• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is Michelangelo saying in The Creation of Adam?

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Let's just say that it is a brain. Couldn't it mean that Michelangelo was portraying the Mind and Intellect behind creation? That would fit better with what we know of Michelangelo.

Also, some have noticed that it looks like a uterus, with the green sash or whatever being like an umbilical cord.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
images
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Because it's sliced in at completely different angle and direction.

Brains are three dimensional objects, you know.
Sure, but still, they do not look the same. And really, we can't then assume that Michelangelo was drawing a brain without know what people from that time thought the brain look.

Using a modern day depiction of the brain simply doesn't work. Showing a depiction of the brain from the time of Michelangelo, but one that we can't actually see the important focus of the brain, doesn't work.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Sure, but still, they do not look the same. And really, we can't then assume that Michelangelo was drawing a brain without know what people from that time thought the brain look.

Using a modern day depiction of the brain simply doesn't work. Showing a depiction of the brain from the time of Michelangelo, but one that we can't actually see the important focus of the brain, doesn't work.
Some of what you said here doesn't make sense to me.
How much work do you think it would have been for Michelangelo to get a cadaver and see things for himself, or to access that knowledge from some library?
Surely you are not arguing that human anatomy wasn't a matter of curiosity until after his time.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Some of what you said here doesn't make sense to me.
How much work do you think it would have been for Michelangelo to get a cadaver and see things for himself, or to access that knowledge from some library?
Surely you are not arguing that human anatomy wasn't a matter of curiosity until after his time.
Considering the hang ups about dissecting human corpses that exist to this day? I think it may well have been quite difficult.

Assuming, of course, that he cared at all. Most artists imx are only interested in anatomy as it affects their renditions of the human body.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
I also like the depiction of God as an US rather than as an I.
He said "Let us create man in our own image and likeness..."

As I have come to understand it, God is a plurality of individuals who have entered into union by means of some kind of covenant. All of those beings represent spirits that get inside the mind of man. When we pass away from physical life, our intelligence carries on. If during our lifetime we attain a proper knowledge of God and we enter into covenant with Him in a legitimate way, then we are preserved within that spiritual body until such time as we receive a new physical tabernacle in which to dwell.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Considering the hang ups about dissecting human corpses that exist to this day? I think it may well have been quite difficult.
Sure, but difficult doesn't mean unattainable, especially if he wanted to make a statement that some day would be appreciated when general knowledge would increase.

Assuming, of course, that he cared at all. Most artists imx are only interested in anatomy as it affects their renditions of the human body.
There is enough evidence here to suggest he was making a deliberate statement.
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Sure, but difficult doesn't mean unattainable,
That's not what you asked.

especially if he wanted to make a statement that some day would be appreciated when general knowledge would increase.
There is enough evidence here to suggest he was making a very deliberate statement.
There's enough speculation to make a tabloid blush. Bit of a difference, that.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
That's not what you asked.
Difficult for the average person, but not for someone who is part of a guilded order possessing esoteric knowlege.
Are you going to argue that Michelangelo was just an average "joe" who could paint well?

There's enough speculation to make a tabloid blush. Bit of a difference, that.
You are disqualified to make this statement since you have demonstrated an unwillingness to take all details into a full account.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Difficult for the average person, but not for someone who is part of a guilded order possessing esoteric knowlege.
If you want to claim it was a simple matter, I expect you to support that claim.

Are you going to argue that Michelangelo was just an average "joe" who could paint well?
Don't put words in my mouth.

You are disqualified to make this statement since you have demonstrated an unwillingness to take all details into a full account.
You have no authority over my statements. Especially given your own blatant refusal to admit that your opinions are not the word of God. I've considered every detail mentioned, while you seem to forget anything said more than 2 posts ago.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
If you want to claim it was a simple matter, I expect you to support that claim.
Guilded orders of esoteric knowledge existed in his day.
I think it is reasonable to consider that he was part of them with full access.
The support of the claim is best indicated by the level of detail where there are correllations.

Your postion is that this wasn't meant to depict a brain.
Relying upon the supposition that he had no access to such knowledge is lame.

Don't put words in my mouth.
I asked you a question.
Answer it please.

You have no authority over my statements. Especially given your own blatant refusal to admit that your opinions are not the word of God. I've considered every detail mentioned, while you seem to forget anything said more than 2 posts ago.
You ignored my attempts to draw attention to very precise details that do correspond.
You are willfully ignorant and demonstrating a spirit of unbelief.
This is something that disqualifies your opinion on this matter.
 
