>It's NOT idol worship because uhh... umm... uhhhh... LOOK HOW FUCKING SHINY IT IS!!!!
It's not, relic veneration is in the bible itself.
>>18528364>the "relic veneration" in question:
>>18528356Whats wrong with idol worship?
>>18528462Da bible said it's le bad so you have to justify how icons are totally not le idol worship
>>18528356>I'm not worshiping an idol! I'm... uh... well, I'm..... VENERATING AN ICON, YEAH THAT'S IT!!
>>18528356Idols depict gods (specifically Canaanite ones that competed with Yahweh). It's only an idol if you treat Mother Mary like a deity.
>>18528495There is a difference. If you want to know the difference, you're smart enough to figure it out, but you need to want to know the truth.
>>18528356 >It's NOT science worship because uhh... umm... uhhhh... LOOK HOW FUCKING MATERIALISTIC IT IS!!!!Normies will always be idol worshippers and ideologies will always pander to it.
>>18528501>bowing down, kissing, and praying to a picture of St. Nigerius is TOTALLY different than bowing down, kissing, and praying to a picture of a pagan deity because... uh, WELL, IT JUST IS, OKAY?!?!?
>>18528504Why would an atheist care about iron age jewish rules from the torah?
>>18528499Nope! The bible forbids you from making any images at all
>>18528504Why do low IQs constantly conflate science with a religion?
>>18528527Reddit-types unironically do treat it as a religion, so it poisons the well a bit.
>>18528522Sounds like you can make images of stuff on Earth. Just not of stuff in heaven, underground or the sea under the underground (the fuck is that even?)I guess Mother Mary and Jesus would be banned because they are in heaven presumably.
>>18528356ikon gives you 50% religious bonus i believe.so why won't you?
>>18528356>dont you DARE draw the Prophet Muhammad, he is a divine being!>did... did you just forget to add "peace be upon him" after speaking these divine words? INFIDEL
>>18528602Muslims at least know not to worship idols of mohammed. Unfortunately, they do worship a stone in a cube, so they're actually worse than catholics.
>>18528499>It's only an idol if you treat Mother Mary like a deityYou mean like papists do?
What about images found in the catacombs and homes of early believers?
>>18529032>What about images found in the catacombs and homes of early believers?What about them?Would you point to the occasional idol they dig up from ancient Israel as proof that that was "right worship"? What if it's an idol of Jehovah? Surely it's still idolatry, no?
>>18529032Not every image of every kind in every context is unlawful. These specifically are prohibited by scripture 1. Images depicting the true God 2. Images in the place of worship 3. Images made and used for the purpose of worship. Images outside of these categories are lawful, but those falling in them are unlawful.
>>18528356It's not idol worship because it's not an idol and we don't worship it.
>>18528364>It's not, relic veneration is in the bible itself.could you post the verses for reference?
>>18529148Exodus 32
>>18528546I don't think it's saying underground, but rather just on earth which is beneath the heavens
>>18529148Solomon’s Temple.
>>18529238That was worship of God, not objects
BRO YOU DON"T LOOK AT THEMBRO YOU"RE NOT GONNA BELIEVE THISBUT IT LOOKS AT YOU!!!!!!
a cross is fine tho
>>18529283As long as there’s no 2CV sitting on it.
>>18529244Same as icons. When you venerate an icon you are asking the saint to pray for/with you
>>18528356How do you explain the fact that we have icons from the first century in the catacombs?There were also icons of cherubim in the second temple. >Yeah I go to Rhythm Rap Church and pastor Braxton with the broccoli hair cut says that the bible is JesusProtestants are LIVID about their gay denominations getting destroyed by conversion to traditional Christianity. The best critiques they can make are deboonked by literally five minutes of research.
>>18529296You can apply that logic to anything a Hindu could continue worshipping Vishnu by saying he is asking Vishnu to pray to Jesus
>>18529315We have no records of people praying to icons until Nicaea II demanded it and they didn't pray to the cherubim on the Ark in the OTBased Charlemagne denounced Nicaea II as a fake council organized by an evil woman and upheld iconoclasm in the Holy Roman Empire
>>18529320Vishnu is literally a deity. You're conflating people with demons that have already been worshipped for mellenia.There's no difference between asking a saint to pray for me than asking a living person to pray for me.
>>18529327>Vishnu is literally a deity. You're conflating people with demons that have already been worshipped for melleniaThe Bible literally says even the demons fear God
>>18529325Once again, people don't "pray to icons" like you're intentionally misrepresenting. When you kiss a picture of your dead grandma are you committing idol worship?Also people ask the prophets in the Old Testament to pray for them and intercede before God.What is your canon of scripture by the way? Or do you not even know where you get your bible from?>>18529330You just completely missed my point, why don't you address it? Obviously I'm aware that demons fear God.
>>18529335>When you kiss a picture of your dead grandma are you committing idol worship?According to the Catholic church in the Chinese rites controversy? Yes
>>18529335>Also people ask the prophets in the Old Testament to pray for them and intercede before God.Yeah because the prophets were alive. Where do they ask a dead man to pray for them? Look what happened to Saul when he tried to consult Samuel post-mortem
>>18529336Cool, I'm not Catholic and I denounce the Jesuits.So you're admitting that it's not idol worship to kiss a picture of your dead granny.
>>18529335>You just completely missed my point, why don't you address it? Obviously I'm aware that demons fear GodYou don't get my point he would be justified to ask Vishnu to pray to Jesus because in his pagan religion the gods interact with each other and in Christianity demons worship god so you allow for the syncretization of the two like you've done for 2000 years
>>18529340I've never met anyone who kisses a picture of their grandmother every day, burns incense to her, and prays to her.
