Strong Iconodulia: Orthodox say it is mandatory to venerate icons for salvation. It is Tradition with an uppercase T (apostolic in origin). Due to this icons are strictly liturgical and historically the Church has only used 2D images for this.Weak Iconodulia: Catholics say it's not mandatory to venerate images for salvation but permissible as an ecclesiastical devotion. It is tradition with a lower case t (not necessarily apostolic in origin, but within the bounds of orthodoxy as any other devotion). Hence religious images need not be strictly liturgical but can include any type of art including 3D art. Iconophilia: Lutherans and Anglicans say it is permissible, some may even say mandatory, to have images in churches for teaching and art, but forbidden to venerate them. It is a tradition of the Church within the bounds of orthodoxy to use art. Similar to Catholics, 3D art may be used. Iconoclasm: Calvinists say it is forbidden to have images and art apart from basic symbols like the cross or biblical symbols. The tradition behind them is entierly outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
>>18399233>The tradition behind them is entierly outside the bounds of orthodoxy.Kek.
>>18399277It's been pointed out to you how simplistic your meme is many many times. Obviously we know Christians were using images as early as the 2nd century since there is wide spread archeological evidence. The Fathers didn't have anything against images per se, and most of the quotes you cited are addressing pagan idol worship. Perhaps one of the exceptions to this comes from Epiphanius, but there are still questions about exactly what he is opposed to in having images. Even if he is an iconoclast it's not really a smoking gun. Epiphanius was kinda controversial and extreme in his own day anyway. The real question isn't really about the permissibility of images per se outside of a some exceptions, but about if it is permissible to venerate them. The extremists on both sides have issues when the avaliable evidence is taken into account and one of the two middle positions seem most reasonable. Hardcore iconoclasts have yet to reasonably explain the existence of art in the Church from an extremely early period, as well as the plethora of evidence from the antique writers regarding the active veneration of relics and shrines. Hardcore iconodualists have yet to reasonably explain the lack of explicit mention of image veneration in the antique writers as well as evidence from around the Nicene II period of legitimate orthodox authorities opposing iconodulia (as in the Libri Carolini). The evidence really does swing both ways when looked at closely but it seems that at the very least either extreme has errors.
>>18399233the Lutherans and Anglicans are rightthe Calvinists are autistic
>Calvinists say it is forbidden to have images and art apart from basic symbols like the cross or biblical symbolsNote that this comes with several qualifications that are not mentioned here and is not true antipathy toward all images in all contexts like the Anabaptists have
>>18399233>basic symbols like the crossorlyHow about a stick figure to represent Jesus' human nature?Or if that's too spicy, five lines with no head or visible members but having a central point of connection? Nope. Second one is still haram.Maybe five line segments that are totally disconnected from one another and simply arranged in a certain totally uniform and indistinct way is abstract enough. Surely there's nothing inherently wrong about the idea of symbolically dividing or even dissolving his body symbolically until it loses all meaning. Visually mute and betraying nothing which could possibly indicate the human form like a handprint or a heart, which this kind of atomistic approach naturally entails; until even the merest implication of physical form and face is totally vaporized. That created part of him we call his body, has to be treated as if it were actually invisible. Unlike every other natural human body, and by natural extension of his word the church itself as well. As if he didn't really have a visible body in truth, as certain gnostics claimed, and didn't truly die but miraculously escaped so that another would suffer instead, as a muslim might maintain.It's a real quirk of theirs, which reminds me of the ban on visually depicting Muhammad.
>>18399538The Son of God came down from heaven for better reasons than so that the painter could ply his craft
>>18399540Cool story bro.Anyways I really like all the old Last Judgement motif works and Doomsday walls, triptychs and murals the like. It's very sad that most of them didn't survive in certain places.Passion plays are great as well. Is it okay for an film actor to play Jesus, or do you have to have him just off screen as a disembodied voice? Or underneath a big sheet like a ghost costume?
>>18399552There is no fear of God before your eyes.
>>18399554No, I'm really just curious.Like, you can't do a gospel stage play or anything like that either right? Cause that's a visual artistic medium too.I really have no idea.
>>18399565>>18399552>>18399538There is something very wrong with you.
