Christian Members

[unfioredarancio]

This is my last post in this thread. I don't want to stop anyone from living the way they like it.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about what turns you on.

This is a very smart sentence I think the same. You know, if a person put so much hope in something, it's very hard to let this thing go away or questioning it. I'm talking about God, in this case, but all of us have something that we put so much hope in, or something we believed it was true for a very long time, or something that saved us when we were struggling. It's very hard to say "This is not good for me anymore, because I want to know the truth and now I'm able to stand on my feet also without this". This is why I said I don't want and I don't like to preach (I don't believe in any human-shaped God who created the world and cares only for humans - actually we have things like wars, world hunger and child abuse, so this "God" must be not very good or not very powerful (?)

Everyone can believe in what they want, as soon as they don't bother other people, trying to make others believe what they believe.

Like... If you are so sure about God existence, why you need others to believe you?
It seems like you are not sure too!

Have a good day all of u

 

[Maxym]

Ngl, the people who intrigue me the most are the ones who maintain their religious belief alongside their scientific knowledge and training.

Not that surprising. Science has limits that are well known by scientists. Stuff that we can't explain at infinitely large scales, infinitely small scales, infinite time backwards or forwards.
Something I understood recently is that many scientists fill gaps with "fudge factors" (such as dark matter, dark energy...) explicitly waiting to be explained or replaced by something better, or purely mathematical hypothesis that can't be tested (such as String Theories, multiverse hypothesis etc.)... the latter may be because they don't understand science, because they play some kind of mathematical lottery, are attention grabbers or maybe simply because science doesn't evolve fast enough for everyone and they need to publish papers. Once you trim those out, you get real science and scientists working on solid bases, but these is already bad for science image and may induce doubts.
But no matter the size of actual science, it is unlikely for now that it ever rules out all of its limits... Then there is always space for questions such has "Why does the Universe exist in the first place? And why does it work the way it does? For how long in the past and future? Does it repeat? Did someone create it/is it a simulation? What is life? Does free will actually exist?"
Most of these are rather philosophical gaps that one can fill with all kind of beliefs.
So I'm not shocked at scientists having beliefs as long as they keep a clear distinction between what are proven facts in this world and what are speculations.

 

[zinniabooklover]

[...] So I'm not shocked at scientists having beliefs

Just to be clear, I'm not shocked at all that people can hold strong religious beliefs and also be scientists or medical doctors. It makes a lot of sense to me. Even though I'm in this thread this isn't something I particularly want to have a convo about bc I don't think the online space is a great place for discussing complex ideas and subtle nuances. Or maybe I should say, it probably is possible to do that but it's beyond my capabilities, lol.

as long as they keep a clear distinction between what are proven facts in this world and what are speculations.

Hopefully most scientists do this but I'm not so sure about the general public, tbh. It sometimes feels like there's a tendency to forget about the 'speculation / theories still being tested' part.

Not that surprising. Science has limits that are well known by scientists. Stuff that we can't explain at infinitely large scales, infinitely small scales, infinite time backwards or forwards.
Something I understood recently is that many scientists fill gaps with "fudge factors" (such as dark matter, dark energy...) explicitly waiting to be explained or replaced by something better, or purely mathematical hypothesis that can't be tested (such as String Theories, multiverse hypothesis etc.)... the latter may be because they don't understand science, because they play some kind of mathematical lottery, are attention grabbers or maybe simply because science doesn't evolve fast enough for everyone and they need to publish papers. Once you trim those out, you get real science and scientists working on solid bases, but these is already bad for science image and may induce doubts.

I agree with all of this. I have always had many problems with science plus, as we know, there is a lot of bad science out there. Science is evolving all the time and that's fine but a bit more acknowledgement of the issues you've outlined here would be great. The article that Hot Street posted was mildly interesting and it is promising work but needs to be replicated many, many times before any solid conclusions can be drawn not to mention I still think the methodology needs to be looked at. A research study that asks the participants 'Are you feeling the spirit yet?' needs to be challenged, imo. Bc if that's not a leading question it's certainly very suggestive. It needs to be way more neutral otherwise you're basically telling the participants what you want from them. The other problem I had with it was that this reward centre of the brain that got activated is also linked to feelings around love, sex, gambling and listening to music. That is quite a range of different activities. Another article I read mentioned another research study which showed that different religious practices have different effects on the brain. That is to say - different religions activate (the same) brain regions differently so the focus needs to go way beyond a mere 19 Mormons.

