NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic needs it’s own thread and a Truce was declared in the previous thread that these quotes come from…

The topic is Crucifixes and Christianity. The proposition was made that Christians are breaking the old testament commandment to NOT bow down to graven images and false idols, when they bow down and pray at Crucifixes in a Church or hang them in their houses or around their necks etc.,. I contend that the accusation is incorrect, I say that it's okay to use a crucifix to focus your attention on God when you pray.

Images of something other than God? Hmmmm... I think you added the other than God part. Let's check, shall we.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;

God says pretty clearly that images of God or anything else in heaven or otherwise are not actually God and thus bowing down to them is wrong. Right simple, I'd call it.

Those quotes don’t say that images of God part you contend, YOU added that part. Praying before icons that represent God is okay, praying before the icons of other gods is NOT okay… Let's just look for examples of what they did during the time with the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord…
(The Ark of the Lord having both graven images and cast images on it, and representing and being God’s presence on Earth for the Israelites…)

Joshua 7:6
Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel. And they put dust on their heads.

Looks like bowing down to it is okay…

1 Kings 3:15
And Solomon awoke, and behold, it was a dream. Then he came to Jerusalem and stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings, and made a feast for all his servants.

Looks like offering burnt offerings to it is okay…

1 Kings 8:3-6
And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of the LORD, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and the Levites brought them up.

(sounds like it probably looked a lot like if a Catholic church today was moving to a new building with all of their artifacts and their Crucifix doesn’t it?)
Cont…
And King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, who had assembled before him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep and oxen that they could not be counted or numbered.
Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place in the inner sanctuary of the house, in the Most Holy Place, underneath the wings of the cherubim.
And the Ark (manmade graven image and all) was placed in the holy of holies and revered by the entire nation of Israel.

1 " 'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

Oh, look, no bowing down before any image. At all. He doesn't say "unless it's of me."

O RLY?

The graven image and carved idol stuff was covered in the sections above, so now I’ll address the sacred stone part…

1 Samuel 7:17
Then he would return to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he judged Israel. And he built there an altar to the LORD.

An altar to the lord, a pile of sacred stones…

Joshua 4:9
And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests bearing the ark of the covenant had stood; and they are there to this day.

In simple words, they set up a group of Sacred stones…

Or perhaps, just perhaps, it's not for you to amend and you either have to admit that it says don't do it without any reference to exception you claimed or you have to admit that you think your beliefs are more important than what the Bible says. Choose.

I didn’t have to amend anything to prove your position wrong did I. Obviously God not only allows it, in fact he commands that we honor his presence in the Ark and we can see that he has his people make Alters of Stones and set up sacred stones in memoriam ... None of this is contradictory, it’s the alters, idols and graven images of anything that takes our worship away from Him that we are commanded NOT to make. The proof is in the God’s own directions for his people.

It's not the images that are banned. It's the claiming that they are actually representative of those things. According to the words it's only when you treat them as if they are God that God gets jealous.

You’re nearly falling over backwards to try and not contradict your previous post’s position now aren’t you? Must be hard to try and prove a wrong theology though so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.

I agree that it’s not the images that are banned, but you said before that we aren’t even allowed to make them, now you’ve changed your tune. If you treat them as god or gods, then they are banned and God hates them. (please feel free to notice the size of the g’s and their location in the last sentence).

I know this is a complicated issue for you, but images of cherubim that are not be treated with reverence of any kind are hardly an argument against the explicit commandment "do not make cast idols."

The Ark of the Lord, w/dual cherubim and all, most certainly was revered and bowed down too, quite frequently as a matter of fact. God himself is said to have been present and visible as a cloud of smoke above the seat of Mercy between the wings of the Cherubim … Yet if your interpretation were correct you are claiming God said we shouldn’t have built these things at all. Perhaps it’s time you reevaluated your understanding of the commandments directive? You’re looking pretty silly about the understanding you have now

Good. So you admit that you think it is acceptable to bow before graven idols of Christ. That, of course, is the position you claimed I was lying about, but, hey, why pick nits.

I said then that I didn’t say a word about that topic one way or the other before. You lied and said I had taken a position and that my position (according to you) was that I advocated a reverence for their paperdoll/computer animated mockery of the crucifix as Christ himself. I had not, and I still don’t, so I admitted nothing about your previous false accusations against me. Now though you seem to have focused all of your attention on trying to insinuate that the Christian Crucifix is itself a forbidden graven form, or a false idol etc., which is an entirely different topic than the thread topic of being insulted when someone is trying to insult you through the graphic mockery of your beliefs… Different things entirely.

Meanwhile, can you show me where in the Bible, it says bow before cast idols as much as you like provided they are of me? And please make it explicit since the text requiring us not to is.

It has already been made perfectly explicit in the verses above about bowing down and revering the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord is not only allowed but expected. And those verses show how alters were built for the Lord and sacred stones were laid out at the Lord’s command. So instead of repeating those now established facts I will tell you how that practice correlates with today’s crucifix.

Jesus is NOT an image of something from above or below, or of the world… All things are from, and because of, Christ, and therefore his is above all and everything else is below him.
Colossians 1:15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Those verses show us that Jesus is not image of something less than God, but that all the fullness of God is pleased to dwell in him (the same and more so than how God had dwelt in the Ark previously). He is before the world and all the world is for him.

Beside for having God dwell in Jesus making him worthy of reverence in the visiable realm, like God was in the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord making it worthy of reverence in the visible realms then, the Covenant itself is now in Jesus too.

Luke 22:20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

And in regards to your trying to force Jewish law onto Christians today, why stop with just the graven images stuff you claim to be so offended by? But why not also say that we need to obey the dietary restrictions and following all of the other old orthodox customs of the Hebrews as well?

But if you do, you would be wrong anyway, people do NOT have to become Jewish first before they can become Christians, I know there was some dispute about this once but that was settled around one thousand and nineteen and a half hundred years ago, perhaps you missed that memo…So here’s a copy of a part of it.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
and
Hebrews 9:15-16
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.

The Ark covenant has passed away, Jesus IS the new Covenant, Crucifixes are like the Cherubim on the old Ark, not God but worthy of being looked upon as we pray to God.

Perhaps, Jocabia, you should hook up with some other self depriving people that want to live by what they think the old rules were, maybe that would work for you. But for the rest of Christianity I think that during their two thousand year history they have worked out most of those big theological boulders that had to be moved already, and are progressing quite nicely without needing to go backwards from here, thank you very much.

Jesus IS the new ArkActually Mary is the new Ark, the living vessel to contain the living word of god, while the Ark was only the dead vessel for the words written on dead stone and scrolls.
Read the Kebra Nagast.

yep, for a start, it's gross. also, most reresentations show jesus as a caucasion - if that's not a false idol i don't know what is. since no-one knows what he looked like, any representation of him as part of religious symbolism is a false idol.

also, "graven" means 'man-made' - "thou shalt not worship graven idols" should mean "though shalt not worship anything made by human hands" and if you're really not wanting to be sacriligeous you should be waving you're hands at the sky and not clutching any macabre figurine constructed by human hands.

It's not an idol because it's an item that represents God.

A graven image, as I understand it, is defined as "an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the Earth beneath or in the waters below." Images of God, in particular, are taboo. Now, granted, that's just what my translation of the Bible says, so it's subject to criticism.

Assuming that Jesus exists and is either in heaven, on Earth, or in the waters below, then an image of Jesus would qualify. If Jesus is assumed to be God or a part of God, then doubly so.

Based on my understanding of the Torah and Jewish belief structure, idolatry is not limited to the worship of the image itself. Idolatry also includes worship of God using any mediators and/or artistic depictions of God. So by those standards, the Crucifix is also an idol and would be prohibited.

It's not an idol because it's an item that represents God.

it's unnecessary because we don't need items that "represent God" to distract us from worshiping God.

It's not an idol because it's an item that represents God.
According to many religious traditions, that is the DEFINITION of an idol. :D

It's not an idol because it's an item that represents God.which is kind of the definition of idol...

It's not an idol because it's an item that represents God.

lol

also, most reresentations show jesus as a caucasion they rather show him as a semite or as an indoeuropean...

they rather show him as a semite or as an indoeuropean...

i guess it's hard to tell the difference on smaller figurines, but most of the larger representations of jesus i've seen, on stain glass window, large painted crucifixes, children's books and the like, jesus has been shown with decidedly pale pinkish skin and light brown hair and no hint of the traditional semitic nose.

besides, as i said, who knows what he looked like, if he really was one person? he could well have had pale skin and light brown hair, he could also have been very dark skinned or haired, or have had mousy hair. there are people who will tell you he was black. hell, he could have been ginger, it's possible. any representation is likely to be wrong and therefore a "false idol".

