Anubis statue in my home

[Darran]

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.

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.

And it’s also quite a claim to say that a bit of sense is heresy. Just because the Catechism doesn’t give a direct answer to a question doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer. It would imply either that the question never came up before or that it’s such common knowledge that an infallible answer isn’t needed.

If you’ll re-read (or read) my second last reply you’ll see I have given an example of a sin of offense towards God. I gave it in the example of Heaven as a hyperbole but you read it too literally and dismissed it. I’ll give you it differently, even though you’re just being contrary:

The Holy of Holies. God commanded it to be made in a particular way, but He didn’t say about NOT putting something else in there. Is it alright for the High Priest to bring an image of a false god into the Holy of Holies, where God’s real presence was? After all, the High Priest was an upright man and wouldn’t worship the image, and it wouldn’t mislead anybody else as only he was allowed to enter there once a year during the feast.

I’m not asking if putting anything at all into the Holy of Holies is wrong, I’m only asking that if he did that, would he offend God? If so, why?

 

[Baelor]

And it’s also quite a claim to say that a bit of sense is heresy.

Indeed; the one making that claim should retract it!

Just because the Catechism doesn’t give a direct answer to a question doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer. It would imply either that the question never came up before or that it’s such common knowledge that an infallible answer isn’t needed.

Of course, although it is worth noting that the Church rules (fallibly) on moral matters that are common knowledge, for example rape.

The Holy of Holies. God commanded it to be made in a particular way, but He didn’t say about NOT putting something else in there. Is it alright for the High Priest to bring an image of a false god into the Holy of Holies, where God’s real presence was? After all, the High Priest was an upright man and wouldn’t worship the image, and it wouldn’t mislead anybody else as only he was allowed to enter there once a year during the feast.

There are plenty of situations where a statue of Anubis would be inappropriate. That is a subset of all situations. For example, I love Lord of the Rings. It has nice Christian allegory. I would, however, find it inappropriate to paint a fresco of the Battle of Helm’s Deep on the dome of a church, because I believe that church art should reflect reality/history, not fiction.

Now, to move to the topic of discussion. Why is an Anubis statue in a church inappropriate? I would say that Anubis is fictional, and thus has no place in a church. Is there another reason? Yes, I am no so foolish as to believe that Anubis has no connotations whatsoever. For the sake of eliminating all confusion among the laity and keeping the church as a place for explicit (v. allegorical) worship of God, an image of a pagan deity (or any non-Catholic religion) would be inappropriate.

Note that the reasoning above does not actually extend to places outside of churches, which is why I feel that an Anubis statue in a house is not inherently inappropriate.

 

[katy]

I don’t exactly see anything wrong with keeping it as an example of ancient art. That said, I had a CD once with some Indian music on it I really liked. Unfortunately I asked an Indian friend what the songs were about and she told me they were songs to or about Buddha. I finally tossed the thing because it made me feel bad to be enjoying something that was praise to anyone but our Lord. It was more emotional than rational, but sometimes that counts. My 2 cents.

 

[Darran]

There are plenty of situations where a statue of Anubis would be inappropriate. That is a subset of all situations. For example, I love Lord of the Rings. It has nice Christian allegory. I would, however, find it inappropriate to paint a fresco of the Battle of Helm’s Deep on the dome of a church, because I believe that church art should reflect reality/history, not fiction.

Now, to move to the topic of discussion. Why is an Anubis statue in a church inappropriate? I would say that Anubis is fictional, and thus has no place in a church. Is there another reason? Yes, I am no so foolish as to believe that Anubis has no connotations whatsoever. For the sake of eliminating all confusion among the laity and keeping the church as a place for explicit (v. allegorical) worship of God, an image of a pagan deity (or any non-Catholic religion) would be inappropriate.

Note that the reasoning above does not actually extend to places outside of churches, which is why I feel that an Anubis statue in a house is not inherently inappropriate.

Yes, so you didn’t answer me. You know that putting an image of a false god in the Holy of Holies would have been abominable to God. Even though it could not mislead anyone or cause any harm, to have an image of a sham god in the presence of the True God is an offense to Him, it may be an insult to our intellects, but it is primarily aimed at Him.

You’re right in saying that things have their proper places. The only fitting place for images of false gods to decorate is precisely where God removes Himself entirely from, Hell.

The art given to the Vatican as a gift from converts, as symbols of their conversions from paganism to Christianity are possible exceptions, provided they are always seen for what they intended to be seen as; God triumphing over darkness. Just as we see Jesus in the Crucifix, having dominated over every pain of the world and beyond, or an image of satan sprawled under the feet of St Michael.

Fortunately, unless you plainly didn’t read my last post, by evading the question you’re showing that you really do have common sense. Use it. Don’t argue for the sake of arguing.

