[Stone Mountain]

Yes, there is a case to be made. But it is the wrong one.

How wonderful it must be to be certain of all things moral...

The end does not justify the means in this case. Helping the poor is a good thing. But compromising other Godly principles to accomplish it is not a good thing.

I don't see that Caviezel appearing in advertisements compromises Godly principles. Do you believe that everyone who appears in advertisements compromises Godly principles?

The tone of your argument also seems to indicate you are attaching importance to the sheer amount of money as if I could compromise for 70 million but it would be wrong if I did it for just 20 dollars. The only principle you would be following there would be, "Money Talks." or "Anybody can be bought."

Well, I see a difference between 20 dollars and 70 million. That doesn't mean that I believe that anybody can be bought. But you would have to be a fool not to see the difference and reflect on what that difference means.

Perhaps if you could tell me exactly what would be immoral about Caviezel doing an advertisement, I might be able to reply to it. As it is, you seem to making the assertion that Caviezel doing advertisements is inherently immoral, and then, of course, it is easy to say that one shouldn't do immoral things for any reason. Why is it immoral?

[Drawsing]

How wonderful it must be to be certain of all things moral...

I am not certain of all things moral. Please forgive my choice of words that gave you that impression.

I cannot say for sure, but going by what Caviezel said in the article I would guess that the Godly principle that Caviezel would be violating would be that he apparently believes it would somehow trivialize his influential role in a powerful movie for him to use that role to sell clothes. So the principle is he would be violating his own conscience...and that is a Biblical principle.