This is like watching an imaginary train wreck in progress--lots of flailing about, but no real damage or destruction no matter what happens at the end of it.

there is no such thing as "the 10 commandments" they are not numbered in the bible as such but are grouped according to the beliefs of different denominations/relgions.

the catholic church makes the first commanment "i am the lord thy god thou shalt not have strange gods before me" to include

"You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments."

which seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation. that what is being prohibited is the worshipping of an idol that represents a strange god.

if its not an idol, if its not worshipped, if its not a strange god, then its not against this commandment.

no one worships a crucifix. its not a strange god, its not an idol.

protestants have the second commandment be "thou shalt not make graven idols"

what does this mean? it cant mean any likeness of anything above, below or on the earth because protestants make statues and paintings all the time. it has to also carry the notion that it is an idol that is worshipped instead of the one true god.

a crucifix is not an idol, its not worshipped and its not of a strange god. i dont see the problem.

According to many religious traditions, that is the DEFINITION of an idol. :D

Then what did the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord represent? It was man made, it had imagery, and they bowed down to it when they wanted to get close to God...

Then what did the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord represent? It was man made, it had imagery, and they bowed down to it when they wanted to get close to God...

i don't think "but they did it too!" really stands as a defense.

Then what did the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord represent? It was man made, it had imagery, and they bowed down to it when they wanted to get close to God...
In that case yes, it would be an idol.

i think it does.

its in the bible and put forth as acceptable good behavior.
Uh oh. Let's not go down this road...

i don't think "but they did it too!" really stands as a defense.

i think it does.

its in the bible and put forth as acceptable good behavior.

i don't think "but they did it too!" really stands as a defense.

It's not a "They did it too" defense. The same Moses that gave the commandments ALSO is the Moses that gave them the Ark... Unless the guy had split personalities and one personality was not aware of what the other was doing, then the same guy says BOTH the commandment against graven images AND revering the Ark is what they were supposed to do. So it's gaven images of false gods and/or other gods that the commandment is against.

i think it does.

its in the bible and put forth as acceptable good behavior.

try and do everything that was put forth as laudable behaviour in the bible and see if you're still alive and at liberty by the end of the week.

Technically, anything can "represent god", because symbols are metaphors, and metaphors are interpretational, so it can change from person to person. With the idea that if it "represents god", worshipping an icon or artifact is okay, then you can worship anything that you, personally, consider to be representative of god.

I consider the cross, the pentacle, the star of david, and the stop sign across the street to represent god. Also, I consider Satan to represent god, because he does his bidding.

So let's worship Satan, hm? According to those with this definition, that would be fine.

Or to make it simple (and quite a bit more intelligent), you could ditch all the dogma and random bullshit and just love everything and everyone as much as possible. If, when you get to heaven, god is pissed off at you for having nothing but love in your heart, then you get the chance to tell him you forgive him.

I forgive god.

It's not a "They did it too" defense. The same Moses that gave the commandments ALSO is the Moses that gave them the Ark... Unless the guy had split personalities and one personality was not aware of what the other was doing, then the same guy says BOTH the commandment against graven images AND revering the Ark is what they were supposed to do. So it's gaven images of false gods and/or other gods that the commandment is against.

or moses was a hypocrite, doing and saying things at various times to suit his own ends.

In that case yes, it would be an idol.

The commandments are IN the Ark. But if it's against the rules of the commandments to have the Ark.... Hmmmmmm :eek:

No, I think the commandment about false idols is just that, worshiping a false god is forbidden. Worshiping God is okay, even if he's in/on the Ark.

Ah, the age-old question. This is part of the conflict that split up the Eastern and Western churches. The debate raged for quite a while and finally helped contribute to the schism. I doubt we'll solve the issue on an internet forum. =)

Ah, the age-old question. This is part of the conflict that split up the Eastern and Western churches. The debate raged for quite a while and finally helped contribute to the schism. I doubt we'll solve the issue on an internet forum. =)

Oh ye of little faith... :D

or moses was a hypocrite, doing and saying things at various times to suit his own ends.

D'oH!

*poot picks up a stone to throw at teh ebil!*

Jesus steps in and says...

*poot puts the stone back down ;) *

Some of the more radical protestant denominations require that a crucifix be only the two bars, without the depicted body; anything more they consider idolatrous. But I don't know of any christan sect that denounces the crucifix itself.

try and do everything that was put forth as laudable behaviour in the bible and see if you're still alive and at liberty by the end of the week.

look at what is in exodus. it is not at all obvious that the protestant version is more correct than the catholic version so it seems to me to be quite right to look in other parts of the bible to see if this graven idol thing applies to the one true god.

the holiest artifact of ancient times was the ark of the covenant, you were supposed to bow down before it.

therefore bowing down before things made by man in worshipping the one true god cannot be what is meant by the prohibition of graven images.

Ah, the age-old question. This is part of the conflict that split up the Eastern and Western churches. The debate raged for quite a while and finally helped contribute to the schism. I doubt we'll solve the issue on an internet forum. =)

heh, i don't think there's any potential for furthering schisming of NSG though! the only way forwards is towards further cohesion - not that that is ever remotely likely!

Some of the more radical protestant denominations require that a crucifix be only the two bars, without the depicted body; anything more they consider idolatrous. But I don't know of any christan sect that denounces the crucifix itself.

D'oH!

*poot picks up a stone to throw at teh ebil!*

Jesus steps in and says...

*poot puts the stone back down ;) *

just thought i'd throw a secular spanner in the works..

carry on ;)

The commandments are IN the Ark. But if it's against the rules of the commandments to have the Ark.... Hmmmmmm :eek:

I think the Bible itself contains many examples of humans doing something after God specifically told them not to.

Building something to put the Commandments in would not be a problem. Even if it was a really, really nice box. Bowing down before the box and worshiping it would become problematic. Viewing the box as a mediator of any kind would be a problem.


No, I think the commandment about false idols is just that, worshiping a false god is forbidden.

Given that worship of a false God and worship of idols are covered in distinct passages in many places, I would say that your interpretation is not consistent with the holy texts of the Jewish or Christian faiths.

The Crucifix reminds us of how Jesus died on the cross to save us all from sin and is a venerated image. I don't worship it i pray to jesus. Same thing with Statues of Saints , i pray to them to intercede on my behalf.

*whew* nine years of Catholic Education lead up to this lol :D

or moses was a hypocrite, doing and saying things at various times to suit his own ends.

or moses is a fictional character, at best a composite of various legendary figures

Given that worship of a false God and worship of idols are covered in distinct passages in many places, I would say that your interpretation is not consistent with the holy texts of the Jewish or Christian faiths.

which distinct passages did you have in mind?

The Crucifix reminds us of how Jesus died on the cross to save us all from sin and is a venerated image. I don't worship it i pray to jesus. Same thing with Statues of Saints , i pray to them to intercede on my behalf.

*whew* nine years of Catholic Education lead up to this lol :D

you remember that Christ died for you whether you have the crucifix in front of you or not...

not to hijack, but shouldn't you not pray to anyone other than God?

look at what is in exodus. it is not at all obvious that the protestant version is more correct than the catholic version so it seems to me to be quite right to look in other parts of the bible to see if this graven idol thing applies to the one true god.

the holiest artifact of ancient times was the ark of the covenant, you were supposed to bow down before it.

therefore bowing down before things made by man in worshipping the one true god cannot be what is meant by the prohibition of graven images.

wasn't bowing down to the covenant done because they believed at the time that the essence of their god was contained within it though? it wasn't the actual box they were worshiping but its contents. i mean there is artifactual and textual evidence from the period that shows that the transport of the patron deities of cities was done in boxes. when one city gained control over another, or when the religious centre of a state was changed, the deity of the dominant city was carried in a box to the new city to be established as the patron deity. this was a long standing practice through much of the near east. yahweh was supposedly the god of a displaced group, possibly nomadic, and in the cultural milieu of the time it would make sense that they thought they were carrying their god in this box, or 'ark' as it is known.

so the ark was not a representation or idol, it was a container for the deity.