>>18529340Do I ask my dead granny for blessings from heaven?
>>18529345The Chinese do as part of Confucianism and the Catholics denounced what's literally equivalent to veneration of the saints as idolatry during their attempts to convert China in the age of exploration
>>18529338The prophets aren't "dead", in fact they're much more alive than you or me because they dwell near the throne of God in constant prayer. Again, how is asking the living saints and prophets to pray for us any different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us?
>>18529351>Again, how is asking the living saints and prophets to pray for us any different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us?Because no one does it in the Bible
>>18529347"Blessings from heaven" is not a phrase I've ever heard from an Orthodox person. We ask them to pray for us - as has been the traditional practice of the Church for 2000 years - yet you're trying to portray it as something it's not.>>18529344>in Christianity demons worship godDemons don't WORSHIP God, obviously. If they did then they would still be angels, not demons. They acknowledge God's power and wait for the appointed day of their destruction as mentioned in the Gospel.The syncretism you're talking about applies strictly to Catholicism and the Jesuits, not Orthodoxy.
>>18529351You're not supposed to worship living saints, whether in Heaven or on Earth.>Again, how is asking the living saints and prophets to pray for us any different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us?Irrelevant. You need to stop burning incense unto them and prostrating yourself before them. Neither should you kiss inanimate objects like "icons.">And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.>Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.Thirdly, you make images of God, Jesus Christ, which is a sign that you "know not God.">Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,>And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image [literally εἰκόνος, icon, in this passage] made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.You will argue semantics till you die of old age because your heart is darkened, and you want to kiss pieces of wood and pray to them.
>>18529362>We ask them to pray for us - as has been the traditional practice of the Church for 2000 years - yet you're trying to portray it as something it's not.Because you invented it during Nicaea II
>>18529362>Demons don't WORSHIP God, obviously. If they did then they would still be angels, not demons. They acknowledge God's power and wait for the appointed day of their destruction as mentioned in the Gospel.Satan walks into heaven and makes a bet with God in Job, he doesn't just sit around waiting in fear
>>18529355I didn't ask you about the Bible, I asked you a specific question about the difference between praying to saints and praying to people on earth. Christianity is not composed solely of the Bible.Also who compiled the bible? What is your canon of scripture? It's fine if you don't know but just admit that so I know on what basis we're having this discussion.It's pointless having these discussions with protestants if they're not willing to explain what their interpretation of scripture even is. I have to know what your foundational beliefs are to even know where to begin to explain things.
>>18529377>I didn't ask you about the Bible, I asked you a specific question about the difference between praying to saints and praying to people on earth. Christianity is not composed solely of the Bible.>Also who compiled the bible? What is your canon of scripture? It's fine if you don't know but just admit that so I know on what basis we're having this discussion.>It's pointless having these discussions with protestants if they're not willing to explain what their interpretation of scripture even is. I have to know what your foundational beliefs are to even know where to begin to explain things.Bro if you can show me a place in the apocrypha where someone prays to people that have died I'd be okay with it even if I don't accept it but you're not even doing that
>>18529369How do you know you have the correct interpretation of scripture? And not the ten thousand other protestant sects?
>>18529377>if they're not willing to explain what their interpretation of scripture even is.If the book says "the sky is blue", then that is the interpretation. Unless you believe God's Word is meant to confuse people and not reveal God's will. Bit of a silly thing for you to even believe in God at that point. But I suppose you don't. You believe in an institution.
>>18529382>He believes God can't write a bookI hope you have enough Jesus-luck to up your "odds" of salvation. Sadly, luck does not exist :(But, to make it perfectly clear to you, there are "three witnesses in the earth, which agree in one", The Water, The Blood, and The Spirit. Mock these three as "insufficient." Go ahead. Blaspheme the Holy Ghost and His witness.
>>18529380First of all I'm not basing my argument on scripture, apocryphal or not. I'm asking you about the origins of scripture and how do we know it's correct interpretation. You can't even tell me what canon of scripture you adhere to.You're telling me that you believe in "Scripture Alone" and you don't even know what scripture you have. How am I supposed to take you seriously? Do you know what a canon is?
>>18529384Leave it to a protestant to have absolutely no clue about epistemically justifying their interpretation. I'll ask you one more time since you seem to be slow:Given the fact that there exist different interpretations of the Bible - do you at least grant that?Then, how do you know that your interpretation is true, and the others are false?
>>18529391>You're telling me that you believe in "Scripture Alone" and you don't even know what scripture you have. How am I supposed to take you seriously? Do you know what a canon is?I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and giving you the Eastern Orthodox canon (even bigger then the Catholic one). Where does someone pray to the dead therein?
>>18529398>Then, how do you know that your interpretation is true, and the others are false?Protestants pretty much all have the same set of basic beliefs tho
>>18529400I've already said this multiple times but let me reiterate:It's not necessary to provide a specific verse about every single dogma or action of the Church because the Church is not comprised solely of the Bible. The beliefs and practices of the Church come firstly from Holy Tradition, which is passed down orally, and which is equivalent to the written tradition. The reason I'm asking you to provide your canon of scripture - which you still have failed to do - is that the Bible itself does not tell you which books go into the Bible. Therefore you must appeal to something outside of the Bible (ie. Holy Tradition) in order to even begin interpreting scripture to begin with. The Orthodox Church is the organization which compiled the scripture which makes it the sole interpretive authority.