But no matter the size of actual science, it is unlikely for now that it ever rules out all of its limits... Then there is always space for questions such has "Why does the Universe exist in the first place? And why does it work the way it does? For how long in the past and future? Does it repeat? Did someone create it/is it a simulation? What is life? Does free will actually exist?"
Most of these are rather philosophical gaps that one can fill with all kind of beliefs. [...]

Tbh, I'm not madly bothered about 'who created the world'? We're here and we have to get on with it. I'm not a believer but I do find religious thought endlessly fascinating, just not that particular question. But some of those other questions you posed are very interesting. Ngl, I struggle to imagine a time when science could tackle those questions. As for philosophy, it's interesting, for sure, but has a tendency to go round in circles, imo.

 

[Maxym]

Just to be clear, I'm not shocked at all that people can hold strong religious beliefs and also be scientists or medical doctors. It makes a lot of sense to me.

At the end of writing, I thought maybe I replying to something that you didn't really mean. But my first interpretation was trigged by the fact that you quote bluemoon7 with this part in bold "And maybe science and a belief in a divine source/creation can both exist ...".

I agree with all of this. I have always had many problems with science plus, as we know, there is a lot of bad science out there.

I guess you rather have a problem with fake-science-claiming-to-be-science (there are all kinds of flavours) and science-as-represented-in-the-media (I example, I cited, String Theories... String Theories were one of those non-testable*1 purely mathematical theories and was pushed all over in the media for decades. Now, they're pretty much ruled out*. But this damages the image of research in that domain. And the reason is most probably that media need sensational headlines, and so theorists could benefit from it. The media also often ask questions to wrong people*.)

*1 (Various comments in a block.) Mostly talking about physics here, hypothesis should be based on testable measurements, not purely-mathematical extrapolations. In example: Einstein didn't come up with his relativity theory just because it looked nice, he was correcting previous physics theories*2 that didn't match measurements. Multiverse theories and such may be that kind of "mathematical-only-constructs". I've been bored for decades with articles titling thing like "Was Einstein wrong?" or "Some particle went faster then light.". On wrong people talking science: recently watched a video by "Angela Collier" on why well-known billionaires of talk about physics (though, having myself some common points with Elon Musk, I can understand why he "keeps an interest" in it and why he would like to talk about it, though at she mentioned, there are other interests at play).

*2 Corrected/edited: I first mentioned Maxwell's stuff but I think I mixed things up, it's more likely that Einstein was working on previous theories by Lorentz and by Poincaré (to be verified)
PS: I'm not sure if the direction I took with this note was that efficient for explaining... I meant that there are many mathematical hypothesis out there and as long as that don't match observations/data, they're worthless and pushing them too strong may closer to beliefs than actual proven facts.

Science is evolving all the time and that's fine but a bit more acknowledgement of the issues you've outlined here would be great.

Here again, I think the problem is not science, it's the media, and communication. (And that's why I went in that direction in the first place, in a part of my previous reply, because most people see science only through the media, which reflects (a) wrong image(s).)

The article that Hot Street posted was mildly interesting and it is promising work but needs to be replicated many, many times before any solid conclusions can be drawn not to mention I still think the methodology needs to be looked at.

The are so many way to make unreliable studies... Just one more of them isn't anything new. A single study is rarely enough to draw conclusion. Studies cost money and time and we can't study everything. I haven't read Hot Street's article (yet) I was just reacting on that answer to bluemoon7's quote (maybe I'll check it but can't do right now).

As for philosophy, it's interesting, for sure, but has a tendency to go round in circles, imo.

"go round in circles" -> That's what I meant when mentioning philosophy.

 

[zinniabooklover]

At the end of writing,

I had the same problem, lol. After my reply to Hot Street and then replying to you I realised I should have made a bit more effort to point out that a lot of my objections are really about media coverage of science. I do have problems with science, some of the models that are used are bad and I object to the way we are (apparently) meant to just accept scientific findings even if we don't understand wth we're being told. That said, media coverage is often misleading.

I thought maybe I replying to something that you didn't really mean. But my first interpretation was trigged by the fact that you quote bluemoon7 with this part in bold "And maybe science and a belief in a divine source/creation can both exist ...".