Darran out,
Pax.

 

[Baelor]

Yes, so you didn’t answer me. You know that putting an image of a false god in the Holy of Holies would have been abominable to God.

Which I stated in my last post:

Baelor:

Yes, I am no so foolish as to believe that Anubis has no connotations whatsoever. For the sake of eliminating all confusion among the laity and keeping the church as a place for explicit (v. allegorical) worship of God, an image of a pagan deity (or any non-Catholic religion) would be inappropriate.

You’re right in saying that things have their proper places. The only fitting place for images of false gods to decorate is precisely where God removes Himself entirely from, Hell.

That does not follow from the fact that it would be inappropriate in the Holy of Holies.

The art given to the Vatican as a gift from converts, as symbols of their conversions from paganism to Christianity are possible exceptions, provided they are always seen for what they intended to be seen as; God triumphing over darkness.

And yet they constitute art and are displayed as such. Furthermore, Renaissance Catholics incorporated Greek mythology into their own art.

Fortunately, unless you plainly didn’t read my last post, by evading the question you’re showing that you really do have common sense. Use it. Don’t argue for the sake of arguing

My common sense avoids the pitfalls of irrational paranoia and irrationality, so I enjoy it with great relish.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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.

This type of reasoning is the very thing the nazi’s used when they incorporated the swastika into their flag. A made up association does not justify a false association. Kid yourself all you want a statue of Anubis still represents a false god even if you try to reason that his statue in your house just represents people who really like jackals.

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.

And yet here you are twisiting the logic around. Christian Churches used pagan art which could be used to display truth…truth which does not contradict Church teaching. Not everything the pagans believed was contrary to the faith and therefore not everything they had was protested against; at least in Churches. Yet the Churches did not keep any pagan symbols or statues which could lead others away or show a contradiction in what was and is being worshipped in Church. Why you may ask? Well because it could cause scandal.

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.

Incorrect. My stance has been against having a statue of Anubis present in a Catholic HOME not secular places outside the home. My position isn’t even against all secular art! Heck I’m not even against secular art being in the Catholic home provided this art is in good taste and does not contradict the truths the Catholic Faith professes! I have beautiful paintings from secular artists; paintings which do not display religious things or things that are contrary to my faith since why would I ever want to keep something like that in my Catholic home? Should the home be dedicated to God or the spirit of the world? And if it should be dedicated to God then why would I put a statue of a false god in it? Let worldy places keep such statues.

Anyway I’m done with this conversation since its clear some are misconstruing what I’m saying. I say I wouldnt keep a statue of Anubis in my home and others translate it as “I would like see Buddhas bombed or I’m against all art which does not have a picture of Christ in it”.

I will say though if all the secular art was destroyed and the only thing left were pictures of Christ; well I wouldn’t lose sleep over it since in my opinion the best art was saved.

 

[Baelor]

This type of reasoning is the very thing the nazi’s used when they incorporated the swastika into their flag. A made up association does not justify a false association. Kid yourself all you want a statue of Anubis still represents a false god even if you try to reason that his statue in your house just represents people who really like jackals.

I am saying that associations are constructs. Although Anubis originally was a god, that does not mean that he cannot be something else to different people. The only reason the association with the god persists is that most people are aware that he was a god and there has not been a broad effort to appropriate his image.

And yet here you are twisiting the logic around. Christian Churches used pagan art which could be used to display truth…truth which does not contradict Church teaching.

Greek mythology inherently contradicts Church teaching because they are false gods.

Not everything the pagans believed was contrary to the faith and therefore not everything they had was protested against; at least in Churches.

Images of false gods are contradictory to the faith, and yet they beautifully adorn private homes in Renaissance Rome.

Yet the Churches did not keep any pagan symbols or statues which could lead others away or show a contradiction in what was and is being worshipped in Church. Why you may ask? Well because it could cause scandal.

I agree entirely.

Incorrect. My stance has been against having a statue of Anubis present in a Catholic HOME not secular places outside the home. My position isn’t even against all secular art!

Reconcile that claim with this one:

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.

You state that Christ Himself is the reminder of truth etc. in direct opposition to “false gods,” and yet you now claim that there is room for secular art. Are you saying that your new stance is your actual stance?

Heck I’m not even against secular art being in the Catholic home provided this art is in good taste and does not contradict the truths the Catholic Faith professes!

How do you determine whether art contradicts truths? My impression is that art not involving sinning in its production does not “contradict” anything.

I have beautiful paintings from secular artists; paintings which do not display religious things or things that are contrary to my faith since why would I ever want to keep something like that in my Catholic home?

You may not want to. An Egyptologist may enjoy Egyptian art and thus keep an Anubis statue in his home. Someone who appreciates Greek sculpture may have a bronze of Zeus or Poseidon in his living room. It is not as if the presence of the statue is an espousal of the theological system that they represent.

