Praying Hands - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Praying Hands

  1. Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    I would have to say if the Creator endowed us with rights and one didn't believe that he/she had a Creator then the Creator may have decided that they were not deserving of their rights. Very astute.
    I have to point out here that the believer was the one who posted a false story. The non believer pointed out the error ( WITHOUT bringing religion into it as it was not relevant ). Then the believers brought religion into it and defended the false story. I am sensing a theme here..

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    You do realize the OP brought up a story that has been widely circulated about a religious artwork?

    Religion was brought in the moment the picture of the artwork "The Praying Hands" was shown. You even brought up the fact that it was originally a painting for the Heller Altar, which was a triptych (a religious painting to be placed behind an altar of a church) for a Dominican church in Frankfurt. So really the original poster and you brought up religiosity since the very nature of this painting is religious and was commissioned for religious purposes.

    I do not remember where the story, after you pointed out the true origin, was defended as to the OP's origin's being correct. After your first post, Oldgrunt merely said the story was interesting, and I said it was touching regardless of the inaccuracies. Neither of those statements is a defense to the historical truth behind it.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    You do realize the OP brought up a story that has been widely circulated about a religious artwork?

    Religion was brought in the moment the picture of the artwork "The Praying Hands" was shown. You even brought up the fact that it was originally a painting for the Heller Altar, which was a triptych (a religious painting to be placed behind an altar of a church) for a Dominican church in Frankfurt. So really the original poster and you brought up religiosity since the very nature of this painting is religious and was commissioned for religious purposes.

    I do not remember where the story, after you pointed out the true origin, was defended as to the OP's origin's being correct. After your first post, Oldgrunt merely said the story was interesting, and I said it was touching regardless of the inaccuracies. Neither of those statements is a defense to the historical truth behind it.
    The topic in question was the false story. I responded about the falsehood of said story the work of art being religious in nature was not relevant to the story being a LIE!! You said "Oldgrunt, thanks for a good story. It was touching, regardless of the historical inaccuracies.". Again pointing out that even though the story was a LIE the believers gave it credence. As with many things believers do not care about a fact as long as the STORY sounds good.

    Notice the OP never even acknowledged the fact he posted a complete work of fiction.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by maine04619 View Post
    The topic in question was the false story. I responded about the falsehood of said story the work of art being religious in nature was not relevant to the story being a LIE!! You said "Oldgrunt, thanks for a good story. It was touching, regardless of the historical inaccuracies.". Again pointing out that even though the story was a LIE the believers gave it credence. As with many things believers do not care about a fact as long as the STORY sounds good.

    Notice the OP never even acknowledged the fact he posted a complete work of fiction.
    How did my saying a story was a good story and then saying it was historical inaccurate give credence to it being accurate?

    A story can be good whether it be true or not. I personally liked reading the Hobbit when I was younger. It was a good story. Guess what, it isn't true either and I don't believe in hobbits, elves, or magic.

    One can like a story, know it is not accurate, as I have mentioned, and still like the story for the story. This doesn't give the story "credence" as being true. You think that someone liking a story makes the story true in their minds?? That's a ridiculously simple thing to think. That would mean that every piece of fiction out there is deemed to be true by many millions of people.

    Your supposition that we will adopt anything as true regardless of inaccuracies is a crock. I have fully admitted the story was not true and in fact have given more historical evidence as to what the artwork is truly about. You are the one pointing the finger and using words like "believers". Neither Oldgrunt nor I have stated that we "believe" this story. In fact quite the opposite. Not sure why you are turning this into a personal battle. It's about a story that turns out not to be true. We've been given evidence as to the truth and accepted the evidence of the truth and brought forth even more. Where has "belief" come into play and adopting the story as "truth" come into play? It hasn't except from your mouth and pushing your agenda that we accept anything regardless of the facts. We haven't, we've proven that, now move on.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by maine04619 View Post
    The topic in question was the false story. I responded about the falsehood of said story the work of art being religious in nature was not relevant to the story being a LIE!! You said "Oldgrunt, thanks for a good story. It was touching, regardless of the historical inaccuracies.". Again pointing out that even though the story was a LIE the believers gave it credence. As with many things believers do not care about a fact as long as the STORY sounds good.

    Notice the OP never even acknowledged the fact he posted a complete work of fiction.
    Maine: I acknowledged your original response and, if you will check back, I said I received it in my email. I enjoyed the story, true or not, and just passed it on. You disputed the story and I have no problem with it. I didn't feel the need for any other comment but you can't seem to let it go. You can let it eat at you if you like but I choose not to. Might I suggest an Alka-Seltzer?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    How did my saying a story was a good story and then saying it was historical inaccurate give credence to it being accurate?
    And thus the bus once again goes by empty.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast