate their civilization from history. Why? Because of Hannibal, because Hannibal had reached Rome itself and threatened to destroy it.

it was like there were two guys, who often fought each other, mostly with fists and baseball bats, once in a while with Knifes. But they frequently fought and thought ofttimes they ended up in the hospital they never killed each other.

Then one day, boy B (lets call him Punic) goes to Boy A's (lets call him Lat) house and violently attacks his mother. When Boy A returns home, he know something " you can tough me all you want, but the second you touch my mother (lets call her Rome) that is when I kill you, I not only kill you but I make you die like a rat.

There is something to be admired about the patriotism of Romans, and how sacred for them Rome was, so sacred that when it was threatened by Hannibal they felt it as if their enemy had gone after their mother, and thus subsequently reacted as any man would when they touch his mother.

-----

On Topic

I like how everyone is discussing how they would paint God, it is fascinating, as it is something so personal and individualist, and interesting to see every individuals response.

Personally, even though I am an atheist - I would paint god thus:

A nude boy, not older than 16 or 17; sitting on a rock and looking at a pond and at his reflection in the pond. And there would be a melancholy on his face, and a tiredness. And half his body would be covered in a shadow cast by a large tree behind him. He would have long curly hair, and there would be a knotted walking stick laid to rest beside him. The pond would be to his left tough, not in front of him, so he would have his face turned away from his body.

I don't know why, but that is how I would do it.

----------


## Haunted

> On Topic
> 
> I like how everyone is discussing how they would paint God, it is fascinating, as it is something so personal and individualist, and interesting to see every individuals response.
> 
> Personally, even though I am an atheist - I would paint god thus:
> 
> A nude boy, not older than 16 or 17; sitting on a rock and looking at a pond and at his reflection in the pond. And there would be a melancholy on his face, and a tiredness. And half his body would be covered in a shadow cast by a large tree behind him. He would have long curly hair, and there would be a knotted walking stick laid to rest beside him. The pond would be to his left tough, not in front of him, so he would have his face turned away from his body.
> 
> I don't know why, but that is how I would do it.


So interesting. And being that you are an atheist, this images most likely come from our collective archetypes: child, water, tree, etc. The details you describe are fascinating. I sure see a painter in you.

----------


## Darcy88

Hannibal would have razed the city of Rome and salted _its_ earth if he'd received the kind of support from home that he required and deserved. And if the Numidian horsemen hadn't defected to Scipio I reckon he'd have massacred the Romans at Zama. 

The Second Punic War was more of a conflict between Hannibal and Barcid Spain VS Rome rather than the wealthy Carthaginian Empire VS Rome. Once Hannibal is out of the picture I do warm up to the Romans, but Hannibal is still my favourite historical figure and I believe he would have accomplished a lot more if the Carthaginian state had been totally behind him.

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE=Alexander III;1102511]As opposed to every other empire in human History which expanded with love and doves and hippies and never shed a drop of blood....



I agree. I like the Romans, for their sense of honor. I don't think any empire has ever been as Honor focused as the Romans. The example with Carthage is perfect, if I am use an analogy.

Rome had had many wars with the Carthaginians, but then all of a sudden, instead of fighting wars like all the ones they had fought with them before, they went out to eradicate their civilization from history. Why? Because of Hannibal, because Hannibal had reached Rome itself and threatened to destroy it.

it was like there were two guys, who often fought each other, mostly with fists and baseball bats, once in a while with Knifes. But they frequently fought and thought ofttimes they ended up in the hospital they never killed each other.

Then one day, boy B (lets call him Punic) goes to Boy A's (lets call him Lat) house and violently attacks his mother. When Boy A returns home, he know something " you can tough me all you want, but the second you touch my mother (lets call her Rome) that is when I kill you, I not only kill you but I make you die like a rat.

There is something to be admired about the patriotism of Romans, and how sacred for them Rome was, so sacred that when it was threatened by Hannibal they felt it as if their enemy had gone after their mother, and thus subsequently reacted as any man would when they touch his mother.

-----

On Topic

I like how everyone is discussing how they would paint God, it is fascinating, as it is something so personal and individualist, and interesting to see every individuals response.

Personally, even though I am an atheist - I would paint god thus:



> A nude boy, not older than 16 or 17; sitting on a rock and looking at a pond and at his reflection in the pond. And there would be a melancholy on his face, and a tiredness. And half his body would be covered in a shadow cast by a large tree behind him. He would have long curly hair, and there would be a knotted walking stick laid to rest beside him. The pond would be to his left tough, not in front of him, so he would have his face turned away from his body.
> 
> I don't know why, but that is how I would do it.