>>18529398>and he saith “go in peace, thine epistemic justification for interpretation hath made the whole”
>>18529405That's far from true, but even if that were the case it still begs the question. If there are any differences in interpretation at all, then one must be able to justify why their interpretation is true and the others are false. If you can't appeal to the authority of the Church then you dissolve into moral relativism which is the problem that all protestants face. This is why they claim that the Bible interprets itself, which is a logical error.You can't appeal to the thing in question to interpret itself. Interpretation is an action of people and not something that exists inherently in a text. It's a cheap way of dodging the problem. The very fact that we disagree about the scripture is evidence that the scripture can't interpret itself.
>>18529048>>18529039Some of those catacombs had depictions of lazarus being raised and Jesus walking on water, obviously they were fine with it. Was the early church mislead?
>>18529425The “early church” was not just a few catacombs. It was millions of people even prior to becoming a state religion.
We also have The Martyrdom of Polycarp as a historical text prior to the Bible in which his relics are preserved and venerated by Christians of the second century.So Christians were venerating relics before the Bible was even compiled.
"And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter."
>>18529441>We also have The Martyrdom of Polycarp as a historical text prior to the Bible in which his relics are preserved and venerated by Christians of the second centuryI've read this and no such thing happens. They collect his body, his bones, after he's executed because... it's the right thing to do. There are no prohibitions on burying people or building tombs... nor celebrating martyrdoms. In fact, there is nothing wrong with true veneration of saints, in celebrating and emulating their lives. But you worship them, which is prohibited.Second, it's not prior to the Bible. All texts of the New Testament were in circulation prior to Polycarp. What's strange is that you treat "historical texts" as having primacy over the books of the Bible, yet every book in the New Testament begins as a historical text preceding all others.
>>18529453I said it's prior to the compiling of the Bible, which you wouldn't know about since you don't even know what canon of scripture you adhere to.If they're not venerating his bones then why are they described as "more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold", and why are Christians gathering in the text every year at the place where his bones are kept? You shouldn't post again until you tell us what your canon of scripture is; you're embarrassing yourself. But you're wise enough to know that you've already been dismantled on that topic.
>>18529423>If there are any differences in interpretation at all, then one must be able to justify why their interpretation is true and the others are false.No they don't because they're not essential to salvation unlike you Romanists (East and West) who used minor differences to launch crusades for political purposes
>>18529441Relics are different from icons because the latter are made by artificial means
>>18529469>I said it's prior to the compiling of the Bible, which you wouldn't know about since you don't even know what canon of scripture you adhere toEarlier than the New Testament? Are you daft?
>>18529482Go ahead and tell me when the first New Testament canon was compiled.Arguing with protestants on the internet is like teaching History of Christianity 101 at a school for down syndrome children.
>>18529478>differences in scripture are not essential to salvationThe competition for Dumbest Shit Said In This Thread is pretty fierce but you just dropped an unexpected banger, dawg.
>>18529496>misreads differences in interpretation as differences in scriptureI guess they're right when they say you're all illiterate
>>18529490Each several church compiled their own New Testament canons. Eventually, the canon was ratified*. Eusebius of Ceasarea in Church History exhaustively provides the proportion of churches which kept each book as canon. There is no book of scripture which was not already widely read by all churches prior to ratification. Apocryphal books ("Shepherd of Hermas") were never held universally as canon. The Shepherd was by far the most popular, and still had controversy. >why is it that churches had different canons?The Holy Ghost validates that which is inspired by God. Not every church was entirely comprised of Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit.>Isnt it great then that the true canon was ratified?Yeah that was pretty cool. Whence cometh bowing down to idols? I don't see how making a correct decision at one point validates all decisions afterwards.
>>18529490>because they didn't draw up a list, it means it didn't existGuess North America didn't exist before Columbus either huhAlso you fail even by that standard: the oldest account of Martyrdom of Polycarp is from Eusebius of Caesarea from the FOURTH CENTURYThe oldest NT canon is from the Muratorian Fragment 180 AD
>>18529523I specifically said the compiling of the canon, not the existence of the books themselves.The events of the The Martyrdom occur before 180 AD.I've put forward several challenges and questions about the protestant worldview, but all you can do is make these dishonest attempts to twist my words.
>>18529530>I specifically said the compiling of the canon, not the existence of the books themselves.How does the compilation prove validity? This does not follow. They were compiled, ratified, because they were proven true beforehand, by the Witness in the Earth, the Holy Ghost.
>>18529530>The events of the The Martyrdom occur before 180 AD.And the compiling of the martyrdom was in 324 AD. Nice double standard you have there, in the one case the canon apparently didn't exist until it was written down, in the other the account of the martyrdom is taken to have been of authority before it was even written down
>>18529538An incredible display of mental illness: you've achieved a level of reading miscomprehension rarely seen.Here it is as simple as possible:The events of The Martyrdom occur before the compiling of the first New Testament canon.
>>18528364Relic veneration is a completely different thing from the cult of Icons and was in fact one of the points of contention during Iconoclasm, that Icons were unduly taking the place of relics and be ascribed powers which belonged to relics. Relics are items which possess power given to them by God, while Icons are man-made. >>18529032Imagery is not the same thing as an Icon, and there is little evidence that Christians in antiquity treated them like Icons as would exist from the 9th century onwards.>>18529325>Based Charlemagne denounced Nicaea II as a fake council organized by an evil woman and upheld iconoclasm in the Holy Roman EmpireThis wasn't as much Charlemagne's decision as it was the Frankish and Spanish churches decisions. They were not invited to the council and their stance was more or less Icon agnostic, they did believe that Irene's position was around the worship of Icons so they condemned it. >>18529340>So you're admitting that it's not idol worship to kiss a picture of your dead granny.This is just a dishonest argument. A picture of a relative does not possess any religious importance and has nothing to so with rituals of faith.