Ah, the age-old question. This is part of the conflict that split up the Eastern and Western churches. The debate raged for quite a while and finally helped contribute to the schism. I doubt we'll solve the issue on an internet forum. =)

i see from my google search that the orthodox churches also have graven images as the 2nd commandment.

i also see that orthodox churches have crosses, crucifixes and icons so i cant imagine that the orthodox church interprets graven images the same way that protestants do.

there is no such thing as "the 10 commandments" they are not numbered in the bible as such but are grouped according to the beliefs of different denominations/relgions.

the catholic church makes the first commanment "i am the lord thy god thou shalt not have strange gods before me" to include

"You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments."

which seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation. that what is being prohibited is the worshipping of an idol that represents a strange god.

if its not an idol, if its not worshipped, if its not a strange god, then its not against this commandment.

no one worships a crucifix. its not a strange god, its not an idol.

protestants have the second commandment be "thou shalt not make graven idols"

what does this mean? it cant mean any likeness of anything above, below or on the earth because protestants make statues and paintings all the time. it has to also carry the notion that it is an idol that is worshipped instead of the one true god.

a crucifix is not an idol, its not worshipped and its not of a strange god. i dont see the problem.?? I don't get it. There are catholic and non-catholic versions of the commandments? The commandments that made it into the Ark of the Covenant were those in Exodus 34, right?

you remember that Christ died for you whether you have the crucifix in front of you or not...

not to hijack, but shouldn't you not pray to anyone other than God?

there just reminders, no big deal

....jesus is god, the son

wasn't bowing down to the covenant done because they believed at the time that the essence of their god was contained within it though? it wasn't the actual box they were worshiping but its contents. i mean there is artifactual and textual evidence from the period that shows that the transport of the patron deities of cities was done in boxes. when one city gained control over another, or when the religious centre of a state was changed, the deity of the dominant city was carried in a box to the new city to be established as the patron deity. this was a long standing practice through much of the southern near east. yahweh was supposedly the god of a displaced group, possibly nomadic, and in the cultural milieu of the time it would make sense that they thought they were carrying their god in this box, or 'ark' as it is known.

so the ark was not a representation or idol, it was a container for the deity.


so look up at the first post and see the description of the ark. it had images of cherubim--an image of something above the earth on it. how did GOD come to accept being inside a box with a graven image on it?

the crucifix is no more a graven idol than the ark was.

so look up at the first post and see the description of the ark. it had images of cherubim--an image of something above the earth on it. how did GOD come to accept being inside a box with a graven image on it?

the crucifix is no more a graven idol than the ark was.

graven-made for or formed by carving

idol-a representation of a god

crucifix=graven idol.

there just reminders, no big deal

....jesus is god, the son

they become a big deal when they start to hurt the body. (that is the body of Christ.....as in the church, not The Church, but the church)

you remember that Christ died for you whether you have the crucifix in front of you or not...

not to hijack, but shouldn't you not pray to anyone other than God?

Depending on which particular "Christian" religion you are Jesus is either god or the son thereof. If you believe the former then it's perfectly kosher to pray to him, if you believe the latter then you're breaking the commandments.

I really don't know where catholics stand on that one.

there just reminders, no big deal

....jesus is god, the sonhow can you tell? got any comparable experiences in finding signs of divinity?

Depending on which particular "Christian" religion you are Jesus is either god or the son thereof. If you believe the former then it's perfectly kosher to pray to him, if you believe the latter then you're breaking the commandments.

he was speaking (I assume male) about praying to the saints......they are not God.

?? I don't get it. There are catholic and non-catholic versions of the commandments? The commandments that made it into the Ark of the Covenant were those in Exodus 34, right?

there are approximatedly 19 prohibitions in the passage from exodus that are "the 10 commandments". those prohibitions are arranged differently into 10 by the various denominations

the catholic 10 commandments are

1) i am the lord thy god thou shalt have no strange gods before me

2) do not take the name of the lord thy god in vain

3) remember to keep holy the lord's day

4) honor thy father and thy mother

5) thou shalt not kill

6) thou shalt not commit adultery

7) thou shalt nto steal

8) thou shalt not bear false witness

9) thou shalt not covet thy neighbors cool stuff

10) thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife (which avoids having the wife be equivalent to thy neighbors ass)

i have no idea what was in the ark.

As for the original question, I tend to be a "spirit of the law" moreso than a "letter of the law," type of girl. I don't think the prohibition against graven images was meant to keep people from creating art depicting Christ/God/etc. or from creating statues meant to remind people of Christ's life and sacrifice, or even from creating images meant to invoke a sense of how awful the sacrifice must have been (think Passion of the Christ). The purpose of the law, in my view, was to keep people from actually worshiping such images (or making images of other "gods" to worship).

It is one thing to look upon a cross and be reminded of Christ, of Christ's sacrifice, and of the need for repentance. It is quite another to replace Christ in your heart with the image upon the wall or around your neck or on TV. Some people would be more susceptible to that than others. Others may benefit from the reminder. But the "spirit of the law", I believe, was to prevent the icon/idol itself from becoming the object of worship.

?? I don't get it. There are catholic and non-catholic versions of the commandments? The commandments that made it into the Ark of the Covenant were those in Exodus 34, right?
The commandments passage in Exodus contains more than ten imperatives, but the Bible itself assigns the count of "10", using the Hebrew phrase ʻaseret had'varim—translated as the 10 words, statements or things. Different religious groups divide up the 10 in different ways.

If you're willing to trust Wikipedia on this one, they have a handy table that might help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

graven-made for or formed by carving

idol-a representation of a god

crucifix=graven idol.

only if jesus isnt god.

exodus says not to make an idol and worship it, that would be putting a strange god before the true god.

jesus isnt a strange god and the crucfix isnt worshipped.

The commandments passage in Exodus contains more than ten imperatives, but the Bible itself assigns the count of "10", using the Hebrew phrase ʻaseret had'varim—translated as the 10 words, statements or things. Different religious groups divide up the 10 in different ways.

If you're willing to trust Wikipedia on this one, they have a handy table that might help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
But the Wikipedia article refers to Exodus 20, which does not at all contain the commandments that were put into the Ark as god's law.

graven-made for or formed by carving

idol-a representation of a god

crucifix=graven idol.

is a painting of jesus also sacrilegious?

is the pieta by michelangelo sacrilegious?

is the ceiling of the sistine chapel sacrilegious?

was that monument of the 10 commandments that the judge put into his courthouse sacrilegious?

At the time that Moses led the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt, they had been in captivity and slavery for hundreds of years. As with any people that are taken from their home and raised elsewhere, despite their best efforts at preserving their own culture and beliefs, the habits of the Egyptians had crept into even their worship.

It is my understanding that the Lord allowed the Israelites to carry the Ark of the Covenant with them for a time to keep them from building more golden cattle (which is how the first tablets were broken, if you recall) and to keep them from adopting other deities in the lands through which they moved.

Remember that they conquered many lands after that, and they were told to put their faith in the Lord--the Ark went before them, it is true, but the Lord gradually weaned them off of it. By the time Gideon is leading the armies, they are no longer simply relying on the priests bearing the Ark to weild some magical power over their adversaries.

I think the same can be said of the Cross. I think as a reminder of the sacrifice of the Saviour, it is without question a powerful influence in many lives. However, just as the Israelites were taught to internalize the symbolism of the Ark--to remember why they carried it, what it contained, and why it mattered that it "went before them always"--it is our responsibility as Christians to internalize the message of sacrifice and selflessness that is symbolized in the Cross.

I do not have a Cross displayed in my home, nor is there one in my church; I do have a few that were given to me while I traveled abroad, and I consider them gifts of love, but I do not display them because I want to teach my children that the symbol of our religion is how we treat others.

I wish that anyone who feels the Cross is not an appropriate symbol of faith could simply accept that some people revere it and like to have it on display as a symbol of their devotion. I have also heard people say, "Well, if someone had killed your father with a knife, would you wear a bloody knife around your neck or keep a large, bloody knife on display in your home?" No, but I might keep a picture of my father around.

And even if you catch me talking to the picture, I'm adult enough to know that I'm not REALLY talking to the picture.

I hope that my contribution to this discussion is not taken as a rant or a diatribe against anyone. I have tried to present it with sympathy and understanding.

how can you tell? got any comparable experiences in finding signs of divinity?

its not called faith for nothin :p

i have no idea what was in the ark.well, you shouldn't stop reading...

now get a bible and read Exodus 20 (the commandments on the stones that were destroyed by Moses before he ever showed them to the people),
then read Exodus 34 (the second set of commandments that were then kept in the ark)

so look up at the first post and see the description of the ark. it had images of cherubim--an image of something above the earth on it. how did GOD come to accept being inside a box with a graven image on it?

the crucifix is no more a graven idol than the ark was.

well we're looking at this from entirely different perspectives. you are reading that as if it is an accurate record of what the ark looked like and as if that is what it had always looked like. you're also assuming that what these ancient people thought of their patron deity is the same as what you think of your great god on high. i'm regarding this from the perspective of an archaeologist and anthropologist. the practice of transporting the essence of deities in boxes, which i described in my previous post, is something that did happen at the time that it is assumed 'moses' was trundling about with his band of followers. the placement of cherubims on a box that contains the essence of a god does not somehow change worshipping the contents of the box into worshipping little models of cherubs. also, in this period gods were little more than tamed djin, not great big sky fairies, it doesn't take much for some high priest/administrator to say "oh, we're moving our headquaters to a new place, so we must take our god with us, here is his essence, we will put it in this box to transport it". that the worshippers of yahweh (or whatever they called him at the time) were nomadic meant that their god was kept in a box semi-permanently, presumably until they conqured canaan and had a religious centre to let it out, from which situation it could become some great thing in the sky and all around.

is a painting of jesus also sacrilegious?

is the pieta by michelangelo sacrilegious?

is the ceiling of the sistine chapel sacrilegious?

was that monument of the 10 commandments that the judge put into his courthouse sacrilegious?

