Recently on CNN I caught a video showcasing the story of a very gifted 12-years-old artist named Akiane Kramarik. There have been several young artists in the past, but I find Akiane rather unique.
What makes Akiane so fascinating is not so much how well she paints, but rather the subject of her work and her inspiration. Akiane claims to have met God when she was just 3. He told her that she needs to paint and help the less fortunate. He also noted that he’d be there to guide her along the way.
It gets more bizarre when you discover that her mother is an Atheist and her father a recovering Catholic. Religion was never discussed in the house and the kids are all home schooled.
Before you write her off as a freak, watch the report below, read this, and take a look at her art.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Wow. That’s pretty amazing stuff. Not proof of anything per se but very interesting.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Though the concept of god may never have been discussed in her home, I know for a fact many children get exposed to this by others. When I would stay with friends, their parents were very adamant that we would say prayers before meals and before bed. Most pre-school programs in my area were church run, so the stories read to us were all biblically based.
Even, if not especially, at such a young age, someone with authority telling you that you need to follow a new spiritual way can be very subconciously compelling. While still catholic, I was convinced to go to another church by a teacher and to not tell my parents since “the decieved may try to keep you from the light”. Thank my mother’s quick notice that I was up really early on Sunday and leaving to get on the church bus, that she stopped me.
I don’t at all disparage the girl’s talent. She’s a marvel, and that’s not even enough of a word for it. I just doubt the whole divine intervention part and see this more as a girl that was born with a genius for painting.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Someone call Oliver Sacks!
Could it be that her amazing talent is connected to her hallucinations? Many prodigies have been considered either “touched by God” or “possessed” (depending on whether the public likes the art) because of similar visions.
Is the reason Christianity Today sees this as a “gift” because she is painting Jesus? What if she were painting historical figures or fruit? What if she were painting pictures of Muhammad?
I guess my point is that this is amazing artistic talent in the realm of human genetic possibility. It is only the subject matter that makes people interpret it as a “gift from God.”
December 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Met God? As in “Hey, Akiane. It’s me, God. ‘Sup? Check this out: I have a plan for you. I want you to paint.”
I have questions about that.
Assuming she did meet God.
When one meets God, does faith even enter the picture from that point on? Isn’t faith crucial to Christian life, isn’t it an integral part of being in the body of Christ? Isn’t it unfair to others who haven’t met Him? How can she be sure she met God… what if it was the devil deceiving her? What about the self-portrait; how does that help… I thought that sort of thing would be straying from the mission? What is the message? Is there a message? How can you be raised by atheist parents when you are on a mission from God, how does that work or not work since you have to honor them; how can you honor them when they are atheists? Where does the money go? Should she have as little money as possible? Does she get special treatment (rhetorical I know… what KIND of special treatment does she get?)? Does she have people she uses her work to support? Who are these people, if there are some? Has anyone inspired by her story/work committed horrible sins as a result? And so on, and so forth, etc. I have many many more. They just don’t stop coming.
Unfortunately I think a lot of those questions would probably be frowned on by your average Christian, but I would love to get them answered.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
There is no doubt that this is a very talented young lady with a very bright future ahead of her. What I do find interesting is that her paintings of her “visions of God” look remarkably like the Renaissance paintings of Jesus that were made by people with fantastic talent, but no claims of visions, and are easily available to be seen by anyone with a museum or an internet connection. Either they’ve all been in communication with the same spirit, or they’re borrowing from each other like most artists.
Having said that, I would love to have a landscape or portrait from her. She’s a hell of a painter.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Anyways, I think she’s just really brilliant. Simple as that.
By the way, when I say “Does she have people she uses her work to support?”, I mean LEADERS and groups with specific agendas.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Heck, Arktis, I can answer most of your questions… I’m not Christian, but I am religious, and I can draw some conclusions from that…
When one meets God, does faith even enter the picture from that point on?
You answered this yourself in another question, (listed below:)
How can she be sure she met God… what if it was the devil deceiving her?
In the end, when dealing with anything on the spiritual scale, faith is the final test. You cannot know anything for sure, so you have to go on faith. It could be that she’s hallucinating, or that she’s possessed by the devil, or that she’s touched by God, or that she’s simply faking it to piss off her parents. Assuming it’s not the last, she has to take it on faith that she’s actually talking to God and not the other two…
Isn’t faith crucial to Christian life, isn’t it an integral part of being in the body of Christ?
It’s a part of any relationship. Really, even if I _know_ a person, I still take their relationship with me on faith. I have faith in my wife, I have faith that my friends won’t screw me, I have faith that God exists and takes an interest (however small) in my existance. In all of those relationships, I have to have faith.
Isn’t it unfair to others who haven’t met Him?
Yes. This is the main reason I’m skeptical of this person. Either she’s not the genuine article or she’s going to have a hard time of it; prophets always end up badly…
What about the self-portrait; how does that help… I thought that sort of thing would be straying from the mission? What is the message? Is there a message?
All related questions… Unless she’s a ‘greater prophet’ in the islamic lexicon, she’s just a normal human that’s had a few run-ins with the big guy. as such, she’s probably going to do normal, human things. (like have a vain moment or two where she paints herself for the fun of it.)
How can you be raised by atheist parents when you are on a mission from God, how does that work or not work since you have to honor them; how can you honor them when they are atheists?
I can honor my parents without following their beliefs; I just have to treat them with honour and respect. Not believe everything they do and only what they do…
Where does the money go? Should she have as little money as possible? Does she get special treatment (rhetorical I know… what KIND of special treatment does she get?)? Does she have people she uses her work to support? Who are these people, if there are some?
Well, I guess that’s up to her and her parents. As for people that she supports… Just because she is using religious iconography in her art does not mean that she is supporting one religious sect. It only means that one religous figure is talking to her, giving her inspiration. So I wouldn’t see her as ’supporting a religious leader’ other than possibly the religious leader Christ.
Has anyone inspired by her story/work committed horrible sins as a result?
As anyone that has been inspired by the Beatles committed horrible sins as a result? Well, yes, in fact there has (Chuckie Manson! and he chose the worst Beatles song, too… :) ) Does that mean that the Beatles are an evil group, or any less talented? No. In fact I see this question as a red herring… Whether or not her art is inspired by God, it’s good. And what other do with it is really beyond her control. All she can do is make it, and let it speak for itself.
Does that help?
December 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
* She lives in fundie-backwards Sandpoint, Idaho, filled with religious nutjobs, but we’re to believe she never had any exposure to christianity?
* The Christianity Today article is a bit unclear about the whole atheist part. It suggests that her mother was raised in an “atheistic” household, NOT that her mother is an atheist.
My guess is that her parents were already religious nuts when she was born. When they realized that she was a prodigy, they came up with a good story (marketing campaign). They easily taught/convinced their young daughter that God spoke to her, and recounted to her about her early come-to-jesus moment.
In other words…
Another brilliant mind fucked by religion at an early age.
Imagine what she could have been…
December 15th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Outsider says:
“Really, even if I _know_ a person, I still take their relationship with me on faith. I have faith in my wife, I have faith that my friends won’t screw me, I have faith that God exists and takes an interest (however small) in my existance. In all of those relationships, I have to have faith.”
Actually, Outsider, you’ve got it completely wrong. You don’t have “faith” in your wife and friends, you have lots of evidence — years of direct first-hand experience with them. They are good, loving people who have treated you well, and likely will continue to do so in the future.
The God bit, on the other hand, is faith. You have absolutely no evidence, whatsoever. You simply /want/ it to be true.
