Does My Avatar Violate the Second Commandment?

[Sarah G]

I don't think it is in violation of the second commandment, but it does always, without fail, make that old song with the lyrics "I'm a cowboy, on a steel horse I ride, I'm wanted, wanted, dead or alive" start rocking out in my mind. Always. I'm not complaining about this, I'm just saying it doesn't really have the effect I'm assuming you desired when you chose it, unless you were wanting to depict Jesus as an outlaw who is wanted dead or alive. I don't think it's the best choice for an avatar picture because it's very difficult to read the bulk of it.

This is great. I always thought he sang ''...I'm gonna steal the horse I ride...'' explaining why he was wanted as one cannot just go around stealing horses. If my parents had shelled out for MTV I would have had the visual clues to clarify it at the time, tsk.

 

[Tom 1]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?

I don't see how your avatar could be thought of as an idol, unless, as someone else already said here, you are planning to worship it, or go to it for advice. The only thing I would say is that it is yet another image portraying Jesus as being European/Caucasian in appearance (at least that's how it looks to me), and I have a vague notion that that has some relevance to how Jesus is thought of in the world today, that he is more often that not portrayed as a white guy. But maybe that's a topic for another post.

 

[Radagast]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment

There are certainly people who think that.

You may or may not wish to adjust your avatar to avoid giving offence.

 

[gordonhooker]

Your avatar is a violation of the Westminster Standards. Whether or not its actually a violation of the second commandment, I'm not sure.

So is that the same Westminster Confession that refers to the Bishop of Rome as the anti christ?

 

[Strong in Him]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?

Unless you can,
a) prove that Jesus looked exactly like your drawing,
b) worship that picture and image
c) produced it with the intention that people should worship it
d) receive credit, glory and worship for showing us what God looks like,

then, imo, no.

But if the mods of this forum say otherwise, or anyone is deeply upset by it, then it might be wise to listen to them and maybe remove it.

 

[Goatee]

Graven image is one that is worshipped. It's something that is not of God. It is something other than God. It is of something other than the true living God.

In ancient times people would worship 'ANYTHING'.

God knows what is in your heart. He knows who you worship. If you have a representation of what you think Jesus looked like then so be it. God knows that you are not bowing down to it in worship!

 

[DamianWarS]

Yeah I can't even comment on the actual impression given. I can only read "Wanted" which gives an odd impression but the rest is too fuzzy to make out.

I was commenting only on portraying Christ in an image.

 

[HereIStand]

View attachment 215217

That's it. Thanks.

 

[HereIStand]

Hey look. This thread is on the main CF page.

 

[HereIStand]

Unless you can,
a) prove that Jesus looked exactly like your drawing,
b) worship that picture and image
c) produced it with the intention that people should worship it
d) receive credit, glory and worship for showing us what God looks like,

then, imo, no.

But if the mods of this forum say otherwise, or anyone is deeply upset by it, then it might be wise to listen to them and maybe remove it.

Thanks. It was not the mods. It was pointed out to me in the Presbyterian forum in this way.

 

[~Anastasia~]

View attachment 215217

Thanks! I can read it now.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks. It was not the mods. It was pointed out to me in the Presbyterian forum in this way.

FWIW, some people don't like my avatar either. About half the avatars on CF are idolatry by someone's definition - nearly 100% by some of the strictest definitions (but those particular folks wouldn't be on online forums either).

I'm not speaking strictly of the Presbyterian confessions. It's very easy to mistake someone else' beliefs if you don't know the full context. But the understanding of Christianity from the early days seems to be that simply having images of persons we have seen are not idolatry. However, no image may be worshipped. The controversy was introduced into Christianity first by the Muslim influence, on the grounds that Christ could not be God's Son. It was the very Incarnation that images were supposed to affirm. Never idolatry.


One thing that strikes me though. If you use the commandments Moses brought down as the sole reason, how do you reconcile that with the images and statues that God commanded to be placed in the Tabernacle and Temple? And we have found Jewish synagogues covered with iconography, much as Orthodox Churches are - yet Christ never uttered a single criticism of those images that was recorded in the Scriptures? The Apostles and their successors never warned against carrying that aspect of Jewish worship into Christianity, as much of our worship was established in this way.

