Anubis statue in my home

[Tarpeian_Rock]

If the Buddhas were mine to dynamite? Possibly, if I couldn’t find a suitable Buddhist group or the like who’d be willing to take care of them and appreciate them. Whichever solution leads to them not resulting in confusion and scandal on the part of my faith.

As to the OP: Personally, I can see why you bought the Anubis statue as a neat work of art, 'cause it is that (and Egyptian stuff has that cool mystique to it). However, I would hesitate to keep it in my home as a devout Catholic, 'because it does symbolically stand for more than a simple work of art, however much we may choose not to believe in it.

You’ll be happy to know that the Taliban already took care of that for you.

 

[MontJ]

My response(s) remain the same.

Understood, and I’d agree with you if I had guests coming who would be scandalized. But as a 23yo grad student in a 1bedroom apartment… I don’t know if anyone would be scandalized lol.

 

[AthenaC]

I fail to see how keeping a work of art in one’s home would cause confusion as to his religious affiliation if he were a devout Catholic and the work was of a deity from a religion that no one subscribes to anymore.

-ACEGC

Indeed. I have a rather impressive statue of Buddha front and center in my home, but no one is going to mistake me for a Buddhist. Not with the copies of Cathlic Answers magazine lying on the table in the front room. And not with the fact that the last time we had people over was for my oldest daughter’s First Communion and Buddha was decorated for Cinco de Mayo.

You’ll be happy to know that the Taliban already took care of that for you.

Which is very sad. I would have loved to see such an impresive cultural artifact in person. The pictures in museums don’t do it justice, I’m sure.

 

[Lochias]

You’ll be happy to know that the Taliban already took care of that for you.

Don’t appreciate your tone. I looked the statues up, and already knew. My response remains the same.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Y’all are being really superstitious over a statue. If it’s such a big deal get a priest to bless it if that’ll help you sleep at night.

:egyptian: (Hee-Hee) I’m glad someone said this! It’s only ART, people!

 

[Lochias]

:egyptian: (Hee-Hee) I’m glad someone said this! It’s only ART, people!

To each, his own. There are a lot of questionable things that pass for “art” nowadays.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Thanks for the responses. You make some valid points here…

I like the “wolf” aspect of the statue and it’s just a nice piece of art. They sold lots of souvenirs including jeweled pyramids and little King Tut statues. I doubt they were made for more purpose than mere art for tourists…

And about having Vishnu in the home, I wouldn’t have a statue of Vishnu either but only because it’s still worshipped today and it’s hideous.

The statue represents a false God. This is the primary reason for why I would never want it in my house. What the piece of art represents should be the primary factor I take into consideration when putting things in my Catholic home. Who cares if Anubis was worshipped yesterday or 4000 years ago; it doesn’t change the fact that Anubis is a false god and that a statue of him is a statue of a false god in my home.

I figure if I want to see depictions of false gods being displayed for the sake of “art” I will go to a museum.

 

[Lochias]

The statue represents a false God. This is the primary reason for why I would never want it in my house. What the piece of art represents should be the primary factor I take into consideration when putting things in my Catholic home. Who cares if Anubis was worshipped yesterday or 4000 years ago; it doesn’t change the fact that Anubis is a false god and that a statue of him is a statue of a false god in my home.

I figure if I want to see depictions of false gods being displayed for the sake of “art” I will go to a museum.

I agree. What you keep in your personal living space is going to speak volumes to visitors who come to your home, and in an age where being a witness to the Catholic Faith is more important than ever, I opt for no confusion on the issue whatsoever.

 

[Baelor]

The statue represents a false God.

It represents what we want it to. I saw swastikas on pots over four thousand years old. And yet, now, most people associate it with an undeniable evil. I hardly think that someone will assume that someone with such a statue is a pagan. If so, do not invite them over again.

This is the primary reason for why I would never want it in my house. What the piece of art represents should be the primary factor I take into consideration when putting things in my Catholic home. Who cares if Anubis was worshipped yesterday or 4000 years ago; it doesn’t change the fact that Anubis is a false god and that a statue of him is a statue of a false god in my home.

So? What if it is pretty? What if it represents to you something, however little, of divine truth? Consider, for example, the use of Greek mythology during the Renaissance.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

It represents what we want it to. I saw swastikas on pots over four thousand years old. And yet, now, most people associate it with an undeniable evil. I hardly think that someone will assume that someone with such a statue is a pagan. If so, do not invite them over again.