“prophets always end up badly…”
I agree with you on this one. She’s being set up (is setting herself up) as some sort of prophet. A sad, ugly thing. I hope that not too many people get hurt along the way.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
The little blonde girl’s God is white. How convenient.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
A double post? A triple post? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Let’s face it…
While it is amazing (exceptionally uncommon) that this young girl can create these paintings, there is another underlying truth here…
Her artwork is trite and boring and completely unoriginal.
On a professional level, her drawing and painting skills are good (yes, exceptional for her age), but her creativity is for shit. Maybe that will improve with age. Maybe not.
As for her particular religious beliefs, I wonder if they might be any different had she been born and raised in, say, Pakistan. Nahhh. I’m sure it’d be exactly the same ;-P
December 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
“As anyone that has been inspired by the Beatles committed horrible sins as a result? Well, yes, in fact there has (Chuckie Manson! and he chose the worst Beatles song, too… :) )”
Yeah but the Beatles aren’t preaching a religion. There’s a big difference.
fotomatt, mostly I agree. The only thing fantastic about her artwork is her skill compared to her age, which is astounding when set against the vast majority of kids. Like most abilities it is improving with age - at least that much is normal. Yes, her talent is exceptional. Everything else surrounding it is anecdotal.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
You are missing my point (perhaps purposefully?)… What others do with something you create is not within your control, and you should not be held responsible for it. If many people had read Mien Kampf and been inspired by it to do great good in our world, would that mean that Hitler was good? No, because what they do has no relevance to him.
In other words, if someone takes my writing here and uses it as justification for killing everyone that is not spiritual, well, it’s their fault for being a murderous screwup, not mine. If someone looks at this little girls paintings and says “I’m going to go out and kill 100 aethists today because of that painting!” it’s that persons fault, not hers. And, because it’s not her fault, the question of “anyone inspired by her story/work committed horrible sins as a result” is nothing more than a red herring and is totally irrelevant.
As for my ‘faith’ in my family and friends… What faith I have in God is based on the same things I base my relationships with other people on. Trust. If you don’t give trust without someone having earned it, you’ll only end up trusting people that are willing to trust you first… in other words, people like me. ;) Now, in most cases, I end up getting up something back, but in the end I have to trust the other party to not betray me at some point in the future. In other words, I have to have faith in their trustworthyness.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Heheheh. :D I’m not missing the point, you are.
When you preach a religion, you are purposefully trying to alter beliefs. You are supplanting beliefs with the intention to bring about specific results. You are telling someone to whatever degree how they ought to live, to be, to do, etc. That means you share responsibility for the ramifications of what you are preaching because you had a direct and intentional involvement in causing the adoption of a set of beliefs from which determinations and actions are drawn.
You can’t shirk responsibility when you assume a posture of leadership like that.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
She’s not preaching, though. She’s just painting. Yeah, ok, her paintings have a ‘divine inspiration’ and she claims to speak to God, but in the end, she’s not trying to get you to believe her. She most likely doesn’t care if you believe her or not… She’s just doing what every kid that age tries to do, and that’s express herself.
Do you remeber being 12? When I was that age, the only thing I cared about was saying something. Being heard was never impoertantl all my poetry was kept secret, and it didn’t stop me from writing it. Unless she’s a bloody genius and advanced to a very adult stage, that’s most likely what is happening here, too. So, in other words, she’s just creating, not preaching.
It’s how you’re looking at what she’s creating that makes it preaching to you. You can’t see a creative work that involves the spirit to be anything other than propaganda. Understandably, as you have chosen to view the most obvious pieces of religious art (the Bible, the Koran, ect) as nothing more than propaganda… But art can be used to express religious feelings without being designed to do anything other than express religious feelings.
She’s 12, for crying out loud! Do you really think that she’s that cunning and cynical? It’s possible, but it’s much more likely that she’s just a kid, drawing and writing what she feels inside. It differs from what you feel, though, so you dismiss it as propaganda.
Sounds like you’re missing the point of art to most kids; to express yourself.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I didn’t say she’s trying to trick people on purpose.
Any way you slice it, whether she’s honest or not - it’s religious propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
December 16th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Is it just me or does that look a lot like Chuck Norris? Maybe I’m just tired, but that was the first thing I thought when I saw the painting that’s in the “read this” article.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Has there been any studies of the ratio between faith and meeting/having communications with god and being non-believer and still getting messages from god? Which is more prevalent situation?
December 16th, 2006 at 10:42 am
“When you preach a religion, you are purposefully trying to alter beliefs.”
“I didn’t say she’s trying to trick people on purpose.”
Therefore, she’s not preaching. And (from the wiki) “Propaganda is a certain type of message presentation directly aimed at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information.”
She’s just saying what she feels is the truth. Yeah, she may be wrong. But she’s _not_ directly aiming at manipulating anyones opinions. And as she’s not preaching and it’s (by the wiki’s definition) not propaganda… She’s not taking any type of role whereby responsibility of what her message inspires should be given to her.
In all truth, it seems like a small point, but I’ve written things that can be used to put forward all sorts of nasty things. I wrote manuals for DND once upon a time… You know how many people thought that I was trying to corrupt youth? It’s a game, and people took it way too seriously and were ‘inspired to commit horrible acts’. Am I responsible for their actions? Hell no! But their parents blamed my work.
Same thing applies here.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Regardless of her intentions, the FACTS remain. For example, a preacher is a preacher because he preaches, not because of his intentions. What he is doing remains the same regardless.
You are taking an irrational stance based on wishful thinking.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Faith stands in the gap between what we see and what we believe. We may see many things that point to God but we don’t see God - we therefore need faith to bridge this gap.
An atheist seeing Akiane’s paintings needs faith to bridge the gap between what they are seeing and what they believe. A young girl says she is inspired by God and then paints with an ability and maturity way beyond her age. Its hard to believe such a young girl would be making such a thing up (except for the fact that we may not want what she’s saying to be true) so we need to rationalise what is happening. This may take the form of saying she’s deluded, a genius that mistakes her creativity for God or any number of “rationalisations”. But all these “excuses” are totally without substance. They really have to be taken in faith by those wanting to not believe.
At least we all have something in common - faith.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:11 am
Faith is irrational.
I am really quite tired of Christians saying that science and atheism share something in common with religious beliefs (which are irrational). It simply isn’t true.
I have no faith. I don’t require it. I’ve spent some time studying scientific principles and I’ve learned how to function quite fine without it.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:13 am
An atheist does not need to take any such things on faith. So she’s young and she paints well? So what? She thinks she’s seen God? So what? I don’t have to rationalize anything. I can say, “I’m neither a biologist nor an anthropologist (nor a theologian)” so I don’t understand why a young girl paints so well and thinks she’s seen God.
Admitting that you don’t know something is a “faithless” act. Pretending that you know what’s going on when you don’t is where so-called “faith” enters in.
I say we hook her up to some electrodes and see what’s going on when she has visions or paints. Let’s do studies to determine is there is something different about young people who paint well or think that they have seen God. Let’s observer her 24-7 to see if God appears and talks to her.
Unrelated: “Its hard to believe such a young girl would be making such a thing up.” Have you ever met any kids? I find it ridiculously easy to believe that a young girl would make something like that up.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Where to start… how about the begining.
Faith stands in the gap between what we see and what we believe.
Actually, I think what stands between what we see and what we believe are the cornea, the lense, the vitrious humor, rods and cones, the optic nerves, the visual cortex and its simulation systems, and our associative memory. If that’s faith, then sure, I have all the faith I need! Otherwise, I would love to see how your eyes are working.
