On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton richholton@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.