Does My Avatar Violate the Second Commandment?

[Goatee]

So, since I'm not worshiping another god, and am not bowing down to my avatar it is therefore permitted?

Your Avatar is permitted. Not my choice of words on it though!

 

[Strong in Him]

So, since I'm not worshiping another god, and am not bowing down to my avatar it is therefore permitted?

Permitted by who?
The moderators of this forum? Probably, or you'd be asked to remove it.
Other forum users? Seems that most of those who've posted here say 'yes'.
The people who complained you were breaking the commandments? Almost certainly not.
Yourself? ?????

It's between you and God. Like I say, maybe the only reason to remove it is if someone is so offended it disturbs their faith - although even then, they could opt to put you on ignore.

 

[HereIStand]

Permitted by who?
The moderators of this forum? Probably, or you'd be asked to remove it.
Other forum users? Seems that most of those who've posted here say 'yes'.
The people who complained you were breaking the commandments? Almost certainly not.
Yourself? ?????

It's between you and God. Like I say, maybe the only reason to remove it is if someone is so offended it disturbs their faith - although even then, they could opt to put you on ignore.

Thanks. I was unsure of how the verses quoted by the poster applied. Did he intend to say that the avatar was permitted? Hence, I asked for clarification. I didn't mean permitted by CF or its posters though.

 

[dqhall]

Photos are images. I do not think photos should be banned. How people use images is important. I got free Christmas cards sent to me from a charity. I do not plan to use the ones showing baby Jesus in a manger, because I do not know what he looked like. They usually show a European Jesus, while Jesus was Middle Eastern. I thought the ones with people in sleds on snowy streets might do. Seeing others display nativity scenes does not bother me. They are only models or depictions, not idols.

The Jews in Jesus' day did not like to make images of people. A first century synagogue at Magdala in Galilee was recently discovered by archaeologists . A table used in the synagogue was decorated with images of jugs/amphoras, pillars and a menorah.

Photo by D. Hall - 2016

 

[DamianWarS]

We know God. God knows us. He knows who we are praying to.

exactly, so to those who value the images of Christ let them do so to glorify God. To those who do not, let them do so to glorify God. There is no need however to demand one system between each other.

 

[Goatee]

Let God's will be done

 

[hedrick]

The OP appears to be a member of a conservative Presbyterian Church. As such, he has agreed to abide by the Westminster Confession, except for exceptions that he raises and which his church's Session have accepted. Hence it is relevant to him to know how Westminster is understood.

I was unable to find a treatment of this issue in his church. Here is a discussion of an issue for someone who knows actual practice in the Presbyterian Church of America. That's the largest of the conservative Presbyterian denominations, i.e. those the adhere strictly to the Westminster standards: The Second Commandment, Westminster and Images of Jesus

In summary, he says that Westminster did intend to prohibit images of Jesus, and gives their rationale. Nevertheless, many PCA pastors think it's OK. When being examined for ordination they are asked whether there are any parts of the Westminster Confession with which they disagree. He says an increasing number disagree with this provision, and that most presbyteries allow such disagreement.

Bottom line: If he were a member of the PCA, technically he would need permission from his Session to use that avatar, unless he has raised the issue before. He would probably get such permission. His pastor or clerk of Session can tell him whether this is true of his own denomination.

 

[HereIStand]

The OP appears to be a member of a conservative Presbyterian Church. As such, he has agreed to abide by the Westminster Confession, except for exceptions that he raises and which his church's Session have accepted. Hence it is relevant to him to know how Westminster is understood.

I was unable to find a treatment of this issue in his church. Here is a discussion of an issue for someone who knows actual practice in the Presbyterian Church of America. That's the largest of the conservative Presbyterian denominations, i.e. those the adhere strictly to the Westminster standards: The Second Commandment, Westminster and Images of Jesus

In summary, he says that Westminster did intend to prohibit images of Jesus, and gives their rationale. Nevertheless, many PCA pastors think it's OK. When being examined for ordination they are asked whether there are any parts of the Westminster Confession with which they disagree. He says an increasing number disagree with this provision, and that most presbyteries allow such disagreement.

Bottom line: If he were a member of the PCA, technically he would need permission from his Session to use that avatar, unless he has raised the issue before. He would probably get such permission. His pastor or clerk of Session can tell him whether this is true of his own denomination.

Good response, @hedrick. Thanks. I'm still officially a member of the PC(USA), but I've left to attend an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). I plan to join there at some point.
The EPC is theologically conservative but would not be strictly confessional, or at least that's my perception. Our church has a stained glass window depicting Christ for example. So, I don't think my avatar would raise an objections.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

i'd say it's more inaccurate then a violation of the 2nd commandment. we don't know what Jesus looked like and there shouldn't be any pictures of Him simply because we have no information to go on.

I can't say I agree with WCF on this one. I think they indeed took the application too far.

 

[hedrick]

The EPC is theologically conservative but would not be strictly confessional, or at least that's my perception. Our church has a stained glass window depicting Christ for example. So, I don't think my avatar would raise an objections.

The EPC is confessional, but differs slightly from the PCA in how that works. Members don't have to subscribe to Westminster. But officers do. As with the PCA, an officer can dissent, as long as the Session accepts their disagreement. There's a separate document, essentials of the faith, that gives the basics from which an officer can't dissent.

The following page ends with the vows expected of members. It's possible that they are for this particular congregation, but at least it indicates that the denomination doesn't require subscription to Westminster: Second Presbyterian Church | Becoming A Member

However I would not recommend joining a church if your beliefs wouldn't qualify you to be a deacon or elder, so you should agree with Westminster in most respects, and certainly agree with the essentials. The Essentials of Our Faith.

 

[HereIStand]

The EPC is confessional, but differs slightly from the PCA in how that works. Members don't have to subscribe to Westminster. But officers do. As with the PCA, an officer can dissent, as long as the Session accepts their disagreement. There's a separate document, essentials of the faith, that gives the basics from which an officer can't dissent.

The following page ends with the vows expected of members. It's possible that they are for this particular congregation, but at least it indicates that the denomination doesn't require subscription to Westminster: Second Presbyterian Church | Becoming A Member

However I would not recommend joining a church if your beliefs wouldn't qualify you to be a deacon or elder, so you should agree with Westminster in most respects, and certainly agree with the essentials. The Essentials of Our Faith.

Good advice, @hedrick. The essentials linked to sound fine. Beyond that, I'm probably a 3-point Calvinist. I would acknowledge total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints. But I wouldn't see the atonement as limited or grace as irresistible. The Lutheran understand on these seems more solid.

Having been an elder at a PC(USA) and LCMS Lutheran church, I'm unsure that I would want to serve again in an officer capacity. Maybe it's me, but I found the meetings to require a good deal of faith.

 

[HereIStand]

i'd say it's more inaccurate then a violation of the 2nd commandment. we don't know what Jesus looked like and there shouldn't be any pictures of Him simply because we have no information to go on.

I can't say I agree with WCF on this one. I think they indeed took the application too far.

That's true. The image is probably a take on the standard Sunday school image of Christ.

 

[gordonhooker]

Good advice, @hedrick. The essentials linked to sound fine. Beyond that, I'm probably a 3-point Calvinist. I would acknowledge total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints. But I wouldn't see the atonement as limited or grace as irresistible. The Lutheran understand on these seems more solid.

Having been an elder at a PC(USA) and LCMS Lutheran church, I'm unsure that I would want to serve again in an officer capacity. Maybe it's me, but I found the meetings to require a good deal of faith.

The Anglican equivalent of a Parish Council meeting which is akin to herding cats

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

If you were to click on the following spoiler button, you will be able to see your avatar image in full size again.

Spoiler

Okay, so what is the problem here?

#1. Nobody knows what Jesus looks like.

#2. To make an image of Jesus can lead people to idolize Him because He is God.

#3. Jesus was clearly not a white European / American. Jesus was an Israelite and usually during that time Israelites were midtone in skin color and had different facial features than white people. If you are white this is even worse to favor a white version of Jesus. You are trying to make Jesus into the white man's religion when Jesus is for all people.