I like it all apart from the nude bit just because it is a bit chilly especially if you are near the water..it would sooooooooooo coooooooooooooooooold :Cold:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Hannibal would have razed the city of Rome and salted _its_ earth if he'd received the kind of support from home that he required and deserved. And if the Numidian horsemen hadn't defected to Scipio I reckon he'd have massacred the Romans at Zama. 
> 
> The Second Punic War was more of a conflict between Hannibal and Barcid Spain VS Rome rather than the wealthy Carthaginian Empire VS Rome. Once Hannibal is out of the picture I do warm up to the Romans, but Hannibal is still my favourite historical figure and I believe he would have accomplished a lot more if the Carthaginian state had been totally behind him.


I _love_ Hannibal. That vinegar trick with the boulders, very cool.

----------


## mazHur

God is Light...colors within a color!

God speaks to each of us: Rainer Maria Rilke


1.
God speaks to each of us as He makes us,
continuous,
then with us, silently out of the night,
He walks.

These are the words we dimly hear:

"You, sent out beyond your recall,
go to the limits of your longing.
walk to the furthest horizon
of your yearning.

Embody Me.

Flare up like flame
and make big shadows I can veil Myself in.

Let everything happen to you: beauty and terror.
Just keep going. No feeling is final.

Don't let yourself lose Me.
Don't let yourself lose Me.

Nearby is the country they call life.
You will know it by its majestic seriousness.

Now, my friend,
Give Me your hand.

Hold the Hand of the only real Friend
You ever had."


- Rainer Maria Rilke, Translated reworked by Sadiq Alam

----------


## cacian

> God is Light...colors within a color!
> 
> God speaks to each of us: Rainer Maria Rilke
> 
> 
> 1.
> God speaks to each of us as He makes us,
> continuous,
> then with us, silently out of the night,
> ...


 


> Now, my friend,
> Give Me your hand.
> 
> Hold the Hand of the only real Friend
> You ever had."


These last lines are rather worrying/pretentious.
I think real friends go beyond and after god.
There is life after religion and god and that I know for sure :Biggrin:

----------


## mazHur

> These last lines are rather worrying/pretentious.
> I think real friends go beyond and after god.
> There is life after religion and god and that I know for sure


Really?? I don't find any speck of pretension in those lines. 

When there is nobody
Nothing pretentious
Nothing seductive
Nothing banal
No Fear
In my Heart
You, my Friend
Are there.

How do you say there is 'life after religion and god and that I (you) know it for sure'??? Has anybody returned from the other side to tell you about that??


Mind is a Cheat
An Imposter
Devises its own ways
For its own convenience
Let Heart be your Guide
Let this Genuine One be your Messiah
Let Him take the charge
Follow Him
He won't betray you
Even if He faulted
In Good Faith
Unlike the Devilish Mind
A Hot spring of Ugly Doubts.

----------


## cacian

> Really?? I don't find any speck of pretension in those lines. 
> 
> When there is nobody
> Nothing pretentious
> Nothing seductive
> Nothing banal
> No Fear
> In my Heart
> You, my Friend
> ...


Hehe...Ithink it the fact that God is mentioned to the ONLY real friend means to me that it does not trust man/humans to have real friends between themselves.
For me it means it undermines human friendship.

----------


## mazHur

> Hehe...Ithink it the fact that God is mentioned to the ONLY real friend means to me that it does not trust man/humans to have real friends between themselves.
> For me it means it undermines human friendship.


Well, that's a wrong perception of God. God is all good, only we create evil for ourselves by choosing the wrong path. When two humans take one thing, such as a Table or a Chair, from different angles only then the real trouble starts and rifts get created between them. Another analogy can be drawn from the Traffic rules. All goes well if one follows the traffic rules as that is exactly what is required for drivers own safety and safety of others. But when these rules are broken one cannot blame the Traffic laws....the offender is himself/herself for the resulting bad happening for himself as well as for others. It is here that people usually misconceive God and blame him for their own failings.

----------


## MarkBastable

> God is all good...


Says who?

Oh - hang on. God.

----------


## mazHur

> Says who?
> 
> Oh - hang on. God.


IF God was bad he could have brought an end to this whole show in a jiffy!

----------


## MarkBastable

> IF God was bad he could have brought an end to this whole show in a jiffy!


If God was bad he'd let this show go on.

...oh - hang on again.

----------


## cafolini

God is neither good nor bad. God is a berlief many people have in order to cope with life and each interprets it in whateverwhichway they please.

