The Satan of Oklahoma

[Sir Adrian]

Kiriakos,

Whilst there is no doubt these paintings are well painted but are they really Jesus? Of course they are not because they are images and no more. You see born again Christians worship Him in Spirit and truth because as Paul says we see Him only dimly whereas when we get to heaven we will see Him in reality face to face. Until then we stand on His words not what we think He looks like because it is/was His words that our faith was built. That's why the word of God is so important to study so as not to get drawn into letting the imagination run riot as it has done for so many.

They don't have to be really Jesus. Icons are meant to help you remember Christ. They're like photos of your departed parents, you don't worship them.

[basics]

They don't have to be really Jesus. Icons are meant to help you remember Christ. They're like photos of your departed parents, you don't worship them.

Sir Adrian,

I believe that the early converts used the sign of the fish to be recognized as believers especially where it was the " Fishermen," who brought them to the Gospel completely different from idols portraying Jesus whereupon a person prays to it or gives the sign of the cross because of it because these fishermen were not Jesus. Faith in Jesus Christ begins and remains in the heart of a believer something that God is well in knowledge of. If one knows God and He them what is the point of idols and relics?

[Sir Adrian]

Except that the oldest known icon dates to the year 50 (~20 years after the crucifiction, almost as long as you have been a member here), and was made by disciples of the apostles. So iconography is very much part of being a Christian since right from the start.

Once again, you are not praying TO the icon. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

[Abdülmecid I]

Except that the oldest known icon dates to the year 50 (~20 years after the crucifiction, almost as long as you have been a member here), and was made by disciples of the apostles. So iconography is very much part of being a Christian since right from the start.

Citation needed for that claim. To what icon are you referring? As far as I know, no image of Jesus made by a Christian and dated before the 3rd century has been discovered yet. There's a possibility that the Alexamenus graffiti depicts Jesus, but it was not made by a Christian (not to mention a disciple of the Apostles), since its content is purely satirical. The crucified deity is a donkey, which could reflect one of the many misconceptions of pagans about Christians.

They don't have to be really Jesus. Icons are meant to help you remember Christ. They're like photos of your departed parents, you don't worship them.

You may believe that, but this is not the official position of either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church. Both follow the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which not only approves the reverent veneration of icons, but also anathematises whoever refuses to do so.
The proceedings of the Synod als include several letters written by Byzantine bishops and even the Pope, where the authors openly endorse the veneration of images. There is a minor distinction between the "reverent veneration" of icons and the "true adulation" (it's interesting to note that the word has mostly negative connotations, today) of God, but image-worshipping has been definitely endorsed by the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine since the late 8th century. The arguments are summarised by John of Damascus, who is considered the ultimate authority on the acceptance of iconolatry and on the rejection of iconoclasm.

I believe that the early converts used the sign of the fish to be recognized as believers especially where it was the " Fishermen," who brought them to the Gospel completely different from idols portraying Jesus whereupon a person prays to it or gives the sign of the cross because of it because these fishermen were not Jesus. Faith in Jesus Christ begins and remains in the heart of a believer something that God is well in knowledge of. If one knows God and He them what is the point of idols and relics?

Ichthys has quite a few symbolic values, but it mainly functioned as an acrostic for Jesus Christ, God's Son and Saviour (Ιησούς Χριστός Θεού Υιός Σωτήρ). It can be viewed as a simple representation of the Messiah, which also avoids the controversial issue of painting him in its human form. Controversial, because such a practice both condemned and encouraged in the Old Testament. In Exodus 20:4, God forbids any image in the form of anything in Heaven, but a few paragraphs later, He commands Moses to create two golden statues of the Cherubims. A bit of a contradictory passage, but it offered the members of the Synods some badly needed flexibility to adjust their conclusions, depending on their personal views and general circumstances.

[basics]

Abdulmecid 1,

The information you gave is extremely interesting but with one misunderstanding on your part. The two Cherubim in situ over the Ark of the Covenant were not to be worshipped, but were I believe representative of the Cherubim set to guard the garden at the fall of man. These were placed so that no man could enter the garden, which I say was a picture of heaven and so the two Cherubim over the Ark were a reminder of that and also that no man may touch the Ark and live. As you know the Ark was always kept behind a curtain in both Tabernacle and Temple meaning that only the High Priest could enter to make his obligations. When Jesus died on the cross the curtain was rent apart meaning no further sacrifice for sin was necessary as faith became the important factor in salvation rather than visual objects.