A swastika is a symbol which has many different meanings not all of them representing the nazi party. Anubis however is not a symbol but a false god and there are no other pictures of a jackal headed egyptian that I know of being used to represent anything other than Anubis nor have I known their to be.

So? What if it is pretty? What if it represents to you something, however little, of divine truth? Consider, for example, the use of Greek mythology during the Renaissance.

The use of Greek mythology in what and in where during the Renaissance? A Church, a court house, public houses? Where? Sorry Baelor you need to be a little more specefic. What if its pretty? Well I personally could never see a statue of Anubis as pretty but I do find Golden statues of Ganesh as being pretty; yet, the fact that I like the look of them does not mean I will keep one in my house since what it represents is more important than if I find it pretty or not. Plus I fail to see how a statue of false god could remind me of divine truth. I would think if anything is going to remind me of Divine Truth then it would be Christ Himself who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[Darran]

Plus I fail to see how a statue of false god could remind me of divine truth. I would think if anything is going to remind me of Divine Truth then it would be Christ Himself who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Well said

 

[vera_dicere]

A few years ago I went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Egypt and Jordan. Egypt had some pretty cool little statues and I ended up buying plenty of them.

They had some cool wooden cats, pyramids, some other interesting figures and I bought myself a 15" statue of Anubis. I bought it solely because it looks cool… and I talked the price down with the merchant, even if it left him pissed.

I’ve thought about whether it’s OK to have these things in the home. Is this morally permissible?

Thanks.

While I agree with most people that its probably okay given it was meant for art or a tourist buy, what Anubis was the god of is kinda… well, dark. It’d certainly cause a bit of scandal perhaps if others didn’t understand or know you’re Christian.

I had a statue of Thoth because I really liked his form, his bird head made me laugh, a pagan slanted friend saw it and started going on about how as being one of the gods of the Moon she felt a kinship with him, bla bla bla, when I nonchalantly pointed out he was more associated with scribes and wisdom she took that to mean I was “all into that stuff”.

Not a good look for an apparently devote Catholic.

I got rid of it, which at first annoyed me, because I quite like ancient mythology and especially ancient Egyptian art styles. I even went so far as to cut back on my art work which was based on it due to scandal. Yet, as time went on, and I got stronger in my faith, and started to research it more, to understand it, the images of ancient deities started to really creep me out.

So I’d say, its morally permissible to keep it, if no one but you can see it. - but I think you’ll do better in the long run if you get rid of it.

But ancient Egyptain myths are pretty seedy. Heh.

 

[Baelor]

A swastika is a symbol which has many different meanings not all of them representing the nazi party. Anubis however is not a symbol but a false god and there are no other pictures of a jackal headed egyptian that I know of being used to represent anything other than Anubis nor have I known their to be.

Anubis can be a symbol. Just associate him with something else and it is done. The association of symbols is (almost – because I am wary of making absolute claims) entirely man-made, and thus symbols alter meanings and gain new ones.

The use of Greek mythology in what and in where during the Renaissance? A Church, a court house, public houses? Where? Sorry Baelor you need to be a little more specefic.

Sure. Here is a start. More info here. Rome is a wonderful resource for Renaissance studies, and you will see that Churches, Palazzi, and more all have mythological themes contained within them.

Plus I fail to see how a statue of false god could remind me of divine truth. I would think if anything is going to remind me of Divine Truth then it would be Christ Himself who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Then you dismiss the place in human society for fiction and art that does not have explicitly religious themes, something the Church does not condone.

 

[Darran]

Then you dismiss the place in human society for fiction and art that does not have explicitly religious themes, something the Church does not condone.

Fiction and art without explicitly religious themes is one thing, fiction and art claiming to be an image of a god is quite another. One’s an image of something that is, the other is an image of something that is not.

 

[Baelor]

Fiction and art without explicitly religious themes is one thing, fiction and art claiming to be an image of a god is quite another. One’s an image of something that is, the other is an image of something that is not.

That is to say, all fiction whatsoever, because it inherently is about something that is not.

If the person does not believe in Anubis, I fail to see how the statue is a problem, and the responses in this thread have not at all addressed this issue besides the claim of scandal, which of course is a personal circumstance that is not universally applicable.

 

[Irishgal49]

I fail to see how keeping a work of art in one’s home would cause confusion as to his religious affiliation if he were a devout Catholic and the work was of a deity from a religion that no one subscribes to anymore.

-ACEGC

Anubis was regarded as the god of embalming and the escort of the deceased to the underworld. The cat statues you saw were, most likely, Bast, who was also a goddess. Egyptians worshiped these deities and kept images in their homes.

