God and the first name
With the wire of the pages, this need to name, prénommer, were done growing unceasingly. Of our "haspric" with Jean, we named, named, we represented all that we named, except... and like a ring of Moebius, the paradox brings back for us to the religion.
In the religions monotheist, God should not be represented. When Moïse brings back the Tables of the Law, it asks its people to cease the idolatrery, to give up golden calf and the divinities for a single God with whom one will not set up statues. The texts insist on this point there until formal prohibition. What pushes a religion has not to have not the right to represent its creator? God, in the religion, made the man with his image, but it is thepowerful one. If the man represented it, it would have human image, image left entendement human. It would lose in fact of its divine dimension. It is because it is represented only it perdure.
Let's see all the other beliefs, Greek, Roman, they were supplanted by what one cannot represent, thus keeping all its "mysterious" aspect and beyond being it of flesh. The only link which it was allowed to establish, the intermediary, was its "sons", of the god and the woman. God is very thing says us one and especially what is not representable, God is infinite and in all the characteristics which are brought to him this term returns to each stating, God is infinitely good, God is infinitely love... Nothing which can return the entendement human one to an unspecified representation.
With at the time in Buddhism, Bouddha is represented, but he is not a god. But Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy where all the things and the beings are represented either such as they are or métaphoriquement.
In the religions monotheist, God should not be represented. When Moïse brings back the Tables of the Law, it asks its people to cease the idolatrery, to give up golden calf and the divinities for a single God with whom one will not set up statues. The texts insist on this point there until formal prohibition. What pushes a religion has not to have not the right to represent its creator? God, in the religion, made the man with his image, but it is thepowerful one. If the man represented it, it would have human image, image left entendement human. It would lose in fact of its divine dimension. It is because it is represented only it perdure.
Let's see all the other beliefs, Greek, Roman, they were supplanted by what one cannot represent, thus keeping all its "mysterious" aspect and beyond being it of flesh. The only link which it was allowed to establish, the intermediary, was its "sons", of the god and the woman. God is very thing says us one and especially what is not representable, God is infinite and in all the characteristics which are brought to him this term returns to each stating, God is infinitely good, God is infinitely love... Nothing which can return the entendement human one to an unspecified representation.
With at the time in Buddhism, Bouddha is represented, but he is not a god. But Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy where all the things and the beings are represented either such as they are or métaphoriquement.