[Sir Adrian]

Citation needed for that claim. To what icon are you referring?

The icon of Jesus sent to the king of Edessa in ~50 AD, by the apostles or disciples of the apostles, to cure him of a terrible sickeness. Though accordign to church fathers such as John Chrisostom and Basil the Great the very first icon was in fact the shroud of Veronica.

Reverent veneration and worship are two completely different things. You are to give reverent veneration because of who is depicted in them just as you don't piss on your parents or children's photos. Icons are not worshipped, they're depictions of whomever is worshipped.

[Abdülmecid I]

The Veil of Veronica with Jesus' face is a medieval evolution of an earlier legend, where no depiction of Jesus was reported. Neither Basil of Caesarea nor John Chrysostom mention it. The Icon of Edessa is also a legend, firstly attested by the Doctrine of Addai 400 years after the crucifixion. Similarly to Veronica's cloth, the earlier version of the myth didn't involve any icon. Eusebius of Caesarea, chronologically our first source, only cites the alleged correspondence between Jesus and Abgar V. Of course, both the miraculous veil and Jesus' letters are equally fictitious, but it's interesting to note that the icon stories developed much later, when iconography had already been established in popular cults and endorsed by the Church. Anyway, the stories for both Holy Relics rely on very flimsy evidence, which is also contradicted by earlier Christian sources, so they cannot be used as a historical argument for earlier than the donkey graffiti representations of Christ.

Reverent veneration is obviously much more serious than simply refraining from damaging the object. As I said, both John of Damascus and the Ecumenical Synod make a distinction between icons and the Trinity, but they still demand that the image be venerated in a respectful and pious manner, like the Saints and Mary.

[basics]

Sir Adrian,

The whole point of no graven images was that they would depict what men thought and not the veil of secrecy that God demanded for Himself in His Three Persons, why? Because faith held the supremacy in salvation, faith gifted by God to whom He wills so that no man might boast of gaining his salvation on his own merits. Look at how the socalled Shroud of Turin has become the most sought after depiction of Jesus and yet in all Scripture regarding His death and resurrection there is no mention of any imprint at all on the grave clothes that bound Him. Is this really an example of how Paul describes our thoughts about seeing Him dimly until that day we see Him face to face? I don't think so.

[Sir Adrian]

The whole point of graven images is to not worship God's creation but God. Icons are not graven images because they are not worshipped. Your graven iamges argument has already been debunked so many hundreds of times over the centuries that I am surprised you even bought it up.

[basics]

The whole point of graven images is to not worship God's creation but God. Icons are not graven images because they are not worshipped. Your graven iamges argument has already been debunked so many hundreds of times over the centuries that I am surprised you even bought it up.

Sir Adrian,

The commandment was about graven images being disallowed full stop. For obvious reasons we are not allowed to imagine anything about God, rather believe and obey that which He commands.

[Sir Adrian]

The commandment is about making graven images and worshipping them. Icons are not graven images for one, because they are not of anything in creation and they're not being worshipped. Look it up.

[Prodromos]

Well, even the most iconoclastic Protestant agrees that it's all right to refer to Jesus using the written word 'Jesus'. It gets interesting when we come to languages where words are pictorial, though, like ancient Chinese or Egyptian hieroglyphics. Should we prohibit translating the Bible in such languages simply because the words look like pictures?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In any case, I don't see any real distinction between the written script and pictures. Granted, most letters in the alphabet bear little resemblance to their original form, but they're still fundamentally visual symbols. If it's all right to refer to God using one kind of visual symbol, why is it wrong to use a more elaborate visual symbol for the same purpose? Is God offended when we symbolize him with a stick figure but not when we symbolize him with straight lines and circles? Sounds incoherent to me.

So there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with using visual cues (whether letters or pictures) to symbolize God. The symbol (whether in the form of a word or a picture) is intended purely to call God to mind and not meant to imply that God is specially present in the symbol or visually resembles it.

Ultimately, the issue with icons isn't the pictures themselves, but the misuse of them, which is when people start to worship the pictures or attribute magical power to them. As long as that's avoided, religious art seems fine to me.

Images of Christ and of the saints, that is, representations of their story by means of paintings and the like in churches and elsewhere, have, as Gregory says, been the books of the illiterate, that is, they explain the story like a written book. In itself this is a matter of indifference concerning which Christians should not quarrel.

