On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton
<richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > > On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even
on a
> > >> detailed
> > >> description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not
> > >> educational with
> > >> respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been
> depicted.
> > >>
> > >
> > > By this point you should be familiar with the Charlemagne
counter
> > > argument. Dito Macbeth of
Scotland.
> >
> >
> > Images of those men are simply false, they do not give form to the
> sacred
> > as an image of Muhammad does.
>
> Muhammad is sacred? Doesn't that rather run into the do not worship
> prohibition? You also appear to be rejecting the divine right of
kings
thing.
Still if you want a more exact equiv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Place
Removing information we know to be false is not
censorship.
We don't pretend the image is historically accurate.
Then why is it there? What actual purpose does it fill?
To show this particular general/religious leader has been historically
depicted.
We don't even mention that say the image in Pope Linus is somewhat
unlikely to be historically accurate (the history of the early popes
is somewhat historically problematicalical). Saul of Tarsus would be
another one who throws up this issue.
So, your argument is that because we do it wrong other places, we should do
it wrong here?