Do images of God offend you ?

[Jwanon]

There is the commandment in the Hebrew Scriptures that says not to make an image of God.

At the same time, the book of Daniel describes Jehovah as a King with white clothes and hair of wool

 

The illustrations from our publications take the middle ground by representing Jehovah as depicted in Daniel but never showing his face

 

But what about drawings like these for example, do you have a problem with it ?:

 

 

[Dages]

I don't like them much.

Our decision to make Jehovah's face too bright to see is great. Very balanced.

[Jwanon]

Some examples of classic paintings

 

Do you find these offensive ?

[Shawnster]

1 minute ago, Jwanon said:

Some examples of classic paintings

 

Do you find these offensive ?

They trinity influence is obvious in the top image. 

[Tortuga]

God wears glasses???

[Bro_BT]

They often present God as an aging old man.  

[Brother_Bliss]

Moved to General Chit Chat since the topic is not Bible Research, Personal Study, nor Scriptural Discussion.

[Derrick_m]

First of all Jehovah looks nothing like these drawings, and to paint him would not give him the honor he deserves. He certainly isn’t imperfect and needing glasses.

 

Rather, he is more beautiful than you could ever write down, and there is no way to convey his glory. Jehovah God is bright and his light illuminates all beings and items where he resides. 

[Monika]

These images offend Jehovah in my opinion.

Getting old is not a good thing. How can something bad be an attribute of God? It's illogical.
Old age is a punishment for sin and there is no such a thing like "getting old" for Jehovah - He has no beginning and no end.

I don't want to imagine him like that, so I think that even looking at these paintings can be harmful. It distorts the image of God, gives Him human attributes - aging, the human body, the need for clothing...

Please, be careful. You know who wants to distort the image of God.
 

[Leonard Match Valid]

insightful book - "Wool"

The "Ancient of Days," Jehovah God, is symbolically represented in vision with hair similar to pure wool. (Da 7:9) This suggests great age and wisdom, which are associated with wool. (Compare this with Job 15:9, 10.)

I am not offended by the Bible's portrayal of Jehovah as very old and wise, rather they should give us a perspective that Jehovah's judgments, wisdom, and what he speaks, forever and ever, will always be the best course of action, after all, he has walked many days...

Now, images of Christendom do offend.

I say this because they are filled with trinity, satire, or not very plausible.

In addition, they convey the wrong idea of Jehovah's love.

 

[Eejay]

On 1/18/2023 at 10:04 PM, Jwanon said:

Do you find these offensive

Yes. Thoroughly offensive.

[carlos]

I wouldn't dare depicting Jehovah's face or appearance, but I am not offended by what worldly artists do if their intention is not to offend.

 

It's impossible to enjoy art if we are offended by every detail that disagrees from our beliefs. For example, that painting from Michelangelo with God creating Adam is absolutely impressive. Michelangelo wasn't being disrespectful or intentionally misrepresenting Jehovah. He just painted God the way he visualized Him in his mind. We can't expect worldly artists to get everything right, IMO it's better to focus on the message they are trying to convey. Otherwise we would end up only enjoying art made by Witnesses, reading only books written by Witnesses or listening only to music composed by Witnesses. Of course, others may have different sensibilities.

[Dhanyel]

Just now, carlos said:

Eu não ousaria retratar o rosto ou a aparência de Jeová, mas não fico ofendido com o que os artistas mundanos fazem se sua intenção não for ofender.

 

É impossível apreciar a arte se nos ofendemos com cada detalhe que discorda de nossas crenças. Por exemplo, aquela pintura de Michelangelo com Deus criando Adão é absolutamente impressionante. Michelangelo não estava sendo desrespeitoso ou deturpando Jeová intencionalmente. Ele apenas pintou Deus da maneira que o visualizou em sua mente. Não podemos esperar que artistas mundanos façam tudo certo, IMO é melhor focar na mensagem que eles estão tentando transmitir. Caso contrário, acabaríamos apreciando apenas a arte feita por Testemunhas de Jeová, lendo apenas livros escritos por Testemunhas de Jeová ou ouvindo apenas música composta por Testemunhas de Jeová. Claro, outros podem ter sensibilidades diferentes.

It turns out that most of these works and with these representations, are works used as worship to offend Jehovah, they are used for idolatry, it is part of the Babylonian commerce, they place Jesus as a fragile, thin and hungry being, and God places them as a figure exotic and pathetic, but I understand your comment, I can find the architecture of a church very beautiful and still stay away from her, as well as a beautiful oil painting on canvas and still not love it!

[Eejay]

2 hours ago, carlos said:

Otherwise we would end up only enjoying art made by Witnesses, reading only books written by Witnesses or listening only to music composed by Witnesses

IMHO, This is an unreasonable extreme and in no way is a result of choosing to disdain religiously themed art produced by those who are ignorant or wilfully disrespectful of Jehovah's standards and biblical truth, resulting in offensive material of one type or another. The artistry is not the issue.

 

Jehovah has clearly stated his view of religious artifacts used for idolatrous purposes, regardless of the mastery of their fabrication or value of their material at De.7:25-26: "You should burn the graven images of their gods in the fire. Do not desire the silver and the gold on them or take it for yourself, so that you are not ensnared by it, for it is something detestable to Jehovah your God.You must not bring a detestable thing into your house and thereby become something devoted to destruction like it. You should utterly loathe it and absolutely detest it, because it is something devoted to destruction.".

 

Granted this was in connection with the religious "art" of the Canaanite nations specifically. But for me anyway, religiously themed art, particularly as a product of Christendom, is offensive, if it reflects untruth, and that includes the full range from  Leonardo, Michaelangelo, to Stanley Spencer, anything which has a connection with biblical UN-truth.