#4. Early images of Christ are tied with pagan roots. They put sun images behind his head and he used certain pagan hand signs. Sun worship was very popular amongst pagans. They depicted him as white, and by your use of a white Jesus, it is paying homage to ancient pagan artwork.

#5. Imagine if people put up a picture of you that was not you in any way and they started to say things about you with that image. Imagine how that would make you feel. Now, imagine how it makes God feel. You are promoting a lie in regards to His appearance (When you do not know His appearance).

#6. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,..."

Note: While this passage does say, "You shall not make unto you any grave image," it also says, "or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" (Which can be an image). For Catholics today do bow down to pictures of Mary. So a statue or a picture are pretty much the same thing. They are representation of something and in this case it would be God. God says do not make an idol graven images or anything in likeness to heaven above (Which is a place where we look forward to meet the Lord face to face). The angelic cherubm on the Ark is different because God commanded it in this instance. It was an exception and not an undoing of the command on idolatry. But God did not say it was okay for the Israelites to start just making angelic statues everywhere. That would be wrong because God did not command it and it would fall under a violation of God's command on idolatry. For example: God says, "Do not murder" (That is to take life). Yet, God commands the Israelites to take life. See, there is a difference between God commanding us to do something vs. us doing that thing on our own (as a matter of habit or way of life). So part 1 of the command on idolatry in Exodus 20 simply tells you NOT to make any graven image or ANYTHING that is in heaven above. God is in Heaven above. So do NOT make any image of Him! Now, part 2 of the command is not to bow down to that image. Period. It does not matter the reason. You can say you are not worshiping the statue and it is okay. That is NOT the command on idolatry. To just bow down to a statue of a deity or person for ANY reason is idolatry. Period. That is how the command on idolatry is defined.

#7. Romans 13 says we are to obey the laws of the land (unless of course it conflicts with God's laws). "Wanted" signs back in the old days was a way of capturing criminals normally. Yet, Jesus was not a criminal. Jesus was without sin. So to make Jesus out to be a criminal when He is not one is to insult Him. It is to mock Him (Whether one realizes that or not).

#8. Do you (and or others) laugh or smile at the joke of this picture? If so, then you are laughing at our Lord and what He has done for us. It is making light of who Jesus Christ really is. Turning Jesus into some kind of criminal and cracking jokes about Him is not having any kind of reverance for Him, but it is insulting Him. You should never turn what Jesus did for us into a mockery. This is wrong.

#9. The "Warning" picture says that he made wine without a license. However, Jesus did not make alcoholic wine but he made fermented wine (i.e. fresh grape juice).

#10. The "Warning" picture says that Jesus looked like a hippie. This is highly offensive. For one, to say somebody is a hippie is bad (even if they look like a hippie). Second, nobody knows what Jesus looked like, and so to say that he looked like a hippie is really really insulting. Hippies were known for smoking drugs during the 70's.

#11. The "Warning" picture says Jesus hung around slum areas. While it is true that Jesus did go to sinful places. It is not entirely true. Jesus also frequented the temple, as well. It also does not stress that He is holy and separate from sinners by the fact that He is among them. Jesus was not around sinners to be chummy with them. He came to heal them of their sinful condition by forgiving them of their sin and to help them to walk uprightly.

#12. The "Warning" sign says beware that this man Jesus is really dangerous (Especially to young people). This again is an insult. Jesus was not dangerous. Jesus healed people and set them free of their sinful life. Note: Yes, I understand that this "Warning" sign was written from the perspective of those who hate Jesus, but why would you want to promote the idea of this perspective? It makes no sense. It is to think of Jesus in how the world might think of Him. This again is wrong. Why? Well, Scripture says, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8). If one were to look at this picture, and think it about it often, they would be doing the exact opposite of what Philippians 4:8 tells us to do.

Anyways, I hope this helps;
And may God's love shine upon you todya.

 

[HereIStand]

Thank for the extensive reply @Jason0047.

With regard to points #1 to #5, the poster is intended to depict an easily identifiable, artistic imagination of what Jesus looked like. He may not have looked white, and may not have looked black. Since we don't know exactly, there should be no issue with depicting him as white, black, or somewhere in between.

