God - Is this knowledge the ultimate aim?

[osgart]

Why are you assuming that ideas are not real? In your case, the idea of God certainly had a very real effect on your family, and on you. And you were able to use that effect to modify the idea for yourself to make it more positive. How is this any different from what a scientist does, minus the physicality? How is it any different from what a psychologist would help you do? Or what a historian does when sifting through the debris of the past? Are you saying science isn't real, or that psychology isn't? Or history? Because these are all just ideas put into practice, too. Same is 'faith in God'.

To the contrary, i never said science, history, or psychology isnt real. God isnt real, only thing i said. And you mention ideas, when i said ideals. IdeaLs!

 

[PureX]

Im all for a God being real, but never making it real. Reckoning God, made me search myself, and really explore who i am. Because i was always being judged by standards i didnt agree with. I found no factual basis there.

I greatly admire the way you reacted to what you found happening to you. I think you're an exceptional person to have responded as you did; with such honesty, reason, and awareness.

My only point to you would be that you don't have to give up on faith in God just because you have no material proof of it's existence. The idea (ideal) is real enough, and the positive effectiveness of it in your life experience should be evidence enough to warrant maintaining it (and continuing to modify it for positive effectiveness). The real gift of faith in God is that it helps us transcend ourselves. And you discovered this early on. I think that's a really great and important thing! Many humans will never 'get this' no matter how faithful they try to be to the ideal.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Most people know that the blue-eyed, honey-haired, white-faced Jesus paintings are representations of a spiritual ideal. Or, well, they SHOULD know this, anyway, because that's what they are. Images and statues and so on are not "depictions" of actual gods so much as they are representations of a god-ideal, or god-spirit. Those cave paintings are representations of life-sustaining animals to the humans that painted them. We think those ancient humans believed that by depicting the image of those animals in just the right way, they could capture it's spirit, honor it, and thereby assure it's cooperation in an upcoming hunt. Images like these have been used to represent the spirit of the things they depict since the dawn of human imagination.

First, let's have a clear definition of the term "depiction."

Merriam-Webster defines depiction as "a representation in words or images of someone or something"
Definition of DEPICTION

How do you know these are not depictions of actual gods? How many actual gods have you seen?

Help me to understand the distinction you are making between "god" and "god-ideal" or "god-spirit."

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you really think those images are images of gods? Do you really think that the reason they were made is to show us all what "god" looks like? Because I think only young children would make such a naive assumption.

To how many of the artists who created these depictions have you spoken to come to such a conclusion? Or do you always present your assumptions at factual statements?

 

[PureX]

First, let's have a clear definition of the term "depiction."

Merriam-Webster defines depiction as "a representation in words or images of someone or something"
Definition of DEPICTION

The problem with dictionaries is that the can only approximate the meaning of a word by using synonyms. If "depiction" really equaled "representation" then we wouldn't have developed and maintained the two different words. So, clearly, logically, they are not equivalent in meaning. A "depiction" refers to how a thing looks, or appears, whereas a "representation" refers to the essence of the thing, and not just to it's appearance. Artists since the dawn of time have sought to "depict" how things look in just such a way as to "represent" the essence of the thing being depicted. And not just it's appearance. This is the significant difference between the two intents, and results.

God-images are very rarely, if ever, intended to "depict the appearance" of a god. They are intended to "represent the essence" (spirit) of the god's ideal. This is the fundamental difference between depiction and representation. And the recognition of this difference should be applied to the many myths related to the gods, as well, as they are also representations, and NOT actual depictions of the gods, in word form.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The problem with dictionaries is that the can only approximate the meaning of a word by using synonyms. If "depiction" really equaled "representation" then we wouldn't have developed and maintained the two different words. So, clearly, logically, they are not equivalent in meaning. A "depiction" refers to how a thing looks, or appears, whereas a "representation" refers to the essence of the thing, and not just to it's appearance. Artists since the dawn of time have sought to "depict" how things look in just such a way as to "represent" the essence of the thing being depicted. And not just it's appearance. This is the significant difference.

