/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>599933

Candles, the most vile of affronts in the eyes of God

11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.

12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

13 And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.

14 But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.

An interesting passage

>Is Iconoclasm a legitimate theological viewpoint?

No.

>God said no graven images

You mean like golden cherubim?

>so I'd consider myself a proud Iconoclast

>proud

wew

>Why do you worship dead statues?

Now you're just lying.

This really feels like an /islam/ troll.

>>599948

>>God said no graven images

>You mean like golden cherubim?

>let ne throw out a clear commandment for an exception

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

>>599958

not throwing it out, it means there's a difference between idolatry and use of icons.

>>599962

Besides it clearly says not to make any at all. God gave like 2 exeptions to that in the whole Bible and you think then it's okay. Loke how you're not supposed to marry a whore but God told Hosea too.

>>599963

If the choice is between God contradicting Himself or Anderson having incorrect theology, I'll always choose the latter.

>>599968

Maybe God means something specific when He talks about graven images. It doesn't make any sense for God to contradict Himself like that otherwise.

>>599971

Again the exception proves the rule. People would be killed if they worked in the sabbath but God gave an exception to the priests. So woukd that mean some random Israeli would now be able to because they're was an exception it? No, he would be stoned to death.

>>599972

Should someone be put to death for healing on the sabbath? Should they be killed for plucking grain in a field?

The Spirit of the Law fulfills the letter. God meant something specific when He talked of graven images.

>>599974

Which are statues. He didn't want people building statues of people(especially bowing to them) like fagans.

>>599971

>It doesn't make any sense for God to contradict Himself like that otherwise.

Are you conflicted about the times God came and told them to kill people? Was God restricted to only certain kind of killing that wasn't against the 10 commandments?

Does the command to kill the Canaanites prove that this type of action cannot violate the Law? Or was His command entitled to be obeyed no matter what? These are questions to consider before slapping together a half-baked excuse for yourself.

>>599977

So graven images means statues? There were statues in the temple. I think God means: don't make something with your hands and mistake it for Me.

>>599979

God doesn't contradict Himself in my theology but He does in yours. I concern myself with the Spirit of the law.

>>599968

>Then what did God mean by "don't make any graven image" like 37 times?

That your Bible is corrupt

4 *Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

Ver. 4. A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing, &c. All such images or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Exodus xxv. 15, &c.; chap. xxxviii. 7; Numbers xxi. 8, 9; 1 Chronicles xxviii. 18, 19; 2 Chronicles iii. 10.

Protestants insidiously translate "any graven image," though pesel, eidolon, glupton, and sculptile, in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, denote a graven thing or idol. They will, however, hardly condemn his majesty for having his representation stamped upon the coin of the nation, nor so many of our wealthy noblemen, who adorn their rooms with the choicest efforts of painting and of sculpture. They know that the object of prohibition is the making and adoring of idols. But they probably wish to keep the ignorant under the stupid delusion of supposing, that Catholics are idolaters, because they have images, and that they themselves are not, though they have them likewise at home; and even in their churches admit the absurd figures of the lion and the unicorn, stretching their paws over the tables of the law, instead of the pious representations of Jesus expiring on the cross, &c., which were set up by their Catholic ancestors. Let them read, and adopt herein just weights and measures, proposed to them by Thorndike, one of their most discerning and moderate teachers. In the mean time, we will assure them, that we abhor all idols; both those made with hands, and those which are formed by the head of heretics, who set up their own fancies and delusions, to be adored instead of the true God. Our general councils of Nice and of Trent define what we ought to believe on this head; and the matter is so fully explained in our catechisms and books of instruction, as well as from our pulpits, that no person can well remain in ignorance. If we perform various actions of respect before pictures, which are also done in honour of God, can any man of sense infer, that we look upon both with equal respect? Do we not read of the people falling down to shew respect to the king, and supreme worship to God, by the same act of the body?

Et cetera et cetera. Buy real Bible

>>600131

This anon gets it. The Bronze Serpent only became a problem when the Israelites began bowing to it and lighting incense to it and praying to it.

This is where someone comes in with pictures of Catholics bowing to statues saying "SEE, SEE?!"

>STATUES AND PAINTINGS ARE EEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIL

I don’t understand the logic behind iconoclasm.

>>599958

>if god told someone to kill and rape babies, then it’s okay

>god can make arbitrary exceptions

>Anderson logic

Not even once.

>>601831

>it's true though, He's the author and arbiter of morality.

He is ontologically morality and goodness itself. All what's good and moral springs from him. To even suggest that God is arbitrary is to deny His very Nature. Not to mention that it's also denail of His justice.

>pic related

<Usegin Augustine for Iconoclast crap

Augustine Letter 212 (354-430 ad)

how much stronger is their claim on you, who reside in the same country in this earth in which these ladies, for the love of Christ, renounced the distinctions of this world I also ask you to condescend to receive with the same love with which I have offered it my official salutation, and to remember me in your prayers. These ladies carry with them relics of the most blessed and glorious martyr Stephen: your Holiness knows how to give due honour to these, as we have done.

