So, since Catholicks are in unanimous agreement that carrying a statue of Mary on their shoulders, praying to it, burning incense to it etc. is NOT idolatry, what WOULD it look like if Catholics turned a statue into an idol?
>>18223540>what WOULD it look like if Catholics turned a statue into an idol?A statue? They would consider Mary's spirit to be inside the statue and worship it as such.What would it look like if they turned Mary herself (not just a statue) into an idol? They would worship her. But if the real question is "What would set idolatry apart from veneration for an outside observer who intentionally doesn't inquire into what the people believe and think?" then the answer is who knows.
>>18223551Can you answer the question instead of not answering it?In your own words, what would it look like if Catholics were turning a statue into an idol? It doesn't matter if non-Catholics supposedly can't understand your explanation. Just answer it.
>>18223571I did, with my last sentence. Worship, in my own words, would look like veneration does on the outside.
>>18223579So what Catholics do looks identical to idolatry?Do you apply this logic equally to other sins?What if I had merely *appeared* to break into someone's house and steal their stuff? It wasn't really a burglary, but it was identical to one. It was hypersharing; read Aristotle, or something.
>>18223540>what WOULD it look like if Catholics turned a statue into an idol?They would be worshiping it. Which they don't. Hope that helps.
>>18223590see >>18223571
>>18223588What any worshipping person does looks identical to idolatry. Yes, the same logic applies to many, many other sins.>What if I had merely *appeared* to break into someone's house and steal their stuff?We'd let the police and jury decide the likelihood of that. Not bystanders like you or me.
Papists are hypocrites. This will never change and they will never acknowledge it.
>>18223597>What any worshipping person does looks identical to idolatryhuh? Obviously idolatry is the "worship of an idol." But what do you mean "any worshiping person?" Worshiping God is not idolatry. You don't mean to imply carrying Mary on a litter is worship, do you?
It would "look" exactly the samethe Catholics would simply be thinking worshipping actions inside his head, instead of veneration actions
>>18223612Good post.
>>18223612
>>18223609Your goalpost is what it "looks" like. A person praying to God is not visibly different from a person praying to the stars or the Sun or whatever else they might idolize. For the rest of this thread you'll be stuck trying to prove to everyone that you not seeing into a person's heart is a fatal flaw in veneration.
>>18223619>Your goalpost is what it "looks" likeOf course it is.>Abstain from all appearance of evilis a command from Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Paul.Idolatry = evilAbstain from all appearance of evil. So, don't do something which looks identical to evil. Makes sense?
>>18223633Makes sense to me.
>>18223633I suppose you better not pray during the day or the night then, seeing that it could have an appearance of Sun and star idolatry. Are you satisfied with how you played this?
>>18223633And you decide what the appearance of evil is?
>>18223640Better not pray underwater, either, because you might look like you're worshiping Cthulhu. Better not pray while breathing, because Satan is the prince of the air. Your argument doesn't work.
>>18223640The Bible says not to make images and bow down to or serve them. It never says "don't pray."You are making images and bowing down to and serving them. To be pedantic, you could obviously just clasp your hands and close your eyes while praying, no sun or moon to be seen... but that's really not the point, is it? Catholicks ITT seems to think what they do is IDENTICAL to idolatry in appearance, not just having a vague resemblance.
>>18223540>implying you do it better
>>18223655Catholicks ITT seem convinced that veneration appears identical to idolatry. Idolatry is evil. Therefore, veneration of images has the (identical) appearance of evil.
>>18223662Please, let's table the toilet bowl worshiping Muhammadian talk, or you'll attract them to the thread like flies to shit.
>>18223662I'm not Muslim. The rock they have is an idol. A really good example of one and proves them all to be hypocrites. Muhammed is a child rapist and is burning in Hell. He was also a works-salvationist like Catholicks; Satan's house is not divided.
>>18223658My argument was precisely that "it could be mistaken for idolatry" doesn't work. You agreed with me.>>18223659If you wish to abandon the argument that you spent this entire thread building, we can do that and switch to discussing images, there are volumes written and cited about every single argument you're about to write in this regard too.I just want to be really clear that your argument "I could judge it based on appearance" is as dysfunctional as it gets, because everything you do is IDENTICAL to idolatry in appearance, not just having a vague resemblance.
>>18223664>Therefore, veneration of images has the (identical) appearance of evil.Again to you. Also the bible says not to make graven images.
>>18223671No, because it's stupid. I'm not agreeing with it at all, I was just pointing out how your analogy is poor whataboutism for actual Marian idolatry, because it contains a ton of extra steps.
>>18223671>because everything you do is IDENTICAL to idolatry in appearance, not just having a vague resemblance.Have you suddenly developed schizophrenia or was it a prerequisite to being Catholick?"Everything is identical to idolatry?" Is THIS what you've been reduced to?
>>18223680Whataboutism means you excuse one evil by another. I didn't excuse any. I'm pointing out that "it's bad because it looks like idolatry" does not work. Because, like I said, a Christian could pray next to a pagan and do the exact same things.>>18223688It's clicking, isn't it? Tell me, in consecutive order, the objects that were within 100 feet in front of you the last time you prayed to God and I will tell you, in consecutive order, all the idolatries you resembled. Your own argument defeats you. And you're slowly starting to realize.