Since, then, such representation provides for the illiterate the advantage of seeing and learning the stories as if from books, we do not reject pictures in themselves, nor do we abolish them; we do, however, reprove their misuse.

For we teach that images are not to be worshipped; nor is it to be thought that they have power; nor should people think that setting up images of God or of the saints is serving God, or that God is more gracious or does more than otherwise if He is invoked before such an image.

For God wants men to grasp Him only in faith through His Word and His sacraments; therefore it is a godless error to bind God to certain images without God’s Word. It is also a wicked error to think that a deed performed in front of such an image pleases God more than if done elsewhere; for we should believe that God in all places hears those who earnestly call upon Him. Hence Isaiah [66:1] reproves those who do not believe that God everywhere hears those who call upon Him in true spiritual worship, for he says that, even though the heaven is the Lord’s throne, yet God dwells “in him that is poor and of a contrite spirit”. Christ says [John 4:21, 23]: “Ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father…but…in spirit and in truth,” and Paul says [1 Tim. 2:8]: “I will that men pray everywhere”.

-Wittenberg Articles: Article XVII. Images

[basics]

Speaking of how the disciples in their writings talked of Jesus that is obviously quite true but yet nowhere is it written that they called Him that when speaking face to face. The terms used could be Rabbi, Lord, Master, but never Jesus. Indeed since His glorification His title is now Lord Jesus Christ, why? Because He is the Lord God Almighty our Creator, the One Who carved out the Commandments that we should live by especially if you are born again of the Spirit of God.

[Cyclops]

Hmm, maybe they should make the statue of Satan in the form of a serpent? Revelation tells us the serpent is Satan.

Jesus compared Moses' brass serpent idol (surely Satan) to the Son of Man (John 3:14), here he is telling us the serpent (ie Satan) prefigured Christ.

Satan is clearly part of God's plan for salvation, tempting Eve (I mean no fall, no redemption, right?). Aaron has a staff that turns into a serpent, that has to be Satan doing God's work again.

Its pretty clear any good Christian must acknowledge Satan's centrality to God's plan for us. A graven image of the serpent reflects the Serpent/Satan's importance as God's agent, and it is literally what Moses did.

Scriptural answers only.

[skh1]

One's curiosity piqued, upon a relatively cursory inquiry, one finds that Satanism, in its present form, presents a decidedly benign and, in fact, rather anodyne aspect. Here, par example, are what purport to be the the seven basic tenets of contemporary Satanism:

1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
5. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS - The Satanic Temple

Indeed, among the above website's FAQs is this diverting exchange:
A prospective acolyte: "I want to sell my soul, get rich, join the Illuminati, etc."
Satan's representatives on Earth: "Please look elsewhere."

One is compelled to wonder what all the fuss is about.

[Mithradates]

lol so thats what they are teaching nowadays?
Sounds nice and benign enough

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Kyriakos]

One's curiosity piqued, upon a relatively cursory inquiry, one finds that Satanism, in its present form, presents a decidedly benign and, in fact, rather anodyne aspect. Here, par example, are what purport to be the the seven basic tenets of contemporary Satanism:
THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS - The Satanic Temple

Indeed, among the above website's FAQs is this diverting exchange:
A prospective acolyte: "I want to sell my soul, get rich, join the Illuminati, etc."
Satan's representatives on Earth: "Please look elsewhere."

One is compelled to wonder what all the fuss is about.

You can't even trust the devil these days.

[Prodromos]

lol so thats what they are teaching nowadays?
Sounds nice and benign enough

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They're benign as much as any edgy teenager rebelling against his parents is benign. I find them sad more than anything.

[Akar]

You do realize the Satanic Temple doesn't literally worship Satan, right? They're a non-theistic group that uses satire, humor, and legal actions to highlight the hypocrisy of religious groups and support the freedom of religion. One of their most common tactics is to sue to have statues of Satan displayed alongside religious statues (such as the 10 commandments) in public areas on freedom of religion grounds. The Satanic Temple is named after the literary character of Satan rather than the biblical/supernatural character.


The Church of Satan does literally worship Satan, but that is a much different group than the Satanic Temple.

All of that being said, what do I have to do to earn the name "The Satan of Tennessee"?

[Kyriakos]

To be a non-theistic group using satan in your name is pretty lame... Trolling is boring - I prefer honest to god occult worship.