I don't find them necessary, nor have I heard of people showing the same reverence to them that I find people showing to the crucifix. I don't know anyone who bows down to the velvet Jesus painting, or believes that any of those things offer them protection.

its not called faith for nothin :pi just discussed that in another thread.
believing in god(s) is a matter of faith, claiming that a human is divine is not. you must be able to point out the criteria for such a statement and how the respective human fits those criteria. after all this divinity is supposed to be something in the real and observable, experiencable world and not something out of a fantastical parallel universe...

is a painting of jesus also sacrilegious?

is the pieta by michelangelo sacrilegious?

is the ceiling of the sistine chapel sacrilegious?

was that monument of the 10 commandments that the judge put into his courthouse sacrilegious?

Do people pray to these things?
Isn't it praying to idols (praying is a form of worship ) that is against the bible not looking at them?

At the time that Moses led the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt, they had been in captivity and slavery for hundreds of years. As with any people that are taken from their home and raised elsewhere, despite their best efforts at preserving their own culture and beliefs, the habits of the Egyptians had crept into even their worship.

It is my understanding that the Lord allowed the Israelites to carry the Ark of the Covenant with them for a time to keep them from building more golden cattle (which is how the first tablets were broken, if you recall) and to keep them from adopting other deities in the lands through which they moved.

Remember that they conquered many lands after that, and they were told to put their faith in the Lord--the Ark went before them, it is true, but the Lord gradually weaned them off of it. By the time Gideon is leading the armies, they are no longer simply relying on the priests bearing the Ark to weild some magical power over their adversaries.

I think the same can be said of the Cross. I think as a reminder of the sacrifice of the Saviour, it is without question a powerful influence in many lives. However, just as the Israelites were taught to internalize the symbolism of the Ark--to remember why they carried it, what it contained, and why it mattered that it "went before them always"--it is our responsibility as Christians to internalize the message of sacrifice and selflessness that is symbolized in the Cross.

I do not have a Cross displayed in my home, nor is there one in my church; I do have a few that were given to me while I traveled abroad, and I consider them gifts of love, but I do not display them because I want to teach my children that the symbol of our religion is how we treat others.

I wish that anyone who feels the Cross is not an appropriate symbol of faith could simply accept that some people revere it and like to have it on display as a symbol of their devotion. I have also heard people say, "Well, if someone had killed your father with a knife, would you wear a bloody knife around your neck or keep a large, bloody knife on display in your home?" No, but I might keep a picture of my father around.

And even if you catch me talking to the picture, I'm adult enough to know that I'm not REALLY talking to the picture.

I hope that my contribution to this discussion is not taken as a rant or a diatribe against anyone. I have tried to present it with sympathy and understanding.

i think that is nicely said.

its good to respect other people's religious traditions even if you dont agree with them.

since it is a reasonable interpretation of that passage of exodus that god was only talking about representations of strange gods, you dont have to agree with the interpretation in order to respect those who do. its not like anyone is asking you to bow down before a statue of buddha.

Do people pray to these things?
Isn't it praying to idols (praying is a form of worship ) that is against the bible not looking at them?

thats what i think. that you have to pray to it, worship it, in order for it to be against the commandments.

no one prays to a crucifix.

i think that is nicely said.

its good to respect other people's religious traditions even if you dont agree with them.

since it is a reasonable interpretation of that passage of exodus that god was only talking about representations of strange gods, you dont have to agree with the interpretation in order to respect those who do. its not like anyone is asking you to bow down before a statue of buddha.

I respect people's right to have crucifixes, but if I am asked point blank what I think about it, I am going to answer, I am not going to lie.

As far as people praying to them, I think people give them a lot more reverence than they deserve, they are metal, or stone, or glass, or gold, they are not holy. If you claim they are holy, then you are giving it a fair amount of worship, if they are not holy, then you should not care what someone else does to "defile" it.

he was speaking (I assume male) about praying to the saints......they are not God.

Oh, quite right. Saints are not to be prayed to in any fashion. That's idolatry. Honestly the whole christian thing smacks of polytheism anyway. You've got three principle gods, a whole slew of angels who are basically lesser gods, then you've got saints who are demigods.

I don't find them necessary, nor have I heard of people showing the same reverence to them that I find people showing to the crucifix. I don't know anyone who bows down to the velvet Jesus painting, or believes that any of those things offer them protection.

the question is not should YOU find them necessary.

the question is whether or not they are in violation of the commandments.

if they are, why exactly are they? if its because they are a representation of a god, then so are velvet jesuses. if its because they are worshipped, that is a misunderstanding of the role of a crucifix.

the question is not should YOU find them necessary.

the question is whether or not they are in violation of the commandments.

if they are, why exactly are they? if its because they are a representation of a god, then so are velvet jesuses. if its because they are worshipped, that is a misunderstanding of the role of a crucifix.

As far as people praying to them, I think people give them a lot more reverence than they deserve, they are metal, or stone, or glass, or gold, they are not holy. If you claim they are holy, then you are giving it a fair amount of worship, if they are not holy, then you should not care what someone else does to "defile" it.

I have seen people bow down in front of a crucifix, I have seen them look at me funny when I don't, I know they are giving it more standing than the pews, they are both made of wood, so what's the difference?

Oh, quite right. Saints are not to be prayed to in any fashion. That's idolatry. Honestly the whole christian thing smacks of polytheism anyway. You've got three principle gods, a whole slew of angels who are basically lesser gods, then you've got saints who are demigods.

I worship one God.

Angels are created beings, just like us, and saints... well, I don't give anyone "sainthood" in my mind, they are people.

thats what i think. that you have to pray to it, worship it, in order for it to be against the commandments.

no one prays to a crucifix.

They do pray to the crucifix and other sybols. Having a visual often makes people feel more connected to the devine. That is why Hidus use idols.
http://www.geocities.com/texbernhardt/fiesta/image012.jpg

I respect people's right to have crucifixes, but if I am asked point blank what I think about it, I am going to answer, I am not going to lie.

As far as people praying to them, I think people give them a lot more reverence than they deserve, they are metal, or stone, or glass, or gold, they are not holy. If you claim they are holy, then you are giving it a fair amount of worship, if they are not holy, then you should not care what someone else does to "defile" it.

My house is not holy, but I care if someone breaks in, takes a dump in the middle of the floor and leaves... They don't have to leave me a note telling me how little they respect me and my home, I get the idea from the act.

How is my faith less than my home, I live with my faith even if my house is lost? If they symbolically take a dump on our faith why shouldn't we be insulted, they meant it as an insult afterall?

I worship one God.

Angels are created beings, just like us, and saints... well, I don't give anyone "sainthood" in my mind, they are people.

I'm quite possibly wrong, but a teahcer I had once told us that everyone who goes to heaven is a saint, and people who get cannonised are better saints or something like that.

They do pray to the crucifix and other sybols. Having a visual often makes people feel more connected to the devine. That is why Hidus use idols.
http://www.geocities.com/texbernhardt/fiesta/image012.jpg

they are praying to GOD not to a piece of metal or wood. even the hindu idols are only representations of the unseen gods.

religious icons of all sorts are used to focus the mind on god. this includes the crucifix, the bible, religious buildings, shrines, the holy land itself.

I'm quite possibly wrong, but a teahcer I had once told us that everyone who goes to heaven is a saint, and people who get cannonised are better saints or something like that.

I don't believe anyone is "better" than anyone else, that is what I was trying to say.

I worship one God.Which one? Or rather which concept of god?

I have seen people bow down in front of a crucifix, I have seen them look at me funny when I don't, I know they are giving it more standing than the pews, they are both made of wood, so what's the difference?

Do they ask you to bow your head, or maybe stand up in the pews from time to time at your church, to show respect for a song or a prayer maybe or a calling? Do you do it?

Assuming you do, whats the difference then between that and bowing to a knee in a different church? Different church, different custom, same intent,

My house is not holy, but I care if someone breaks in, takes a dump in the middle of the floor and leaves... They don't have to leave me a note telling me how little they respect me and my home, I get the idea from the act.

How is my faith less than my home, I live with my faith even if my house is lost? If they symbolically take a dump on our faith why shouldn't we be insulted, they meant it as an insult afterall?

You would give them the satisfaction of a successful insult? I wouldn't.

My faith is personal, it's not something I wear out on my sleeve, if someone doesn't like it, it really doesn't bother me any at all. My walk is with Christ, I am not of this world and I don't need a piece of wood to remind me of that.



they are praying to GOD not to a piece of metal or wood. even the hindu idols are only representations of the unseen gods.

religious icons of all sorts are used to focus the mind on god. this includes the crucifix, the bible, religious buildings, shrines, the holy land itself.

when I went to mass with a friend, everyone bowed while walking by Mary, why did they do that?

they are praying to GOD not to a piece of metal or wood. even the hindu idol are only representations of the unseen gods.

religious icons of all sorts are used to focus the mind on god. this includes the crucifix, the bible, religious buildings, shrines, the holy land itself.

So Hindus are not breaking that commandment when they pray to their idols, is that right?

