Thank you for the invitation. I don’t think I have anything interesting, amusing, or insightful to add on that thread (though, of course, it may be debatable if I ever do). Perhaps on another thread sometime.

Cheers

Thank you for the comment. (I’ll leave it up for a week or so before clearing it out). If you ever want to drop me an email, feel free to do so at ep2insp@yahoo.com

There are people who can do the apologetic work far better than I, but they can’t hit every blog in the world, and they probably want to focus their energies on dialogues more academic. I definitely understand having little patience for such conversations, but if it’s helpful to anyone discussing or reading (including myself -it’s been fairly healthy to give some arguments a “test run”) then I suppose it is worth it. Of course, silence is sometimes a wiser response, and I hope I’ll know when to do so.

May all be well with you,
Mike

I’d shoot you a private email, but I don’t see one listed. Feel free to delete this when you’ve read it.

I just wanted to write to you and let you know that I’m glad you’re sticking in there with Nathan Wells and company. I have very little patience for such conversations, but I’m sincerely grateful that there are people out there (like you!) who do.

May your patience and hard work bear much fruit.

Peace!

Drew Harrah.

You are not alone in quoting Basil – it seems many Orthodox quote him in regard to “venerating” icons. Interesting – in reading what he said in context – I get nothing about instruction to “venerate” icons in church at all!

“So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the
community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak
of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the
glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us
is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now
what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature;
and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and
uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead One, moreover, is
the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one
Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity.”

When Sinead O’Connor tore the pope’s photo, the person of the pope did not get torn in half (because icons are not persons), but it was an offense against the very person of the pope because there is a connection between a person and their image. I agree that God is present in humans more than just as an image/icon because human beings and persons are more than just images/icons, but I would also say there is a connection between a person and the image of that person.

I have not studied this – I’m just talking off the top of my head – but it is something to think about.

Thanks for the citation – I will put it on my “to read” list.

I realize this wasn’t directed at convincing anyone – but after seeing this first hand last Sunday I wanted to interact with you on it – I hope you don’t mind

You said, “but there is a remarkable consistency in the relation between image/icon and prototype on both fronts.”

Eh…I don’t see it. And your confusion of the terms image and icon is somewhat disturbing. It makes me feel, as I have felt many times in conversations with the Orthodox, that you are trying to play word tricks with me. The word icon is never used in the Bible, nor is it acceptable to use it as a synonym in English as if it is a legitimate translation of a Greek term (as I have stated before in other places about dynamite and energy). And even with the word “venerate” it makes me feel like you (that being the whole Orthodox church) are playing word games, trying to disguise what is really going on. Why not just come out and say what you mean?