Augustine on the Holy Trinity Book 1 ch 6.13 (354-430 ad)

But that the Holy Spirit is not a creature is made quite plain by that passage above all others, where we are commanded not to serve the creature, but the Creator; not in the sense in which we are commanded to "serve" one another by love, which is in Greek douleuein, but in that in which God alone is served, which is in Greek latreuein. From whence they are called idolaters who tender that service to images which is due to God. For it is this service concerning which it is said, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." For this is found also more distinctly in the Greek Scriptures, which have latreuseis. Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with such a service, seeing that it is written, the creature more than the Creator), then assuredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, to whom such a service is paid by all the saints; as says the apostle, "For we are the circumcision, which serve the Spirit of God," which is in the Greek latreuontes. For even most Latin copies also have it thus,

Augustine Reply to Faustus the Manichean Book 20 par 21 (354-430 ad)

What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.

Augustine of Hippo City of God Book 22 ch 8 (354-430 ad)

For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments or by the prayers or relics of His saints; but they are not so brilliant and conspicuous as to cause them to be published with such glory as accompanied the former miracles.

>>601831

>He's the author and arbiter of morality

>God can command murder and rape

That’s an odious god you follow there, pal.

>>601831

>picture literally did not address the issue

People can separate fiction from reality. Only an insane person would confuse the representation of an entity (in this case, statues and paintings) with the entity itself (e.g. Mary, other saints, etc). Again, I still don’t see what’s so evil about a statue; it’s just a craved piece of material.

>>601859

>arbitrary thing

i agree with everything you've said, i think we're using two different definitions of the term.

though you would probably take issue with my position that He can (but wouldn't) alter it.

i am more interested in the augustine thing:

>1st quote: on relics

irrelevant right now.

>2nd quote: (basically says) "only God should be worshipped, the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped, therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a creature"

agreed, don't see how that contradicts what augustine was saying in my image.

>3rd quote:

let's continue this quote:

<[…] For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone. We see this in Paul and Barnabas, when the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to them as gods, on account of the miracles they performed. They rent their clothes, and restrained the people, crying out to them, and persuading them that they were not gods.

(the above isn't what i'm trying to draw your attention to, it would just feel sketchy to skip this, continuing)

<We see it also in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, "I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren."

he's referring to:

<Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Revelation 19:10)

all the guy did for this to be considered worship (latria) was fall to this creatures feet, same as in Acts 10:26.

would that mean that falling to the feet of a statue would be idolatry? i think so.

>4th quote: on relics

irrelevant right now.

i notice you guys do this a lot with scripture, when someone presents a verse and offers an explanation of it that contradicts your views, you present and interpret some other scripture in such a way that it contradicts the one that was first presented, without bothering to reconcile the two.

i am fine with augustine contradicting himself, but if i were in your position, i'd attempt to explain how what augustine said in my image wouldn't render the practice of bowing and praying to statues/images idolatry.

>>601869

>picture literally did not address the issue

>People can separate fiction from reality.

did you read the first two lines?

>Only an insane person would confuse the representation of an entity (in this case, statues and paintings) with the entity itself

the venerable Great Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church disagrees.

>>601905

>two lines

three lines, i can't count

>>601905

>Augustine disagrees

So?

>>601905

>though you would probably take issue with my position that He can (but wouldn't) alter it.

I would. For Omnipotence does not include things that are in itself contricatory. For thing cannot be and not be at the same time. This is why asking question about God making triangle with four angles is stupid (for He wouldn't and couldn't for this triangle would have to be and not be at the same time). Likewise, God not only wouldn't but literally could not do anything evil - that would be Him dening His own very nature.

>irrelevant right now.

Not at all. For Icon and Relict are of the same nature - Honoring Saint trough either his body remnant or his image.

>agreed, don't see how that contradicts what augustine was saying in my image.

You miss the point: It says that we save each other (living and dead) by douleuei or dulia. And this dulia is not latria. Thus causing us, iconodules of idolatry is bearing false witness.

>all the guy did for this to be considered worship (latria) was fall to this creatures feet, same as in Acts 10:26. would that mean that falling to the feet of a statue would be idolatry? i think so.

And on contrary Josue fell at his face before Angel, so did Abraham. Ornan bowed to David, and sons of Israel to Joseph. Etc etc. Look upon usage of word here http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7812.htm

>irrelevant right now.

See above.

>i notice you guys do this a lot with scripture, when someone presents a verse and offers an explanation of it that contradicts your views, you present and interpret some other scripture in such a way that it contradicts the one that was first presented, without bothering to reconcile the two.

Or rather we see that there is no contradiction at all and that non-catholic interpretation is all but right.

>i am fine with augustine contradicting himself, but if i were in your position, i'd attempt to explain how what augustine said in my image wouldn't render the practice of bowing and praying to statues/images idolatry.

Because he is speaking about bowing and praying to the actual idols. Not icons of saints whose he venerate and honor their relicts.

Also, you are first iconoclast that I meet that while seeing something wrong with icons seems to see nothing wrong with relicts.

>>601973

aww man, you're the broken english polish guy again, you win dude.

i wasn't blessed with the patience to engage with you twice in one day.

such an interesting topic too.

>>601979

I only LARP as a Pole though

>>602000

That footnote makes sense to me

🤷‍♂️

>>602000

And now you will show us what is delusional.

>>599958

>stands in front of a likeness of a landscape

Idolatry!

St. John of Damascus settled this issue a long time ago