We may see many things that point to God but we don’t see God - we therefore need faith to bridge this gap.
As a Deist quickly being convinced atheist by some new lines of study in my life, I have to disagree with the we part. I don’t see anything in the world that points to god, but I’d like to challenge you to find me a few.
An atheist seeing Akiane’s paintings needs faith to bridge the gap between what they are seeing and what they believe.
I will leave this to the atheists here… do you really need faith to tell you that this is just a genius girl with a great marketing story?
Its hard to believe such a young girl would be making such a thing up (except for the fact that we may not want what she’s saying to be true) so we need to rationalise what is happening.
I really don’t feel that we need to rationalize(American Heritage Dictionary def3, I think that’s what you meant with that) anything. An atheist need not use faith to assert anything about this. By your very statement of rationalizing the details, you inadvertantly acknowledge that what an observer does is to take the details and, through the proof-filter of personal experience, come to a conclusion. Right or wrong, the observations of an atheist about this subject are going to be formed by drawing a conclusion using a logical process.
But all these “excuses†are totally without substance. They really have to be taken in faith by those wanting to not believe.
Why is it on our hands to prove that it IS god telling a girl to paint. I have claimed that the girl is a great painter (proven) and that this god story is a great attention grab, reasons be damned (proven, its in the news). You’re side has claimed god intervined and gave this girl her artistic prowess, now the burden of proof is on you, much in the same way that the burden of proof would be on me if I claimed that aliens granted me my powers of programing.
At least we all have something in common - faith.
No - we don’t. No faith here, move along.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Andrew has pretty much got it. Admitting an agnostic stance is the only rational choice. This works with pretty much everything, as there is very little that one can be certain of. Yet despite this, the scientific method remains valid and practical in principle and application.
That’s why I’m and agnostic atheist, meaning I admit there’s no way to know whether or not there is a god while I lack belief (faith) in such a thing because it would be irrational.
Pretty simple stuff.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:28 am
6 leaning towards 7 Arktis?
December 18th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Huh? You lost me… I feel stupid now. Throw me a bone?
December 18th, 2006 at 1:40 am
Okay, I googled that phrase and found two results. Checking the first one ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/oops_they_did_i.html ) I see that’s from Dawkins. I haven’t read Dawkins. I’m a big boy, and I figured all this out on my own :P
I don’t fit anywhere in that list since I don’t have any basis to establish the likelihood or unlikelihood of the existence of god.
Maybe the list needs to be redone. Maybe the list is stupid because it doesn’t and can never include everyone.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:26 am
What makes this girl any different than any other idiot savant out there? There are a range of brain disorders that can make a person develop special skills within a field, and where both auditory and visual hallucinations are pretty common so couldn’t that be the explanation?
I know that being in the presence of such people can be a mind numbing experience (a friend at university had Ashbergers(sp?) syndrome), and some of the things he could do would almost suggest that there was a divine presence helping him, but him being a die hard atheist would make that pretty unlikely.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Dawkin’s books on biology are a worthy read, but if your looking to refute religion, he has books “dedicated” to that alone. I like how he keeps religion away from his his work in biology, that’s pretty hard and it’s pretty easy to let your own ideals slip into the woodwork.
I’m a big fan of his documentary too, even if he didn’t want it to make it on TV.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:32 am
God told me in a dream. He told me to become a wonderful violinist.
I play bass guitar..and I suck.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:52 am
If we are talking divine inspiration, I had a very vivid dream (among many similar dreams of the sort I would have through the years) when I was 13 which was full of symbolism. One of the more notable images was of a snake slithering away from me, followed by the booming voice of God telling me to look up whereupon I saw the most incredible geometric patterns of stars in the sky like some kind of Pythagorean planetarium show.
I wrote it all down as soon as I woke up as I was sure it came directly from God and that he was telling me I was His, not the serpent’s, and that there was a plan for me.
Dreams…
I’m wondering how common dreams like that are, and how often the so-called ‘visions’ people have are the result of being only half-awake at odd times and not realizing it.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:40 am
It’s amazing what sort of processes our brains go through during REM sleep, the chemicals released during this period have been compared to natural LSD.
So when I see someone tell me they saw something in a dream, it’s simply the process of a chemical dump on the cortex. It’s very common to have dreams about divine intervention because we (well most of us at one time) believed in a god/deity of some form. This alone would probably be utilized during our REM sleep cycles.
Anyway. Other information can be gathered up on Wikipedia.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:59 am
ok, just a simple point-out.
did anyone notice how she looks a lot like the x-ray eyes girl?
http://www.discoverybroadband.co.uk/_includes/db_images/girlwiththexrayeyes1-big.jpg
so, when did ‘girl makes nice pictures’ turn into news? right, never.
next question, when did ‘child says she’s seen god’ turn into news? riight, never.
well, I guess the way to get media atention (and, incidently, makes truckloads of money) is pretty obvious now.
I’m not saying she’s being cunning and manipulative, children have their parents to do that.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
That Jesus looks pretty white.
I have to say she does a better job painting than I do (on the other hand - when was the last time SHE painted a deck? :-D ) Still, there’s more to the story than meets the eye.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
;) Freak…
December 26th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Maybe some of you should read about Akiane before asking so many questions and making so many assumptions. It is clear from reading these posts, that no one has read about here history. Get some facts first, then ask questions. Once you know more about her, then the whole story is even more interesting and difficult to understand.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am
“so, when did ‘girl makes nice pictures’ turn into news? right, never.”
Granted, ‘girl makes nice pictures’ isn’t news. However, ‘girl makes outstanding art far beyond her years’ is news. It is simply amazing that she has this ability. It is not from a ‘god’ or anything, she just has the wiring in her brain set up in such a way that she is able to translate what her mind sees to the canvas. And it is news because it is so very very rare to see that kind of talent in someone so young.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Having reached a certain point in The God Delusion, I was ammused to find a section in Chapter 3: Arguments for God that got into art. Dawkins notes that arguments are made for god by pointing out virtuosos like Motzart and Rembrandt as examples of god’s inspiration in humans. The counter argument made seems like it could really be applied here. That counter is that perhaps the desire to attribute such inspiration to god is rooted in jealousy.
“How dare this person have the power to create such wonderful art when I can’t. I know, its not them doing it, but God. That makes me feel better about my lack of artistic talent now.”
Scott, the only notes in the article that could be confirmable are that the mother’s family had been atheistic, and that the father was of catholic origins. The claims that there was never any time where the young girl in question could have been implanted with christianity are not very verifiable. To the child brain, so swept up in something like this, it is easy to self-delude one’s self into the belief that there is something extrodinary going on and that it was never spurred on by someone else, especially since the claim is that this started at age 3. I have alot of thing in my head that I learned around that age (counting, don’t touch glowing red things, bees hurt you when provoked, etc.) but I don’t have a recallable memory for when I learned this. From this it is not a stretch to conjecture that she could have been told her art was from god.
I am in no way saying that its not possible, but the burden of proof here is on the claimant and not the skeptic. I need more than just paintings of Jesus and “Heaven” and the stories of a family with alot to gain from this (even if not monitarily, they have still gained quite a reputation and a strut for religion to stand on, given that knocking it out requires criticizing a child which many people are going to be too civil to do).