Point #6 is a fair point. It is possible to make a likeness of God into an idol. The intent of this poster is show that although we don't know what Christ looked like, we know that he existed as God and man in history. He lived a real life. And because of his life, death, and resurrection for us, our lives are forever changed.

With regard to the remaining points, the poster is from the Jesus People movement of the 1970s. It was intended to be proactive in order to counter the secular counter-culture which advocated drugs, sex, and revolutionary activism.

The Jesus People offered a Christian alternative on college campuses and elsewhere to this secular counter-culture. Christian coffee houses became a popular feature across the country based on this movement. For more information on the Jesus people and their history, see the book God's Forever Family. Below is my Amazon review of the book.

God's Forever Family is a well organized history of the Jesus People movement in America. Larry Eskridge provides a readable account from the movements' inception in San Francisco to its outgrowth nationwide. Nearly any city of any size would come to have a Jesus People inspired coffee house.

The movement began as a hippie-Christian counter to the secular counter-culture, from which many of the hippie-Christians were recent converts. As the movement grew and the secular counter-culture declined, the Jesus People turned inward and became a ministry to evangelical youth. Eskridge is especially good in showing the interaction (and friction in some cases) between the hippie-Christians and their "straight" counterparts within the evangelical church.

Eskridge also shows how the movement declined due to economic hardship in the mid-1970s, leadership struggles, and due to the participants in the movement getting older and moving into married life. Despite its decline, the movement would have long-term consequences on evangelical church life and secular culture in the form of contemporary worship and the social conservatism of the pro-life movement.

The energy and enthusiasm of the Jesus People, especially their zeal for in-person evangelism, is something the church needs today. This book shows us why.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, I just seen the peace symbol this morning in a store after I had shortenly written my post (Before your reply). Anyways, saying Jesus looks like a hippie in your avatar (even if it is from your enemy's persepctive is still insulting) for it is endorsing how your enemy sees Jesus.

The peace symbol is often commonly associated with hippies. Yet, the peace symbol is evil because it is technically a broken cross.

And it was also used by the Germans and as a symbol of torturing Christians.

Peace Sign Satanic? Dutch Christian School Destroys 3,000 Calendars Over One Image | HuffPost

In addition, in some artwork of Jesus, he uses the two finger peace sign, as well. This is not the same peace that Jesus will bring in but it is a false peace that the world is trying to put into place (over God's peace). For obviously the picture of Jesus people display is not really Jesus. It's a false Jesus. A lie because He never looked like that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I also want to stress the point again that I just read your post AFTER I just posted #96.
I do not believe it is a coincidence I seen the peace sign this morning (before you replied).
But this peace symbol is another peace. A false peace that is sometimes promoted alongside a false (image of) Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank for the extensive reply @Jason0047.

With regard to points #1 to #5, the poster is intended to depict an easily identifiable, artistic imagination of what Jesus looked like. He may not have looked white, and may not have looked black. Since we don't know exactly, there should be no issue with depicting him as white, black, or somewhere in between.

Point #6 is a fair point. It is possible to make a likeness of God into an idol. The intent of this poster is show that although we don't know what Christ looked like, we know that he existed as God and man in history. He lived a real life. And because of his life, death, and resurrection for us, our lives are forever changed.

With regard to the remaining points, the poster is from the Jesus People movement of the 1970s. It was intended to be proactive in order to counter the secular counter-culture which advocated drugs, sex, and revolutionary activism.

The Jesus People offered a Christian alternative on college campuses and elsewhere to this secular counter-culture. Christian coffee houses became a popular feature across the country based on this movement. For more information on the Jesus people and their history, see the book God's Forever Family. Below is my Amazon review of the book.

God's Forever Family is a well organized history of the Jesus People movement in America. Larry Eskridge provides a readable account from the movements' inception in San Francisco to its outgrowth nationwide. Nearly any city of any size would come to have a Jesus People inspired coffee house.