>>18529490*evangelicalsReal protestants from the protestant reformation affirm the Church fathers
>>18528356The distinction you are mocking has been precisely defined for over twelve centuries: latria vs dulia. Latria is worship due to God alone. Dulia is honor due to saints. These are not semantic games, they are as distinct as loving your spouse vs loving your neighbor.
>>18528356On images: the commandment in Scripture prohibits idols, not all art. God commanded the creation of images multiple times: cherubim on the Ark, the bronze serpent in Numbers 21, the Temple carvings in 1 Kings 6. If all images were forbidden, God would be commanding sin. The prohibition is against worshiping created things, not against using matter to direct the mind toward God.
>>18528356The deeper point: in the Old Testament, God had no visible form (Deuteronomy 4). Depicting God was impossible. But the Word became flesh. God became visible. Jesus Christ has a face. To say Christians cannot depict Christ denies that God became man. This was St. John of Damascus's argument in the 8th century: the honor paid to the image passes to its prototype, as affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787.You already do this. You kiss a photo of a dead relative. You do not worship the paper. The gesture is identical; the intention distinguishes it. No Catholic worships a statue. The charge is a 16th-century polemic, not theology.
>>18529610>>18529611>>18529613>διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ εὐχαρίστησαν ἀλλ᾽ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία>φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν>καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι ΕΙΚΟΝΟΣ φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶνPseudointellectualism all so you can worship inanimate objects. The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. To a New Testament Church, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, inspired by the Holy Ghost, tells us that FOOLS PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE will CHANGE THE IMAGE OF GOD INTO MAN.
>>18529619Or rather, they will change the glory of God into an "icon."inb4 someone says "but Christ is the image of the Father" which he is.
>>18529610>has been precisely defined for over twelve centuries: latria vs dulia. Latria is worship due to God alone. Dulia is honor due to saints.It took them twelve centuries to come up with a different word, so they can pretend it's not the same thing?
>>18529610Kneeling and praying to a picture of a saint is worship. This is like saying "akshully when I put my penis inside my neighbor it's NOT sex it's honoring their butthole"
It seems some people dont understand the concept of the church militant/triumphant. So they think that asking saints to pray for them is weird
>>18529666those trips tho... yikes.
>>18529621No, it's been defined for over twelve centuries, not that it took twelve centuries to define.I know you're pretending not to understand simple grammar so here's your (you) I guess. Intentionally misunderstanding someone is so blatantly dishonest that I assume you're just trolling.
>>18529666I think praying to false idols is unchristian.
>>18529582> A picture of a relative does not possess any religious importance and has nothing to so with rituals of faith.The action of kissing a picture of your grandmother and asking her to pray for you is literally identical to icon veneration.
>>18529622Maybe your obsession with gay sex is the problem.
>>18529704You ask your late grandmother to pray for you?
>>18529708Not me personally. But if someone lived a holy life and died a peaceful, blameless death, then absolutely we should ask for their prayers. Just like we would when they were still with us.People in heaven are not "dead". They're much closer to God than we are.
>>18529694>we decided a long time ago that they're not the same thingBig deal.
>>18529720Lol you got intellectually decapitated. Aren't Evangelicals supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit? You'd think they would have arguments that weren't settled in fourth century. Or at least know what canon of scripture they use.
The Arc of the Covenant and Solomon's temble had statues, carvings and paintings, as described in the same part of the OT.Images just refers to idols you bow down to in worship. Exodus 20:4 and 20:5 should be read together.
>>18529727>Images just refers to idols you bow down to in worship.This is the standard Protestant opinion. The problem is that Cathodox worship idols and then act like they don't.
>>18528364>heh those muzzies are false monotheists, look how they worship that cube>it's different when we do it of course!
>>18529731Can you provide an example of Orthodox clergy or laypeople engaging in idolatry? Something that would be obvious to an outsider, not just standard veneration. In Catholicism you could point to the Pope praying with pagans in front of pagan idols, but I haven't seen the equivalent of that in Orthodoxy.
>>18529745Tell me about the guys in "long garments" who love to go about in the marketplaces... why do they parade around the pieces of wood? Are the pictures magic? Why go through all of this for pictures?
>>18529727>The Arc of the Covenant and Solomon's temble had statues, carvings and paintings, as described in the same part of the OT.>Images just refers to idols you bow down to in worship. Exodus 20:4 and 20:5 should be read together.K where in the OT did they ask the cherubim to intercede for them as proxies to God
>>18529551The New Testament canon ALREADY IN USE BY POLYCARP AND THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS THEMSELVES
>>18529611>cherubim on the Ark, the bronze serpent in Numbers 21, the Temple carvings in 1 Kings 6No one spoke to the cherubim and the temple carvings as if they were intercessory entities and the bronzer serpent literally became an idol and was destroyed
>>18528499>Kneel before a Image (Icon) of Mother Mary so she can give me good luck n shietStrictly Veneration
>>18529613>This was St. John of Damascus's argument in the 8th century: the honor paid to the image passes to its prototype, as affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787.That argument means worship directed to images of Jesus is fine it cannot be extended to any other creature because Jesus is metaphysically unique
>>18529700If you are worshipping a saint you are doing it wrong
I hate you all so, so fucking much.
>>18529736Muslims worship Muhammad, not the cube. Same way as Catholics worship Mary.
>>18528533Metaphysical materialism is bourgeois slop. Real nigga materialists are dialectical
>>18528527>Why do low IQs constantly conflate science with a religion?Ask the guy who made the shirt and the guy who bought it.
