Does My Avatar Violate the Second Commandment?

[Tree of Life]

Thank you, @Tree of Life. Would you describe yourself as a confessional Presbyterian?

Yes but not a strict subscriptionist. Some exceptions are OK. The Westminster isn't perfect.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm curious - no debate or trying to convince anyone of anything, but genuinely curious ...


For those of you who oppose the idea of imagery:

Can you pray and meditate on the Scriptures and so on without your mind ever producing any image whatsoever of Christ?

I really don't mean that antagonistically.

If you can, then I guess that answers the question, though with the way God created us to be highly visual I almost doubt it. (By the way, we Orthodox are NOT to create images in our minds as we pray either, so I get that, and sometimes it's a struggle not to.)

But otoh, if you do imagine an image of Christ, what do you do with that according to your conscience?

Again, I'm really just curious.

I don't have an image of Jesus in my head when I pray.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And I have the answer. I'm glad others are better at reading Byzantine than I am.

The text is - Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός· ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων·

(The bolded parts were just to draw my attention to difficult bits.)

And that is what I thought - I am the Shepherd, the Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I was wrong about an extra word (still going to have to study that out) and the first "Good" was omitted - various shorthands are necessary.

Thanks for asking. It was a good exercise for me. I'll say it again - I'm terrible with Byzantine! (And it's usually harder than this.)

Ah, please forgive me. I get used to looking at many things and forget that it was reading the words in the book that was often my first question too. Forgive me. I completely forgot that was part of the icon when I was trying to understand what you meant.

My reading in Byzantine script is just awful, lol. They use a kind of shorthand, and non-standard writing. I can get the sense of it, slowly and with effort, but directly translated it doesn't work out perfectly. And TBH, it would take time I don't have at the moment to work out the rest of it. I've got about 3/4 though.

It's one of the I Am statements - often in the books Christ holds.

This one says ... unless I mistake .... I Am the Shepherd, .... Good Shepherd (reverse order - Shepherd good) ... life ... ... to (for) sheep.

I think proper translation would probably work out to - I Am the Shepherd - the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the (insert another word/s?) sheep.

So sorry. I'm afraid I'm used to standard typography when reading, and Byzantine gives me fits.

And so sorry I misunderstand your question.


(Also now I'm curious myself about that extra word, so I will ask around, if you're interested.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't have an image of Jesus in my head when I pray.

Ok thanks. . And I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but then I suppose you are saying you have no mental image when reading about or meditating on Scripture, etc. either? If so, that must be some developed discipline, or long habit.

We are taught not to imagine any images either, ESPECIALLY during prayer, but it took a little discipline for me, particularly when I close my eyes, or when meditating on Scripture.

Thanks, I was just curious.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I dont consider images as anything. Whether they pop in my mind or not, i dont consider them as anything.

I follow the Spirit, and no one can describe what the Spirit looks like.

That was generally my habit for many years as well (and essentially still is) - thank you.

 

[Ken Rank]

Thank you.

I was specifically wondering ... what do you do if/when images come into your mind when praying, meditating?


Btw, I strongly agree that we must not make any attempt to portray God the Father on the grounds you mention. But like I said, I'm not looking to push any point of view. I was just curious specifically regarding what our human minds tend to do.

Thanks for your reply.

That's the problem isn't, that once something is in the mind it's there and can be recalled unconsciously. This is the major issue with internet porn... men (and to a lesser degree, women) put some imagery in their minds that doesn't go away and those images can often make having a real and intimate relationship very difficult. Anyway... in terms of whatever comes in mind when praying... if it looks like Jim Caviezel, I just try to ignore it.

 

[HereIStand]

In a way we do. Jesus did not have long hair.

For Paul says, “Doesn't nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,” (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Also, Jesus was a Jew, and people of the Middle East have olive skin tone color. Just Google “olive skin tone” to check it out.

The Scriptures also say he was not overly handsome, too. So your avatar is a false image of Jesus.