When moses got the 10 commandments and came back to the town he was angery because of what the people were doing with idols. Was he mad becasue they were praying to the items themselves or because they were praying to god in front of the idols? And how did he know that they were praying to the idols themselves and not to god? Or do I have the story significantly wrong.\?

Do they ask you to bow your head, or maybe stand up in the pews from time to time at your church, to show respect for a song or a prayer maybe or a calling? Do you do it?
if I want to.

Assuming you do, whats the difference then between that and bowing to a knee in a different church? Different church, different custom, same intent,
I bow in my home in reverence to God, I do not bow down to a crucifix. There is a difference in my intent.

I have seen people bow down in front of a crucifix, I have seen them look at me funny when I don't, I know they are giving it more standing than the pews, they are both made of wood, so what's the difference?

It sounds like you are describing a church setting; if you were attending church with them, perhaps you ought to have given reverence to the cross--and recited the prayers and sung the hymns as well. It is what is expected of a guest. (Even the tone-deaf ones, har har.)

It does not sound as if you are describing someone bringing a crucifix into your home and holding a prayer meeting in your bedroom. Or a seance, God help us. (See what I did there?) Although, if you invited them to do so, I would expect you to behave yourself according to their custom.

I do not celebrate Hannukah, but I would dearly love to be invited to do so by someone who does; and I would enjoy celebrating it with them. It sounds like a beautiful celebration. But if I was invited, I wouldn't stand around sniffing and rolling my eyes. That's what we call around here "being a stick in the mud."

(Most of this post was written with great levity. That means I hope you are laughing. If you are not, then I apologize.)

I don't find them necessary, nor have I heard of people showing the same reverence to them that I find people showing to the crucifix. I don't know anyone who bows down to the velvet Jesus painting, or believes that any of those things offer them protection.

That rang a bell with me and I had to go look something up...

Num. 21:8–9
And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

Here we have Moses making a statue of a bronze serpent statue and sticks it on top of a pole, and everyone that looks on it gets actual real world protection from snake bites.

But sometime later, when people had started to worship the Bronze snake itself instead of God, it was destroyed...

2 Kings 18:4
He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).

I think statuettes were always permissible if God ordained them and they didn't detract from the worship of God. A crucifix could, within theological hypothesis, be a vehicle for someone to connect to God's spirit for it to have a real world protective application. However, I do believe that we are our own temples now, God is within us, neither the temple nor the crucifix is required for God's work to be accomplished in us.

It sounds like you are describing a church setting; if you were attending church with them, perhaps you ought to have given reverence to the cross--and recited the prayers and sung the hymns as well. It is what is expected of a guest. (Even the tone-deaf ones, har har.)

It does not sound as if you are describing someone bringing a crucifix into your home and holding a prayer meeting in your bedroom. Or a seance, God help us. (See what I did there?) Although, if you invited them to do so, I would expect you to behave yourself according to their custom.

I do not celebrate Hannukah, but I would dearly love to be invited to do so by someone who does; and I would enjoy celebrating it with them. It sounds like a beautiful celebration. But if I was invited, I wouldn't stand around sniffing and rolling my eyes. That's what we call around here "being a stick in the mud."

(Most of this post was written with great levity. That means I hope you are laughing. If you are not, then I apologize.)

I was young, and didn't know I was supposed to bow down to all the statues at the church, nor did I know that most of the service was in Latin, when I asked after about the bowing they said "it is holy, we are unworthy" and when I asked about the translation of the latin they said "we don't know, God stuff we think"

I think I need to pick other people to visit mass with........

That rang a bell with me and I had to go look something up...

Num. 21:8–9
And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

Here we have Moses making a statue of a bronze serpent statue and sticks it on top of a pole, and everyone that looks on it gets actual real world protection from snake bites.

But sometime later, when people had started to worship the Bronze snake itself instead of God, it was destroyed...

2 Kings 18:4
He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).

I think statuettes were always permissible if God ordained them and they didn't detract from the worship of God. A crucifix could, within theological hypothesis, be a vehicle for someone to connect to God's spirit for it to have a real world protective application. However, I do believe that we are our own temples now, God is within us, neither the temple nor the crucifix is required for God's work to be accomplished in us.

maybe it's time to start phasing them out then?

So Hindus are not breaking that commandment when they pray to their idols, is that right?

When moses got the 10 commandments and came back to the town he was angery because of what the people were doing with idols. Was he mad becasue they were praying to the items themselves or because they were praying to god in front of the idols? And how did he know that they were praying to the idols themselves and not to god? Or do I have the story significantly wrong.\?

Well, it was a golden calf that they were worshipping; if that wasn't enough of a cue, they were also dancing lasciviously before it. (That's the kind of dancing one usually does around a pole, in case "lascivious" threw you off, har har.)

I know one thing, though; a lot of churches could increase attendance by having either golden cows or erotic dancers accompany the sermons. (Lord, I apologize for that one.)

Well well, isn't this much ado about nothing? :D

I think any modern mind should be capable of grasping the idea that symbols are not literally what they represent. No Christian that I've ever met (and I used too be one myself) has expressed the belief that a crucifix is literally Christ - they all seem to grasp the idea that it's merely a representation and not the actual thing. So why do they bow before one? Because the symbol brings to mind the thought of the real object. It's this mental representation, rather than the symbol that calls it forth, that is the actual object of reverence.

Ditto for the hoary old canard about Catholics "worshipping statues". Images of Jesus, or Mary, or any of the saints, are not in themselves objects of worship or reverence. They are just handy tools for calling forth the thought of what they represent. If you don't need or want such symbolism, fine; nobody's requiring you to use it.

And I dare you to find me one single Christian who keeps all of the assorted laws and commandments scattered throughout the Bible. You won't. :p So why get hung up on one badly-translated clause that was directed to people in a specific time and place to begin with, and that doesn't have much relevance to the modern world?

Ah well. Let those with excessively literal and legalistic minds hash this issue to death if they want - it keeps them busy and out of trouble.

Well, it was a golden calf that they were worshipping; if that wasn't enough of a cue, they were also dancing lasciviously before it. (That's the kind of dancing one usually does around a pole, in case "lascivious" threw you off, har har.)

I know one thing, though; a lot of churches could increase attendance by having either golden cows or erotic dancers accompany the sermons. (Lord, I apologize for that one.)

LOL Tits and milk! ( Sorry )

I feel that the Crucifix is ok, but you have to remember that Jesus died and rose again and is no longer on the cross.

So why get hung up on one badly-translated clause that was directed to people in a specific time and place to begin with, and that doesn't have much relevance to the modern world?

Ah, tsk, and tsk again. I agree that the passage is poorly read in English, but I am given to understand that the Greek, Hebrew, and German versions are most explicit.

As to its irrelevance, tell that to the guy who spends more time shining up his sports car than he does chatting up his children about their schooling. That poor fellow doesn't know what you mean when you say the sports car is just a symbol; he's hung up on the physical, the visual, the visceral! He also thinks that as long as the grades his son gets "don't fall below a C" then his son is doing well in school.

There's a world of interpretation and motivation behind symbols and commandments; one can't easily dismiss them or "poo poo" them as unworthy of consideration without suffering the same fate as the--oops, almost gave it away, there. Sorry, I'm not going to make it THAT easy for you. If you want to know that story, you're just going to have to do some reading. It's time for me to clock out. See you all on Monday.

It has been most enlightening.

Answer: Who gives a shit?

You would give them the satisfaction of a successful insult? I wouldn't.

I understand what you are saying, but here's the other side of that coin, IMO: An intention to insult and then act out that insult IS an insult regardless of what the act itself was. How I react to insult is the important part. If I choose to pretend that I was not insulted, then there is nothing to forgive them for and nothing was gained. IF I accept the insult and react in kind, then nothing is gained either. IF I accept the insult and react by forgiving them, then Christ is served. But to ignore it entirely is to lose an opportunity to turn the other cheek and practice the Christian faith.


My faith is personal, it's not something I wear out on my sleeve, if someone doesn't like it, it really doesn't bother me any at all. My walk is with Christ, I am not of this world and I don't need a piece of wood to remind me of that.

Agreed on all accounts. But I don't think there is anything wrong with visual reminders of religious concepts either. From the very oldest Churches and the earliest hidden church cave locations, we can see from archaeological finds that icons were drawn and carved and painted in places that Christians worshiped, even when the penalty for such things was death. The very threat of death was not a strong enough deterrent to make the early Christians stop using iconography in their practice of the Christian faith. As a fellow Christian with them, and you, I think I can defend their practice of using graven Christian symbols with a clear conscience. Like Ashmoria has said, no one is dictating that iconography must be used in following Christ.

maybe it's time to start phasing them out then?

They will phase themselves out without my doing it if that's what God and the Spirit want.

Otherwise I intend to leave them alone. What is good for me does not mean that I should even try to force all of the other Christians to worship as I do.