I don't care what definition we use, nor do I have any interest in your problem with dictionaries or in your opinions about the equivalency in the meaning of terms.

My only purpose in posting a dictionary definition was so we can agree on a definition. Until we can do so, any discussion on the topic is meaningless.

God-images are very rarely, if ever, intended to "depict the appearance" of a god. They are intended to "represent the essence" (spirit) of the god's ideal. This is the fundamental difference between depiction and representation. And the recognition of this difference should be applied to the many myths related to the gods, as well, as they are also representations, and NOT depictions of the gods or their actions, in word form.

Is this your personal opinion or are you submitting this claim as an objective truth? If the latter, please post a link to substantiate your claim or name the artists of these depictions you've spoken to personally that have stated that this was their intention.

 

[PureX]

To how many of the artists who created these depictions have you spoken to come to such a conclusion? Or do you always present your assumptions at factual statements?

I have a masters degree in fine art. I am an artist myself, and have associated with a great many other artists in my lifetime. Just as one doctor or lawyer does not need to ask all other doctors and lawyers what law and medicine entails, I do not have to ask all artists what the making of art entails. I write with authority on the subject because I am an authority on the subject. I understand the difference between depiction and representation. Now it's up to you to learn about the difference from me, or not.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have a masters degree in fine art. I am an artist myself, and have associated with a great many other artists in my lifetime. Just as one doctor or lawyer does not need to ask all other doctors and lawyers what law and medicine entails, I do not have to ask all artists what the making of art entails. I write with authority on the subject because I am an authority on the subject. I understand the difference between depiction and representation. Now it's up to you to learn about the difference from me, or not.

You're deflecting. Our discussion has little to do with the difference between 'depiction' and 'representation.' Let me help you to return to the actual topic.

So you are defining "depiction" as a reference to how a thing looks, or appears. So since you didn't like the definition I offered, let's run with this one.

You stated that the images are not depictions of gods, but depictions of "god-ideal" or "god-spirit." You have yet to offer the distinction.

Also, you have yet offer up anything to substantiate the intent of the artists of these images to the effect that they were not depicting a god, but merely (using your words) representing an ideal or spirit.

 

[ChristineM]

Do you really think those images are images of gods? Do you really think that the reason they were made is to show us all what "god" looks like? Because I think only young children would make such a naive assumption.

No, i dont, what does the image of a nonentity look like?

But there is no doubt they are listed under depictions of god and created by adults.

Your opinion doesn't really come into it.

 

[ChristineM]

I have a masters degree in fine art. I am an artist myself, and have associated with a great many other artists in my lifetime. Just as one doctor or lawyer does not need to ask all other doctors and lawyers what law and medicine entails, I do not have to ask all artists what the making of art entails. I write with authority on the subject because I am an authority on the subject. I understand the difference between depiction and representation. Now it's up to you to learn about the difference from me, or not.

Yes, so am i with 2 BAs, a BSc and 2 MSc in art based subjects and made a very successful career in art

One thing (of many) i have learned from that is that no one can speak with authority on the mindset of another artist.

 

[PureX]

You're deflecting. Our discussion has little to do with the difference between 'depiction' and 'representation.' Let me help you to return to the actual topic.

So you are defining "depiction" as a reference to how a thing looks, or appears. So since you didn't like the definition I offered, let's run with this one.

You stated that the images are not depictions of gods, but depictions of "god-ideal" or "god-spirit." You have yet to offer the distinction.

Also, you have yet offer up anything to substantiate the intent of the artists of these images to the effect that they were not depicting a god, but merely (using your words) representing an ideal or spirit.

I'm not here to fight with your desire not to understand the difference between depiction and representation. And clearly, you are now actively working at not understanding it. The ego has been triggered and you are in full 'auto-defend' mode. So I will leave you to it. I am not in the habit of trying to push through other people's closed doors.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm not here to fight with your desire not to understand the difference between depiction and representation. And clearly, you are now actively working at not understanding it. The ego has been triggered and you are in full 'auto-defend' mode. So I will leave you to it. I am not in the habit of trying to push through other people's closed doors.