December 26th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Well said.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
A lie unlike any other, a lie so powerful they themselves believe it when all evidence points the contrary.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Someone wrote that since people here didn’t read her book they should do so before asking questions. Well quite frankly, I don’t want to spend any money on a book about her story, if really a gifted child from God, shouldn’t it be FREE like the bible in all the hotel rooms.
Capitalizing on her talent is just that, making money. Whether she truly believes she met God makes no difference, as with anything in this world, someone will package, market and sell to the masses. Somehow cheapens the whole prestine image,,,,no?
January 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
“To those who believe, no explanation is needed; to those who don’t believe, no explanation will suffice.”
January 24th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
The was an interesting discussion about this over at richarddawkins.net recently. Apparently, though I don’t have the links on me at the time, there have been some people that came to watch her paint, and instead saw her diddle on the canvase for a while (which the father would explain away hurridly), the girl would get tired, the reporters would leave for a while, and return to find the painting done or almost complete, and the father claiming the girl to have experienced a divine flash of inspiration. Not only that, but its apparently happened more than once.
I’d need to do some more looking, but that does seem a bit suspect.
January 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
It has also occured to me that we are one of only 4 sites I turned up in google searches that have at all asked whether or not this is genuine. Everyone else is just jumping on the bandwagon as fast as possible. If I see a video of this girl painting (no matter how long it runs, I’ll watch it, damn it) and she turns out one of those New Age store poster images on camera, I’ll believe she’s doing it. Still won’t believe that its god telling her to, but I’ll believe she’s the painter.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Hi all -
I just surfed in here for the first time. I don’t usually have time for blogging, but I had to respond to this statement:
Arktis Says: “Andrew has pretty much got it. Admitting an agnostic stance is the only rational choice.”
I find this an irrational as well as arrogant statement. Do you really believe there is no possible way you could be mistaken? I’ve never met a perfect person before!
My impression of Arktis is that he/she is a very closed minded person.
As for me, I don’t know what to make of this talented young girl. Her choices and actions over time will be an indication of who she is. But I will never be able to judge her, nor do I want to.
And, while I’m writing anyway -
fotomatt Says:
“* She lives in fundie-backwards Sandpoint, Idaho, filled with religious nutjobs, but we’re to believe she never had any exposure to christianity?
* The Christianity Today article is a bit unclear about the whole atheist part. It suggests that her mother was raised in an “atheistic†household, NOT that her mother is an atheist.
My guess is that her parents were already religious nuts when she was born. When they realized that she was a prodigy, they came up with a good story (marketing campaign). They easily taught/convinced their young daughter that God spoke to her, and recounted to her about her early come-to-jesus moment.”
Just for the record - I saw an interview with Akiane on CNN. Her mother was on it as well. It said that her mom WAS an atheist and that her family was converted to Christianity by Akiane. Of course, you can choose not to believe them, but I take them at their word. I don’t have any reason to doubt them. Like I said, maybe in time, I’ll see them differently … that’s if I ever even hear about them again.
And it seems kind of closed minded and simple to me to take 33% of the world’s population and label them “fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nuts.”
“Imagine what she could have been…”? We don’t have to. She’s a beautiful, young talented, successful artist. Not bad! Good for her! I think the only reason anyone would feel threatened by her is jealousy (which, I admit, I am a little!)
January 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Dear Debbie D,
You get so much of it wrong that I hardly know where to start, so I guess I’ll just take it in order.
A claim that something is rational — even to say that it is the “only” rational choice — is not to say that it is correct, or that it could not possibly be wrong. In this case, it merely says that, given the evidence before us, all other choices/options have some logical flaw to them.
And it certainly makes no claim of perfection. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with perfection — at least not in the way that you use the word.
Your criticism of Arktis is based upon your own ignorance. And your “impression” of Arktis further lets us know that you are judgmental and that you are willing to make such judgments without doing even a modicum of simple research (Arktis has made MANY posts to this website).
“As for me, I don’t know what to make of this talented young girl.”
Is it really so difficult for you?
“Her choices and actions over time will be an indication of who she is.”
Wow, Debbie, that’s deep. Let X=X.
“But I will never be able to judge her, nor do I want to.”
Then why are you writing here? You are, in effect, defending her, which is a type of judgment about her. And why, simultaneously, are you so willing to judge others, such as Arktis?
“you can choose not to believe them, but I take them at their word. I don’t have any reason to doubt them”
You mean other than the part where their story is utterly improbable and stupid? And that they potentially stand to make a bundle of money (and prestige) over it all?
“…maybe in time, I’ll see them differently…”
Wouldn’t that be a judgment of sorts? I thought you’d never be able to do that?
“And it seems kind of closed minded and simple to me to take 33% of the world’s population and label them “fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nuts.—
I didn’t label one-third of the world’s population — I specified Sandpoint, Idaho. Perhaps you’ve never been there. I have.
And please, if you’re going to quote someone, do it accurately.
And as for your final paragraph:
* Talented: We don’t know that she’s talented; we’ve yet to see her paint. There are plausible suggestions at this point that the whole thing may be a fraud.
* Successful: She’s getting some attention because she is young, NOT because her work is original (it’s not). Her parents seem to be trying to “sell” their daughter.
* Threatened: Who would feel threatened by some young girl who makes crappy paintings of Jesus and horses? Really, who?
* Jealousy: You’re the ONLY one mentioning and admitting jealousy. Why? Are you a failed artist? Do you long for public recognition?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:49 am
well unfortunately as usual, if you are anything but atheist or agnostic, then you have to be a religious zealot..and what is the point..she is a child, she paints..and very well considering most were done between the ages of 9 and 12…if she choses to paint a Christian God, so be it…what’s it to any of us…? Painting and poetry is about emotions…it comes from teh soul..you can try and analyze it to death with so-called logic, but it doesn’t cut it in the art world..I do not paint something because it is logical..I paint because it is emotinal..something or someone as in the usual case, moves me..touches me..whether it is a positive or negative sense..right now this CHILD is moved by what she views as her GOD and the beauty that surrounds it…your negative thoughts, ideas or views will not alter that..only her own perception of her own life will do that. Someone said they are flat and boring..well not really…some are…if you are looking at them through adult eyes, however look at them through the eyes of a child…I work in a framing store..I see all kinds of art…I have learned to look at it through the eyes of the person creating it…and generally as a rule, there is very little art out there that isn’t beautiful..everyone is caught up in the religious symbolism..there has always been religious symobolism in art..particularily in Christianity…perhaps because it is one of oldest KNOWN religions to man…not the oldest, so do not take it out of context…I did a painting of “the virgin in prayer”..a reproduction of one of Sassofferato’s paintings..why? because it is a beautiful, emotional piece, and one from which I wanted to teach myself glazing techniques in oil… an atheist is interested in buying it..why? because it is an beautiful, emotional piece of art according to the would be buyer..
art is very personal..I cannot stress that enough..when I have people come in and ask me the value of a particular piece, that is the one thing I always stress..it is worth as much as the next person is willing to spend..so all your scientific, analytical, anti-christianity hooplah is for naught…it really has nothing to do with what this child sees, feels and paints…’nuff said.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
… … … ’nuff said
February 1st, 2007 at 9:51 am
“”so all your scientific, analytical, anti-christianity hooplah is for naught…it really has nothing to do with what this child sees, feels and paints…’nuff said.”"
true, and the exact same thing goes for the touchy feely, pseudo-educated religious ‘hooplah’.
(wow, didn’t even need to write a whole article AND I used allineas)
February 1st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
lol.
”
(wow, didn’t even need to write a whole article AND I used allineas)”
” allineas??” Define please …??
