[meteorite-list] Martin, explanation please.

From: countdeiro at earthlink.net <countdeiro_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:36:31 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Message-ID: <20292879.1247888191324.JavaMail.root_at_elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Something to ponder. As a natural born skeptic it has been difficult at times for me to resolve the bibical descriptions of God created retributions exacted on sinners and cities with my increasing knowledge of the scientific explanations of historic cataclismic events. Point in case...the destruction of Sodam and Gomorrah... I know the painting was done in the quatrocento, but the painter may have been relying on some information about the event that has been lost in time. The artist may have had access to a more recognizable description of what caused the destruction than the scientifically ignorant one linked, as usual, with a unforgiving and murderous God, and used to teach morality in the Old Testament. The technically correct depiction of a "Meteor Storm" wiping out the cities wasn't painted by accident. I venture that's what really happened! And the event was so horrific it was told from sage to sage for centuries with the only explanation possible at that time...God did it! And here's why!

Good Hunting!!

Count Deiro

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Jul 17, 2009 7:43 PM
>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Cc: cdtucson at comcast.net
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Martin, explanation please.
>
>Hi,
>
> This is hardly about meteorites, but... While
>the medieval artists probably worked in relative
>ignorance of the true appearances of ancient
>times, that becomes less and less true as time
>goes by. Van Leyden certainly knew his perfect
>little Northern European city is not what Sodom
>looked like, not how boats were, not bridges, etc.
>
> It was not the purpose of the 16th, 17th, 18th
>century artists to depict true classical or Biblical
>history. They wanted to picture the life around
>them as it was, and Bible stories and Greek and
>Roman myths were just an excuse to have a cover
>story (and to get a rich church or monastery to
>buy the painting).
>
> Medieval and Renaissance Rome, for example,
>still contained a vast sample of the ancient world's
>appearance; it was after all, the biggest city ever
>built up to that point in time and bigger than any
>other city yet built. But that's not what artists were
>interested in doing.
>
> It was not until the 19th century when suddenly
>the true appearance of ancient times, foreign lands,
>and other cultures became a theme for European
>artists. So the painting that bothers Carl so much:
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Leyden-Lot.png
>is just a 16th century Dutch guy having a party
>with a couple of girls while cosmic disaster strikes
>all around him. It's like a bad movie (The Night of the
>Comet or Armageddon) where people do the same
>thing. How to get the respectable and churchy to pay
>for it? It's.. ahh... it's Lot... Yeah, and the destruction
>of Sodom! Yeah, that's the ticket. Wow! Lookit them
>fireballs!
>
>
>Sterling K. Webb
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net>
>To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:03 PM
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Martin, explanation please.
>
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:52:33 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The more I think of this painting the less I'm liking it. Why?
>>>If I remember some of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah,
>>>Lot's wife turned around, viewed the destroyed city and then
>>>turned into a piller. This painting shows the bombardment
>>>and at the same Lot's daughters are already underway in
>>>getting their father drunk. This means they started this
>>>before the bombardment. Lot's wife wasn't even dead
>>>yet because they haven't started to leave the city.
>>
>> Not even close to the only problems with the painting-- such as the
>> clothing and
>> the technology show is contemporary to the time of the artist who
>> painted it, no
>> to the period being painted. The clothes are wrong, the bridge is
>> wrong, the
>> ships are wrong (and that's just from my memory of seeing it a day or
>> two ago).
>>
>> Of course, the same is true of most other art of the period.
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>______________________________________________
>http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 17 Jul 2009 11:36:31 PM PDT