|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:01 pm
I see.. I don't really seek victory' or 'lose' in this debate. I just want to share and tell others what I think.
but if this opinion isn't what you're expecting (yeah, I'm aware that this is a 'debate'), then I'm sorry for that ^^a
well, thread starter asked our opinion, and the Muslims gave the reason why you must not draw his picture or why is it an insult to the Muslims.
But since there's still many different view, then at least I want to say that I don't really care what's each person's view. All I asked is to respect others and not abusing the 'freedom' you have.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:22 pm
I can understand why God/Allah, or whatever name the Almighty is called might mandate that man should not recreate likenesses of his prophet's images, and I think it is a good idea myself.
I do not understand that God, creating us in His image, would want us to use talents that he gave us. He gave us the ability to appreciate, and create, and imitate His beautiful creations, so why would He say,"Um, you can't do that..." When humanity turns to animals and things to worship, they usually try to gather the real things and worship them, BEFORE they start making likenesses to them, so they would idolize with or without the images. I believe that even God sees imitation as the greatest form of flattery when we try to be like Him, even if it is painting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:50 pm
----If Andres Serrano can put a crucifix in a glass box and take a p*** in it, take a picture of it and call it art, then...
----...
----To all who were offended by these images get over it stare ... he could have throw Al-Qur'an into the toilet (which by the way was a controversy that happened in 2005), if he wanted to be malicious there are plenty of other things he could have done xp ... these images strike me as nothing more than religio-political humor... cool
----& it's somewhat arrogant for a human (one person out of six billion on a single planet, orbiting one of two-hundred billion stars in the galaxy, which itself is only one of one hundred billion in the metagalaxy, of which there are an infinite number of universal wavefunction on the surfaces of the infinitly many D-Branes.) to belive that they can irritate God... is it not? burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes
----Shalom...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:20 pm
I like free speech. I don't like censorship.
That being said, I think that that demands a certain amount of personal responsibility.
I don't like people abusing free speech as an excuse to make tasteless jokes or "art" that is nothing more than shock value.
That's not edgy, just insulting.
Of course they have the right to be insulting. I fully support that.
Personally, I wouldn't depict Muhammad, or at least not only for the sake of offending people.
When people do it specifically as a shot at Islam, I don't like it but I support their right to do it.
And when people do it otherwise, I don't see a problem with that. It's fine for a religion to regulate what its own people do, but it's unfair to expect everyone else to live by its rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:04 am
I think it's fine to draw pictures, as long as it's not offending or worshiped smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:10 am
Muslims are forbidden to draw Mohammed, other people are not. You can't go and force other people to follow your religion's rules. That's the same as if the Jews went forcing every restaurant to cook only kosher, because it's insulting to them, that people eat non-kosher food.
It isn't freedom of speech if you say "You can say anything you want, as long as it's not offending anyone."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:55 am
I say leave our prophet (pbuh) alone!
I am a Muslim, and I find pictures of Muhammad very offensive. Most Muslims have expressed this, and yet people are still doing it.. and calling a freedom a speech. But if I draw an offensive picture of a jew with an extremely large nose or a black with big lips is that freedom of speech? No, in fact it's unfair to do things that you Know is offensive to a group of people. So please leave our beloved Muhammad alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:43 pm
Bharatiyaa_ larki No, in fact it's unfair to do things that you Know is offensive to a group of people. Almost anything can be offensive to some group of people. Bharatiyaa_ larki But if I draw an offensive picture of a jew with an extremely large nose or a black with big lips is that freedom of speech? That is freedom of speech, but is also racist. Exactly how that is comparable to this:  is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:54 pm
The name of God is unpronounceable, the image of God is unseeable.
Basically, God, being infinite and perfect, can not possibly be "represented" in the finite, mortal realm- It would take all of infinity to express God, and the universe won't last long enough to do it.
Therefore, since it is impossible to capture God in text, by image, or by true knowledge, we are never actually representing God. We are representing a mortal idea of God, or representing a representation.
Mohammed is another matter, as he was a man. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is here- It should be blaspheme for Muslims to consider Mohammed so great, when his whole book was literally saying the opposite- The only GOD is great. To put Mohammed on that divine level directly contradicts the idea of God's sovereignty, which I saw repeated at least twenty times in the admittedly small piece I read of the Q'ran
Edit- As for all images of creation, it's an interesting concept, but it falls short quite quickly. It is assuming that the goal of depicting God's creation is to undermine God and make an image that is as good or better. What if it is simply an impression of what we saw, or something we wished we had seen? If an image of God's creation is a sin, then memory is certainly the worst sin of all- There is no way our eye can see every molecule touched and crafted by God, as it is exactly and purely in any given second. And the misty fog of the mind blurs facts and colors and images. Therefore, any memory is graven in your mind in a most fallacious way, unless you're a rare savant. Remembering anything in image-form should be a sin, as it is trying to depict and rebuild God's creation, which it can never do.