“true, and the exact same thing goes for the touchy feely, pseudo-educated religious ‘hooplah’..”
ironically the only ones focusing on that are_____? hmmmm…
the very same ones who decided that this child is forcing her viewpoints on them…
don’t look …
don’t listen…
be unaware..
and closeminded..
do not feel…
do not breath…
to not touch…
what a sad world you live in…
lol
and trust me ..I am FAR from religious…
on another note someone touched on this already…and
Unfortunately as all child prodigies go, it will be interesting and perhaps sad to see what becomes of the child.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
boris Says:
February 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
… … … ’nuff said
lol again..I am not sure if you are mocking me…or laughing with me…but it’s funny either way..
;)
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 am
Dear fotomatt,
Wow. You can twist just about anything! I feel the same way about your opinions as you do about mine. (I’m guessing there’s no way your thoughts on the subject could change. The real problem is that I get so much of it wrong.)
You say, “A claim that something is rational — even to say that it is the ‘only’ rational choice — is not to say that it is correct, or that it could not possibly be wrong. In this case, it merely says that, given the evidence before us, all other choices/options have some logical flaw to them.” This statement makes no claim of perfection? For the record, the way I’m using the word perfection is to mean “the state of being without a flaw or defect.” (How did you think I meant it?) To me, stating that something is the ‘only logical choice’ is also stating that all other choices are illogical. I would think one would have to at least allow for the possibility that there’s something he/she missed or got wrong. Saying this also infers to me that the one logical choice is the one correct choice. Why would anyone choose the flawed options? Are alternatives wrong or are people who choose them somehow flawed, too? Or, is it acceptable, or even possible, for intelligent people to evaluate the evidence before us and rationally come to a different conclusion?
You say, “Your criticism of Arktis is based upon your own ignorance. And your ‘impression’ of Arktis further lets us know that you are judgmental and that you are willing to make such judgments without doing even a modicum of simple research (Arktis has made MANY posts to this website).”
You are right that I did not “research” Arktis. I did not claim to know Arktis to be a certain way. I merely expressed the impression I got of him/her from the statements made on this blog in this discussion. Maybe I should have made that more clear. I thought that blogging was about sharing thoughts and impressions. I don’t think that’s the same thing as being judgmental, although it could be a fine line, I admit.
When I said “I will never be able to judge her, nor do I want to,†I was not saying that I was unable or unwilling to form opinions. I was only stating the fact that I do not expect any empirical evidence to surface that would give me the ability to evaluate Akiane’s claims, nor do I care if there is such evidence. I can see how you could take that the way you did, though.
So, when you say that I am judgmental, does that make you judgmental? After all, you haven’t done any research on me. And lacking research, is it ok for you to decide I am judgmental after reading only a few paragraphs? I shared that I got the impression that someone (Arktis) was closed minded. I have no problem adding that I could easily be wrong. I didn’t say that my opinion was the only logical conclusion. You are the one calling people names all over this board. But I guess, having never been to Sandpoint Idaho myself, I’ll have to defer to your judgment of the place being a bunch of “fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nuts.” I’m sorry I misunderstood you and thought you were saying all Christians were that way. So, you only meant the Christians in Sandpoint Idaho.
I agree with you that Akiane’s story is improbable, but I don’t think it’s stupid. I wrote in my last post, “As for me, I don’t know what to make of this talented young girl.†and you replied, “Is it really so difficult for you?” No, I wouldn’t say it’s difficult. I just have no way of knowing whether or not the girl has communicated with God. How can I say that she didn’t? How can you? I think Outsider had a good point when he said, “It’s how you’re looking at what she’s creating that makes it preaching to you. You can’t see a creative work that involves the spirit to be anything other than propaganda.” You seem to have a negative, knee-jerk reaction to spiritual things/people. Maybe I’m wrong. It’s only an impression I’ve gotten from what is written in this particular blog and I don’t mean to judge you overall.
I said, “Her choices and actions over time will be an indication of who she is.†and you responded, “Wow, Debbie, that’s deep. Let X=X.” I get the sarcasm but not your point. What I was saying is, just like any other person, you get a better understanding of what that person is really about over time. Maybe you disagree with that? That’s fine if you do. Yes, “…maybe in time, I’ll see them differently…†and yes, that would be a judgment of sorts, but not necessarily judgmental.
And yes, I think she’s talented. You say she may not have even created the paintings you dislike so much. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time the news reported something that is untrue. But, if she did or not, I think the paintings are beautiful. I love the dramatic lighting in many of them that reminds me of the Baroque period of art. You said, “She’s getting some attention because she is young, NOT because her work is original (it’s not). Her parents seem to be trying to ’sell’ their daughter.” Even if all this is true, so?
And when I wrote I was a little jealous, I was half joking. I am not a failed artist. I am a successful graphic designer. I recently took up painting and although I am happy with my progress, I have a very difficult time painting people. I admire Akiane’s ability. Would it make you happy if I were a failed artist?
And the reason I find the statement “Admitting an agnostic stance is the only rational choice” presumptuous is because I believe that the most logical stance is that there is a Creator … God. Yes, I have faith, but I also see so much evidence that it just doesn’t make sense to me any other way. I am not preaching or telling anyone else what to believe. But I am in no way irrational.
Thanks for taking the time to communicate with a non-fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nut Christian girl. I enjoy the dialogue!
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
paragraph, i meant paragraph….
minor lingual mixup, sorry about that
it’s very possible, but, if there is only one correct answer, then one of them must be wrong. This is however not very on topic.
So, it’s what the whole discussion is about. the major issue taken here with the whole point that she’s using god as a promotional campaign. The rediculous idea that “god told her what to paint” which she is using to make a quick buck.
So, it’s ABOUT the fact that the sole reason the art is selling is that people are dumb enough to believe that it’s a painting by god.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Not “a painting by god”. A painting INSPIRED by God. Kind of like the Bible. Not written by God, but written by men inspired by God, or as it is written, “moved by the Holy Spirit”. “God-breathed”, as if were.
Even you can be God-breathed. That is born of His Spirit. Born from above. Born again. Then you can pass from judgment unto life everlasting. Then you can be inspired and see and know things you don’t now know or understand…..like the Way, the Truth and the Life…..JESUS, who is the image of the invisible God….His exact representation.
As John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, said, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Make straight the way for the Lord. Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. For He is greater than I. I baptise you with water for the remission of your sins, but He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand and He will separate the wheat from the chaff, and the wheat He will gather into His barn and the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.”
I appeal to you, by the tender mercies of God, PLEASE consider this: “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. [Rom 1:18-20]
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 am
Wow, once again I have to say, if that trash heap of contradictions and imorality was inspired by god, so much better to be an atheist and have real morals.
Oh, I wonder… Did your little verse just say that I have no excuse for not seeing the work of god? Though Romans does have some pretty good stuff, like a few verses down where we are reminded that women have a natural use, to be the pleasure objects of men.
I guess we don’t have an excuse for not seeing the true glory of god in what is more and more obviously a grab for publicity and a faith-adled customer base.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:02 am
The Scriptures are spiritual words, spiritually discerned. Scripture says, “No one knows the mind of man, but the spirit of man. And no one knows the mind of God but the Spirit of God. But we have the mind of Christ (believers in whom is the Spirit of God).”
Man tries to excuse himself from accountability to an unsearchable (meaning, beyond complete comprehensable) God by claiming His thoughts are contradictory, but the truth is supressed in unrighteousness. The truth is known, but not acknowledged. It is supressed by the sin in a man’s heart.