I loved that statement from bluemoon7 and also the Francis Bacon quote from her other post:

Francis Bacon:

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

Essays (1625) ‘Of Atheism’ [...]

This is the kind of thing my mind likes to reflect on. Some religious institutions can be - and continue to be - hideously abusive, disgustingly immoral and plain wrong. Religious practices can be meaningless or just ridiculous. Not denying that. But religious thought is often very interesting, imo.

I guess you rather have a problem with fake-science-claiming-to-be-science (there are all kinds of flavours) and science-as-represented-in-the-media (I example, I cited, String Theories... String Theories were one of those non-testable* purely mathematical theories and was pushed all over in the media for decades. Now, they pretty much rules out*. But this damages the image of research in that domain. And the reason is most probably that media need sensational headlines, and so theorists could benefit from it.

I am allergic to sensational headlines. I do realise the headlines are not written by the journalist. They are the work of the sub editor or copy editor (I'm not sure which but it's one of them) and I guess they are following the direction of the editor but I still don't like it. I also realise that a journalist writing about science in ordinary media doesn't have loads of space to write their piece and they are addressing a general audience. I don't have a science brain so there's only so much I can understand, lol. But I still think there is loads of room for improvement.

The media also often ask questions to wrong people*.)

Tell me about it. Drives me nuts.

Here again, I think the problem is not science, it's the media, and communication. (And that's why I went in that direction in the first place, in a part of my previous reply, because most people see science only through the media, which reflects (a) wrong image(s).)

The are so many way to make unreliable studies... Just one more of them isn't anything new.

I know but it's annoying. I reserve the right to be annoyed, lol.

A single study is rarely enough to draw conclusion.

The media don't always take the trouble to point that out.

Studies cost money and time and we can't study everything.

This is all very fair but, otoh, if a new research dept has been established there must be an expectation that funding will be coming in from somewhere (I know it's madly competitive and very difficult to secure funding). And other, longer established, possibly better funded departments will be picking up the ideas generated by this study and working on their version. At least, I hope so!

I haven't read Hot Street's article (yet) I was just reacting on that answer to bluemoon7's quote (maybe I'll check it but can't do right now).

It's a reasonably interesting article, tbf. It was a very small study. 19 Mormons carrying out four tasks, iirc, which lasted six to eight minutes each. The entire exercise lasted only one hour. It did seem to show some promising and interesting results but it's all very early days, imo. The research was done (I assume) in 2014 or 2015, they published in 2016. Who knows if anyone has followed this up? Other people have done research in this general area so there is interest in this.

"go round in circles" -> That's what I meant when mentioning philosophy.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Mary is busy reading, Joseph gets to do childcare, lol.

 

[bluemoon7]

Mary is busy reading, Joseph gets to do childcare, lol.

lmaooo
The animals look confused

 

[Hot_Street]

 

[zinniabooklover]

 

[Maxym]

Oh, so, Trinity is nontransitive?

(I just never wondered about it before, and after a quick Internet search, I guess I won't think about it again.)

 

[zinniabooklover]

Oh, so, Trinity is nontransitive?

(I just never wondered about it before, and after a quick Internet search, I guess I won't think about it again.)

 

[bluemoon7]

Oh, so, Trinity is nontransitive?

(I just never wondered about it before, and after a quick Internet search, I guess I won't think about it again.)

I am intrigued ... what does it mean? My latin is not goid enough lol

nontransitive = not transferable?

 

[bluemoon7]

looks like another one of those mind maps that don't make sense to anyone except for the person who made it up

 

[bluemoon7]

Mary is busy reading, Joseph gets to do childcare, lol.

@zinniabooklover omg this is real! i researched it and am mindblown!

... from the "Stundenbuch (book of hours) von Besançon"

 

[zinniabooklover]

@zinniabooklover omg this is real! i researched it and am mindblown!

Sorry! My bad!

I shouldn't be so lazy, assuming that people will recognise that the page is from a mediaeval Book of Hours. I don't remember any info linked to the image when I originally found it and I can only read a couple of the Latin words. I just breezily posted it so I could make my feeble joke, lol.

I do genuinely love the image, though. It's not what we usually see so it's fascinating just for that reason alone.

... from the "Stundenbuch (book of hours) von Besançon"

Since you are clearly the Detective Extraordinaire and I am not even a lowly apprentice I'm posting this article (only just found it) with the thought 'why am I even bothering, she's probably already seen this'.