*smiles* Project much?

 

[PureX]

Yes, so am i with 2 BAs, a BSc and 2 MSc in art based subjects and made a very successful career in art

One thing (of many) i have learned from that is that no one can speak with authority on the mindset of another artist.

The mindset of the artist is irrelevant if it's not presented to us by the artwork. But to interpret a work of art one must be willing to THINK about precisely what we are seeing and why it was put there by another human being for us to see. And since as you have already pointed out, it's impossible to depict a god's appearance, as none of us have ever actually seen one (that we can know of), we must assume that when we see an image that's labelled "god" we are not looking at a depiction, but rather at an idealized representation. And in fact, 'depictions' aren't really even artworks at all, as they lack the purpose for which works of art are made. They only convey the appearance of a thing (a technical craft), and not the artist's perceived/experienced/idealized essence of it.

But these are discussions that happened in the studio arts and advanced aesthetics classes, so I guess you must have missed them.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Throughout history mans Faith in God has been well documented. It is apparent that the a belief in God/s, in many various practices can not and will not be eliminated from the mind of man.

How then do we then reconcile what is Faith and what is Science when we determine 'Truth'.

If God is the creator, then science is actually looking for this cause, all the while rejecting what they look for.

If there is no God, then this accident of creation must be easy to explain sometime soon.

View attachment 26999

So are we all in this life, really just looking for what is God?

No person on this website does not know the grand purpose of life regardless whether they believe or do not believe. No human can know the real purpose of their existence even those that believed. I quote here, the Qur’an again which specifically states that “all things are appointed a specific time” which means all things have a fixed time of their existence.

As a person that deals with emergent issues I’ve been a witness to newborns dying to toddlers. What was their purpose if their lives were cut so short? What was the purpose of Adopf Hitler who had a hand in the murder of millions of people? I think as we live life we continuously write and rewrite what our individual purpose is through our actions in this world. I believe individually we define what we think we are here for but on a grand level none of us know, much less believe we seek to understand or know God.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I’ve been a witness to newborns dying to toddlers. What was their purpose if their lives were cut so short?

Speaking as one that has spent a great deal of time in meditation on this question as a result of personal experience, the best answer I can give is for the purpose of experience, not necessarily of the one dying, but of those close to them. Experiencing such a thing can have as profound an impact on one’s perspective of being as a mystical experience can.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Speaking as one that has spent a great deal of time in meditation on this question as a result of personal experience, the best answer I can give is for the purpose of experience, not necessarily of the one dying, but of those close to them. Experiencing such a thing can have as profound an impact on one’s perspective of being as a mystical experience can.

If you say so. Not sure how much of a mystical experience one can have watching their newborn die from a bullet through the chest. Don’t understand why someone would necessarily experience something like that in relation to the purpose of experiencing. It’s easy to make such assessments when it doesn’t happen to you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you say so. Not sure how much of a mystical experience one can have watching their newborn die from a bullet through the chest. Don’t understand why someone would necessarily experience something like that in relation to the purpose of experiencing. It’s easy to make such assessments when it doesn’t happen to you.

It would do you well to reread my post for two reasons:

First, I never said or implied that watching someone die early in life was a mystical experience.

Second, I’m unclear as to the reason you would assume such a thing hasn’t happened to me despite the fact that I said I had personal experience with it.

 

[Remté]

Science is just looking for ways to make things easier while we're here.. I Don't know why it is so often thought of as contradicting faith. They go side by side perfectly.

 

[Politesse]

Why settle for knowledge of God, when you can achieve unity with God?

 

[sayak83]

Throughout history mans Faith in God has been well documented. It is apparent that the a belief in God/s, in many various practices can not and will not be eliminated from the mind of man.

How then do we then reconcile what is Faith and what is Science when we determine 'Truth'.

If God is the creator, then science is actually looking for this cause, all the while rejecting what they look for.

If there is no God, then this accident of creation must be easy to explain sometime soon.

View attachment 26999

So are we all in this life, really just looking for what is God?

I reject the concept of ultimate aim with regards to life.