>>18399233Out of those four options, the only acceptable one is Iconoclasm so I'm going with that.
>>18399233>Orthodox say it is mandatory to venerate icons for salvation.That's ridiculous. Such an important physical act would never be left out of the New Testament if that was the case.
Is Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" idolatry or not?Cause last time I checked nobody is worshipping or making sacrifices to the film, you know that thing which defines idolatry.
>>18399572This is what happens when you deny sola scriptura.
The inclusion of icons formally in the orthodox liturgy is strange to me.I don't see anything at all wrong with statues, when they aren't a prescribed or obligatory part of the actual divine liturgy. Making them into core liturgical elements certainly goes beyond private devotion.
I will not venerate or worship vaginas.
>>18400557The Jesus fish looks like a vagina though.So called, Vesica Pisces.The more you know.
>>18400864I know more than you, actually. And Im a victim of direct harassment from cultists from this very site that are on their way to sobering up to their own bullshit even if it's taking so fucking long.The "Jesus fish" is irrelevant because it has no validation of anything. As in, you don't have anything to relate to it besides just calling it sacred geometry that you have nothing to incorporate it into that has any thing tangible attached to it.There have been other astrological ages, this time around the fish whose age is ending already isnt even the only symbolism incorporated into the development of this flavor of religion.I will also have you know that these three branches basically venerate more the death of the missing star than it's alleged rebirth, in which most likely they have been conflating him as Venus even though he is not that.So again a lot of you have been redirecting everything from this entity that you guys have been allegedly venerating into actually a fake ass bitch that has been propped up as a star but she never really was on the backend of things.You guys have been worshiping a fucking upside down planet and a vagina and not the propellant of life that gave birth to the movement which is that quantum energy of the missing star that spread all over the place.Yeah I actually have a better picture than you.
>>18399304>It's been pointed out to you how simplistic your meme is many many timesNo it isn’t, this is you making up an indefensible excuse ad hoc to relieve cognitive dissonance. The patristic criticism of iconography is unanimous.>Obviously we know Christians were using images as early as the 2nd century since there is wide spread archeological evidenceNo, we don’t. First of all, there is hardly “widespread archeological evidence” of Christians at all, given a very small amount of non-textual evidence has been recovered (principally because orthodox Christians did not use icons so as to leave behind archeological evidence), however what we do have is a unanimous patristic rejection of religious images, as well as testimony from contemporary apologists that images were used by heretical sects, so what we are left with is the only reasonable interpretation that the few images that were found were from heretical sects, as opposed to “well, this random image of Jesus MUST BE from someone who was orthodox, because otherwise I would be forced to acknowledge my tradition of men is an innovation”>The Fathers didn't have anything against images per se, and most of the quotes you cited are addressing pagan idol worshipThere is no basis for this interpretation, most of those quotes are opposed to pagan idolatry because that’s the only kind there was, as Christian image-worship had not yet appeared. When it finally does appear, we know it appears only because of the hostile reaction and commentary of men like Epiphanius and Augustine. So we are supposed to look at a historical record that is completely absent of references to Christian iconography for hundreds of years, and when references begin they are strictly negative, and conclude “they would have been just fine with this behavior they criticize as long as the person doing it said they were a Christian and that they were totally just venerating”(cont.)
>>18399304>but there are still questions about exactly what he is opposed to in having imagesNo, there is not, he says he was “loathe that an image of a man should be hung up in a church of Christ contrary to the teaching of the scriptures”>Epiphanius was kinda controversial and extreme in his own day anywayBecause of his hostility to Origenism, not because of hostility to images>The real question isn't really about the permissibility of images per se outside of a some exceptions, but about if it is permissible to venerate them.It is reasonable to say that the patristic attitude toward religious imagery was identical to that of the later Byzantine iconoclasts, which was identical to that of the later Reformed tradition.>as well as the plethora of evidence from the antique writers regarding the active veneration of relics and shrinesFirst of all it is a red herring, because relics are not images. But primarily it is an anachronistic interpretation, because the worship of relics and the cult of saints is more present in the patristic period as the seed of later practices rather than in truth.>The evidence really does swing both ways when looked at closelyNot remotely, it is clear and uncontroversial.