Ngl, I hadn't even considered the thing about the red and the blue.

The Warburg’s Photographic Collection sheds light on enigmatic manuscript

warburg.sas.ac.uk

 

[zinniabooklover]

looks like another one of those mind maps that don't make sense to anyone except for the person who made it up

I love (old) stained glass windows and I love that Trinity image. No idea which church or cathedral it comes from, sadly. But I think it's a great example of stained glass windows being used as a teaching tool for the laity. Instead of listening to the minister getting all in a tangle trying to explain it, just contemplate the image. And if it starts to break your brain, just enjoy the beautiful colours, lol.

I am intrigued ... what does it mean? My latin is not goid enough lol

nontransitive = not transferable?

Ngl, when I read Maxym's post about 'nontransitive' I wanted to lie down in a darkened room. Or eat some more Christmas chocolate, lol. I'm convinced you need the brain of a Jesuit or Rowan Williams to wrap your head around the transitive/nontransitive thing. I've seen (and heard) discussions about it which focus solely on how the word 'is' is being defined or used. Predication or identity? Cardinal Ratzinger (in his pre-Pope life) will get quoted. 'Arianism' will get flung into the debate. John 1:1 will be quoted. Seasons will come and go, tides will ebb and flow!

I'm sure you know all of this. I don't know what to say! I like that stained glass window and I understand what it's telling me but I don't think I could put together a coherent sentence about that if my life depended on it!

Sidenote: I prefer the Orthodox idea that the holy spirit proceeds from the father alone, not from god and Jesus.

 

[Maxym]

I am intrigued ... what does it mean? My latin is not goid enough lol

nontransitive = not transferable?

It' a mathematical property, if it was transitive, you could say
"Pater" is "Deus", "Deus" is "Filius", therefore "Pater" is "Filius".
But according to the external edges on the trinity graph, you cannot say so. (Which is probably the reason why such a graph was made in the first place, so that people understand it.)

 

[bluemoon7]

Sorry! My bad!

I shouldn't be so lazy, assuming that people will recognise that the page is from a mediaeval Book of Hours. I don't remember any info linked to the image when I originally found it and I can only read a couple of the Latin words. I just breezily posted it so I could make my feeble joke, lol.

Oh, no worries It says something about catholics like me when I could NOT believe that this is even real. I honestly thought it was fake, and it actually makes me very happy that it is not That some people ages ago were so lovely as to create an imtimate image of the holy family that is not as traditional as I was taught.

I do genuinely love the image, though. It's not what we usually see so it's fascinating just for that reason alone.

yes, yes

Since you are clearly the Detective Extraordinaire and I am not even a lowly apprentice I'm posting this article (only just found it) with the thought 'why am I even bothering, she's probably already seen this'.

Aw, no You tell me, girl! We all never stop learning new things ...

And tbh, the catholic church / Christianism is so intellectual and far away from people and heir hearts, ... you can never know enough

 

[bluemoon7]

I love (old) stained glass windows and I love that Trinity image. No idea which church or cathedral it comes from, sadly. But I think it's a great example of stained glass windows being used as a teaching tool for the laity. Instead of listening to the minister getting all in a tangle trying to explain it, just contemplate the image. And if it starts to break your brain, just enjoy the beautiful colours, lol.

I just love your approach to this ! I have already grown bitter over everything catholicism did and still does to women especially. Your thoughts on this are very positive, and I like this.

Ngl, when I read Maxym's post about 'nontransitive' I wanted to lie down in a darkened room. Or eat some more Christmas chocolate, lol.

!!!

I'm convinced you need the brain of a Jesuit or Rowan Williams to wrap your head around the transitive/nontransitive thing. I've seen (and heard) discussions about it which focus solely on how the word 'is' is being defined or used. Predication or identity? Cardinal Ratzinger (in his pre-Pope life) will get quoted. 'Arianism' will get flung into the debate. John 1:1 will be quoted. Seasons will come and go, tides will ebb and flow!

I am DIZZYYYYYYY Isn´t it terrifying, yet interesting? lolol

I'm sure you know all of this.

yes And does it help me be a better person? lol
But I do love discussing religion sometimes.

I don't know what to say!

say nothing
I have lost all my apprehensions of asking religious scholars "stupid" (aka normal, simple) questions.

I like that stained glass window and I understand what it's telling me but I don't think I could put together a coherent sentence about that if my life depended on it!

i feel youuuuu!

