"Touchdown Jesus" Burns....

Dreamer

Administrator Emeritus
Charter Member
Offline
Sorry, second commandment is about WORSHIPPING a graven image, as in an idol...not about having a statue of Jesus. Gee, i guess every church with an effigy of Jesus on the cross, or anyone with a plastic Jesus on their dash is screwed.

Funny how people are so ready to mock anything to do with Christianity, yet complaints from Muslims get any defamatory comments, shows or portrayals pulled.

The statue was an effigy, an icon, a representation... not an idol. In honor of Jesus, not in place of.

No different than a nativity display or crucifiction depiction...only bigger, and more visible obviously. One church's celebration, and fuel for others to once again mock Christians.

Dale
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Sorry, second commandment is about WORSHIPPING a graven image, as in an idol...not about having a statue of Jesus. Gee, i guess every church with an effigy of Jesus on the cross, or anyone with a plastic Jesus on their dash is screwed.

Funny how people are so ready to mock anything to do with Christianity, yet complaints from Muslims get any defamatory comments, shows or portrayals pulled.

The statue was an effigy, an icon, a representation... not an idol. In honor of Jesus, not in place of.

No different than a nativity display or crucifiction depiction...only bigger, and more visible obviously. One church's celebration, and fuel for others to once again mock Christians.

Dale

Thanks Dale....:)
 

Mike99

Veteran Expediter
Offline
That's happening when you make a statue from plastic. The whole plastic idea is ridiculos.Plastic and foam..... :))
 

60MPH

Expert Expediter
Offline
I find it rather funny actually, what a waste of money. The church could of used that money better by helping the community or more of there flock. I was watching the news here tonight "channel 4 out of washington d.c." and they said that a pole had been taken in the past and 2/3 of the residence in the area were embarrassed about the statue. I would be embarrassed to if I lived near there. I like turtles thinking on this as i always made little jokes to myself about it looking more like poseidon than jesus. Just add two little tips on the end of the cross that he was holding and you got the great olympian god of the sea!!
 

60MPH

Expert Expediter
Offline
funny how people are so ready to mock anything to do with christianity, yet complaints from muslims get any defamatory comments, shows or portrayals pulled.
Dale

well we know ya'll will just turn the other cheek when we mock ya!!. Them there muslims might chop off a head or blow up a building or something. The media and most people do not see christians as a threat, but alot of people see muslims as a big threat.

I myself only see one threat from christians and that is me not getting my proper rest because there is some crazy holy roller in the parking lot knocking on doors and bothering people asking them if they have been saved or have they accepted je-bus into there heart.

The above statement does not include all christians, some of them are very nice people and would do anything for you, and they do not push there belief's on you. They respect your own belief's if you have any that is!!
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
I find it rather funny actually, what a waste of money. The church could of used that money better by helping the community or more of there flock. I was watching the news here tonight "channel 4 out of washington d.c." and they said that a pole had been taken in the past and 2/3 of the residence in the area were embarrassed about the statue. I would be embarrassed to if I lived near there. I like turtles thinking on this as i always made little jokes to myself about it looking more like poseidon than jesus. Just add two little tips on the end of the cross that he was holding and you got the great olympian god of the sea!!

How would you know it was a waste of money. That statue might very well have brought a very large number of people to a church they chose. I would guess there must be about 2/3rds of the people in the area must not be comfortable in their own skin if a statue that people would never associate with them let it embarrass them. Your not the first one on here to say it is funny or their glad it is gone. Why in the world would anyone be happy about something that makes a good number of people sad? That's a little sadistic.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Your not the first one on here to say it is funny or their glad it is gone. Why in the world would anyone be happy about something that makes a good number of people sad? That's a little sadistic.

Gideon's neighbors were a bit upset when he pulled down their idol to Ba'al. I'm pretty glad about that. Now, no, that's not the same as Touchdown Jesus, but the neighbors' feelings don't change the second commandment.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Sorry Dreamer, you're dreamin'. People don't mock Al Sharpton because he's black, they mock him because he's a court jester, a bona fide fool. When people set themselves up to look nonsensical, foolish and comical, they set themselves up to be mocked. When Christians set themselves up to look nonsensical, foolish and comical, they don't get a pass simply because they are Christians, and those who mock them aren't mocking them because they are Christian, they're mocking them because they look nonsensical, foolish and comical. People do some pretty stoopid stuff in the name of God all the time, and if people want to do stoopid stuff in the name of God, then it's they who are dragging God into it, not those who mock them.