----------


## MarkBastable

> God is neither good nor bad. God is a berlief many people have in order to cope with life and each interprets it in whateverwhichway they please.


Ooh, there's a view worth contemplating.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Yes, quite exciting.

----------


## mazHur

at-turuqu ila 'Llahi ka-nufusi bani Adam: The ways to God are as numerous as the children of Adam.
- Sacred Tradition of Islam 


For everyone there is a direction towards which one turns.
- The Quran 2:148

----------


## mazHur

> If God was bad he'd let this show go on.
> 
> ...oh - hang on again.


IF God was bad he wouldn't let this show go on and off!

----------


## Alexander III

> IF God was bad he wouldn't let this show go on and off!


hahah, that was a good reply, I think you got the better of mark there.

I do enjoy these witty exchanges.

----------


## Alexander III

> If God was bad he'd let this show go on.
> 
> ...oh - hang on again.


You can end the show whenever you want, God gave you the choice to leave when you please. So not so much of a valid argument.

----------


## MarkBastable

> You can end the show whenever you want, God gave you the choice to leave when you please. So not so much of a valid argument.


...not much of a valid argument for what?

----------


## Alexander III

> ...not much of a valid argument for what?


That if there were a god, he is a cruel one...

that is what you were saying no?

----------


## MarkBastable

> That if there were a god, he is a cruel one...
> 
> that is what you were saying no?


No.

Mazur said this: 

_If God was bad he could have brought an end to this whole show in a jiffy!_ 

which may be true or may not be true, but is certainly no truer or not true than the opposite:


_If God was bad he'd let this show go on._


So I was simply making as unsupportable a claim as Mazur's in order to illustrate the uselessness of both as proofs of the goodness or badness of God. I was saying that my claim was no more or less a support for God's nature than Mazur's.

Sometimes, Al, I think you read only about one in five of the words typed here.

----------


## Alexander III

> No.
> 
> Mazur said this: 
> 
> _If God was bad he could have brought an end to this whole show in a jiffy!_ 
> 
> which may be true or may not be true, but is certainly no truer or not true than the opposite:
> 
> 
> ...



But that is different. 

By saying that by letting it go on, you are implying that the world is not a nice place, and thus the just thing to do would be to end it.

Since Mazhur was saying if God was truly bad he would end it, the fact that he does not end it does not show anything, you are just playing with semantics here. I am sure there is a technical logical term for this.

But Just because if X then Y

Does not mean If Y then X.

To put it bluntly.

----------


## MarkBastable

> But that is different. 
> 
> By saying that by letting it go on, you are implying that the world is not a nice place, and thus the just thing to do would be to end it.
> 
> Since Mazhur was saying if God was truly bad he would end it, the fact that he does not end it does not show anything, you are just playing with semantics here. I am sure there is a technical logical term for this.
> 
> But Just because if X then Y
> 
> Does not mean If Y then X.
> ...


No, the argument was...

If you can say, unsupportedly, that A implies K, then I can say unsupportedly that -A implies K.

It's not semantics, although they are important. It's logic. Or, as I was trying to show, complete lack of it.

----------


## Alexander III

> No, the argument was...
> 
> If you can say, unsupportedly, that A implies K, then I can say unsupportedly that -A implies K.
> 
> It's not semantics, although they are important. It's logic. Or, as I was trying to show, complete lack of it.


But it is semantics because A and K were put in a manner which is open to subjective interpretation.

As in what you saw in A and K is not what everyone else see's necessarily.

----------


## cafolini

Alexander you keep going in circles and missing the point.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

As much as I'm loathe to agree with cafolini, he's right. Mark's got you here, Alex.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

If I were to paint God, I would paint myself. I've created and destroyed. I steered the course of my small life and the lives of others with untold and innumerable chain reactions and consequences. I grew a person in myself out of something invisible to the naked eye. I made plants grow by nurturing seeds with water and dirt and offerings of sunlight. I came out of the earth and I will go back into it. So maybe I would paint the earth instead, or my own mother. Maybe I would paint you. We all came from an abyss, so I could attempt to paint one of those, but it would take an eternity and I think I would be quite lost. I don't believe there is something so insignificant and small as a god. This whole thing could be some kind of machine, but that seems wrong and small too.

----------


## mazHur

> hahah, that was a good reply, I think you got the better of mark there.
> 
> I do enjoy these witty exchanges.


Thanks  :Hurray:

----------


## Alexander III

> As much as I'm loathe to agree with cafolini, he's right. Mark's got you here, Alex.


Very well then, I shall cede.