The movement began as a hippie-Christian counter to the secular counter-culture, from which many of the hippie-Christians were recent converts. As the movement grew and the secular counter-culture declined, the Jesus People turned inward and became a ministry to evangelical youth. Eskridge is especially good in showing the interaction (and friction in some cases) between the hippie-Christians and their "straight" counterparts within the evangelical church.

Eskridge also shows how the movement declined due to economic hardship in the mid-1970s, leadership struggles, and due to the participants in the movement getting older and moving into married life. Despite its decline, the movement would have long-term consequences on evangelical church life and secular culture in the form of contemporary worship and the social conservatism of the pro-life movement.

The energy and enthusiasm of the Jesus People, especially their zeal for in-person evangelism, is something the church needs today. This book shows us why.

The problem is that pictures are an alternative to the communication of words. Pictures are a form of communication. So basically when we translate your picture into words, it is saying.... "Jesus is a hippie and Jesus is white" (Which of course is a lie). So whether you use pictorial artwork to communicate that idea or words, it is still a lie that you are pushing with your avatar. Promoting such a lie is not good. For God does not want us to lie. It would be the breaking of that other commandment that God cares about (See Revelation 21:8 on the consequences for those who lie).

Also, Jesus was concerned by about truth. To say that we can make him to appear in any image we like, whether white, black, or any other race is not only an insult to the reality of Jesus, but it is flat out a lie. If you don't care, then that is your right. But that does not mean it is morally right for you to promote such a false image of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I mean, what's next? Should we make Jesus look like a dinosaur? How about if we make Jesus into having one arm and two heads? Who cares about truth, right?

But Paul was concerned about the worship of the right Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4).

 

[HereIStand]

The problem is that pictures are an alternative to the communication of words. Pictures are a form of communication. So basically when we translate your picture, it is saying.... Jesus is a hippie and Jesus is white (Which of course is a lie). So whether you use pictorial artwork to communicate that idea or words, it is still a lie. Promoting such a lie is not good.

Jesus was concerned by about truth. To say that we can make him to appear in any image we like, whether white, black, or any other race is not only an insult to the reality of Jesus, but it is flat out a lie. If you don't care, then that is your right. But that does not mean it is morally right for you to promote such a false image of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I mean, what's next? Should we make Jesus look like a dinosaur? How about if we make Jesus into having one arm and two heads? Who cares about truth, right?

I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've explained the rationale behind the use of the poster. Your are free to see things your own way.

Beyond this, we don't know what Jesus looked like, but we do know that he existed. We should be able to imagine his physical existence in some sense.

With regard to your last post, the use of allegedly anti-Christian peace symbols by secular hippies or Nazis, doesn't relate to my avatar.

 

[~Anastasia~]

#4. Early images of Christ are tied with pagan roots. They put sun images behind his head and he used certain pagan hand signs. Sun worship was very popular amongst pagans. They depicted him as white, and by your use of a white Jesus, it is paying homage to ancient pagan artwork.

Forgive me, but this is a bit of a stretch. The first connection is not really there ...

I visited a site (incidentally one that argued against Christ being the Messiah at all, claiming He Himself was a false sun god) that used this image to make the point.

The "sun" behind Christ is what is commonly called a halo - which is meant to show the glory of God - somewhat like the light when Christ was transfigured, but often shown just on the head. There are different artistic elements (and some artists take liberties they should not) ... but the bars form a Cross behind His head. If you look closely, there are small lines making up outlines of the cross bars and these represent the orders of Holy Angels. The letters are essentially "I am" (some of these are later additions).

The hand sign shown in the image is to form the letters IC XC which are the first and last letters of "Jesus Christ" in Greek - a typical way of making shorthand identification of someone. The same letters appear alongside Christ in the icon, further identifying who is pictured.

The reason a blessing is given with the same hand sign is that all blessings come from God. The hand sign is meant to acknowledge Christ.

The charge is that the halo and hand sign are the same as that of the sun god Tammuz except that ... well, they are not.

(This image is from the same site that attempts to "prove" that Christ is Tammuz ... even though they admit it has changed a little. Basically the commonality is that they both are using a hand sign.)

So it's an ever further stretch to say that depicting a white Jesus (even though He wasn't) further reinforces pagan sun god imagery?