How would You Paint God?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

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).

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

I like how South Park depicted God:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rkGCgi2vw9...South-Park.jpg

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

never heard of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I like how South Park depicted God:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rkGCgi2vw9...South-Park.jpg

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!

---

Hehe....funny:biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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.

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.

[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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.


- Rainer Maria Rilke, Translated reworked by Sadiq Alam

---

Quote:

---

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:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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:D

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

God is all good...

---

Says who?

Oh - hang on. God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Says who?

Oh - hang on. God.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Ooh, there's a view worth contemplating.

Yes, quite exciting.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

...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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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.

---

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.