I can see both sides of the debate here, but if you have a whole collection of Egyptian art on a shelf or in a curio I don’t think it’s a big deal. I guess I just wouldn’t have it sitting with my saint statues or somewhere in the home where someone could get the wrong idea. It could cause confusion if it’s got candles around it and is mixed in with your Christian statuary but if it’s just displayed as art, I would think that is fine. I am sure your family and friends know you and know you do not worship Egyptian gods.

I will say that there is another “deity” in the Egyptian pantheon I would not have in my home and it looks similar to Anubis. It’s Set the god of destruction and revenge. Basically it’s a jackal that was thought to be the one of revenge and evil. Most would not even pray to him for fear of his actions. He was the “devil” in their belief system so I would never have his statue in my collection.

Lorrie

 

[Darran]

That is to say, all fiction whatsoever, because it inherently is about something that is not.

If the person does not believe in Anubis, I fail to see how the statue is a problem, and the responses in this thread have not at all addressed this issue besides the claim of scandal, which of course is a personal circumstance that is not universally applicable.

Even fiction, good fiction that is, is useful to draw awe or attention to something we might not have understood as well previously. In other words the meaning, in good fiction, is very real. Same with art. All art is fiction as it is only representative of whatever it aims to represent and isn’t in actuality that very thing.

That’s the purpose of art and stories, they are forms of parables. Even if they aren’t explicitly mentioning God or His Church, their purpose is to bring us to Him by inspiring His virtues in us. That’s the art the Church allows, of course there’s fiction and art for completely the opposite reason that is inherently evil. A statue of a false god is one of those things. Even if it doesn’t offend us, it doesn’t inspire us to holiness either as all it does is “look pretty”, while at the same time being something that’s detestable to God.

If it was possible to have statues in Heaven (just suppose) you wouldn’t see a statue of Anubis there. It wouldn’t be right for us to make something to remind God of what heathens in the past followed when they forgot Him. In the beginning and the end, He’s the one that matters and takes priority over what we prefer.

 

[Baelor]

Even fiction, good fiction that is, is useful to draw awe or attention to something we might not have understood as well previously. In other words the meaning, in good fiction, is very real. Same with art. All art is fiction as it is only representative of whatever it aims to represent and isn’t in actuality that very thing.

Indeed.

That’s the purpose of art and stories, they are forms of parables. Even if they aren’t explicitly mentioning God or His Church, their purpose is to bring us to Him by inspiring His virtues in us. That’s the art the Church allows, of course there’s fiction and art for completely the opposite reason that is inherently evil. A statue of a false god is one of those things.

Please show me where in standing Church teaching this is the case. I am sorry, but I do not understand your position. Surely you are not claiming that there is such a movement to restore faith in Egyptian mythology in the world today that we are unable to consider past mythologies as fiction.

Even if it doesn’t offend us, it doesn’t inspire us to holiness either as all it does is “look pretty”, while at the same time being something that’s detestable to God.

Idols of false gods that are worshiped are detestable to God. That would not be the case for a decorative statue of a fictitious deity, since no one is worshiping it. Having a demon or devil statue would, in fact, potentially be worse for a Catholic to have precisely because he holds a belief in the subject of the art.

If it was possible to have statues in Heaven (just suppose) you wouldn’t see a statue of Anubis there. It wouldn’t be right for us to make something to remind God of what heathens in the past followed when they forgot Him. In the beginning and the end, He’s the one that matters and takes priority over what we prefer.

That is a preposterous line of reasoning. There are no statues in heaven anyway, so discussing which ones would be present is moot.

 

[Darran]

Then since theres no Enubis anywhere, surely we should consider the presence of its “image” as “moot”. I’m sorry that you just can’t get the point Baelor.

Worship isn’t the only sin a person can commit by having an image of a false god in their home. A person who does so believing that it can’t be a sin providing they aren’t worshiping it might not be in error if they can’t reason beyond that. But that would be an exception to the rule of culpability, that is, below common sense.

 

[Baelor]

Worship isn’t the only sin a person can commit by having an image of a false god in their home.

Which I fully understand – posters have rightly mentioned some instances where scandal may be an issue. No one, including you, has provided any other sin as taught by the Catholic Church.

A person who does so believing that it can’t be a sin providing they aren’t worshiping it might not be in error if they can’t reason beyond that. But that would be an exception to the rule of culpability, that is, below common sense.

It is much easier to make claims than to justify them, as you rightly imply. Again, I fail to see the violation of Catholic teaching in law or spirit.