I don't recall a verse suggesting that Christ was not overly handsome. There is no requirement that should or should not be. We don't know.

The Independent Fundamental Baptist school in which I was raised argued that men should have short hair. The pastor at this church also argued that Jesus had short hair. For students, short was defined as tapered in the back, not touching the ears, and the bangs no more than one finger width above the eyebrow. These seems well intended, but constitutes a man-made standard of what is short and what is long.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That's the problem isn't, that once something is in the mind it's there and can be recalled unconsciously. This is the major issue with internet porn... men (and to a lesser degree, women) put some imagery in their minds that doesn't go away and those images can often make having a real and intimate relationship very difficult. Anyway... in terms of whatever comes in mind when praying... if it looks like Jim Caviezel, I just try to ignore it.

LOL I had to look him up. Hmmmm. There's a lot worth thinking about in there. Honestly, as a much younger Christian, I did have those ideas and images. I grew up with Sunday School pictures and that famous painting of Him praying it seems we've all seen. And was drawn by a few others later.

Funny, my first view of iconography, I didn't like it because it didn't have that kind of effect. But over the years I have come to appreciate what I think you're saying here, that any fleshly kind of image is problematic. Eventually I did reach a place where I put them away from me. (Some of my non-denom churches had actually taught me to do the opposite so it was a struggle at first.) But I think the foundation of what you're saying also fits with what we are taught as Orthodox Christians, so I agree completely. I understand it might not seem that way, but actually icons are something of a protection against that kind of thinking (if they are done correctly - many are not.)

Anyway, thanks very much. I was interested in hearing other folks' opinions and experiences.

 

[Ken Rank]

LOL I had to look him up. Hmmmm. There's a lot worth thinking about in there. Honestly, as a much younger Christian, I did have those ideas and images. I grew up with Sunday School pictures and that famous painting of Him praying it seems we've all seen. And was drawn by a few others later.

Funny, my first view of iconography, I didn't like it because it didn't have that kind of effect. But over the years I have come to appreciate what I think you're saying here, that any fleshly kind of image is problematic. Eventually I did reach a place where I put them away from me. (Some of my non-denom churches had actually taught me to do the opposite so it was a struggle at first.) But I think the foundation of what you're saying also fits with what we are taught as Orthodox Christians, so I agree completely. I understand it might not seem that way, but actually icons are something of a protection against that kind of thinking (if they are done correctly - many are not.)

Anyway, thanks very much. I was interested in hearing other folks' opinions and experiences.

In the end, even letters are images, symbols, that point to a concept. They are not bad unless we use them for bad. The cherubim on the Ark are not wrong, our bowing to them would be. And I think it is in our nature to go there... I mean, as much as I would love to think we are different than those whining and complaining Israelites as they came out on their exodus... we probably are worse. I mean... when they lived in Goshen (a very luxurious place to live in that day) they didn't complain. And they didn't complain a ton and even talked about going back to... their time as slaves. It was when they came out of Egypt, saw the wondrous works of God and they still complained. It sounds like I am dumping on them... but the thing is, for all intents and purposes, WE are still in Goshen and we already complain and about luxuries like air conditioning and cars and pricing on entertainment. They made a golden calf, called it YHWH, and bowed to it... I can't image what we are capable of under stress. I know... off subject... just something that has been on my mind lately. Be blessed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the end, even letters are images, symbols, that point to a concept. They are not bad unless we use them for bad. The cherubim on the Ark are not wrong, our bowing to them would be. And I think it is in our nature to go there... I mean, as much as I would love to think we are different than those whining and complaining Israelites as they came out on their exodus... we probably are worse. I mean... when they lived in Goshen (a very luxurious place to live in that day) they didn't complain. And they didn't complain a ton and even talked about going back to... their time as slaves. It was when they came out of Egypt, saw the wondrous works of God and they still complained. It sounds like I am dumping on them... but the thing is, for all intents and purposes, WE are still in Goshen and we already complain and about luxuries like air conditioning and cars and pricing on entertainment. They made a golden calf, called it YHWH, and bowed to it... I can't image what we are capable of under stress. I know... off subject... just something that has been on my mind lately. Be blessed.

