Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
This makes no sense. Mary is not there, A graven image of her is. This is not kneeling in prayer, What do you think the pagans did when they bowed to their idols. They were praying to them and honoring them. what these people are doing is no different.
If God said no graven images of them. then no graven images, it does not matter who or what it is. 2 wrongs do not make a right.
That would be fine. I never stated it was ok to have them did I? This is what pagan nations did, they made images of those they revered and honored. God said we are to be different, and make no graven images of any kind. I can't control what my government does not can I? The church is supposed to be separate from them, not act like them.
He did not violate his command, He made an ark, and placed symbols of things on the ark, these are not graven images of themselves. nor whould they have been bowed down to, prayed to or anything else.
I doubt seriously angels have wings, The wings on the cherub represented something.
S
What the pagans thought (at least the types that employed the use of idols) was that the idol literally had power. Catholicism (and historical Christianity as a whole) does not do that. We do not think that the image itself has any power,
The strict fundamentalist (as in the theological system) interpretation says such, yes. However, how Catholicism has always interpreted the commandment was that it forbade the making of idols of other gods and forbade the worshiping of God through an idol. Jews themselves have never interpreted the commandment as you do since they have a long tradition of artwork depicting Moses, Elijah, and other prophets. The only religion I know of that interprets the commandment in your way and actually follows it is the stricter schools of Islam.
The question then becomes is the making of statues to memorialize and remember the accomplishments of past men wrong? The Catholic Church and I obviously say no, and it would only become an issue if people were, say, sacrificing animals in the Lincoln memorial and worshiping the statue of Lincoln
By definition they are a graven image. God did not craft in and drop it down upon the Earth, it was made with human hands, and the Israelites would in fact have shown reverence towards the Ark as the seat of God.
It does not matter; it's still an attempt to portray a thing in heaven. If it not being accurate means it's not a graven image then every piece of statuary and art in a Catholic parish isn't a graven image by your standards.
Do you really think Mary was white with blonde hair and green eyes? Do you really think she could afford robes of pure blue and red (colours which have symbolism by the way)?
In closing I see no reason to listen to people throw the second commandment at Catholics if they themselves are not willing to follow it down to the last jot and tittle. Which means never again viewing a picture of any thing whatsoever at all, because the commandment forbids the making (in the strict fundamentalist interpretation) of any image of anything.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven 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"
Unless I'm mistaken that cover every single last thing upon the Earth and every last thing in the universe. That is your interpretation taken to it's logical conclusion, unless, of course, you wish to impose limits on it (which themselves will have no scriptural support).
The strict fundamentalist (as in the theological system) interpretation says such, yes. However, how Catholicism has always interpreted the commandment was that it forbade the making of idols of other gods and forbade the worshiping of God through an idol. Jews themselves have never interpreted the commandment as you do since they have a long tradition of artwork depicting Moses, Elijah, and other prophets. The only religion I know of that interprets the commandment in your way and actually follows it is the stricter schools of Islam.
The question then becomes is the making of statues to memorialize and remember the accomplishments of past men wrong? The Catholic Church and I obviously say no, and it would only become an issue if people were, say, sacrificing animals in the Lincoln memorial and worshiping the statue of Lincoln
By definition they are a graven image. God did not craft in and drop it down upon the Earth, it was made with human hands, and the Israelites would in fact have shown reverence towards the Ark as the seat of God.
It does not matter; it's still an attempt to portray a thing in heaven. If it not being accurate means it's not a graven image then every piece of statuary and art in a Catholic parish isn't a graven image by your standards.
Do you really think Mary was white with blonde hair and green eyes? Do you really think she could afford robes of pure blue and red (colours which have symbolism by the way)?
In closing I see no reason to listen to people throw the second commandment at Catholics if they themselves are not willing to follow it down to the last jot and tittle. Which means never again viewing a picture of any thing whatsoever at all, because the commandment forbids the making (in the strict fundamentalist interpretation) of any image of anything.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven 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"
Unless I'm mistaken that cover every single last thing upon the Earth and every last thing in the universe. That is your interpretation taken to it's logical conclusion, unless, of course, you wish to impose limits on it (which themselves will have no scriptural support).
S
That isn't to say that it doesn't work in favor of it either. I'm more apt to listen to the interpretations of men close in time to the apostles (and in some cases they actually studied under an apostle themselves or under someone who did) than I am to believe someone who proposed something radically different 1500 years later.
To frame it in another way: Are you more apt to listen to and believe in how Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st amendment, or are you more apt to listen to and believe in how someone 200 some odd years after the fact interprets it.