 

[bluemoon7]

It' a mathematical property, if it was transitive, you could say
"Pater" is "Deus", "Deus" is "Filius", therefore "Pater" is "Filius".
But according to the external edges on the trinity graph, you cannot say so. (Which is probably the reason why such a graph was made in the first place, so that people understand it.)

There are so many interpretations about the holy Trinity ... I was mindblown when a friend (catholic teacher) told me that the debate is still going on, and that the trinity-concept is not even part of the bible but came about a long time after Jesus died.

 

[Sawyer Grubb]

Yes you did! It's right there for everyone to see. Don't deny it!


I'm not talking about believers. You said you have evidence for god? Where is this evidence? Belief is not evidence

Show me where I asked for proof. I clearly stated that you can’t prove anything in life.

Evidence is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which I have said many times. You guys keep saying I haven’t said things when I have clearly answered it. Where is your evidence for your scientific studies? Do you fact check everything or do you just believe everything you hear and see? I am so curious to hear your evidence that backs up your way of life. Everyone worships something. What do you worship?

"The bible is a book of claims, not a book of facts. It is not the “word of god” because “god” didn’t write it, men did"

101 of the craziest, strangest, most ridiculous Bible absurdities

101 of the craziest, strangest, most ridiculous Bible absurdities

In my last article I took a critical look at the teachings of Jesus, in this article I’ll extend that to the Bible itself. As a reference guide I’ve used The Skeptics Annotated Bible which I highly recommend you check out. The Bible is a book of claims, not a book of facts. It is […]

lifelessons.co

Claims? So you think every history book is just a book of claims huh? That’s interesting and that line of thinking is scary. I mean where is your evidence that Abraham Lincoln got shot? Eyewitness testimony. What is the New Testament filled with? Eyewitness testimony. Also it detailed Jesus talking in it, it is His Word and that is the Word of God.

 

[Sawyer Grubb]

This is a very smart sentence I think the same. You know, if a person put so much hope in something, it's very hard to let this thing go away or questioning it. I'm talking about God, in this case, but all of us have something that we put so much hope in, or something we believed it was true for a very long time, or something that saved us when we were struggling. It's very hard to say "This is not good for me anymore, because I want to know the truth and now I'm able to stand on my feet also without this". This is why I said I don't want and I don't like to preach (I don't believe in any human-shaped God who created the world and cares only for humans - actually we have things like wars, world hunger and child abuse, so this "God" must be not very good or not very powerful (?)

Everyone can believe in what they want, as soon as they don't bother other people, trying to make others believe what they believe.

Like... If you are so sure about God existence, why you need others to believe you?
It seems like you are not sure too!

Have a good day all of u

Well all the evil in this world is just the absence of God, just like darkness is the absence of light.

Our job as Christ followers is to go and save lost souls. We want everyone to get into heaven, and so does God. That is why we preach and spread the gospel. There definitely Christians who have done bad things and have shoved religion down peoples throats. That’s why I would never follow Christianity or other branches of it. Follow Christ.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Show me where I asked for proof. I clearly stated that you can’t prove anything in life.

Evidence is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which I have said many times. You guys keep saying I haven’t said things when I have clearly answered it. Where is your evidence for your scientific studies? Do you fact check everything or do you just believe everything you hear and see? I am so curious to hear your evidence that backs up your way of life. Everyone worships something. What do you worship?

Claims? So you think every history book is just a book of claims huh? That’s interesting and that line of thinking is scary. I mean where is your evidence that Abraham Lincoln got shot? Eyewitness testimony. What is the New Testament filled with? Eyewitness testimony. Also it detailed Jesus talking in it, it is His Word and that is the Word of God.

What are you even talking about at this point? I don't even know anymore

 

[unfioredarancio]

Our job as Christ followers is to go and save lost souls. We want everyone to get into heaven, and so does God.

Hello, let me answer you with this...

1) If God wants all the people to go to Heaven, then why is there a Hell? It's not necessary
2) If God is the most powerful entity in this world and wants all the people to go to Heaven, why Christians have to preach? It's not necessary
3) If you want "everyone" to get into Heaven, it means that someone will not reach Heaven. But, as you said, God wants all the people to go to Heaven...
So can he decide, or not?

For me it seems like religious people are just scared of this God because he can kill everyone and put everyone in hell burning forever. Or am I wrong?