I know this thread is full of religionschizos and I wont get materialist answers, but what made proto-jews so butthurt about "idols" to begin with? is it just because yahweh started off as a wind god with no idol?
>>18530182I'm not a proto-jew but I've always felt unease at inanimate objects being treated like they were alive. I'd always reject stuffed animals as a kid for this reason.The Romans would allude to Germanic tribes not using idols. Now, we know that there was some idol worship, but it was far less than the Greeks and Romans, so perhaps the proclivity to worship inanimate objects is different among different peoples.
>>18530189
>>18530216Indeed. Very unsettling. One has to wonder if they view other human beings as unthinking objects as well.
>>18529613>This was St. John of Damascus's argument in the 8th century: the honor paid to the image passes to its prototype, as affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787.>You already do this. You kiss a photo of a dead relative. You do not worship the paper. The gesture is identical; the intention distinguishes it. No Catholic worships a statue. The charge is a 16th-century polemic, not theology.Also does that mean when someone damages the statue of a saint or of Jesus they're literally hurting that personThe conclusions are absurd and Irene of Athens was a wicked woman who convened an illegitimate council that excluded the Western church to ratify her personal obsession with 8th century fumos
>>18530323The pope used the eariler incoclasmism to offically break away from eastern roman control and then built a statue of some saint
>>18529613>the honor paid to the image passes to its prototypeOkay so we're both in agreement here. You DO pay honor to images as though they were real people.
>>18529613>You kiss a photo of a dead relativeNo I don't, that sounds fucking weird. A photograph is just a photograph, a kiss does not impart any more emotion to their memory than simply reminiscing about them. The only reason you'd be compelled to do this is superstitious behavior deeply ingrained from birth.
>>18530182Probably because it allows them a certain degree of flexibility if their supreme deity has no fixed form, and also the fact that it allowed them to lie more easily about Yahweh being an ancient, primal deity. The actual ancient gods of the region had ancient temples and idols dedicated to them, but Yahweh did not. He was fairly new, especially in his capacity as a supreme deity, when the OT was first written down, but they wanted to make him seem ancient. Since they did not have any ancient temples or idols to call their own, they made such things irrelevant in their faith.
>>18529824There is no meaningful distinction between worship and veneration except in the mind of idolaters, to justify their practices. You worship a graven image.
>>18530323>Also does that mean when someone damages the statue of a saint or of Jesus they're literally hurting that personThat conclusion doesn't follow. No one is claiming that an icon or statue is LITERALLY a saint. It's a depiction.I can't take you seriously because you just obstinately keep making strawmen.>why do you believe this obviously false and retarded thing I just made up?actually we don't believe that>nu-uh you do believe it
The best part of this thread is the complete ignoring of the name-faggot
>>18530362Is it worshiping a cross to kiss it? If it's not, then what is it? How do I distinguish between worship and not-worship when it comes to kissing a cross?
>>18528522Alright so the angels on the ark of the covenant seems to contradict this but it's reconciled by the next verse which acts as a qualifier >You shall not bow down to them or worship them; Alright so it seems like the presumption is >Art can be made, you can wear t shirts with a cross or whatever But the important distinction seems to be >You can not worship OR BOW to them This seems to be the part I find troubling with Catholics and Orthos. That they will say "it's ok because we don't worship the icons" but they will ignore that there seems to be a distinction made between worship and bowing in the scripture. I've felt drawn to the practice of iconography and it's symbols but I can't find an honest and simple explanation of how it actually makes sense scripturally.
>>18530390I'm annoyed by how many times I typed "seems to be" sorry.
>>18530353>a kiss does not impart any more emotion to their memory than simply reminiscingwrong>The only reason you'd be compelled to do this is superstitious behavior deeply ingrained from birth.Projection. The only reason you think it's "superstition" is because you were ingrained from birth to think so. I'm an adult convert to Christianity, so I'm actually doing the opposite of indoctrination. You, on the other hand, are repeating what other people told you to believe through indoctrination.You're just a normal conformist. You should learn to think outside of the arbitrary limits that your family and society impose on you.
>>18530390>explanation of how it actually makes sense scripturally.People in this thread have already cited where scripture supports the traditional view of icon veneration. Orthodox and Catholic basically agree on the interpretation of those verses. Secondly, and I'm repeating what I've written several times in this thread: The Orthodox do not hold to Sola Scriptura. It is not necessary to provide a specific verse about every single dogma or action of the Church. The Church is not comprised solely of scripture. We are not a "book-based religion" like protestantism. The beliefs and practices of the Church come firstly from Holy Tradition, which is passed down orally, and which is equivalent to the written tradition.For example, the Bible itself does not tell you which books go into the Bible. Therefore you are required to appeal to an authority outside of the Bible in order for the Bible to even exist.The Orthodox Church is the organization which compiled the scripture which makes it the sole interpretive authority.
>>18530392>Projection. The only reason you think it's "superstition" is because you were ingrained from birth to think soAh yes, the storied tradition of teaching children to be skeptical of baseless superstition that so many cultures engage in. You fucking imbecile.
>>18530400>People in this thread have already cited where scripture supports the traditional view of icon veneration. Orthodox and Catholic basically agree on the interpretation of those verses.I don't want to dig through 100+ posts and evidently neither do you. >The beliefs and practices of the Church come firstly from Holy Tradition, which is passed down orally, and which is equivalent to the written tradition.For example, the Bible itself does not tell you which books go into the Bible. Therefore you are required to appeal to an authority outside of the Bible in order for the Bible to even exist.I didn't mention it in my post but the Christian leadership for the first 450 years seems to be explicitly against the use of graven images even to a greater degree than most protestants today are. I'll most one citation and we can either discuss it or I can post more or you can post one yourself that you think explains it away, whatever you want >Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person.>give directions that curtains of the other sort—opposed as they are to our religion—shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge. This is from epiphanius of salamis, a church father, and orthodox and Catholic saint Like I said, I'm not cherry picking references, I'm only posting one at a time so it can be subject to whatever you choose.