If the argument is that it will attempt to undermine God, the answer is a simple "no." If the argument is that it can never do God's creation justice, then the answer is "Neither can your memories, which you have every day." Because it is so unreasonable, it cannot be a sin, as God doesn't roll that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:13 pm
divineseraph The name of God is unpronounceable, the image of God is unseeable. Basically, God, being infinite and perfect, can not possibly be "represented" in the finite, mortal realm- It would take all of infinity to express God, and the universe won't last long enough to do it. Therefore, since it is impossible to capture God in text, by image, or by true knowledge, we are never actually representing God. We are representing a mortal idea of God, or representing a representation. Mohammed is another matter, as he was a man. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is here- It should be blaspheme for Muslims to consider Mohammed so great, when his whole book was literally saying the opposite- The only GOD is great. To put Mohammed on that divine level directly contradicts the idea of God's sovereignty, which I saw repeated at least twenty times in the admittedly small piece I read of the Q'ran Edit- As for all images of creation, it's an interesting concept, but it falls short quite quickly. It is assuming that the goal of depicting God's creation is to undermine God and make an image that is as good or better. What if it is simply an impression of what we saw, or something we wished we had seen? If an image of God's creation is a sin, then memory is certainly the worst sin of all- There is no way our eye can see every molecule touched and crafted by God, as it is exactly and purely in any given second. And the misty fog of the mind blurs facts and colors and images. Therefore, any memory is graven in your mind in a most fallacious way, unless you're a rare savant. Remembering anything in image-form should be a sin, as it is trying to depict and rebuild God's creation, which it can never do. If the argument is that it will attempt to undermine God, the answer is a simple "no." If the argument is that it can never do God's creation justice, then the answer is "Neither can your memories, which you have every day." Because it is so unreasonable, it cannot be a sin, as God doesn't roll that way. Quote: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:16 pm
And how has not drawing images helped in preventing Mohammed from being worshipped almost as fervently as Allah?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:51 pm
Endure Error divineseraph The name of God is unpronounceable, the image of God is unseeable. Basically, God, being infinite and perfect, can not possibly be "represented" in the finite, mortal realm- It would take all of infinity to express God, and the universe won't last long enough to do it. Therefore, since it is impossible to capture God in text, by image, or by true knowledge, we are never actually representing God. We are representing a mortal idea of God, or representing a representation. Mohammed is another matter, as he was a man. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is here- It should be blaspheme for Muslims to consider Mohammed so great, when his whole book was literally saying the opposite- The only GOD is great. To put Mohammed on that divine level directly contradicts the idea of God's sovereignty, which I saw repeated at least twenty times in the admittedly small piece I read of the Q'ran Edit- As for all images of creation, it's an interesting concept, but it falls short quite quickly. It is assuming that the goal of depicting God's creation is to undermine God and make an image that is as good or better. What if it is simply an impression of what we saw, or something we wished we had seen? If an image of God's creation is a sin, then memory is certainly the worst sin of all- There is no way our eye can see every molecule touched and crafted by God, as it is exactly and purely in any given second. And the misty fog of the mind blurs facts and colors and images. Therefore, any memory is graven in your mind in a most fallacious way, unless you're a rare savant. Remembering anything in image-form should be a sin, as it is trying to depict and rebuild God's creation, which it can never do. If the argument is that it will attempt to undermine God, the answer is a simple "no." If the argument is that it can never do God's creation justice, then the answer is "Neither can your memories, which you have every day." Because it is so unreasonable, it cannot be a sin, as God doesn't roll that way. Quote: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' If the problem is worshiping our own drawings and depictions, I've already confronted this. We could also worship trees and stones and animals as they are, really. The entire argument is a slippery slope based on what we MIGHT do. How does this make the depiction of animate things evil inherently? Your argument is inherently flawed by the objective rules of logic. Mine is flawed based only on what MAY happen to SOME people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:48 pm
Artto And how has not drawing images helped in preventing Mohammed from being worshipped almost as fervently as Allah?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:56 pm
divineseraph If the problem is worshiping our own drawings and depictions, I've already confronted this. We could also worship trees and stones and animals as they are, really. The entire argument is a slippery slope based on what we MIGHT do. How does this make the depiction of animate things evil inherently? Your argument is inherently flawed by the objective rules of logic. Mine is flawed based only on what MAY happen to SOME people.
It's all about being reasonable, logical, & knowledgeable. That doesn't mean ignore feelings because when you consider something to be right in all those aspects, they feel to be the truth. How could that be flawed? You're trying to find weakness in my argument, but your counterpoint hasn't proved anything nor has it disproved what I've said. Go ahead & say what you will, but proof is always necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