 

But what is wrong with Albert Bierstadt, Frederic Edwin Church  and others like them? These were NOT Jehovah's Witnesses, but how would their art offend? Of course, this only my opinion. ☺️

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Eejay

[trottigy]

4 hours ago, carlos said:

I wouldn't dare depicting Jehovah's face or appearance, but I am not offended by what worldly artists do if their intention is not to offend.

 

It's impossible to enjoy art if we are offended by every detail that disagrees from our beliefs. For example, that painting from Michelangelo with God creating Adam is absolutely impressive. Michelangelo wasn't being disrespectful or intentionally misrepresenting Jehovah. He just painted God the way he visualized Him in his mind. We can't expect worldly artists to get everything right, IMO it's better to focus on the message they are trying to convey. Otherwise we would end up only enjoying art made by Witnesses, reading only books written by Witnesses or listening only to music composed by Witnesses. Of course, others may have different sensibilities.

 

My same thoughts.

 

I clearly wouldn't like art that depicts Jehovah in some offensive way, but I don't find that fist picture or any of the others posted as offensive. We are not Muslims who do not allow pictures of "the prophet".

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by trottigy

[carlos]

On 1/22/2023 at 9:01 PM, Eejay said:

IMHO, This is an unreasonable extreme and in no way is a result of choosing to disdain religiously themed art produced by those who are ignorant or wilfully disrespectful of Jehovah's standards and biblical truth, resulting in offensive material of one type or another. The artistry is not the issue.

 

As I mentioned, there can be different sensibilities.

 

It doesn't seem the images shown above were used as idols. Specifically the first one as well as Michelangelo's were certainly not. The artists did not mean to disrespect God either, rather they are expressing their respect of God by those paintings. The OP asked if we feel offended by those images. I don't. But it's ok if you feel differently.

[Eejay]

56 minutes ago, carlos said:

But it's ok if you feel differently.

And of course we all try to feel as Jehovah feels, don't we?

Interesting to think how living humans were actually made by Jehovah, in his "image", the only creatures on earth described as such. ☺️

Edited January 24, 2023 by Eejay

[Stormswift]

My opinion ... although probably sincere, relegating Jehovah to mere flesh and blood is disrespectful, but when you balance that they think Jesus is God it's not a huge leap. Offensive? I've stopped being offended at many things in Satan's system, I'll leave it to Jehovah to fix.

 

If it was drawn by a brother or sister who knew better my answer would be different.

 

Anyway that's my $2 worth.

 

But it's OK if you feel differently. 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Brother_Bliss
Removed a mountain of white space

[JayMusicGirl]

I agree, these pictures could never compare to Jehovah's essence in reality. Also they are humanly biased in a way that I haven't mentioned here, in regards to race. In the same way Jesus is depicted as frail and European looking in the Western culture/Christensendom, despite being a hardworking Jewish/Middle Eastern carpenter in the flesh and having no race as a spirit, I guess to identify more with him (also the most famous model for Jesus in Renaissance paintings was a handsome long haired Italian nobleman). It seems the artists have chosen to identify God that way as well despite him having created all races, which in a convoluted way can denote a hint of superiority. That's an issue in my opinion. It also spurs the counter-argument by folks like Hebrew Israelites who believe God and Jesus are black (like on the basis of the scripture saying his hair is like wool, since ppl of African descent can have hair of a similar texture) and it's some conspiracy to hide it by another race. All ridiculous. Glad our organization avoids things like this and does not disrespect God by portraying him in one specific manner or another. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by JayMusicGirl

[Hotteok]

off topic, but I find the drawings of Jesus from middle-age Europe to be extremely creepy and scary.. even demonic … I don’t know why.

Anyone agrees? 

[Brother_Bliss]

2 hours ago, Hotteok said:

off topic, but I find the drawings of Jesus from middle-age Europe to be extremely creepy and scary.. even demonic … I don’t know why.

Anyone agrees? 

 

It's not off topic if you're a trinitarian.

[Eejay]

45 minutes ago, Brother_Bliss said:

drawings of Jesus from middle-age Europe to be extremely creepy and scary.. even demonic

 

45 minutes ago, Brother_Bliss said:

It's not off topic if you're a trinitarian.

 

[carlos]

10 hours ago, Hotteok said:

off topic, but I find the drawings of Jesus from middle-age Europe to be extremely creepy and scary.. even demonic … I don’t know why.

Anyone agrees? 

 

Most Catholic artwork is really creepy. After all the Church teaches that anything enjoyable (good food, nice music, sex, whatever) is a sin and that suffering cleans our sins and brings us closer to God. That's a truly demonic approach.

[Hotteok]

7 hours ago, carlos said:

 

Most Catholic artwork is really creepy. After all the Church teaches that anything enjoyable (good food, nice music, sex, whatever) is a sin and that suffering cleans our sins and brings us closer to God. That's a truly demonic approach.

 

I think it’s also because what they’re painting are actually demons. If I think about how Buddhism deities look, I can’t help thinking somehow demons inspired them to draw them that way, because that’s how they want to look. Curiously, those deities look really similar across all Asia.

 

One example is 

aizen myoo.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Hotteok

[Dumma]

Yeah it's a direct commandment that we don't use any sort of images in our worship. even if its for the sake of addressing Jehovah by some images it may go wrong in practice. in India most of the god's came into existence just because of addressing some images or idols example when a person carved a outstanding idol people marveled at it and later started worshipping it. now many millions believe that idols as god and worship. even Israelites gathered those smooth stones and started worshipping it giving it names. Enosh is one such a person who made a idol and named it Jehovah. which was wrong in God's eyes  i remember reading its wrong to imagine some kind of picture while praying to God because it can lead to idol worship.