Guys, guys, this thread has an appearance of judging non-righteously, everyone STOP NOW
>>18223694>the objects that were within 100 feet in front of you the last time you prayed to GodSo images are irrelevant in Christian worship? You're saying that people only incidentally carry giant statues of Mary around in a procession etc etc?If you're saying images are irrelevant than I say, why have them?
>>18223707Images are relevant to worship. When it's worship.What worship looks like to an ignorant observer, that's what's irrelevant.
>>18223711So, the objects/images either involved in or surrounding prayer both matter and not matter simultaneously based on the argument you're making?
>>18223716Not simultaneously, no. Especially when it's not actually worship.
What part of NO GRAVEN IMAGES do catholics fail to understand?
>>18223727Are images relevant to the "veneration of images?"You guys SAY you "venerate images." They're not incidental objects. It's on purpose and it's directed towards the images.
>>18223733Her vagina is the exception to the rule, you disgusting mansplaining chud
>>18223733And orthodox and Lutherans and Anglicans and Methodists and etc etc. Your church has to be bland and have no images.
>>18223738>Are images relevant to the "veneration of images?"It's in the name, Anon.
>>18223747You can have pictures but you can't sperg out and start bowing down to them. Also don't make pictures specifically of Jesus, the Saints etc. or the "likeness" of any thing i.e. portraiture; it does not belong in the church.Nondescript cherubs (which ARENT explicitly "Michael" or "Gabriel") are totally fine. Or pomegranates or palm trees etc. Rather than taking a synthetic view of God's commands and blessings, Catholicks have an "all-or-nothing approach" to exegesis. The Temple having artwork means ALL images are okay, and even BOWING to them, serving them etc is TOTALLY FINE! Invalidating God's command. Whereas if one actually took the Bible for what it says, there's clearly kinds of art, or "cunning work" which are permissible to beautify buildings and churches, but a line is drawn on "serving" images.For example, the Brazen Serpent of Moses was mounted somewhere in Jerusalem for centuries, and it was permissible to do so, yet, when people began to burn incense to it, Hezekiah had it destroyed (and it is self-evident that to burn incense to an inanimate object is "serving" it).
>>18223770>You can have pictures but you can't sperg out and start bowing down to them.You are the one sperging out when all the presumably "catholicks" itt said they weren't bowing or worshipping them and you didn't like that answer. You said images are fine which is exactly what they are. Images.
>>18223770>Nondescript cherubs (which ARENT explicitly "Michael" or "Gabriel") are totally fine.Cherubs are not fine. >Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above
>>18223811Cherubs were part of the cunning work of both the Tabernacle (which is the form of the heavenly) and the Temple (which is a thing that came into David's heart, not from God, but with God's blessing).
>>18223811>>18223819actually, do you even know what a "cherub" is, for that matter?What point are you arguing?
>>18223819Did God contradict himself? Or was it a special case only for Moses and the Jews then? Since Moses did it that means you can too? Where in they bible does it say that?
>>18223770NO GRAVEN IMAGES
>>18223827>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.>Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;>And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.^This is a single commandment and "not bowing thyself" is comprehended alongside "not making graven images"It's like arguing that "thou shalt not kill" is a contradiction because the Law also contains the death penalty>inb4 erm yes it is chudDon't be autistic. Read it as a whole.
>>18223838>>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.Is one complete sentence. That is a statement. You can't make cherubs they are in the heavens above. Images are not ok. You are no better than the Catholicks.
>>18223838NO GRAVEN IMAGES
>>18223845God really should've said that before Solomon commissioned the two Cherubim that stood over the Ark of the Covenant. That said, what we call "artwork" of the cherubs and pomegranates etc the Bible calls "cunning work", and what it prohibits is the "likeness of any thing" (the "or" here is an equivocation). The "likeness of any thing" is what we would call "portraiture" today.
>>18223733Wow a judaizer
>>18223853Comprehended in a prohibition on "portraiture" is a prohibition on any thing purported to be "God," or any god, for that matter.
>>18223853You're coping. No graven images.
>>18223858I suspect you are not arguing in good faith. As the only position you could possibly have is that the Bible contradicts itself (which it doesn't, but provides its own context that is easily parsed).
>>18223862Not really, my point is consistent. You are the one that is going "erm um acktually it's ok because blah blah" when it clearly states: No graven images. Full stop. You're committing idolatry.
>>18223867Can you rephrase my argument and then refute it in your own words?Just making sure we both understand what is being argued.
>>18223867Iconoclasm is a heresy.
>>18223838If God is saying what you want him to say he would had said it like this: >Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image and bow down thyself to them, or serve them.Except he didn't.
>>18223878For >>18223869
>>18223878And "thou shalt not kill"how should he have phrased that one? It does say "kill" rather than "murder" in Hebrew btw. Parsing from context is something you do when you're not dishonest.
I just think it's weird that Paul only mentions Mary like 2 times seems like he should be more interested in hermaybe go and say "hi"
>>18223881Damn that's crazy. Unfortunately, we are not talking about that commandment itt. You are an idolater who is coping.
