Tzaousios
Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
- Dec 4, 2008
- 8,504
- 609
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Here you have, once again, manipulated the language that you use to describe iconography and Orthodox practice concerning them. By the term "appropriate," it is implied that ALL representations of Christ in Christian iconography is inappropriate.
The Orthodox have not said that their desire is not to have an appropriate image of Christ. Also, the iconographic tradition has never sought to have anything less than to represent Christ appropriately.
Finally, it is not as if there exists for you an appropriate representation by which to compare and judge propriety. You do not let on to this explicitly in your replies. Such is the nature of presuppositions.
JesusFreak78 said:
I am glad you have finally been forthwith about your presupposition concerning propriety. However, now you need to acknowledge that the Orthodox do not accept your iconoclastic, aniconic presupposition, and have given ample reason as to why they do this.
Also, if you admit that the prooftexts do not deny or confirm iconography, why even use them? It only provides further evidence that you want others to conform to your particularly Evangelical Protestant, iconoclastic, aniconic take on those passages, and not that you are "only repeating what the Bible plainly says." It is time to dispense with that rhetorical trope.
Tzaousios said:
More manipulation of language. I never said anything about trying to "convert" the Orthodox to your conception of True Christianity. Rather, my point was that you have not been forthcoming about your presuppositions, and that any attempts to persuade the Orthodox to aniconism/iconoclasm is a gross ignorance of both the arguments they have presented and the history they have had with iconoclasts.
Then there is that repetition of the "I am only repeating what the Bible plainly says" trope...
JesusFreak78 said:
Alright. Perhaps you should dispense with the wordsmithing and be more forthcoming. This meaning was not very apparent in the original statement.
JesusFreak78 said:
This is another strawman. The Orthodox have not claimed to represent Christ "correctly," insofar as to show him in his full consubstantiality and essence with the Father, nor have they claimed to represent him "as it fits [them]." As I mentioned before, the representations are correct and appropriate because they seek to display certain qualities of Christ in context.
In sum, it is you who have repeatedly sought to make them conform to a definition of "correct" and "appropriate" which narrowly means that "all of him" MUST be portrayed and that representations of individual qualities are not good enough.
JesusFreak78 said:
Again, perhaps you should be more specific. Be "plain" and "clear" as your exegesis of Scripture is claimed to be.
JesusFreak78 said:
"That is what will happen..." No, it is what happens according to a certain Evangelical Protestant who subscribes to absolute aniconism and is even sympathetic to iconoclasm.
JesusFreak78 said:
Which your presupposition demands that you do. How utterly pious!
This reaction in no way demonstrates that you have honestly and prayerfully investigated the history and arguments behind Christian iconography and come to an informed decision.
JesusFreak78 said:
Eh, I don't know. Are you sure it is that you would not want to admit this in the presence of simonthezealot et al.? It would not fit the framework of "the enemies of my enemy are my friends."
JesusFreak78 said:
Yes, there is a certain game being played, based specifically upon the conscious choice not to reveal presuppositions, the denial of having any interpretation of Scripture, and the use of dissembling rhetoric.
Upvote
0