Individuals go through phases during their lives, if a child is brought to Christ by the vehicle of looking at a Crucifix, and then as they grow older they have less and less regard for that same Crucifix and may even grow to disdain it, they should still not try and get rid of it because the next Child may be looking at it now for inspiration to bring them to Christ.

Additionally, the elderly may find themselves returning to that Church and finding themselves unexpectedly comforted because of the reminders of their youthful conversion to Christ via the iconography at a church. A full circle, if you will, of God using icons to first attract, and then repulse, and then attract a single person again...

I feel that the Crucifix is ok, but you have to remember that Jesus died and rose again and is no longer on the cross.

Good Reminder :)

This topic needs it’s own thread and a Truce was declared in the previous thread that these quotes come from…

The topic is Crucifixes and Christianity. The proposition was made that Christians are breaking the old testament commandment to NOT bow down to graven images and false idols, when they bow down and pray at Crucifixes in a Church or hang them in their houses or around their necks etc.,. I contend that the accusation is incorrect, I say that it's okay to use a crucifix to focus your attention on God when you pray.


Making graven images is specifically outlawed. A crucifixion symbol is clearly an image.

Thus, those cute little crucifices are clearly heretical.

Idols or no, you are confusing the issue unnecessarily - simply being a graven image makes it an abomination.

Making graven images is specifically outlawed. A crucifixion symbol is clearly an image.

Thus, those cute little crucifices are clearly heretical.

Idols or no, you are confusing the issue unnecessarily - simply being a graven image makes it an abomination.

are all statues sacrilegious then?

there is no such thing as "the 10 commandments" they are not numbered in the bible as such but are grouped according to the beliefs of different denominations/relgions.


Not strictly true - there is a group of Mosaic laws called the 'ten commandments'. The last one is about not boiling an animal in the milk of it's mother.


a crucifix is not an idol, its not worshipped and its not of a strange god. i dont see the problem.

A crucifix is a graven image, though - and thus explicitly disallowed by the 'no graven images' clause.

Of course - not even all 'christian' faiths believe Jesus was literally 'god'... so Jesus crucified can just as easily be referred to as an idol, also. Jesus most certainly is a 'strange god' if you follow the Hebrew scripture.

are all statues sacrilegious then?

By a strict interpretation of the Hebrew scripture... yes. (Unless God has explicitly told you to make the image - he seems to make exceptions to some of his rules, sometimes.)

Making graven images is specifically outlawed. A crucifixion symbol is clearly an image.

Thus, those cute little crucifices are clearly heretical.

Idols or no, you are confusing the issue unnecessarily - simply being a graven image makes it an abomination.

That kind of interpretation, the kind that doesn’t use examples of behavior to understand intent, is also the kind of interpretation that says working on the Sabbath is entirely and without constraint outlawed, thus feeding your animals or children is against the rules because serving food is work...

Proper discretionary interpretation is required.

The bronze snake was created and used. Graven images were looked upon for protection through God's will. Once the people forgot it is God and not the icon, then God has the icon destroyed. Any icon that take your attention away from God is bad, not all graven images, as you yourself said in regards to Cherubim. Comparing them to Gargoyles do not absolve them from being carved in the first place, they are still graven images.

By a strict interpretation of the Hebrew scripture... yes. (Unless God has explicitly told you to make the image - he seems to make exceptions to some of his rules, sometimes.)

Badda bing badda boom, and just like that your position is forfeit, you’ve lost to the Christians that worship at Crucifixes..

Not strictly true - there is a group of Mosaic laws called the 'ten commandments'. The last one is about not boiling an animal in the milk of it's mother.


yeah i was looking at that. i dont know what christian churches do with those and why they are ignored for the earlier stuff,


A crucifix is a graven image, though - and thus explicitly disallowed by the 'no graven images' clause.

Of course - not even all 'christian' faiths believe Jesus was literally 'god'... so Jesus crucified can just as easily be referred to as an idol, also. Jesus most certainly is a 'strange god' if you follow the Hebrew scripture.

well yes there are certain hoops that one must jump through

one must accept the doctrine of the trinity.

if you dont, why are you worshipping a strange god at all and shouldnt you really be jewish?

one must accept that the graven image clause isnt not an integral part of what comes before it. the catholic church doesnt have graven images as the 2nd commandment but as part of the 1st commandment against strange gods and the worshipping thereof.

if you are a protestant who has a seperate graven images commandment, you may well be right to reject the acceptablity of the crucifix. but then what about all the graven images that surround us? everything from a barbie doll to the weeping angel monuments in cemetaries might also be considered sacrilege.

just what about graven images is banned?

Badda bing badda boom, and just like that your position is forfeit, you’ve lost to the Christians that worship at Crucifixes..

You lost me.

Where does God tell the christians to create a graven image of the crucifixion?

He does make special exceptions - he instructed how the temple was to look... and he told Moses to make his graven image of a snake... I don't recall a scripture off hand that says it is okay to create graven images... not even the zombie king on his sacrifical altar.

This is clearly an agenda by vampires, demons and other supernatural evil trying to take away one more weapon in the fight against darkness.

:p

That kind of interpretation, the kind that doesn’t use examples of behavior to understand intent, is also the kind of interpretation that says working on the Sabbath is entirely and without constraint outlawed, thus feeding your animals or children is against the rules because serving food is work...

Proper discretionary interpretation is required.


Fasting is good. The human digestion works better if you fast once a week. Thus, it is not necessary to 'work' on the sabbath.

I find it funny that you are telling me it is okay to ignore biblical rules you don't like because you use 'discretion'.

You know pride is a sin, right? To set yourself up as capable of coming to a better conclusion than God seems to me to be the ultimate in hubris.


The bronze snake was created and used. Graven images were looked upon for protection through God's will. Once the people forgot it is God and not the icon, then God has the icon destroyed. Any icon that take your attention away from God is bad, not all graven images, as you yourself said in regards to Cherubim. Comparing them to Gargoyles do not absolve them from being carved in the first place, they are still graven images.

God also allows people to do soothsaying, when it suits him... like Joseph interpreting dreams.

God makes special exceptions - like the snake and the ark - that doesn't make it okay for humans to decide it's open season on the images.

yeah i was looking at that. i dont know what christian churches do with those and why they are ignored for the earlier stuff,


People ignore what is not convenient.


well yes there are certain hoops that one must jump through

one must accept the doctrine of the trinity.

if you dont, why are you worshipping a strange god at all and shouldnt you really be jewish?


Being a christian is about following christ, about believing his message. Not necessarily about thinking he was part of some gestalt god. Although, of course, there is a vested interest for the established christian churches to claim that to be the case.


one must accept that the graven image clause isnt not an integral part of what comes before it. the catholic church doesnt have graven images as the 2nd commandment but as part of the 1st commandment against strange gods and the worshipping thereof.


So - the church that makes a habit of graven images, ties the graven images commandment to a specific other one? Hardly surprising. But, the scripture tells us not to make graven images of anything of heaven or earth - not just images of gods.


if you are a protestant who has a seperate graven images commandment, you may well be right to reject the acceptablity of the crucifix. but then what about all the graven images that surround us? everything from a barbie doll to the weeping angel monuments in cemetaries might also be considered sacrilege.


This is true. And, look at how our super models and sports pin-ups have become almost gods, you can see maybe why.


just what about graven images is banned?

Creating representative things, I assume. Maybe it is to do with 'creation' being the purview of God... and our attempts to mirror any of his creations MUST be mockeries.

So - the church that makes a habit of graven images, ties the graven images commandment to a specific other one? Hardly surprising. But, the scripture tells us not to make graven images of anything of heaven or earth - not just images of gods.


i am not convinced that that is the case.

here is the combined verses of exodus that the catholic make into 1 commandment and the protestants break into 2

2
"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3
You shall not have other gods besides me.
4
You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5
2 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6
but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

seems to me that either way you slice it, he is telling you not to have strange gods and not to make idols of anything above, below or on the earth that you bow down before or worship. so that even if you dont officially call it a god, you still cant worship it.

i dont see that anything short of the idol of another god is banned.

or to be more open, i dont see that its wrong to make the interpretation that it is referring to the using of idols to worship strange gods.

Is it really a sin to make or use an "image" as a window onto God? If so then it is impossible to be simultaneously Christian and to be truly repentant for the sins we are committing anyway, for Christianity paints a mental picture of the God it claims to represent.

i am not convinced that that is the case.

here is the combined verses of exodus that the catholic make into 1 commandment and the protestants break into 2

2
"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3
You shall not have other gods besides me.
4
You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5
2 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6
but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

seems to me that either way you slice it, he is telling you not to have strange gods and not to make idols of anything above, below or on the earth that you bow down before or worship. so that even if you dont officially call it a god, you still cant worship it.

i dont see that anything short of the idol of another god is banned.

or to be more open, i dont see that its wrong to make the interpretation that it is referring to the using of idols to worship strange gods.

Well - first, you can't read the whole passage as though it is all equally interdependent. The most important part is the worship of other gods, for example. It doesn't matter if you worship it or not, you aren't to make the image of another god. So - it isn't one connected clause, it is a series of related 'sins' - the sins of idolatry.