Fear is the most powerful entity to control people

 

[Sawyer Grubb]

Hello, let me answer you with this...

1) If God wants all the people to go to Heaven, then why is there a Hell? It's not necessary
2) If God is the most powerful entity in this world and wants all the people to go to Heaven, why Christians have to preach? It's not necessary
3) If you want "everyone" to get into Heaven, it means that someone will not reach Heaven. But, as you said, God wants all the people to go to Heaven...
So can he decide, or not?

For me it seems like religious people are just scared of this God because he can kill everyone and put everyone in hell burning forever. Or am I wrong?

Fear is the most powerful entity to control people

1) The good thing about God is that He gives free will. While He wants everyone to go to heaven, everyone who rejects Him will get as they wish and be separated from Him for eternity. Hell is just the absence of God.
2) already answered that in the previous question
3) Don’t really understand what you are asking me here.

Yeah there should be a healthy fear of God. Almost like the fear of disappointment or getting in trouble by your father. While yes He is all powerful and can do all of what you just said, it’s the fact that He doesn’t and shows grace, forgiveness and mercy. In that way we live in awe of Him.

 

[Sawyer Grubb]

What are you even talking about at this point? I don't even know anymore

I ask the same to you my friend, you are just rejecting everything I say. I’m giving you clear answers. What I find with most atheists is that it is not about the evidence, it’s an emotional issue. Either the fact that you don’t want to follow what God says or you have been hurt in the past by religious people.

 

[unfioredarancio]

1) The good thing about God is that He gives free will. While He wants everyone to go to heaven, everyone who rejects Him will get as they wish and be separated from Him for eternity. Hell is just the absence of God.
2) already answered that in the previous question
3) Don’t really understand what you are asking me here.

Yeah there should be a healthy fear of God. Almost like the fear of disappointment or getting in trouble by your father. While yes He is all powerful and can do all of what you just said, it’s the fact that He doesn’t and shows grace, forgiveness and mercy. In that way we live in awe of Him.

It all sounds very sad to me, I'm sorry.
Thank you for taking the time but as "God" gave me free will, I don't wanna believe in something that humans wrote to let other humans being scared all life...

It's like being hypnotized
and this is not having free will...

I don't know what kind of father did you have, but I think there is a connection between how we were raised as a child and what we put our faith in when we grew up.

Fear and love are two opposite things, my friend, you can't love someone who you are scared of...

Anyway, I don't believe in God but I understand why you are so sure and devote to your God.
That's ok, I wish you all the best as a human.

 

[Sawyer Grubb]

It all sounds very sad to me, I'm sorry.
Thank you for taking the time but as "God" gave me free will, I don't wanna believe in something that humans wrote to let other humans being scared all life...

It's like being hypnotized
and this is not having free will...

I don't know what kind of father did you have, but I think there is a connection between how we were raised as a child and what we put our faith in when we grew up.

Fear and love are two opposite things, my friend, you can't love someone who you are scared of...

Anyway, I don't believe in God but I understand why you are so sure and devote to your God.
That's ok, I wish you all the best as a human.

Hey don’t be sorry, we are just sharing our world views and it’s all good. It’s fine that you don’t want to believe what humans wrote, but at least look into the words of Jesus. He gives us a choice to accept Him or deny Him, so that is definitely free will. I definitely agree that there is a difference between how we were raised and what we put our faith in when we grew up. I grew up a Christian yes, but I didn’t decide to put full faith in Him only about 2 years ago. I had been living lukewarm most of my life. Fear of God is once again looking at Him in awe of how powerful He is, not being scared of Him. It is because of His amazing love for us that He shows us mercy and grace. I mean He created us, how could you not love the creator who gave us the gift of life?

 

[zinniabooklover]

For Twelfth Night

Henry Ossawa Tanner was the first African-American painter to gain international acclaim. He moved to Paris in 1891 to study at the Académie Julian and gained acclaim in French artistic circles. Working in France after 1891, Henry Ossawa Tanner achieved an international reputation largely through his religious paintings. Their deep spirituality reflects Tanner's upbringing as a minister's son as well as the influence of his visits to the Holy Land after 1897.

'The Three Wise Men' - Henry Ossawa Tanner, 1925
https://x.com/FaithTruthand/status/1873795464577114606/photo/1

 

[Michaels Lover]