To frame it in another way: Are you more apt to listen to and believe in how Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st amendment, or are you more apt to listen to and believe in how someone 200 some odd years after the fact interprets it.
It's HOW you do it, Sherlock.
Pointing out a disagreement in a civilized and brotherly manner does not reflect what you and other hypocrites are doing.
Also... who says what is true or false? You? Your pastor? Pfff... your OPINION is simply your opinion. You have no theological authority, nor divine, to DICTATE what is true and what is false.
But self-righteousness does? Or the pompous belief of "either with us or against us" ? Or hypocritical sectarian Christianity? You tell me.
Age also does not magically yield maturity. You're just whining in big bold red ink now, and STILL being an intolerant hypocrite.
Safe to say, the kid would probably take Howard Stern's interpretation.
Pointing out a disagreement in a civilized and brotherly manner does not reflect what you and other hypocrites are doing.
Also... who says what is true or false? You? Your pastor? Pfff... your OPINION is simply your opinion. You have no theological authority, nor divine, to DICTATE what is true and what is false.
But self-righteousness does? Or the pompous belief of "either with us or against us" ? Or hypocritical sectarian Christianity? You tell me.
Age also does not magically yield maturity. You're just whining in big bold red ink now, and STILL being an intolerant hypocrite.
Safe to say, the kid would probably take Howard Stern's interpretation.
C
As you can see, when we divide our faith with denominations, we begin to argue with what's accpetable or not. How can we live together as one in Christ if we're to busy fighting over what's right!?!? Let's just follow what the Bible teaches instead of throwing our own ideas, let's unite as one church instead of many. Can we legitimately say that Jesus would appreciate would appreciate the idea of Protestantism or Catholicism???
E
It's HOW you do it, Sherlock.
You're just whining in big bold red ink now, and STILL being an intolerant hypocrite.
Safe to say, the kid would probably take Howard Stern's interpretation.
You're just whining in big bold red ink now, and STILL being an intolerant hypocrite.
Safe to say, the kid would probably take Howard Stern's interpretation.
Does putting one of these -
- at the end of your post mean you're actually "Pointing out a disagreement in a civilized and brotherly manner"?
The 'wink' was part of the tongue-in-cheek comment addressed to SantoSubito's last paragraph.
The call for civilized discourse was addressed to the mud slingers. If that took place, we wouldn't be up to 31 pages of absolute b*** ****.
And as you can see throughout most pages, other non-Catholic Christians so far have strongly agreed that this thread is nothing but intentional bashing, and strongly disappointed in the Administration's handling of this pathetic situation.
The call for civilized discourse was addressed to the mud slingers. If that took place, we wouldn't be up to 31 pages of absolute b*** ****.
And as you can see throughout most pages, other non-Catholic Christians so far have strongly agreed that this thread is nothing but intentional bashing, and strongly disappointed in the Administration's handling of this pathetic situation.
E
Again this makes no sense. Your trying to excuse your own belief, thats what I see. Think about it. if you did not think IT had power, you would not PRAY to IT. You would not bow down in front of IT, and you would not even acknowledge IT. Mary is in heaven, If she really could hear you (which she can't) you could pray to her wherever you stand, Like you can God. You would not need a graven image to pray to IT,
1. The jews also have a long history of Idol worship. So looking to them for a historical example would be dangerous.
2. God did not say do not make a graven image except under these circumstanses. He said do not make any period. Tha catholic church, or the jews can not change the meaning of this and make it from God. He also said do not bow down in front of it. He did not say unless your doing this. Again your twisting scripture. just because your church says it is ok. Yet you claim you do not follow men?
God said none, zero zip nade, do not make them, do not bow to them and do not worhsip then. Who do we listen to? the roman church? The jews? or to God?
The ark represented something. It was not it in of itself, it was what Christ was going to do. If they revered it, they would have been in sin. Because like the message of the cross. we do not worship the cross. we worship the one with whom the cross symbolizes.
Does it matter what she is wearing? it is a graven image of her. people bow to it and pray to it. There is nothing in the word of God which condones this form of worship, In fact the word of God condemns it.
well I will make a deal with you. If you see me make a graven image, If you see me bow down to that image, or if you see me pray to an image (even if it is of Christ) you are free to condemn and judge me and tell me I am in sin, for you would be 100 % accurate in your judgment.
1. The jews also have a long history of Idol worship. So looking to them for a historical example would be dangerous.
2. God did not say do not make a graven image except under these circumstanses. He said do not make any period. Tha catholic church, or the jews can not change the meaning of this and make it from God. He also said do not bow down in front of it. He did not say unless your doing this. Again your twisting scripture. just because your church says it is ok. Yet you claim you do not follow men?