>>18530409Those quotations from St. Ephenius are contested, because many are believed to have been falsely attributed by iconoclasts.But even if they are real, the existence of iconoclasts among the early fathers does not prove iconoclasm any more than the existence of iconophiles proves iconophilia. At one point the majority of bishops were Arians, and both of us would agree - hopefully - that Arianism is a heresy. What matters is what was ratified through the ecumenical councils. The ecumenical councils are the final, authoritative source of Church dogma and not the teachings of individuals or even large groups.It's important to point out as well that Orthodoxy does not require its Saints to have infallible teachings. They were sinners like us, and sometimes they got things wrong. That's why we have the councils to dictate official doctrines.As far as early fathers who supported religious art in church, I'd point you to St. Jerome.
>>18530448>The ecumenical councils are the final, authoritative source of Church dogma and not the teachings of individuals or even large groups.>It's important to point out as well that Orthodoxy does not require its Saints to have infallible teachings.What if the infallible council declares you must hold to contradictory teachings of fallible saints?Just think upon the question alone and then answer.
>>18529238Verse where God commands to pray to (not in presence of) the statues?
>>18530448>Those quotations from St. Ephenius are contestedThe one I posted no, they're considered authentic and Jerome later translated that portion himself. The reason epiphanius was often chosen by iconoclasts for misattributed quotes is probably because the curtain incident was well known which made him convenient >But even if they are real, the existence of iconoclasts among the early fathers does not prove iconoclasm any more than the existence of iconophiles proves iconophilia. There aren't any iconophiles in church leadership until John of Damascus. Now there was some use of art in worship by the laity, which is why we have so many citations from church leadership condemning it. My personal view is that the laity was carrying over their pagan practices, particularly that of theurgy. >As far as early fathers who supported religious art in church, I'd point you to St. Jerome.Religious art = icon veneration. Not all church fathers may have felt as strongly as epiphanius but they uniformly, for the first 500 years, are either silent on anything resembling veneration or explicitly against it. See also: the synod of elvira in spain. I'm aware there are attempts to explain away these historical events and references, but they're generally church revisionism that occurred much later
>>18530462Going by your logic, if I can't use St. Jerome as a reference then neither can you use St. Ephenius, because neither are specifically referencing icon veneration, but artistic depictions of God and the saints.My point still stands though, which is that even if I granted your point, it still contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the seventh ecumenical council. As I said, if you're basing your beliefs not on dogma, but on the majority consensus of clergy in the early Church, then you have you accept that Arianism is true. Arianism was even more popular than iconoclasm and yet you accept the council's refutation of it?
>>18530473>Going by your logic, if I can't use St. Jerome as a referencewho said this? you were simply incorrect on Jerome. you can use him all you want but your conclusion is incorrect.
>>18530406>duh uh... monkey evolved from a bug and den dey evolved into a human>because da public school teacher told me sodamn dude... I'm sorry for your brain bro, that you're like so retarded and shitPlease don't vote though
>>18530473I never said you couldn't use Jerome as a reference, but you didn't provide the reference other than a name drop. Icon veneration probably had not even developed in their time, but we see explicitly an attitude of condemnation towards religious objects being used in worship, or at best ambivalence. If you have a positive reference to icon veneration (not simply the creation of religious art) then I'm interested in seeing it. >My point still stands though, which is that even if I granted your point, it still contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the seventh ecumenical council. A later development in the church that seems in contention with early church history and tradition based on the references we have. >As I said, if you're basing your beliefs not on dogma, but on the majority consensus of clergy in the early Church, then you have you accept that Arianism is true. Arianism was even more popular than iconoclasm and yet you accept the council's refutation of itI never maintained that truth is dictated by the masses. The truth is that early Christianity was widely diverse much like protestantism. I am saying that no honest defense for icon veneration can be made from the first 500 years of Christian history, and on the contrary the references we have seem to indicate a hostile attitude towards church practice heading in that direction. Its only when you start from 500 ad and work backwards where you can then dishonestly start reading your theology into everything.
>>18530496"We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did — God forbid — but we mark our loving desire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshiped on the point of Joseph’s staff, not honoring the staff but its owner. In the same way do we greet images, just as we would embrace our children and parents to signify our affection."St. Athanasius of Alexandra, The Hundred Chapters, 38>The truth is that early Christianity was widely diverse much like protestantism.Until that diversity was condemned by the dogmatic decrees of the Church. That was the purpose of the ecumenical councils - to delineate the proper teachings of the Church and eliminate heresy.Ecumenical councils provide dogma. Not individuals. You still have not provided a single refutation of this or even attempted to address it.If my theology is dishonest then why was it officially ratified by the Church?And - for the third time - if your basis for theology is patristic consensus of the first five centuries, then why do you not accept Arianism?
>>18530533>St. Athanasius of Alexandra, The Hundred Chapters, 38This is a widely known forgery.