Last edited:

Infinitum

Possessed Bookworm
Guilded orders of esoteric knowledge existed in his day.
I think it is reasonable to consider that he was part of them with full access.
The support of the claim is best indicated by the level of detail where there are correllations.
I can't help asking: How does esotericism have anything to do with Michelangelo? What are you even talking about? Sources, please.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Guilded orders of esoteric knowledge existed in his day.
I think it is reasonable to consider that he was part of them with full access.
Oh... so you made it up. And expect me to care because...?

I asked you a question.
Answer it please.
I think not. You made up a claim and asked me if it was mine. I choose not to dignify that.

You ignored my attempts to draw attention to very precise details that do correspond.
I ignored nothing. I addressed each, and found them irrelevant.

You are willfully ignorant and demonstrating a spirit of unbelief.
Willfully ignorant of what? Your delusional authority? I'm sorry that you find it so distressing when people don't sycophantically accept every word that drips from your lips. Perhaps, if it's so unbearable, you shouldn't participate in debate.

This is something that disqualifies your opinion on this matter.
Sorry, wrong again.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Oh... so you made it up. And expect me to care because...?
Made what up?
The OP presents imagery that shows a very striking parallel and you take a position that the painter didn't have access to such knowledge.
I simply said what I did to demonstrate that it wouldn't be impossible for him to have access to that information, especially if he was part of an esoteric order.
Surely you are aware that there have been esoteric orders with occult knowledge and that I am not just making that up.

I think not. You made up a claim and asked me if it was mine. I choose not to dignify that.
I asked a simple question.
Rather than answer it, you decided to :run:.

I ignored nothing. I addressed each, and found them irrelevant.
You didn't address the green ribbon and the artery.
You simply maintained that there was nothing more than a general oval similarity.
If I missed a post, please direct my attention to it. Sometimes I do miss posts since I use the list mode.

Willfully ignorant of what?
The levels of detail I unsucessfully tried to get you to acknowledgde.

Your delusional authority? I'm sorry that you find it so distressing when people don't sycophantically accept every word that drips from your lips. Perhaps, if it's so unbearable, you shouldn't participate in debate.
I appreciate people who are open to considering all levels of details that people wish to contribute. When I sense someone is willing to really listen carefully to others and to acknowledge the points they are making and respectfully address them, then that person is someone demonstrating sound vision and a good heart. This is the kind of person I very much enjoy having discussion with. Sadly, your score card in that department is quite low.

Thus, your opinion matters less and less to me.

Sorry, wrong again.
I disagree.
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Made what up?
That Michelangelo was "a member of a guilded (sic) order of esoteric knowledge." Conveniently vague - I can't even tell whether that's supposed to be guided or gilded.

At any rate, your credibility is utterly sunk, but I'll continue to toy with you as long as you like.


:popcorn:
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
That Michelangelo was "a member of a guilded (sic) order of esoteric knowledge." Conveniently vague - I can't even tell whether that's supposed to be guided or gilded.

At any rate, your credibility is utterly sunk, but I'll continue to toy with you as long as you like.

:popcorn:
I believe what I said is sufficient to stand on its own.

Is toying with people who are trying to sincerely have detailed discussion in harmony with the rules of RF?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I believe what I said is sufficient to stand on its own.
Think again.

Is toying with people who are trying to sincerely have detailed discussion in harmony with the rules of RF?
That doesn't begin to describe you. Sincere, detailed discussions require paying attention to the other person's point of view, and do NOT include accusations of willful ignorance or declarations of unworthy opinions.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Think again.
You accuse me of things that I see no hard evidence in support of.

That doesn't begin to describe you. Sincere, detailed discussions require paying attention to the other person's point of view, and do NOT include accusations of willful ignorance or declarations of unworthy opinions.
And, it doesn't preclude challenging it after doing so and requesting them to acknowledge additional details that suggest they are glossing over things.
From my point of view, your refusal to acknowledge detail I pointed out was when this discussion departed from being productive.

It seems rather than take into consideration the full spectrum of detail, you just want me to ignore the level of detail I have noticed and "take your word for it".
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
No, I don't want you to just take my word for it. I just expect the same respect in return.
 
Top