The online-world of Second Life looks in many aspects like reality. Now even an appearance of Virgin Mary has been found in a game.
A player under the name of Kali Zeluco wanted to create in game a wooden cube. In the nerves of the randomly generated wood appeared, according to Zeluco, Virgin Mary. This writes the dutch paper ‘De Telegraaf’.
Players of the game can buy the virtual ‘holy’ wood for 30.000 Linden Dollars, the in-game currency. This is worth about 100 real US Dollar. Here is the ad: http://slexchange.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&file=item&ItemID=113274
I’ve already heard about Second Life, a online game like the Sims, but one with a currency with an exchange ratio against real US Dollar.
It was only time before something like this would be sold.
But I’m really doubtful about these images. The image is too clear and seems to exists, not of nerves in the wood, but of what looks like compression artifacts.
I have often wondered, since there are no photos or paintings of Jesus and Mary, when one sees a face or an image in a sliced tomato or wood grain or a potato chip, how are they certain that it is Mary or Jesus?
It could be the face of Ivan the Terrible or Mervyn Snodley or Paula Abdul’s mother, you know?
Because people see the images of the two that were created hundreds of years after they existed. Thy determine since we don’t know what they looked like, but we have apparently not been corrected (by God or who/whatever) on these arbitrary images that someone created, that they must be correct. So when they see Jesus or Mary that must really be them!
*chuckles* Paula Abdul’s mother…
And here’s an interesting question.
An image of Allah is not supposed to be created. I’m sure everyone remembers the controversy with a political cartoon from some months back. But why don’t we ever hear about a likeness of Allah appearing anywhere? I mean, it wouldn’t be created by man, so it shouln’t be a big religious issue, right? It is created by happenstance - possibly Allah’s will - so the image must be okay to look upon, right?
Or is it bad to even recognize an apparent image of Allah that could be argued to be created by Allah himself?
Dan, I have often wondered that myself. Given the supposed accuracy of the biblical accounts, along with historical records of the time - Mary probably would have been dark-haired, olive-skinned, and between 13-15 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph, and supposedly became pregnant thru an act of God. From further writings, there is no reason to suppose that she did not maintain a normal married life after this purported event, i.e.- Jesus is recorded as having at least one younger brother. Given her recorded presence at his execution, then she lived somewhat beyond the normal life expectancy of 35-40 years, at the time, and that Joseph was dead before the event. Why do so many people almost worship her as a symbol of purity, when she lived a relatively normal life after the supposedly miraculous event? I’m not saying that the gospel accounts are accurate, only that they, themselves reflect this. It is a fixation of some of mankind that we could all do very well without, and apologies to any Catholics out there, but read your Bible thoroughly and you will see it right there.
You are correct, too, that Mary would have strong Jewish or Palestinian features, as would Jesus. As a former Catholic, I remember the statues in church, and of course all the paintings, that show Jesus and Mary as being quite the Anglo-Saxons. But I suppose statues and paintings of Jesus that show him looking like, say, Yasir Arafat, would not sell, at least not in Europe and America.
I wonder what the images of Jesus and Mary look like, in, say, Zimbabwe?
An image of Allah is not supposed to be created. I’m sure everyone remembers the controversy with a political cartoon from some months back. But why don’t we ever hear about a likeness of Allah appearing anywhere? I mean, it wouldn’t be created by man, so it shouln’t be a big religious issue, right? It is created by happenstance - possibly Allah’s will - so the image must be okay to look upon, right?
Or is it bad to even recognize an apparent image of Allah that could be argued to be created by Allah himself?
Good questions, I am curious myself. But I think I heard that the idea of no images was to prevent idolatry or something, I vaguely remember that.
Actually, The ‘Allah’ post is incomplete. And it is incredulous that no Muslim has chimed-in here over this. Maybe there aren’t any registered at MoH? In Islam, Allah is God Almighty. No one has ever attempted to seriously portray an imagined image of God in a picture since the 16th century. The point is more correctly, that besides forbidding a portrayal of Allah, it is also forbidden in Islam, as well, to portray an image of “The Prophet”. And nowhere will you see any imaginary, artistic renditions of what Mohammed may have looked like, in the Muslim culture - nowhere. They are probably better-off for that. At least they don’t have to worry about any ‘Mohammed grilled cheese sandwiches’.