It forbids making images to worship them - just as people had long created idols for the very purpose of declaring them to be gods, and worshipped them. That is what is forbidden.


But anyone whose conscience is weaker and feels that something is a sin, should avoid doing it himself. Because it becomes a sin, not because the act is sinful but because he defies his conscience. After all, we all act according to the light we have received.

God be with you.

 

[DamianWarS]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?

do Presbyterian churches reject depictions of Christ? a quick google search reveals hundreds of Presbyterian churches with Christ depicted in stained glass windows. What is the difference of the values within the church walls vs your avatar according to your conservative Presbyterian friends?

 

[Tree of Life]

So is that the same Westminster Confession that refers to the Bishop of Rome as the anti christ?

Yes.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

don't see how your avatar could be thought of as an idol

... or graven image .... there are explanations online, but it is no surprise how many accept breaking any and all commandments as okay in this day and age.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

About half the avatars on CF are idolatry by someone's definition - nearly 100% by some of the strictest definitions (but those particular folks wouldn't be on online forums either).

According to Scripture, more than half the people are actively practicing idolatry, but knowing that won't change most people's lives, only a few, as God shows them mercy.

 

[Tree of Life]

I can understand the exception, especially as it relates to prohibitions against "the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons...inwardly in our mind." It would seem natural for one to read the Gospels and form a mental image of Christ healing the sick, being nailed to the cross, and having Thomas touch his nail pierced hands. Based on the Westminster Standards, such mental images would be idolatrous. It seems an example of well intentioned theology gone awry.

I don't know what to say about it.

On the one hand, I understand how it seems a bit extreme. I get the prohibition against making an image of God the Father or even of the Holy Spirit - or even Jesus Christ in his divinity. But Jesus Christ came as a man. So is it wrong to represent his humanity, which is physical? Even for educational purposes? Would it have been wrong to take a photograph of Jesus (if that were possible)? Would it have been wrong for one of the disciples to draw a portrait of Jesus while he walked the earth?

But on the other hand I see their point. The command prohibits the making of an image of God. And Jesus Christ the person is God - humanity and divinity united in one person. Also, images teach. Any image we make of Jesus will be somehow informed by our culture, our preferences, and our biases. The images we make of him are going to represent some vision of him which could possibly be misleading or unhelpful. Think of the "pretty boy Jesus" or the "hippy Jesus" or the "squeaky clean Jesus" like we see in @FireDragon76 avatar.

I don't know where I stand on it.

 

[Radagast]

The controversy was introduced into Christianity first by the Muslim influence, on the grounds that Christ could not be God's Son.

The Byzantine Emperor Leo III forbade icons because of Muslim influence?

 

[Radagast]

do Presbyterian churches reject depictions of Christ?

There are Presbyterians and Presbyterians.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't know what to say about it.

On the one hand, I understand how it seems a bit extreme. I get the prohibition against making an image of God the Father or even of the Holy Spirit - or even Jesus Christ in his divinity. But Jesus Christ came as a man. So is it wrong to represent his humanity, which is physical? Even for educational purposes? Would it have been wrong to take a photograph of Jesus (if that were possible)? Would it have been wrong for one of the disciples to draw a portrait of Jesus while he walked the earth?

But on the other hand I see their point. The command prohibits the making of an image of God. And Jesus Christ the person is God - humanity and divinity united in one person. Also, images teach. Any image we make of Jesus will be somehow informed by our culture, our preferences, and our biases. The images we make of him are going to represent some vision of him which could possibly be misleading or unhelpful. Think of the "pretty boy Jesus" or the "hippy Jesus" or the "squeaky clean Jesus" like we see in @FireDragon76 avatar.

I don't know where I stand on it.

If it's worth knowing, we believe St. Luke the physician created the first image of Christ, along with a number of other images. Also, the "rules" in iconography are incredibly precise of how Christ is supposed to be drawn (though not everyone follows those rules - in the west they were often pretty much tossed out in favor of an aesthetically "pretty" Jesus). This is true for other images as well. When they uncovered icons from the 200s - I immediately recognized St. Paul as being the same person in images we see today.

But icons are actually not supposed to be realistic depictions. They are supposed to convey spiritual truths, rather than giving a photo-realistic image.

However, people are not supposed to be drawn with any kind of bias or image one imagines. So I would agree with your concern on that matter.