Outside my window

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:39 am

Wombat wrote:A photograph of a person or animal is not a graven image, literally or figuratively.

Literally, it would need to be engraved which it is not. Figuratively, it would have to be an idol which it is not.

I agree with you, but there are many people who don't take it to mean this, and I do try to respect this way of thinking where I can. I thought that my waiting until he was out of the picture was respecting that belief, but apparently Cran didn't feel as such, and was very offended by what I felt was a picture trying portray the Amish in a good light. His offense was enough, and therefore I took down the picture...I am not one to try to claim that I have a right to post whatever I want, when I want.

Thanks for all the nice comments about the picture (my 14 year old son will be thrilled to know that you all liked it

). But really, this isn't that big of a deal to me.

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:41 am

Joseph E. Smith wrote:Yeeeeeeeeeeesh! Yoos guys are killin' me!

Hey! Not all of us here are guys

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:44 am

izzarina wrote:
Joseph E. Smith wrote:Yeeeeeeeeeeesh! Yoos guys are killin' me!
Hey! Not all of us here are guys

it does get a bit confusing...

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:47 am

Denny wrote:
izzarina wrote:
Joseph E. Smith wrote:Yeeeeeeeeeeesh! Yoos guys are killin' me!
Hey! Not all of us here are guys

it does get a bit confusing...

I changed my avatar...does that help?

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:51 am

izzarina wrote:
Denny wrote:
izzarina wrote: Hey! Not all of us here are guys

it does get a bit confusing...
I changed my avatar...does that help?

let me get my glasses...

yup! thanks!

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:53 am

Denny wrote:
izzarina wrote:
Denny wrote: it does get a bit confusing...
I changed my avatar...does that help?
let me get my glasses...

yup! thanks!

Get 'em again....I up and changed it again

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:56 am

izzarina wrote:
Denny wrote:
izzarina wrote: I changed my avatar...does that help?
let me get my glasses...

yup! thanks!
Get 'em again....I up and changed it again

it'll take a while...dang hard to find 'em when they're still on the nose.

so...it's all in the avatar, eh?

odd bit, that, eh?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:33 am

izzarina wrote:
I agree with you, but there are many people who don't take it to mean this, and I do try to respect this way of thinking where I can. I thought that my waiting until he was out of the picture was respecting that belief, but apparently Cran didn't feel as such, and was very offended by what I felt was a picture trying portray the Amish in a good light.

I can see the point of wanting not to offend people, even though you think their offense is based on a mistake. What I can't figure out is a line of reasoning, however loopy, that would get someone to the conclusion that the photo of a horse that happens to be owned by an Amish person would be violating a rule against graven images. Actually, the same goes for photos of Amish people themselves. There just doesn't seem to be a third meaning in play here for the objection to be based on. Realistically, the injunction makes perfect sense if it is an objection to idolatory, but not otherwise. (Surely God didn't have it in for engraving, as such.) And surely nobody is proposing to worship the image of an Amish person or their horse.

Does anybody have any idea how this blew out into an objection to likenesses in general?

Innocent Bystander · Post by **Innocent Bystander** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:47 am

Now I may be offending against the rules about mentioning deleted threads, but there's no other way to say this.

I posted some images a while back, which I thought were of general interest, and they got objected to and the thread deleted.

Now I am just, only just, prepared to accept that there MIGHT be a shred of a reasonable objection there. But I don't accept it here.

In English Jurisprudence there is a concept of a "vexatious litigant". I think that concept may apply in this instance.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:51 am

Denny wrote:
izzarina wrote:
Denny wrote: let me get my glasses...

yup! thanks!
Get 'em again....I up and changed it again
it'll take a while...dang hard to find 'em when they're still on the nose.

so...it's all in the avatar, eh?

odd bit, that, eh?

People, I'm dying here...

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:54 am

Joseph E. Smith wrote:
Denny wrote:
izzarina wrote: Get 'em again....I up and changed it again
it'll take a while...dang hard to find 'em when they're still on the nose.

so...it's all in the avatar, eh?

odd bit, that, eh?
People, I'm dying here...

gooda place as any, innit!

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:58 am

Denny wrote:
Joseph E. Smith wrote:People, I'm dying here...
gooda place as any, innit!

Death be not proud...

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:59 am

Joseph E. Smith wrote:People, I'm dying here...

Maybe it's those blasted pipes you've been playing. Or maybe it's because you need a vacation. Or maybe it's because you just need some chocolate...that's usually what my problem is

But if it's my avatar, you're out of luck. I'm not changing it

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:00 am

Innocent Bystander wrote:In English Jurisprudence there is a concept of a "vexatious litigant". I think that concept may apply in this instance.

Seems appropriate.

Vexatious Litigation

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:04 am

jsluder wrote:
Innocent Bystander wrote:In English Jurisprudence there is a concept of a "vexatious litigant". I think that concept may apply in this instance.
Seems appropriate.

Vexatious Litigation

I like the term at the very least...Vexatious sounds so Jane Austen-esque