Maybe not strictly on topic of this thread, but a principle I was made to see clearly almost 20 years ago, and it has really stayed with me. We can never think ourselves safe from the kinds of errors others make (and it was precisely the golden calf used to make that point to me) ... so I think really it IS on topic.

Always we must be as deeply aware of and understanding of ourselves and God's principles as we can be. I trust God's grace to supply the rest.

Thank you, and may you be blessed as well.

 

[Tree of Life]

Ok thanks. . And I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but then I suppose you are saying you have no mental image when reading about or meditating on Scripture, etc. either? If so, that must be some developed discipline, or long habit.

We are taught not to imagine any images either, ESPECIALLY during prayer, but it took a little discipline for me, particularly when I close my eyes, or when meditating on Scripture.

Thanks, I was just curious.

I think I can honestly say that I don't have much of a mental picture of faces when I read the gospels. I just don't think about what these people must've looked like.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Also Christ has appeared to us in the flesh, so the understanding that we cannot portray God the Father in any sense because we have never seen Him is moot in this case.

And we are not under Law, but under Grace.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That's it. Thanks.

I like it!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Scripture says,

"So then, from now on, we have a new perspective that refuses to evaluate people merely by their outward appearances. For that’s how we once viewed the Anointed One, but no longer do we see him with limited human insight" (2 Corinthians 5:16) (The Passion Translation).

"For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart." (2 Corinthians 5:12) (KJV).

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Furthermore, Scripture says,

“To whom will ye liken God? or, what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Isaiah 40:18),

“We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts of the Apostles 17:29).

Again, how would you like it if somebody falsely made an image of you and promoted that?
It woudn't be nice, now would it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't recall a verse suggesting that Christ was not overly handsome. There is no requirement that should or should not be. We don't know.

That's not true.

Old Testament Scripture says of the Messiah,

2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." (Isaiah 53:2-3).

The Independent Fundamental Baptist school in which I was raised argued that men should have short hair. The pastor at this church also argued that Jesus had short hair. For students, short was defined as tapered in the back, not touching the ears, and the bangs no more than one finger width above the eyebrow. These seems well intended, but constitutes a man-made standard of what is short and what is long.

Let's not split hairs here.

Paul defines long hair for a woman as if it was a covering. So if the hair is long enough to cover their face, then it is long hair. The man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man.

6 "...but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (2 Corinthians 5:6-7).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The problem I see is in making images of Jesus's appearance is that Jesus deserves our worship because He is God. Meaning, if Jesus was before us in His physical body, we can bow down before Him and worship Him. But when a person makes a false image of Jesus, they can think to themselves... "This is Jesus" and they could bow down to it and regard such an image as holy. In fact, some religions do this today. They make statues of what they believe to be God or someone holy and they bow down before them. For to make an image of God invites a person to worship and bow down to it.

 

[HereIStand]

That's not true.

Old Testament Scripture says of the Messiah,

2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." (Isaiah 53:2-3).



Let's not split hairs here.

Paul defines long hair for a woman as if it was a covering. So if the hair is long enough to cover their face, then it is long hair. The man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man.

6 "...but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (2 Corinthians 5:6-7).

I would read the Isaiah verses to show that Jesus blended in with the people of his time. Physically, he didn't stand out from other people as far as we know. There isn't anything about my avatar or standard images of Jesus that make him out to be a model.

With regard to long hair on men, any standard for what constitutes long or short has to be a man made one. Any Christian is free to impose such restrictions on himself. There is no justice in imposing personal standards on others.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

Ug, my avatar cannot be an idol because he represents a stone age ape man that never existed.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ug, my avatar cannot be an idol because he represents a stone age ape man that never existed.

Right. I never understood your choice for an avatar, either. It is misleading to what the truth of God's Word says. Today, many believe in Evolution (Which would include cave men). Why push something that you know to be false? It makes no sense.