Should the home be dedicated to God or the spirit of the world? And if it should be dedicated to God then why would I put a statue of a false god in it? Let worldy places keep such statues.

If the home should be dedicated to God, keep no secular art in it! If you admit the possibility of truth in secular art, why then do you not accept the possibility of truth in religions that are not entirely true?

 

[billcu1]

Anubis a false god? Does everyone else have to be wrong. Try it from this point of view. How much do you know about ancient Egyptian cosmology? In Christianity everything seems to go through the greek. I deal with Anubis on a very personal level. He is very kind and loving. He protects and leads people through the underworld. You pray to the saints? Ask Anubis to go before and behind you and protect you from the evil ones. Your dreams are less troubled and he may not be the highest being in the universe like GOD. But he definately exists. These beings might be the parent of a certain part of your soul. The ba that you do not come into contact with.

Bill

 

[Baelor]

Anubis a false god? Does everyone else have to be wrong. Try it from this point of view. How much do you know about ancient Egyptian cosmology? In Christianity everything seems to go through the greek. I deal with Anubis on a very personal level. He is very kind and loving. He protects and leads people through the underworld. You pray to the saints? Ask Anubis to go before and behind you and protect you from the evil ones. Your dreams are less troubled and he may not be the highest being in the universe like GOD. But he definately exists. These beings might be the parent of a certain part of your soul. The ba that you do not come into contact with.

OMG. Idolatry alert!

 

[billcu1]

OMG. Idolatry alert!

But I still must follow the sacrementals that our lord set down.

 

[billcu1]

But I still must follow the sacrementals that our lord set down. Remember that it was abraham of the Chaldeans that followed the god El. And David another. Some make the excuse well that’s just another name of god. El and El ELyon? A different god originally. “The hebrew children went into Egypt and went whoring afer false gods.”. They got off track. But Moses led them. He was straight foreward. And schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt. The son in law of the Chief of the Egyptian magicians. He taught Moses much.

 

[Baelor]

But I still must follow the sacrementals that our lord set down.

We believe in one God in Three Persons. We do not believe that this God takes aspects. Anubis is very obviously a false God that has no place in Christianity whatsoever. In no way can you justify praying to or worshiping him using Catholic theology.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Anubis a false god? Does everyone else have to be wrong. Try it from this point of view. How much do you know about ancient Egyptian cosmology? In Christianity everything seems to go through the greek. I deal with Anubis on a very personal level. He is very kind and loving. He protects and leads people through the underworld. You pray to the saints? Ask Anubis to go before and behind you and protect you from the evil ones. Your dreams are less troubled and he may not be the highest being in the universe like GOD. But he definately exists. These beings might be the parent of a certain part of your soul. The ba that you do not come into contact with.

Bill

OMG. Idolatry alert!

LOL, now you see why I hold the personal opinion to keep Anubis out of the home.

Although I might keep an Anubis statue in my home if it has Saint Michael standing over it with his sword in hand, ready to bring down the death blow.

 

[Lochias]

LOL, now you see why I hold the personal opinion to keep Anubis out of the home.

Although I might keep an Anubis statue in my home if it has Saint Michael standing over it with his sword in hand, ready to bring down the death blow.

Agreed.

 

[Rainaldo]

Although I might keep an Anubis statue in my home if it has Saint Michael standing over it with his sword in hand, ready to bring down the death blow.

Just use anubis as a paperweight.

 

[Baelor]

LOL, now you see why I hold the personal opinion to keep Anubis out of the home.

Although I might keep an Anubis statue in my home if it has Saint Michael standing over it with his sword in hand, ready to bring down the death blow.

The problems of a few should not dictate the actions of many.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

The problems of a few should not dictate the actions of many.

Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Lochias]

The problems of a few should not dictate the actions of many.

Play with fire and you’re asking to be burned.

 

[Baelor]

"Credo in Deum:

Better to be safe than sorry.

Play with fire and you’re asking to be burned.

I agree. But we all suffer not the same temptations – someone without a foot fetish need not avoid looking down because it is the only “safe” option for a minuscule segment of the population.

 

[Nabooru]

It’s important to note that yes, this is meant as a memento, not an idol. The ancient Egyptian religion hasn’t had followers in its native land for thousands of years. The artisan who made it most likely did so as a souvenir for tourists.

I’m an archaeology student and I’ve got little archaeology-related knickknacks around. A plastic miniature South Asian temple wall carving, a little Egyptian tomb rock thing, a bust of a Greek charioteer, a little Egyptian hawk with a pschent on the top, etc. To me these are just tchotchkes I enjoy, not idols or anything. I’m not praying to them or worshiping them, nor do I feel that they were made to be prayed to. They’re just decoration, nothing more.