----------


## cacian

Ok after reading throuhg the posts I was thinking to ask this question which may or may not help that much

Is God worth painting?
The reason I ask this is because
in the world of possessions and money driven people God's painting would perhaps create tensions where by the paintings would become as source of competitions and consequently their cost would become unttainable and would drive people to throw money at it just to own it/them.
I was just thinking of the world of celebrities where all their possessions and jewellery become a sibject of tension and ridiculous amount of money is thrown just to own them.
Would god really want that ? People fighting over something so personal and so futile at the same time?

----------


## mazHur

> Ok after reading throuhg the posts I was thinking to ask this question which may or may not help that much
> 
> Is God worth painting?


wanna bid for Him?? :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> wanna bid for Him??


Hehe... :Smilielol5: might do..when I am rich that is :Biggrin:

----------


## mazHur

Who Is This God Person Anyway?

Philosophy Now Radio Show #8
Who Is This God Person Anyway?

Grant Bartley, Assistant Editor at Philosophy Now, asks Who is this God person anyway? with Barry Hingston promoting Christianity, Hamza Tzortzis promoting Islam, and Richard Baron promoting atheism. Who can make the best case for their belief system? Will any of them persuade you? First broadcast on 20 September 2011 on Resonance FM.

Duration: 55 mins (⇓ Download 50MB)

----------


## BookBeauty

I see 'God' as Einstein did. Therefore, I would paint the universe. Perhaps I would do so with a metaphor.. Hmm.. Maybe I should take out my paints and canvases  :Biggrin:

----------


## Brett Cottrell

How would you paint God? With a lot of paint. God's big.

In my novel The Valley of Fire, I portray God as distant, funny, unknowable, desitic-inspired, and genderless. The last part is the toughest, writing dialogue for a character without using gender specific pronouns - but fun.

----------


## Des Essientes

I've been working on a painting of Krishna for some time and I've finally realized that although He commonly is described as being blue the right hues for His divine person are various shades of purple.

----------


## BookBeauty

I read somewhere that only Krishna's _incarnation_ has blue, or purple skin, and in reality his divine form cannot be perceived properly by mortals. So, what we see of Him in paintings is simply a derivation of the artist, and is actually different for whosoever sees him, as is their own reality of maya.  :Biggrin:  Unsure if it's true or not, but I have a very broad range of reading material.  :Smile:

----------


## Des Essientes

Yes his Krishna's divine form is probably too intense for humans to handle when perceived. In the Gita when He discourses with Arjuna the latter keeps forgetting he is talking to God because uninterupted awareness of such discourse would be too intense for him as well. Krishna's name literally means "black" in Sanskrit, and many, such as Thomas Mann in his novella "The Transposed Heads", have made much of the cult of Krishna as having broken the color barriers that had initially been set up by the Aryan invaders of the Indian sub-continent so long ago, but I think the best description of Krishna's appearence comes from the Vedanta which says He has "a body colored like rain clouds, wrapped in garments resembling lightning and garlanded in forest flowers."

----------


## BookBeauty

Those are lovely excerpts. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> I see 'God' as Einstein did. Therefore, I would paint the universe. Perhaps I would do so with a metaphor.. Hmm.. Maybe I should take out my paints and canvases


Hey BookBeauty this sounds great.
Would you post it here? :Smile5:

----------


## cacian

> How would you paint God? With a lot of paint. God's big.
> 
> In my novel The Valley of Fire, I portray God as distant, funny, unknowable, desitic-inspired, and genderless. The last part is the toughest, writing dialogue for a character without using gender specific pronouns - but fun.


hey that sounds lots of fun.
I had somewhere discussed something about using a pronoun that describes both a man and a woman together.
I decided to make one up because there is not one at the minute.
It annoyed me then because my story was about a person that feels both a man and a woman .
I reckon youshould make your one up too.
Let your reader know that youmade it up and use it to write your story.

----------


## begirl001

This is trolling

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> This is trolling


I'm confused...what is trolling?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I'm confused...what is trolling?


It's when you make a post that has absolutly nothing to do with the topic of discussion for the purposes of derailing a thread or making people angry. Ironically, whatserface's one-sentence post of "this is trolling" was, in fact, trolling.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> It's when you make a post that has absolutly nothing to do with the topic of discussion for the purposes of derailing a thread or making people angry. Ironically, whatserface's one-sentence post of "this is trolling" was, in fact, trolling.


I understand what trolling is. What I meant was...What HERE is trolling. I didn't see anything in this thread that was trolling with exception of what you just pointed out.

 :Lurk5:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I understand what trolling is. What I meant was...What HERE is trolling.


Haha, oh. Sorry.

----------