>>>18530462Furthermore, regarding St. Ephenius, we have the following dialogue from On the Holy Icons by St Theodore the Studite,>Heretic: Epiphanius is one of them, the man who is prominent and renowned among the saints.>Orthodox: We know that Epiphanius is a saint and a great wonder-worker. Sabinus, his disciple and a member of his household, erected a church in his honor after his death, and had it decorated with pictures of all the Gospel stories. He would not have done this if he had not been following the doctrine of his own teacher. Leonitus also, the interpreter of the divine Epiphanius’ writings, who was himself bishop of the church in Neapolis in Cyprus, teaches very clearly in his discourse on Epiphanius how steadfast he was in regard to the holy icons, and reports nothing derogatory concerning him. So the composition against the icons is spurious and not at all the work of the divine Epiphanius.St Theodore even entertains the (unlikely) possibility that Epiphanius had actually done what you described:>Raise your eyes, look around, and see everywhere under heaven, throughout the sacred edifices and the holy monuments in them, these images depicted and necessarily venerated in the places where they are depicted. Even if there were no dogmatic reason nor voices of inspired fathers to uphold both the erection and the veneration of icons, the prevailing ancient tradition would be sufficient for confirmation of the truth. Who can presume to oppose this tradition? By his opposition he falls away far from God and the sheepfold of Christ, because he thinks like the Manicheans and the Valentinians, who babbled heretically that God had dwelt among those on earth only in appearance and fantasy.Also I'm curious what your citation is that St. Jerome translated the text about St. Ephenius defacing the curtain?
>>18530552>Orthodox: We know that Epiphanius is a saint and a great wonder-worker. Sabinus, his disciple and a member of his household, erected a church in his honor after his death, and had it decorated with pictures of all the Gospel stories. He would not have done this if he had not been following the doctrine of his own teacher. Leonitus also, the interpreter of the divine Epiphanius’ writings, who was himself bishop of the church in Neapolis in Cyprus, teaches very clearly in his discourse on Epiphanius how steadfast he was in regard to the holy icons, and reports nothing derogatory concerning him. So the composition against the icons is spurious and not at all the work of the divine Epiphanius.This is a dialog written roughly 400 years after the curtain incident, do you also believe Luke drew the first icon because John of Damascus said he did 500 years later? Your view of history is uncritical
>>18530549What's your evidence of that?
>>18530566https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2014/03/28/the-quaestiones-ad-antiochum-ducem/>“The importance of the Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem cannot be overestimated. No less than 250 copies, dating from the 10th to the 19th century, have been preserved of this most fascinating Byzantine collection of 137 questions and answers discussing the position of Christianity with regard to Hellenism and Judaism. Although attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, it most likely was written sometime during the 7th or 8th century. The more common name of the document is: Questions to Antiochus the Prefect
>>18530580Bro this is a news bulletin about a lecture at some college. This isn't anything.I don't even know that you have the right document. Where did you find that 'Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem' and One Hundred Chapters are the same document?Did you just look at the Google AI result and assume it was right?
>>18530594https://ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons.iv.html>St Athanasius, from the Hundred Chapters addressed to Antiochus, the Prefect, according to Question and Answer.Are you done making me do your homework for you
>>18530580>Kings college uk >"Some college"
>>18530599Bro that's St. John of Damascus. You are literally an ape
>>18530606If you use ctrl + f, it will literally show the the exact quotation you cited You are a dishonest party, not to me but to yourself. You need to worship God, not your herd.
>>18530604>bro it's the prestigious bong college on nigger-knifer avenueI asked him for a source and he posted a news bulletin about a college lecture because it he copy and pasted the first google result he found. There's no further link to the lecture, no video, no article. No summary of the lecture. Literally just something a professor made in three minutes to alert their class.This is the pinnacle of online protestant scholarship, guys.
>>18530614It's not protestant, it's the academic consensus Can YOU find an authoritative source that says the document is authentic that isn't obviously biased because Orthos and Catholics need it to be authentic for their theology to make sense?
>>18530609I asked you for a source about Athanasius being forged, you retarded pants-sagging gorilla. You couldn't even be bothered to click the link you sent me to realize what it was.I see the problem now. You're just a dumb person.
>>18530619I did provide that, from a reputable secular source that explained the manuscript evidence to youAnd then you asked me to provide proof that the document it referenced was the same as the hundred chapters, which I did You've yet to provide anything, you simply take your own presuppositions as a given
>>18530622>can't refute Arianism>can't refute the ecumenical councils>can't operate a search engine to find citations>can't read>can't not use reddit spacingRhythm Rap Church's top theologian right here. Did pastor Braxton with the zoomer hair say that you could do apologetics for the day?
>>18530629Feel free to show me how it's done and provide a secular source explaining how the athanasius document is authentic
>>18530363>That conclusion doesn't follow. No one is claiming that an icon or statue is LITERALLY a saint. It's a depiction.>I can't take you seriously because you just obstinately keep making strawmen.You literally said the argument of John Damascene is that actions taken towards an icon ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE PROTOTYPEIf kissing an icon = kissing the person in the icon if someone damages a statue of Jesus he is INFLICTING PAIN TOWARDS CHRISTThat is why the Japanese forced Catholic converts to STEP ON IMAGES OF MARY AND OF JESUS and why that is CONSIDERED APOSTASY
>>18530400>The Orthodox Church is the organization which compiled the scripture which makes it the sole interpretive authority.>the "Orthodox Church"YOU'RE NOT EVEN ONE ORGANIZATION CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW MUTUALLY EXCOMMUNICATED EACH OTHER
>>18529155>Exodus 32thats the one about the golden calfhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&version=NIV
>>18530809And only one of them remains the Orthodox Church. Christ said he came to form a Church, meaning one single entity. Not ten thousand competing denominations. If a heretic is excommunicated from the Church then he's no longer a part of it. It's really not difficult to understand, you're just retarded.The Orthodox and Catholics mutually excommunicated each other too, and guess how many true Churches remained? One.>>18530643>provide a secular source explaining how the athanasius document is authentic>conform all evidence to an arbitrary standard which presupposes I'm rightnah>>18530808You're interpreting that statues and icons are like voodoo dolls. Stepping on an icon of Christ is directing evil intention towards Him, which is not the same as literally physically harming Him.
