Credenda Agenda – I note the article on the Passion of Christ makes a stray reference to the movie being a breach of the second commandment, yet doesn’t further analyse what this means for those intending to view. If you accept that the movie breaches the commandment, then surely watching it also breaches the commandment. Of course, it could be that its one of those unimportant commandments like honoring the sabbath day or your parents – one has to do a utilitarian benefit / detriment analysis before pronouncing judgment. What think ye?
John – Personally I don’t think that _The Passion_ breaches the 2C. However, do you suppose it’s possible for someone to make an image of a bird, say, and intend for it to image YHWH, and bow down to it, while another comes along later and says, “that’s a nice bird!” Has the first man made an idol, and is it therefore an idol to the second man also?
I totally agree with the inescapable conclusion of your proposition that where man 2 says “that’s a nice bird”, he is not in breach of the second commandment. However, I don’t think that is the proper analogy. What is the position where the man 2 says “That is a nice God”, expressly recognising the breach of the 2nd Commandment in the making of the bird? While you can easily dispense with any criticism of The Passion by saying it is not a breach, what about where you say it is a breach but (like the author of the CA article)… That surely is a problem. I eagerly anticipate your unqualified agreement.
Well, I’ve read the article now and tend to agree with you. Nathan Wilson says “I cannot defend Gibson for making what I think must be a commandment violation”. He seems to think that the film itself breaches the 2C, and (unless he has expressed himself very badly), this is not something true only with respect to Gibson.
Odd.
I certainly don’t understand his reasoning. It’s given to us to *represent God*. That who we are as humans: “in the image of God He made them”. What sense is there in lamenting that anyone can portray Christ? Christ is not somehow more God than God!
But, accepting for a moment that there *is* something very wrong with trying to represent Christ, it seems bizzare to praise Gibson for doing it, and being grateful for having seen it done.
Credenda Agenda – I note the article on the Passion of Christ makes a stray reference to the movie being a breach of the second commandment, yet doesn’t further analyse what this means for those intending to view. If you accept that the movie breaches the commandment, then surely watching it also breaches the commandment. Of course, it could be that its one of those unimportant commandments like honoring the sabbath day or your parents – one has to do a utilitarian benefit / detriment analysis before pronouncing judgment. What think ye?
I turned off the verses for Romans 13, and the whole thing sounded different in my head.
Deb – verses are unhelpful for reading, I think
John – Personally I don’t think that _The Passion_ breaches the 2C. However, do you suppose it’s possible for someone to make an image of a bird, say, and intend for it to image YHWH, and bow down to it, while another comes along later and says, “that’s a nice bird!” Has the first man made an idol, and is it therefore an idol to the second man also?
I totally agree with the inescapable conclusion of your proposition that where man 2 says “that’s a nice bird”, he is not in breach of the second commandment. However, I don’t think that is the proper analogy. What is the position where the man 2 says “That is a nice God”, expressly recognising the breach of the 2nd Commandment in the making of the bird? While you can easily dispense with any criticism of The Passion by saying it is not a breach, what about where you say it is a breach but (like the author of the CA article)… That surely is a problem. I eagerly anticipate your unqualified agreement.
Well, I’ve read the article now and tend to agree with you. Nathan Wilson says “I cannot defend Gibson for making what I think must be a commandment violation”. He seems to think that the film itself breaches the 2C, and (unless he has expressed himself very badly), this is not something true only with respect to Gibson.
Odd.
I certainly don’t understand his reasoning. It’s given to us to *represent God*. That who we are as humans: “in the image of God He made them”. What sense is there in lamenting that anyone can portray Christ? Christ is not somehow more God than God!
But, accepting for a moment that there *is* something very wrong with trying to represent Christ, it seems bizzare to praise Gibson for doing it, and being grateful for having seen it done.