Touchdown Jesus didn't even look like Jesus. Certainly not like any depiction of Jesus that I ever saw, and I've seen a lot of 'em. Jesus probably looked more like a cross between Menachem Begin and Yassir Araphat. Touchdown Jesus was big and burly and fat and ugly and looked more like some Greek god than the Son of God. It was gaudy, garish in conspicuously farcical bad taste, a far cry from the more traditional representations that are respectful and holy. More than a graven image to be worshiped, this was a, "Look at me!" caricature of tawdry and conspicuous self promotion. It was ridiculous, and it will be ridiculous squared if they rebuild it.

This was not merely a really big Nativity scene or a large scale depiction of Jesus on the Cross, this was a Herculean Behemoth o' Butter for the expressed purpose of the Solid Rock Church being promoted, and not for the purpose of religious inspiration. It was to bring people and dollars into that church. It's like the giant hot dog in front of the Hot Dog Hut, except the giant hot dog actually looks like a hot dog. It's like the giant big boy in front of Frisch's Big Boy, except the giant big boy looks like a big boy.

Touchdown Jesus looked more like John Matuzak.

Jesus-John.jpg
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Seems relatively clear to me:

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ........."

..... almost sounds like we're supposed to focus on the spiritual .......

..... rather than the material ....

.... on the essence ...... rather than the form .....

.... hmmmm ..... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
...When Christians set themselves up to look nonsensical, foolish and comical, they don't get a pass simply because they are Christians, and those who mock them aren't mocking them because they are Christian, they're mocking them because they look nonsensical, foolish and comical. People do some pretty stoopid stuff in the name of God all the time, and if people want to do stoopid stuff in the name of God, then it's they who are dragging God into it, not those who mock them.

Kind of like the vandals who paint "Trust Jesus" on overpasses or similar things on the walls of toilet stalls. I am always tempted to write beneath it, "Another message brought to you by Vandals For Jesus."


Touchdown Jesus didn't even look like Jesus. Certainly not like any depiction of Jesus that I ever saw, and I've seen a lot of 'em.

Yeah, before I knew it was Jesus, I'd pass by and go, "Is that supposed to be Jesus? What a horrible depiction." Not that I know what Jesus looked like but TJ was sort of clownish.

Touchdown Jesus looked more like John Matuzak.

John Matuzak BWAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAAA! Hey, he does! That one never occurred to me.
 

BigRed32771

Expert Expediter
Offline
Too bad he's wrong. Any MAKING of a physical depiction of God/Christ is a violation of the second commandment. Any.

Well, I could start out by suggesting that in the Incarnation, God Himself has made a physical depiction of Himself (Col 2:9). This would in fact be consistent with the understanding that through Christ the Law has fulfilled its purpose and is at an end (at least in regard to how it serves as a means of obtaining righteousness before God) (Col 2:14).

The issue at hand, however, is whether or not God's people are prohibited from the making of a physical depiction of God or Christ. A quick check of several commentaries (just the ones in my computer database) suggests that this would be an erroneous interpretation. The first quote below, is from a very technical commentary which crawls through the Hebrew in depth. The others are from sources well accepted in the evangelical (or conservative) community. For those of you for whom this goes way beyond your level of interest, I understand and beg your indulgent forgiveness, but as a seminary graduate and former pastor this pulls my "Chatty Kathy" cord and I cannot resist.

Ex 20:4-6

It is not only evident from the context that the allusion is not to the making of images generally, but to the construction of figures of God as objects of religious reverence or worship, but this is expressly stated in v. 5; so that even Calvin observes, that "there is no necessity to refute what some have foolishly imagined, that sculpture and painting of every kind are condemned here." With the same aptness he has just before observed, that "although Moses only speaks of idols, there is no doubt that by implication he condemns all the forms of false worship, which men have invented for themselves."
(from Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ex 20:3-7

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The First Commandment. This is more than just a proclamation of monotheism. It prohibits worshiping or honoring anything before God, in thought or word or deed, "that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col 1:18). 4-6. The Second Commandment. This prohibits the creation and use of graven images as objects of worship. But more essentially, it is a reminder that God is a Spirit, not to be conceived of as made in man's image or in that of any other created being. Visiting the iniquity (v. 5). The results of sin are seen to affect three or four generations, but God's mercy extends unto thousands. "He does not say He will be faithful or just toward the keepers of His law, but merciful" (Calvin). Them that love me (v. 6). "The fountain and origin of true righteousness is expressed, for the external observation of the law would be of no avail unless it flowed from hence" (Calvin). 7. The Third Commandment. This prohibits the use of God's name "in the service of unbelief and lying" (KD). To substantiate our falsehood by an appeal to God will bring certain judgment. Here also may be found force for the injunction to Christians to "walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye were called" (Eph 4:1), i.e., bear not the name of Christ in vain.