If we look at the Hebrew, it doesn't say 'idol' or 'image' really - it refers to artifacts... things 'made'. This connects later in the same verse with what the 'things' are that aren't allowed to be 'made' - of heaven, of earth, of the deep. So - whenever we make an artifact that is representational, we are breaching this commandment, whether or not it is a god, whether or not we worship it.

We can corroborate this by looking elsewhere - is there a repetition of this imprecation not to create images?

Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 4:16-9 "Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that [is] in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, [even] all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

Deuteronomy 4:23 "Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee."

Deuteronomy 4:25 "When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt [yourselves], and make a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:"

Deuteronomy 5:8-9 "Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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,"

Isaiah 44:9-10 "They that make a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they [are] their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image [that] is profitable for nothing?"

Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed [be] the man that maketh [any] graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth [it] in [a] secret [place]. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen."

There are specific injunctions against creating the images of false gods, yes - but there are also those where it seems [i]any image is abomination. I think, maybe, the intention is to prevent the creation of these images, because they will create a risk of idolatry - and that could be true of ANY image.

You lost me.

Where does God tell the christians to create a graven image of the crucifixion?

He does make special exceptions - he instructed how the temple was to look... and he told Moses to make his graven image of a snake... I don't recall a scripture off hand that says it is okay to create graven images... not even the zombie king on his sacrifical altar.

Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And repeated in the NT

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And the Spirit talks to them both pro and con inside their own hearts..

Romans 2:15
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"

And an example of how this new ability to hear the word of God is affecting the creation of Crucifixes even to this very day...

A Texas artisan says God told him to make a crucifix for an unknown place: the "Virgin Mary" building. For nearly three years, a giant blue tarp hid a towering form in front of the building made famous by the Virgin Mary-like image on its side.

Justified by the verses above, they know that a vision can come from God and they feel they are being told to create such things as crucifixes... Thus, your admittance that these visions can occur and that God doesn’t always object to iconographic displays, makes your argument against their Crucifix irrelevant and toothless. They know in their hearts their own visions, their own instructions from God, of what they have been guided to do...and that is to make Crucifixes.

Finally, in the middle of the night on June 3, he made the last cut. Overcome with emotion, he called his wife in tears. "I can't begin to describe the joy," he said. "This completes the picture," Weickert said. "We have Mary, who leads people to Jesus. And now we have a Jesus that people can see."
link (http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping287.htm)

Their joy in the Lord's work reveals their own truth to them, even if it doesn't create an epiphany for you.

...
There are specific injunctions against creating the images of false gods, yes - but there are also those where it seems any image is abomination. I think, maybe, the intention is to prevent the creation of these images, because they will create a risk of idolatry - and that could be true of ANY image.

Since we KNOW that not all images are abomination, the “seems” aspect of those verses is removed, it is clarified through other verses to remove the doubt, intent is the operative aspect of creating images. It is turned into to a non-factor because we already know that all images are not an abomination.

Well - first, you can't read the whole passage as though it is all equally interdependent. The most important part is the worship of other gods, for example. It doesn't matter if you worship it or not, you aren't to make the image of another god. So - it isn't one connected clause, it is a series of related 'sins' - the sins of idolatry.

If we look at the Hebrew, it doesn't say 'idol' or 'image' really - it refers to artifacts... things 'made'. This connects later in the same verse with what the 'things' are that aren't allowed to be 'made' - of heaven, of earth, of the deep. So - whenever we make an artifact that is representational, we are breaching this commandment, whether or not it is a god, whether or not we worship it.

We can corroborate this by looking elsewhere - is there a repetition of this imprecation not to create images?

Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 4:16-9 "Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that [is] in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, [even] all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

Deuteronomy 4:23 "Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee."

Deuteronomy 4:25 "When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt [yourselves], and make a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:"

Deuteronomy 5:8-9 "Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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,"

Isaiah 44:9-10 "They that make a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they [are] their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image [that] is profitable for nothing?"

Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed [be] the man that maketh [any] graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth [it] in [a] secret [place]. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen."

There are specific injunctions against creating the images of false gods, yes - but there are also those where it seems [i]any image is abomination. I think, maybe, the intention is to prevent the creation of these images, because they will create a risk of idolatry - and that could be true of ANY image.

they just go on and on about commandments dont they. how the HELL does a theologian decide that THESE are the important commandments and THOSE are just crap? why didnt i know that moving my neighbors property markers would curse me?? (deut 27:17)

anyway they sure did seem to need the emphasis on not making things that might lead them to worship a strange god. which i suppose makes sense after that whole golden calf fiasco.

until protestants give up all such images i declare that they are being hypocritical in their opposition to the crucifix. either ALL representational statuary is banned or only those that are worshipped as a strange god are banned. (excepting those who do not accept the trinity and the divinity of christ)

Fasting is good. The human digestion works better if you fast once a week. Thus, it is not necessary to 'work' on the sabbath.

Ask a Pediatrician about that...See if that is true for children.

I find it funny that you are telling me it is okay to ignore biblical rules you don't like because you use 'discretion'.

You know pride is a sin, right? To set yourself up as capable of coming to a better conclusion than God seems to me to be the ultimate in hubris.

It's funny that you make a strawman argument. I did NOT tell you to ignore biblical rules, I am saying that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the biblical rules you think I am breaking. I believe I am telling us to follow the biblical rules correctly.

The argument about which one of us has too much pride is a chicken and egg dilemma. For you to say I have too much pride in understanding the scriptures, you yourself must be equally guilty to be able to point it out by saying yours is more correct than mine... Thus a pointless endeavor of discourse, except to be used as implied insult and reprimand.


God also allows people to do soothsaying, when it suits him... like Joseph interpreting dreams.

God makes special exceptions - like the snake and the ark - that doesn't make it okay for humans to decide it's open season on the images.

And thus, you continue to show why the people that worship with the use of Crucifixes and feel compelled by the spirit to make them, are remaining within biblically described conditions as set forth by the Bible.

Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And repeated in the NT

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And the Spirit talks to them both pro and con inside their own hearts..

Romans 2:15
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"

And an example of how this new ability to hear the word of God is affecting the creation of Crucifixes even to this very day...

A Texas artisan says God told him to make a crucifix for an unknown place: the "Virgin Mary" building. For nearly three years, a giant blue tarp hid a towering form in front of the building made famous by the Virgin Mary-like image on its side.

Justified by the verses above, they know that a vision can come from God and they feel they are being told to create such things as crucifixes... Thus, your admittance that these visions can occur and that God doesn’t always object to iconographic displays, makes your argument against their Crucifix irrelevant and toothless. They know in their hearts their own visions, their own instructions from God, of what they have been guided to do...and that is to make Crucifixes.

Finally, in the middle of the night on June 3, he made the last cut. Overcome with emotion, he called his wife in tears. "I can't begin to describe the joy," he said. "This completes the picture," Weickert said. "We have Mary, who leads people to Jesus. And now we have a Jesus that people can see."
link (http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping287.htm)

Their joy in the Lord's work reveals their own truth to them, even if it doesn't create an epiphany for you.

So, you got nothing, then?

I asked you for a verse where God said it was okay to create miniature execution icons, and you are warbling on about 'writing in hearts'.

In other words, you are trying to argue that one person's 'claim' of divine inspiration, is a more reliable source than the dozens of verses of the book most christians argue that God himself dictated.

So, you got nothing, then?

I asked you for a verse where God said it was okay to create miniature execution icons, and you are warbling on about 'writing in hearts'.

In other words, you are trying to argue that one person's 'claim' of divine inspiration, is a more reliable source than the dozens of verses of the book most christians argue that God himself dictated.

There aren't dozens of verses in scripture that goes against what they are doing. There are NO verses, or commandments, that go against what they are doing. YOU misinterpret verses and commandments and in your misunderstanding you think they are doing something that we are told not to do.

Your method of interpreting scripture requires that we must believe that God doesn't or can't follow his own rules in order to follow the stories of the book and make them fit your interpretation of what the rules are. A poor method.

A better method of interpreting scripture is to understand the rules in accordance to what God does do, if your rules are different than the behavior shown by God in the scripture then you better reevaluate your understanding the rules to make them fit God's example.

1 Timothy 1:5-9
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, ...

And for taking a lawyer's aspect of the written word without the heart and mind to guide...

Luke 11:46-52
And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."

Matthew 15
So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

So, you got nothing, then?

I asked you for a verse where God said it was okay to create miniature execution icons, and you are warbling on about 'writing in hearts'.

In other words, you are trying to argue that one person's 'claim' of divine inspiration, is a more reliable source than the dozens of verses of the book most christians argue that God himself dictated.
Actually, I have to stand up for PootWaddle's argument on this one, since it does make a sort of sense. Through laws and scriptural accounts, the God of the Bible is creating a personal and conceptual image of himself in the hearts and minds of his followers. Without such image, God is an entirely subjective entity, and while I personally feel that to be entirely appropriate, it is completely at odds with the notion of the divine origin of the Bible.

