>At what point does a your role of ‘protector’ become that of an ‘enabler’ then, Anne?
>1 Corinthians 5 1-13 is the basis for my position>At what point does a your role of ‘protector’ become that of an ‘enabler’ then, Anne?
>1 Corinthians 5 1-13 is the basis for my position<
Please remember that the letter of first Corinthians is written to the church in Corinth to correct wrong doing among the believers in Christ as the resurrected Lord.
Everyone in society is constrained to conform to the laws, rules, and social mores of that society or suffer the consequences. Christians, however, are held to a much higher standard than merely what society requires, especially in these times (and incidentally, during the time Corinthians was written. That was the whole point Paul was making to the Corinthian church.)
Yes, protecting the offensive artist’s life does enable him to continue whatever it is that is offensive.
My point is that there is a whale of a difference between producing offensive art and killing someone for offensive art. Offensive art can break our heart; infuriate us; drive us to retaliate by boycotting the artist and his sponsors; lead us to be certain that we, as taxpayers, do not support it. But to kill or threaten to kill someone for a piece of so-called “art” is certainly outside the bounds of Christianity, and outside the bounds of our society, even with the sad state modern society is in.
I’m not saying buy the guy’s “art.” But a civilized person doesn’t kill some one for producing art with which one doesn’t agree. I’m saying, if someone threatens his life, he should have our (society’s) protection of his life. If some one murders him, the murderer needs to be subject to the law.