>>18530931>And only one of them remains the Orthodox Church. Christ said he came to form a Church, meaning one single entity. Not ten thousand competing denominations. If a heretic is excommunicated from the Church then he's no longer a part of it. It's really not difficult to understand, you're just retarded.>The Orthodox and Catholics mutually excommunicated each other too, and guess how many true Churches remained? One.They both have valid apostolic succession so which one is the trve church bro? inb4 Moscow
>>18530931>You're interpreting that statues and icons are like voodoo dolls. Stepping on an icon of Christ is directing evil intention towards Him, which is not the same as literally physically harming Him.K so God has some covenient negativity filter where he receives kisses but not beheading
>>18530941The Orthodox Church which is not promoting the heretical doctrine of papal supremacy or the heretical CIA-back Ukrainian fake church.
>>18530400>We are not a "book-based religion" like protestantismNo I agree, you are not a word of God based religion, you are not a divine revelation based religion, you are a religion based on traditions of men and deception of demons.>The Orthodox Church is the organization which compiled the scripture which makes it the sole interpretive authority.I’m getting lost in all the cults that actually secretly wrote the bible and therefore have the authority to nullify it. The papists did it, the Greeks did it, what next, the Mormons did it?The canon of holy scripture properly consists of all books which God inspired. The gathering of the books into a list or binding into a single codex is of no issue, since these are human acts posterior to knowledge of scripture itself. If one should in fact know all the books of God’s word without then formally compiling them into a list, it would not slightly impugn the canon of scripture. The real question therefore is twofold, 1. From what do the holy scriptures derive their authority? 2. How do the saints come to know the identity of scripture? (cont.)
>>18530400The answer to one is and only can be from identity of their author, i.e. God who speaks them. For whatever God speaks we are bound to believe and obey absolutely from the thing itself even if the entire world should condemn us, Acts 4:19. It is therefore nothing short of blasphemy when wicked men pretend to usurp God’s exclusive authority and subjugate His authority to themselves. Either the scriptures have authority of themselves, or they have no authority. Let them therefore be recognized as nothing but impious enemies of the Christian religion, which seek to subvert the authority of holy writ.The answer to two is given by scripture itself, as being through the ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit who enlightens the elect (John 10:3-5). The objection that this reasoning is circular is of no substance, for we have not argued that these scriptures are scriptures because they say they are (which also shows the emptiness of our opponents’ objections, since they allege this very thing which they falsely complain of is necessary) but that the authenticity of scripture is known through the enlightenment of the believer by the Spirit which occurs in his life and experience, the Spirit working with and through the ministry of the word and sacrament. Nor may it be objected that this is subjective, for we do not grant the believer license to declare his every whim a testimony of the Holy Spirit, but while we are furnished with all kinds of objective proof of the divinity of sacred scripture, we know that no man will be persuaded of it except by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (to which the scriptures themselves, as an external and objective source of knowledge, also testify). So we may rightly say that first, we believe, and then the bible tells us why we believe.
>>18530952>>18530958Sorry, I don't care about whatever delusional fag you're quoting.You have absolutely no basis for your interpretation of scripture. You can't tell me why I should trust your interpretation over the ten thousand other different interpretations taken from "plain reading" and based "solely on the bible".The fact that you're quoting someone about interpretation means that you trust THEIR interpretive power, and therefore you've already contradicted yourself.
>>18530965>Sorry, I don't care about whatever delusional fag you're quoting.I didn’t quote anyone just like you didn’t make an argument, imbecile>You have absolutely no basis for your interpretation of scripture. You can't tell me why I should trust your interpretation over the ten thousand other different interpretations taken from "plain reading" and based "solely on the bible".This is also false but it’s also a completely different attack on the authority of scripture than the one you made previously. I’m wondering why I should waste my time with an ingrate like you?>The fact that you're quoting someone about interpretation means that you trust THEIR interpretive powerSee above. Apparently it is different for you, but I have my own intellect.Also, it does not follow. Quoting someone would imply I thought they were correct and that their reasoning was sound, not that I mindlessly submit to whatever they say simply because they said so as if they had the authority to bind my conscience.
>>18530975>no attempt to justify his interpretationI graciously accept your concession.
>>18530980God bless you. I will pray for your repentance.
>>18530931>conform all evidence to an arbitrary standard which presupposes I'm rightYou're projecting. That's what you're doing The reason we think the document is fake is because we don't have early manuscripts of it, not because of who's saying it. It sounds like you're willing to believe anything Orthodox people tell you.
>>18530949K so you're just an FSB stooge
catholicism has votive offerings just like the old PagansOld paganismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh9MnA6bRzIModren catholism.https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-strange-and-moving-gifts-left-at-a-brazilian-church
>>18531525>unironically shilling for NATO-Judaism and globohomoCool
>>18531003You're like atheists who say that the apostles aren't valid historical sources because they're "biased".
>>18532022Sucks to suck doesn't it Ivan?
>>18532027You'll retake Crimea any day bro, just two more weeks.
>>18530931>Stepping on an icon of Christ is directing evil intention towards Him, which is not the same as literally physically harming Him.You think God is retarded much the Orthodox Jews do. You are actually treating them like voodoo dolls.