"The first commandment then guards the unity of God, the second His spirituality, and the third His deity or essence. In the first we are forbidden to make God one of many when He is the only One; in the second to liken Him to a corruptible image when He is the incorruptible Spirit; in the third to identify Him in any way with the creature when He is the Creator" (James Murphy, Commentary on Exodus, in loc.).
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1962 by Moody Press. All rights reserved.)

Ex 20:1-11

[1.] The Jews (at least after the captivity) thought themselves forbidden by this commandment to make any image or picture whatsoever. Hence the very images which the Roman armies had in their ensigns are called an abomination to them (Matt 24:15), especially when they were set up in the holy place. It is certain that it forbids making any image of God (for to whom can we liken him? Isa 40:18,15), or the image of any creature for a religious use. It is called the changing of the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1:25), for an image is a teacher of lies; it insinuates to us that God has a body, whereas he is an infinite spirit, Hab 2:18. It also forbids us to make images of God in our fancies, as if he were a man as we are. Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination. They must not make such images or pictures as the heathen worshipped, lest they also should be tempted to worship them. Those who would be kept from sin must keep themselves from the occasions of it.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Me, again. If your personal faith is challenged by the creation and existence of "Touchdown Jesus" or any other form of representation of our Lord, perhaps you could at least refrain from suggesting that others who do not share your interpretation are heathens and idolatrous. Thanks.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
After they rebuild it, instead of calling it "Touchdown Jesus" or whatever, maybe they should call it "What second commandment? Jesus"

Hey, if they rebuild it, maybe they should call it Extra Point Jesus!
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
The hypocrisy of "honoring Jesus" with such a display is staggering, and the decision to rebuild is just mind boggling. Because we know exactly what we'd be hearing if lightning had struck say, an 'adult entertainment' place, instead, yes?
Those who 'honor Jesus' by quietly doing good for their fellow man have my serious respect - but those who need to make a big display of doing it inspire only contempt, IMO.

 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
My personal faith isn't challenged by it in the least.

Now, John Calvin and Matthew Henry, I can respect. But in reading your post, I kept waiting for the point to emerge, but I wasn't expecting it to be my point. You quoted Calvin as saying that it's wrong to suppose that the commandment forbids any sculpture, which I don't believe; I can admire sculpture of anything that isn't God.

It is certain that it forbids making any image of God (for to whom can we liken him?
...
it insinuates to us that God has a body, whereas he is an infinite spirit, Hab 2:18. It also forbids us to make images of God in our fancies, as if he were a man as we are. Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination.

Mr. Henry makes my point here, rather than yours.

perhaps you could at least refrain from suggesting that others who do not share your interpretation are heathens and idolatrous.

Heathens, not necessarily. Idolators, yes, even if they don't physically bow down to their icons, though some do.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I find this religious mocking quite disturbing coming from a land that was founded partly on tolerance of religion....I mean WHO cares...it makes some feel good about it...so be it...gee whiz...

We certainly have the right to discuss what is right and wrong, and about this or that doctrine. Tolerance is about not forcibly putting a stop to it. That I criticize doesn't prevent them or anyone else from practicing their religion.

and you whom
(sic)
call yourselves American at that....
Freedom of speech is American, too.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
And what I stated is My opinion be it right or wrong...


freedom of speech ya know...;)
And what you've stated, no matter how wrong, doesn't prevent me from practicing my religion, so it's A-OK. Believe me, as a preterist, I've experienced more than my share of doctrinal opposition by other Christians. But all their criticism, no matter how incorrect they are, doesn't keep me from practicing my religion. As long as that's the case, the "how dare you criticize another man's religion" argument doesn't hold water.
 

highway star

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
I find this religious mocking quite disturbing coming from a land that was founded partly on tolerance of religion....I mean WHO cares...it makes some feel good about it...so be it...gee whiz...

and you whom call yourselves American at that....

Allowing criticism of religion is a very important aspect of religious freedom. Arguably, the most important aspect.

And, really, that thing was just begging to be mocked. What kind of people would be drawn in by something like that? I would think that genuine, humble Christians would be turned off by a display that gaudy.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I drove by it yesterday. Just a steel skeleton. Yeah... the arms were lightning rods. So now I can't get on the cb anymore, while passing it, and yell "TOUCHDOWN!!!"

But I still go by the plastics factory in Lima that has "Christ is the Answer!" I get on the horn and ask, "But what was the question?"

Next is my depiction of John Travolta from Welcome Back Kotter saying, "Mo Mo Mo, Mo Mo Mohammed!" Think I'll get killed for saying that? Or only if I make it into a comic?

I honestly don't know WHAT I am, religiously. Maybe religion has to have a middle man; and like OVM, I just cut mine out.
 
Top