If one confesses and repents of their sin to God and believes on His Son Jesus Christ, then they can be forgiven and He will give that one His Spirit Who will lead that one into all truth.
One does not acknowledge the truth because one loves the darkness more than the light. In God there is no darkness at all, but if the light in man’s heart is darkness, how great is that darkness. But if one’s heart is full of light, one can know God and the things He reveals of Himself, like His beauty in both this young girl’s art and the beauty in the young girl’s soul and spirit.
I am glad if you have “real morals”, at least for those who know you, and it may benefit you some in this life, as well. However, “real morals” will leave anyone without hope in the life after if they do not believe in the God who is the Truth and the moral lawmaker in the first place.
And I really don’t want you to think that I am accusing you of being a bad person or less moral than I and really don’t want to put you on the defensive, but some of your expressions sounds like there is some mean-spiritedness in your heart. I know mean-spiritedness. I have been where you’re at in your thinking about Jesus, the Scriptures and Christianity. I also know the kindness and gentleness of Jesus. Not that He isn’t also severe. The difference is He is severe with perfect justice and against the sinfulness of man, not just someone having a different belief about something. Go back and listen to a video clip of this young girl’s interview and listen to the sweetness in her spirit and hear her testimony of why she is like she is. In her there is Light and that Light is the light of men. In am praying for the eyes of your heart to be enlightened, that you may know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
Peace out.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The scripture is good and right. Why? Because the scripture said so! Well I say that the sky is green, trout live in trees and we should shoot people in the face for daring to question what I say! I am right and good! Why? Because I said so! My words are divinely inspired and god has moved my hands to type this. If you disagree, then surely you have been decieved, for the Scripture of Brian says, “And on that day they will refuse his words. They will claim that it is a bad argument and that there is a way to prove him to be false, but they have fallen and are tempted by the easy way out.”
I have to ask… because this hope for the hereafter is pulled out so much. If Christians truely believe that the next life is better, then why would they ever try to save a person’s life? Or their own? Why seek medical attention for anything? Certainly a few more hours of suffering shouldn’t matter when you have an eternity in paradise coming. You tell me I try to remove hope… but by your own logic, why should you even care to live in this world any longer?
February 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
AMEN!
February 5th, 2007 at 3:26 am
I am Brian Jones! I am the word!
February 6th, 2007 at 8:45 am
You ask, “If Christians truely believe that the next life is better, then why would they ever try to save a person’s life?”
Brian, if you were the one who needed to be saved, I would save you. Though you may not believe it now, your life has eternal worth and if you have the opportunity to live a bit longer because I save you from death, you may come to the knowledge of the Truth of Jesus Christ and be saved to eternal life. The love of God in me would constrain me to even lose my life that you might be saved. As Christians we wouldn’t want to just go to heaven because it’s better. We are going there anyway. We want to live in this life to please and serve God which includes trying to save you. If I were that selfish, it’s doubtful I were a true Christian. Jesus came and died that you might be saved and be with Him forever. Your choice. Don’t you wish you had the faith, purity of heart and sweetness of spirit that this precious gifted artist has? Again I say, go back and listen to her and see if she doesn’t have something very much better going on in her than you have. You don’t have to be jealous. You can have what she has - maybe not the talent - but the Spirit - and some other talent.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
If artistic, philosophical or religious self-expresion, which seems to me, the primary purpose of living for all of us—-not just the young—-bears some direct relationship to the evils done by others, as suggested above (14-15)) then it would follow that John Lennon was unwittingly and most tragically respionsible for his own brutal murder.
One atheist “designates [faith as] blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.â€
A theistic view presents faith as “the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.†Hebrews 11:1. By this, to me, more logical definition, faith is not a mindlessly hopeful leap into sheer nothingness, but confidently crossing an invisible bridge.
Even if we assume that all talent is of God, we may never know for sure whether this highly talented girl’s visions are truly prophetic. It is not testable, that we can know with certainty. Whether she or her parents believe it or not, our option is to trust or doubt it. We may assume that only she, herself, (and God) can be sure of it. Either way, no doubt, God, and presumably Akiane herself, will put it to their respective best use.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Why can’t people just be happy for her and if you are truly belivers of God then you will allow him to work in his mysterious ways to get across to all of us. Maybe her work will bring other people closer to God. is that such a bad thing??
February 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I just saw Akiane on “The View” this morning and they had several of her paintings on as well. The paintings they showcased were not the “God” ones (and yes I find it nonrealistic when ANYONE portrays him as white).
The other paintings she had done were quite good.
Paintings of small children, self portraits and a landscape.
However, she frightened me when she talked about the way she felt when she was painting…”as if “God” was speaking to her or as if she could feel his power coming through her” or some such. She kind of reminded me of the drug addict painter on “HEROES”; except she was all giddy like a 12 year old girl would be.
I myself believe in God, but I believe that faith is a personal quest/issue and should never be used for any reason.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I just saw Akiane on “The View”. My intent is not to be cruel, but, as a medical person, relgious and artistic debate aside, this girl isn’t “normal” in a clinical sense. Her movements, apparent thought pattern and speech are quite odd (I am not knocking the spiritual/relgious themes). Does she have an underlying medical diagnosis (e.g. PDD, etc.)?
February 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I trust that the comment above is to suggest that others, not I, am not happy for Akiane. As a symbolist artist, myself, with thirty-six years experience in oil painting, I also believe my own inspirations to be—-perhaps not so definitively or marvellously as hers-—of divine origin. When I saw her work for the first time (only a few days ago) my…humbling thought was: what more can we do, who are, shall we say, less blessed, but to brighten the corner we are in.
I am not happy for those compelled to ridicule her profession of faith, while far from comprehending what faith really is. It is as children, not sheep, not lemmings, that we must come to it. The depth of her faith, and the profound wisdom revealed in her poetry, seem to exemplify that divine message.
Whenever and wherever real religious faith is applied, it will always reveal good works. Faith not used for anything…must it not be presumed dead?
It is a long tradition in art to Portray Jesus as a white man, not, I think, especially at anyone’s expense, nor as a deception, nor an intentional misconception about the true historical figure. But it may well be conveinent for some white people (children especially) to perceive Him as one of their own colour. Many great artists throughout history have also portrayed Jesus wih a dark complexion. I would say, it is the right of the individual artist to express himself-—or herself in this instance—-without technical shackles. What, after all, is art but SELF-expression; the personal sharing of ideas.
And finally, fear only the children who are undisciplined by their parents.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Accept what you see. Believe what you want to believe, keeping in mind that your own prejudices may limit your ability to comprehend the truth. Keep an open mind and sooner or later your quest will be fulfilled.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Perhaps I should not have said “faith should not be used for any reason”, rather I should have said.
Faith should not be prostituted for any reason. Just as art is a form of self expression, faith is also different for each individual and therefore should not be forced down anyone’s throat.
I am not denying that she feels an overwhelming joy when she paints, and relates this to God’s love, but to feel one worthy enough to be spoken to by God, in my opinion, is prostituting faith in the highest degree.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Akiane says her own desire is to lead people closer to God, through a discovery of faith, and to help as many needy people around the world as she is able to do. That, precisely, is the commission set down by Jesus, himself, for every follower of his teaching. I suspect that many others, including sceptics, atheists, and maybe even some stumbling Christians, will “prostitute†her exceptional gifts, but may I suggest that the media hype is and has always been beyond her personal control. Now, it may be even beyond her parents’ control. But be that as it may, I can see no shame or lack in their moral integrity as they enjoy the limelight for a time, while it lasts. All good things in moderation….