God said none, zero zip nade, do not make them, do not bow to them and do not worhsip then. Who do we listen to? the roman church? The jews? or to God?
The ark represented something. It was not it in of itself, it was what Christ was going to do. If they revered it, they would have been in sin. Because like the message of the cross. we do not worship the cross. we worship the one with whom the cross symbolizes.
Does it matter what she is wearing? it is a graven image of her. people bow to it and pray to it. There is nothing in the word of God which condones this form of worship, In fact the word of God condemns it.
well I will make a deal with you. If you see me make a graven image, If you see me bow down to that image, or if you see me pray to an image (even if it is of Christ) you are free to condemn and judge me and tell me I am in sin, for you would be 100 % accurate in your judgment.
E
How long has the jewish faith been going on now? lets see, They went astray not long after they entered the promised land which was how long ago?
God might have detroyed their city and temple due to sin, but he has not stopped their false religion for well over 2000 years, It is far older than the catholic church. so using your own perspective, we would have no jewish faith of any type except christianity if what you said is true.
This is not to even mention paganism, which is still quite active today in manyy countries, and even in small parts in so called christian countries.
The means you people will go to to convince yourselves your church is right just amazes me!
God might have detroyed their city and temple due to sin, but he has not stopped their false religion for well over 2000 years, It is far older than the catholic church. so using your own perspective, we would have no jewish faith of any type except christianity if what you said is true.
This is not to even mention paganism, which is still quite active today in manyy countries, and even in small parts in so called christian countries.
The means you people will go to to convince yourselves your church is right just amazes me!
S
It's a form of respect, like bowing (or genuflecting) towards the altar. We can ask the Saints to pray for us anywhere it doesn't require a statue or icon. I don't know how many times I have to say this but we are not praying TO a statue, anymore than people that pray in a room with a cross are praying TO the cross.
This sacred artwork doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Yes the Jews have had a history of turning away from God and worshiping other gods through idols (which Catholicism has always maintained is wrong). Point being that Judaism has never been an iconoclastic religion.
Yeah and like I said before we consider the commandment against images (and judging from Jewish numbering so do Jews) to be a prohibition against making idols of other gods and worshiping God through an idol (thus tying it in with the prohibition against worshiping other gods).
Yeah when interpreted the way you interpret it. Like I said before we consider it to be tied into the prohibition against worshiping false gods, and guess what? Pagan gods were often depicted as animals or fish and things of that nature.
It wouldn't have been a sin for Jews to have shown respect towards the Ark, it did after all contain the tablets of the Covenant written by the finger of God.
You tried to argue that the Cherubim on the Ark weren't graven images because "you doubt angels have wings". I retorted that all images of ancient figures are inaccurate and therefore they are not graven images.
I put forward that challenge because you (and others) seem to want to interpret the commandment strictly in the sense of a prohibition of religious imagery (and even then it's often refined to religious imagery "in church"). When there is simply no precedent for that in the commandment at all. If you tied the commandment in with the prohibition against worshiping other gods as Christianity historical has you wouldn't have a problem, but you don't.
This sacred artwork doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Yes the Jews have had a history of turning away from God and worshiping other gods through idols (which Catholicism has always maintained is wrong). Point being that Judaism has never been an iconoclastic religion.
Yeah and like I said before we consider the commandment against images (and judging from Jewish numbering so do Jews) to be a prohibition against making idols of other gods and worshiping God through an idol (thus tying it in with the prohibition against worshiping other gods).
Yeah when interpreted the way you interpret it. Like I said before we consider it to be tied into the prohibition against worshiping false gods, and guess what? Pagan gods were often depicted as animals or fish and things of that nature.
It wouldn't have been a sin for Jews to have shown respect towards the Ark, it did after all contain the tablets of the Covenant written by the finger of God.
You tried to argue that the Cherubim on the Ark weren't graven images because "you doubt angels have wings". I retorted that all images of ancient figures are inaccurate and therefore they are not graven images.
I put forward that challenge because you (and others) seem to want to interpret the commandment strictly in the sense of a prohibition of religious imagery (and even then it's often refined to religious imagery "in church"). When there is simply no precedent for that in the commandment at all. If you tied the commandment in with the prohibition against worshiping other gods as Christianity historical has you wouldn't have a problem, but you don't.
Eh you dont seem to understand look at how many jews are in the world theyre pretty much endangered how are they going strong their religion is old but it is not strong. Also paganism isnt very popular a lot of the pagans went extinct a long time ago it only started making a comeback in some places. So im guessing you think if something is newer its right I mean west boro baptist church is newer and they dont seem right but I dont know you might get along with them.