Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Skenderos]

Heeeyyoooo!

[Dangelia]

Heeeyyoooo!

Welcome, to the fourh CDT! Holy Water and Eucharist?

[Conscentia]

A fourth thread? Congratulations.

New thread #swag
Episode IV: A New Pope

(This is the only star wars related joke I could find with the new pope.)

[The Flood]

A fourth thread? Congratulations.

New thread #swag
Episode IV: A New Pope

(This is the only star wars related joke I could find with the new pope.)

They actually do look a little alike XD

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

No worries, baby. Orthodox doctrine is mum. From my experience, His portrayal as a white man has always been marginally offensive.

In essence, our position is that if Jesus wasn't constrained by death why, then, Swould He be constrained by race?

Thou shalt not make a graven Image.
Jesus was probably swarthy Mediterranean. Red hair was common in the Clan of David. Whites make icons of White Jesus, so icons of Eskimo, Zulu and Japanese Jesus should be legit.

Lighting candles and incense to icons of Jesus-saurus is Heresy. Jesus is 100% God, 100% Human and 0% Dinosaur. *

A book of Bible stories with pictures of dinosaurs to get the childern interested should be legit. Abraham = Tyrannosaurus: for murdering his babies. Isaac = Diplodocus: nothing much really. Jacob = Brontosaurus: name change. David = Velociraptor. Solomon = Stegasaur.

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

[Ta-Mehew]

Christian from the Coptic Orthodox Church here.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Christian from the Coptic Orthodox Church here.

Do Coptic icons show Jesus as White, Black or Swarthy

[Conscentia]

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

[Ta-Mehew]

Christian from the Coptic Orthodox Church here.

Do Coptic icons show Jesus as White, Black or Swarthy

Both. In my local Church, the Icon of Jesus looks more middle eastern/tannish but I have been to some churches where he was very white in the icon, and others where he was black.

[Conscentia]

Do Coptic icons show Jesus as White, Black or Swarthy

Both. In my local Church, the Icon of Jesus looks more middle eastern/tannish but I have been to some churches where he was very white in the icon, and others where he was black.

Both refers to two things. Not three things.

[Cetatsenia]

Here's a question from your resident mouth-frothingly atheist mod: what's the doctrinal stance* on portrayals of Jesus as black, or asian, or a dromaeosaur (Raptor Jesus) - especially considering that the "standard" portrayal of Jesus as a tall, handsome white guy with flowing brown locks is highly unlikely to be historically accurate? Is it theologically permissible to "reinterpret" Jesus in this way, as belonging to your ethnic group/theropod species of choice, or is it the sort of thing that makes the Iconoclasm sound like a good idea?

I suppose that goes for the Black Madonnas too.

* Yes, I know there's no such beast as a uniform Christian doctrine. If in doubt, tell me what the doctrine of your particular branch is.

Well, I don't have a particular branch that I follow, so I figure I'll just give me personal beliefs on the matter. I don't really mind what race people portray him as. You can portray him as black, white, middle-eastern, dinosaur, etc. Not really important. Granted saying that he was actually an East Asian is different (since in all likelihood he wasn't, just as in all likelihood he wasn't the white guy he's often portrayed as). But you can portray him as such if you really want to; it's no more invalid than the white Jesus.

[Ta-Mehew]

Both. In my local Church, the Icon of Jesus looks more middle eastern/tannish but I have been to some churches where he was very white in the icon, and others where he was black.

Both refers to two things. Not three things.

Oh. ermetanoin :S

[The Serbian Empire]

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

It's reasonable given that humans and dinosaurs were both vertebrates.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No worries, baby. Orthodox doctrine is mum. From my experience, His portrayal as a white man has always been marginally offensive.

In essence, our position is that if Jesus wasn't constrained by death why, then, Swould He be constrained by race?

Thou shalt not make a graven Image.
Jesus was probably swarthy Mediterranean. Red hair was common in the Clan of David. Whites make icons of White Jesus, so icons of Eskimo, Zulu and Japanese Jesus should be legit.

Lighting candles and incense to icons of Jesus-saurus is Heresy. Jesus is 100% God, 100% Human and 0% Dinosaur. *

A book of Bible stories with pictures of dinosaurs to get the childern interested should be legit. Abraham = Tyrannosaurus: for murdering his babies. Isaac = Diplodocus: nothing much really. Jacob = Brontosaurus: name change. David = Velociraptor. Solomon = Stegasaur.

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

The thing about Exodus 20:4-5 is that it's not saying they can't make carvings of celestial beings. I mean, if that were so, the Ark of the Covenant would be a huge blasphemy. It says they shall not make "for themselves". Presumably the Church, given authority from Christ, can allow Icons to be made.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

Richard Dawkins confirms the 98% monkey. If you know more precise %s for dinosaurs and bananas, please tell us.

[MERIZoC]

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

Humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

........thank God no one else lives in my head.

[The Serbian Empire]

Richard Dawkins confirms the 98% monkey. If you know more precise %s for dinosaurs and bananas, please tell us.

Biologist Steve Jones confirms the banana.

[MERIZoC]

Richard Dawkins confirms the 98% monkey. If you know more precise %s for dinosaurs and bananas, please tell us.

Biologist Steve Jones confirms the banana.

So logically, monkeys are 48% banana, therefor monkeys are almost 50% cannibals. I can maths and logics.

[The Serbian Empire]

Biologist Steve Jones confirms the banana.

So logically, monkeys are 48% banana, therefor monkeys are almost 50% cannibals. I can maths and logics.

They're probably closer to bananas than we are!

[Emerald-Springs]

So logically, monkeys are 48% banana, therefor monkeys are almost 50% cannibals. I can maths and logics.

They're probably closer to bananas than we are!

You are what you eat, so yes, definitely.

[Conscentia]

It's reasonable given that humans and dinosaurs were both vertebrates.

Firstly... We are not 98% monkey. We are 100% monkey, as humans are simians. We are also 100% ape, etc.

Secondly... having a certain percentage of one's nucleobases with another species does not make one said percentage of the aforementioned species. It suggests the degree of interrelatedness. That's all.

[Benuty]

* Humans are 98% monkey and 50% banana, so we are probably 85% dinosaur.

The fact it said 50% Banana means you may or may not be overreacting.

[MERIZoC]

It's reasonable given that humans and dinosaurs were both vertebrates.

Firstly... We are not 98% monkey. We are 100% monkey, as humans are simians. We are also 100% ape, etc.

Secondly... having a certain percentage of one's nucleobases with another species does not make one said percentage of the aforementioned species. It suggests the degree of interrelatedness. That's all.

Monkey≠simian. If we were 100% monkey, we would have tails, no?

Apes are a type of simian, and humans are a type of apes. Monkeys are not apes, though they are a type of simian.

[Benuty]

Also 50% and 50th post .