February 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
To Ron Chalmers:
Three books I have found useful in my quest for the meaning of life.
1. The Stranger, by Albert Camus
2. Mister God, This Is Anna, by Fynn
3. Escape From Reason, by Francis A. Schaeffer
February 11th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
[...] that he’d be there to guide her along the way. Please take time to look at what she has painted! Religious Freaks » Akiane Kramarik–Inspired By God Or Just Plain Crazy? __________________ And in the end it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in [...]
February 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Come on, people. Surely you’ve seen this quality of painting on vacation — black velvet Elvis paintings propped against a truck by the side of the road. If painting this way has done anything, it’s ruined a child’s ability to see things truthfully — to portray real thoughts and feelings. Her paintings are trite and cringe-provoking. Would you really hang one of these in your home??
February 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Several people have already noted that the paintings themselves are not extra-ordinary. It is the girl herself who is astonishing to us, for her remarkably premature technical skills in painting, musical prodigy and spiritual insight. Well, if not a painting, I would be pleased to have one of her poems hanging on my wall. That is what she says she really works hardest at.
Parrish, by the way, is one of my personal favourite artists.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
To those of you on the side of believing the girl - trying to open the eyes of the Lost on this subject without “the Word” is impossible, these people are lost and can not be convinced that God has communicated with this little girl without the help of Jesus Christ, though many of them will eventually hit bottom and willingly “by faith” turn to him and regret their current views, it has to be that way “by faith”. It is impossible to prove faith (God’s requirement) by definition. It just seems like people would eventually wonder why it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrong, no matter how many millions of people have tried over the years. The ones who try the hardest often become belivers, and once you are a believer God proves it in your heart which results in an undescribeable peace like you have never felt or could imagine as a lost soul. Most of your answers are there in black and white if you’ll say a prayer and pick up the Word you’ll find them. Or, you can keep on trying it your way and hope your right (a very risky gamble that you will not win)- or maybe things will get bad enough later in your life, and your heart won’t be so hardened that you will turn to God then. Why do you hate God when all he does is Love and wait on you? When you turn to him and are obedient to him you will have your proof, unless you choose to wait and then everyone will get their proof - When it’s too late! Don’t be amazed at this girls communiction with God, it is just like God to use someone (a home schooled atheist) who seems least likely, so that her testimony will be more effective and save more lost souls, but some of you are obviously too smart to fall for it. Good Luck with that. Get into the Word and try to prove it wrong or right for yourself. It’s worth your time.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Hello Prodigy,
Even as a Christian, why would you assume that God is actually talking to this girl? If she were a Muslim claiming to speak with Allah would you believe her? Are you only believing her because it happens to affirm your faith? What if it were Santa who spoke to her and who was the subject of her art? Would you believe then?
“it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrong”
Oh what fun! Let’s see:
Genesis:
- God separated the light from the dark before creating light producing objects such as the sun and stars.
- Plants were created before the sun, thus before photosynthesis could take place
- God made the lesser light, the moon to rule the night. First, the moon is not a light source, but a light reflector. Second, half the time, the moon appears during the day and not during the night at all.
- God had Adam name all the animals; all 10-100 million of them!
- Giants walked the earth. Why no fossil record of these huge humans?
- No plants could have survived the great flood. Thus there would have been no food for the herbivores. Also, the carnivores would have made at least on species of prey animals extinct with every two feedings. All land life would be dead in just one generation.
- All beast fear humans according to Genesis 9:2, but this is not true.
- God was worried that he could be reached via the Tower of Babel. Why, then, didn’t he smite the Apollo program?
- People lived 300+ years!
Exodus:
- It took the Israelites 40 years to make what should be a 10 day trip form Egypt to Canaan.
- The population of Israel when from about 70 to several million in only a few hundred years.
Leviticus:
- Bats are incorrectly identified as being birds.
- God gives a laughable cure for leprosy, which was not curable.
etc., etc., etc.
These, and whole lot more can be found at one of my favorite websites.
Enjoy!
February 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
A child can see that the difference in technique, style and imagination and any run of the mill velvetine Elvis is beyond comparison.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Hodge is right, I wouldn’t say Roadside Velvet Elvis… I’d more say Hole-in-the-wall Mall store unicorn.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
So you haven’t really even read the bible yourself. Why do you choose not to believe her? You have obviously not been called by God so you have no ability to even understand what that means. You can be easily if you’ll simply turn to him. Otherwise you should not pretend to have an educated conversation about a subject you are not educated on. What do you believe? To answer the rest of your questions.. there is no Allah, how is she confirming my faith without mentioning Jesus Christ, and even though she appears to be referring to him on several instances, my faith is fully confirmed and I am not the one who is lost and trying to figure out what I believe. There is no Santa. God is Light and your assuming you know more about what existed before the physical world than anyone does. Billions of people and creatures have walked the earth and only under perfect conditions do we get skeletal remains. People lived to be almost 1000 years. When you try to quote the bible use chapter and verse instead of taking someone elses word for it. It should be worth it to you to get it right. After all it is your soul your gambling with. Or maybe you are finally the one who can prove it wrong after thousands of years now. You are also subjecting God to the Scientific laws and pricipals that he created and set into existence for us in this physical realm. Why would you assume our creator is limited in this way, and again I ask you what you believe. Do you think life randomly happened from a random bang caused by nothing billions of years ago and happened to set itself up and lead to us. Come on. He want to know if you’ll believe before you get the proof. We are all going to see soon enough. Every knee will bow and every tongue will worship God. Proficies are being fullfilled and keep your eye on the middle east this summer. You do not have to believe in Hell but that will not stop you from going there and that is a big gamble to take. Look around, we are spiritual beings with the power of words and God is our father.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
The subtlety of Akiane’s shading is most apparent when she paints “black” skin. As for their supposed similarity to velvet Elvis paintings; what Lasik surgeon messed you up? The question here is whether she is “just” a child prodigy or something more. Either way, it makes me feel good that she is. How about you?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
1. Comparative definitions of faith, that is, in theistic terms as distinguished from atheistic terms is simply to clarify what it is and what it is not. Christian faith involves both the mind and the heart, does it not? How much more hopefully one could lead another to Christian faith if, from the start, speaker and listener shared the same meaning of the term, rather than, unknowingly, assumed exactly opposite meanings!
2. Christians believe Akiane’s extra-ordinay gifts to be inspired of God, because their faith confirms it, not the other way around. More and more, I see ardent religious sceptics turning truth upside down. I am with Prodigy here: look into the Bible, and try to see what it really says. The first chapters in Genesis, for example, are a thematic narrative of the beginning of creation, not a thesis on astro-physics or Darwinian species classification. If it really were so easily discreditable as some make it out to be, scholars and theologians would render it a long forgotten relic of the ancient past. Just remember this: in order to believe anything, first, you have to want to believe it. Ask yourself why you would want to believe one thing and not another.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hello Prodigy,
You post is quite involved, so allow me to take it in parts.
“So you [sidfaiwu] haven’t really even read the bible yourself.” You are correct in that I have not read the entire Bible (I am curious as to how you knew this). I have read three what I call “The Fundamentalist Four”. I have read Genesis, so that I knew that reason and the scientific method applies every day except Sunday. I have read Revelations, so that I knew that the Apocalypse was going to happen in my life time, thus there’s no need to worry about environmentalism. And finally, I read John, so that I knew that Jesus was a superman who loves me more than non-Christians. So much so that he died for me and made me permanently morally superior to the unsaved. I never got to the fourth, Leviticus, having lost my faith before then, so I never got around to hating gays.
“Why do you choose not to believe her?” My answer to that lies around two concepts. The first is burden of proof. If I were to claim that Aliens speak to me via an advanced technology then the burden of proof would lay with me for making the positive claim. Similarly, the burden of proof is with this little girl and her believers. The second is Sagan’s balance. This is the concept that the more extraordinary the claim, the more conclusive the evidence must be to prove the claim. Talking to God is an extraordinary claim.
“Otherwise you should not pretend to have an educated conversation about a subject you are not educated on” Actually, I am quite educated on Christianity and likely know more about it than most believers. I learned about the religion from both the inside, as a fundamentalist, and academically. But is is nice to know that you assume ignorance of anyone who disagrees with you.
I see that you answered my question, “Are you only believing her because it happens to affirm your faith?” in the affirmative. Her claiming to talk to God is no different than claiming to talk to Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Gia, Zues, etc. Since she happens to be talking to the same God you believe in, you believe her.
“After all it is your soul your gambling with.” Ah, good old Pascal’s Wager, the completely self-serving reason to believe in God. Are you not risking your soul just as much by not being a Muslim? I mean, if you are wrong about Islam, you’ll suffer eternal Hell fire.
“Or maybe you are finally the one who can prove it wrong after thousands of years now.” Errors have been found in the Bible ever since it became dogma. Most of Medieval philosophy is nothing but an attempt to explain away errors or reinterpret scripture so as to get around the errors. Even one of the most famous Christian thinkers, Augustine of Hippo, wrote in 5th century BCE that one should take a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis because if its problems.
“Proficies are being fullfilled and keep your eye on the middle east this summer.” Every generation of Christians thought that they were living in the end times. Even Jesus himself (Luke 9:27). Oh, he got that one wrong, didn’t he? Prophecy my foot.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Oh, and one correction, Augustine wrote in the 5th century CE, not BCE.
Also, thanks gasmonso for you help :)
February 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
A disillisioned sceptic who’s read three entire books in the Bible and actually knows more about it than most Christians seems a powerful claim in itself, which must at the very least, raise a few eyebrows. Again, faith and proof…exact opposites, are they not? Well, ok, a burden of proof, to my mind, is essentially the same as faith: the substantial evidence of things not seen.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:53 am
To impose a burden of proof on faith seems, a near oxymoron, and certainly redundant.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Hello MAPK LOTGRE,
With 40% of US, self-identified Christians not even attending church regularly, what percentage do you suppose have actually read 3+ books of the Bible? My guess is that it is a minority of Christians. Thus having read three makes me more read than most Christians. Also, unlike most Christians, I’ve read a lot about the history of Christians, the origin of the Bible, and about early, now extinct sects of Christianity. I’ve also taken several comparative religion and philosophy of religion classes that puts Christianity’s theology into a much wider context. Finally, my Biblical reading is not limited to those three, but they are of the ones I read start to finish at one time.
If you want more numbers, here is a link with stats that show just how uneducated Christians are about their own religion. Only 50% could name any one of the four authors of the Gospels. I can name all four.
Lastly, saying that “faith and proof are opposites” suggests that they are on equal footing. It’s like saying a one hundred dollar bill is the opposite of a penny. I say that proof is superior to faith.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_pSaMPzjOc
February 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Greetings, sidfaiwu:
That means that, statistically, more than half of professing Christians attend church regularly. I wonder, incidentally, if that figure applies world-wide. I would suggest, in any case, that a great majority of the non-church-going forty per-cent are really just nominal Christians who believe they warrant a place in Heaven based on good behaviour alone. After all, any intelligent adult, professing Christianity, but who doesn’t know one—-or indeed all–of the names of the “four evangelists,†surely gives us cause to wonder whether his faith is equal in size to a mustard seed.
Most Christians I know encourage reading the Bible on a daily basis; custumarily, at least a chapter a day, presumably, from a particular book, from beginning to end, or focusing on a topic. But if you do know more about the Bible and its history, etc., even than most of the statistical sixty per-cent referred to above, I would have to say, simply, that they know more than you about what is essential in the message.
I can acknowledge that, within a post-modern framework, religious truth may be subject to statistics, or pantheistically perhaps, that all opposites are equal in degree. But you must recognize through your studies, to give a pertinent example of the contrary, that Christianity denies views of dualism. That is, good, being infinite in God’s character, is therefore unmearurable, whereas evil has its origin within creation, and will eventually come to an end. And so, neither must faith and proof weigh equally.
And nor can proof, being limited to nature, ie,. science and mathematics, logically be superior to faith in what is above nature. The Bible gives us, not exhaustive kowledge, but sound promises from the very creator of the universe, of an invisible bridge to Him, just for acknowledging unworthiness of His presence. Faith takes us beyond science to knowledge of which things nature is a mere, passing reflection.
Of course, this is not provable, and is not intended to be so. It is simply a message held to be sent from outside nature, out of pure love of the one personal God, to trust or not. It’s up to the individual to take or leave it freely, based on an honest, dilligent, non-agenda-ed examinaion of the evidene.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:18 am
This looked like a lot of fun so I thought I would join in. First off I will tell you that I do not possess a high dollar education as it might appear that some who have contributed do but I suppose there are those who do and are not much better equipped.
I’ve go to say I felt compelled to comment after reading sifaiwu’s comment.
“It has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible wrongâ€
“Oh what fun? Let’s see:
Genesis:
- God separated the light from the dark before creating light producing objects such as the sun and stars.
Well, first of all Genesis says
3 And God said, Let there be light:and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
You say he separated the light from the dark before creating light producing objects such as the sun and stars.
Now, remember, we are talking about God. I suppose he could do it any way he wished. It appears that each time a non Christian wants to prove God does not exist the first thing they try do is try to make him human and place limits on him and say he could not have done this or that because it is not logical or possible. Not true, God is God and he can do as he wishes. So when he separated the light from the darkness it does not matter that there were no sun or stars. If God said there was light, then there was light. Who cares where it came from.
Then you say: - Plants were created before the sun, thus before photosynthesis could take place
What’s your point here? How is this an error? So what if the plants had to wait a few days for some sun. Remember, the whole process only took 6 days. But then again there was light in the beginning. So what difference does it make?
Then you say: - God had Adam name all the animals; all 10-100 million of them!
Is that how many there were when the earth was created? I was not there so I sure don’t know but I do know that even in my short lifetime breeders of domestic animals have developed new breads and thereby increasing the numbers of different animals on the earth. Are you referring to each animal or each species? Does it really matter because again we don’t know how many there were then.
You say: - Giants walked the earth. Why no fossil record of these huge humans?
How big was a giant in those days. I suppose to a man who is normally 5’5†tall, a man who is 6’6†may appear as a giant. Several groups of people perished in different ways. Some were consumed by volcanoes. Not much of a fossil record there.
You say; - No plants could have survived the great flood. Thus there would have been no food for the herbivores. Also, the carnivores would have made at least on species of prey animals extinct with every two feedings. All land life would be dead in just one generation.
True, no plants would have survived, this was the plan for the flood, to destroy everything, however again you place your human limitations on God. You somehow assume that this would occur and God would be helpless to take care of what he has created. How silly. God, being the creator of all things, could, if he so choose, reestablish all plant life in the wink of an eye and thereby all the herbivores would have more than enough to eat. Is that what happened? I don’t know, I was not there and it appears that it is not really that importa