A graven image, as I understand it, is defined as "an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the Earth beneath or in the waters below." Images of God, in particular, are taboo. Now, granted, that's just what my translation of the Bible says, so it's subject to criticism.

Assuming that Jesus exists and is either in heaven, on Earth, or in the waters below, then an image of Jesus would qualify. If Jesus is assumed to be God or a part of God, then doubly so.

Based on my understanding of the Torah and Jewish belief structure, idolatry is not limited to the worship of the image itself. Idolatry also includes worship of God using any mediators and/or artistic depictions of God. So by those standards, the Crucifix is also an idol and would be prohibited.
I would agree, as such I would also put forth that much of the dogma of the Christian religion, as well as the organization could be considered an "idol" in that for many it is an intermediary between you and god.

AS for FALSE idol I don't know, I don't think anyone could tell you for sure the correctness of that idol but an idol yes I think it qualifies.

I think the Bible itself contains many examples of humans doing something after God specifically told them not to.

Building something to put the Commandments in would not be a problem. Even if it was a really, really nice box. Bowing down before the box and worshiping it would become problematic. Viewing the box as a mediator of any kind would be a problem.


Given that worship of a false God and worship of idols are covered in distinct passages in many places, I would say that your interpretation is not consistent with the holy texts of the Jewish or Christian faiths.

Yes, exactly. The instruction is explicit and makes NO disctinction that the idols only not be of a false God, but instead explicitly says not of anything in heaven and earth or the water below. Pretty explicit and definitely clear.

Amusingly, the Bible can also show examples of some of the favored of God committing incest, lying, stealing, cheating and being protected by God. I guess we can all sleep with our sisters, lie, steal and cheat even though we're instructed not to, simply because we can find examples of the behavior.

The behavior of people can NEVER override specific instructions to the contrary. It's an attempt to make excuses for actions that Pooty knows is immoral.

Amusingly, he repeatedly called me a liar for saying he supported the wearing of a cross. Perhaps he really does believe that because people in the Bible got away with it...

There aren't dozens of verses in scripture that goes against what they are doing. There are NO verses, or commandments, that go against what they are doing. YOU misinterpret verses and commandments and in your misunderstanding you think they are doing something that we are told not to do.

Your method of interpreting scripture requires that we must believe that God doesn't or can't follow his own rules in order to follow the stories of the book and make them fit your interpretation of what the rules are. A poor method.

A better method of interpreting scripture is to understand the rules in accordance to what God does do, if your rules are different than the behavior shown by God in the scripture then you better reevaluate your understanding the rules to make them fit God's example.

1 Timothy 1:5-9
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, ...

And for taking a lawyer's aspect of the written word without the heart and mind to guide...

Luke 11:46-52
And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."

Matthew 15
So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

So is lying against the commandments? What about cheating people?

Does God endorse giving your wife away to save your hide? Does God endorse lying? Does God endorse incest? My answer would be no. My answer would be that all of us are sinners and because God endorses certain people doesn't mean He endorses all of their actions. That's why in addition to stories about people, he gives us explicit instructions for actions through the commandment and Jesus.

Yes, exactly. The instruction is explicit and makes NO disctinction that the idols only not be of a false God, but instead explicitly says not of anything in heaven and earth or the water below. Pretty explicit and definitely clear.

Amusingly, the Bible can also show examples of some of the favored of God committing incest, lying, stealing, cheating and being protected by God. I guess we can all sleep with our sisters, lie, steal and cheat even though we're instructed not to, simply because we can find examples of the behavior.

The behavior of people can NEVER override specific instructions to the contrary. It's an attempt to make excuses for actions that Pooty knows is immoral.

Amusingly, he repeatedly called me a liar for saying he supported the wearing of a cross. Perhaps he really does believe that because people in the Bible got away with it...


i dont find it clear at all.

either the passage in question means that you cant have an idol of a strange god or an idol that might come to be worshipped as a strange god

OR

you can have no representational statuary of any sort. no barbie dolls, no war memorials with generals sitting on horses, no monument to the 10 commandments, no mount rushmore presidential heads. no NOTHING.

It's funny that you make a strawman argument. I did NOT tell you to ignore biblical rules, I am saying that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the biblical rules you think I am breaking. I believe I am telling us to follow the biblical rules correctly.

Hmmmm... here's one.

You are still a liar.
Ha. This is a wonderful tactic. It's making you look very wise. Again, prove I'm lying. Answer the simple question of whether or not you condemn the graven image of Jesus being worn by Christians?

EDIT: By the way, according to the rulings of the moderators, they have stated repeatedly that if you call me names you have to actually demonstrate why and how they apply or it's simply flaming. So, yes, you do actually have something to prove. I know that's difficult for you to face, this being a debate forum and all, but just answer the question.

I have NOT advocated, nor admonished, the Christians who do or do not wear crucifixes.

I accused you of supporting graven images and suggesting that a symbol represents God. You've said it repeatedly. That's support of graven images. There is no getting around it. The fact that I say it differently than you doesn't make it a lie. It makes you wrong.

But, hey, prove you don't. Tell us that you would be equally upset if Smunkee linked a site that sells crosses. Simple question. Would you be? Yes or no.

It makes you a liar. I don't have to prove anything to liars.

So I'm a liar for saying you support graven images of God and now you are here saying that graven images are okay as long as they are of God. Hmmmmm...

So you do support graven images provided they are of God. So it seems the issue here is that you feel it was okay in a different thread to call me a liar for saying so. Again, is the rule against bearing false witness against your neighbors a misinterpretation?

i dont find it clear at all.

either the passage in question means that you cant have an idol of a strange god or an idol that might come to be worshipped as a strange god

OR

you can have no representational statuary of any sort. no barbie dolls, no war memorials with generals sitting on horses, no monument to the 10 commandments, no mount rushmore presidential heads. no NOTHING.

Does it say strange God? It says not to bow before them. If you start bowing before Barbie, I would say that was an equal problem. You cannot consider images to represent God or Gods or any other being to which you would bow and display acts of religious faith.

The part about no other gods before me is a seperate sentence. The direction about cast idols is given many, many times with no reference to other gods but instead references to bowing before them or committing acts of reverence.

Does it say strange God? It says not to bow before them. If you start bowing before Barbie, I would say that was an equal problem. You cannot consider images to represent God or Gods or any other being to which you would bow and display acts of religious faith.

The part about no other gods before me is a seperate sentence. The direction about cast idols is given many, many times with no reference to other gods but instead references to bowing before them or committing acts of reverence.

you have 2 choices. either its a prohibition against making "false idols" or its a prohibition on graven images totally.

i claim that it is about not making idols of strange gods. as i read the passage in exodus 20, thats what it says to me. as do all the passages quoted by gravenidol. dont be making stuff that is intended to be used to worship strange gods and dont be making stuff that you are pretending is innocent but is really about worshipping strange gods.

if its NOT talking about making idols that can be worshipped as strange gods then its talking about ALL graven images, statuary of anything above, on, or below the earth. that you DONT worship barbie or mt rushmore doesnt mean that someone in the future WONT.

what it doesnt seem to me to say is "dont make an idol of ME, that is sucky"

many protestants wear a cross around their necks as a symbol of their faith. its that also sacrilege?

let me be more clear about this.

im not saying that the catholic interpretations is the ONLY correct one. i dont particularly care which interpretaion you use. that is betewen you and god eh?

im saying that the catholic interpretation is legitimate.


1 Then God delivered all these commandments:
2 "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.


with verse 7 starting the next commandment not to take the name of god in vain.


if you wanted to, you could break those first 6 verses up into 3 commandments.

1) you shall have no other gods
2) you shall not make graven images
3) you shall not bow down before graven images.

is it illegitimate to say that those 3 can be grouped into one saying that there is one god and dont be making false idols to worship?

is it illegitimate to say that they are 3 different commandments each of which must be obeyed seperately?

why should they ONLY be cut into 2 commandments and if they are 2, is it ok to have a crucifix as long as i dont bow down before it?

these questions are only meant to illuminate my point that its a matter of interpretation as to what is meant by the first 6 verses of exodus20.

the catholic interpretation is as good as the protestant. there is no overriding reason to claim that all representations of things above below or on the earth are sacrilege.

to sum up. im not advocating that you are wrong in your interpretation. i dont care what interpretation you personally agree with . i am advocating that there are other legitimate interpretations that are not in violation of scripture and that you should recognize that no matter which interpretation you choose to go with.

you have 2 choices. either its a prohibition against making "false idols" or its a prohibition on graven images totally.

Really? Are you sure? Based on what? I see nothing that says anything about "false idols" have special provision over "true idols". It says graven images. There is no such amendment to the provision on graven images.

Meanwhile there are many and specific amendments to the provision on graven images related to bowing before them and worship. Pretend you can use one time it appears next to a seperate command to amend it but the plethora of times it appears with the clause about bowing down doesn't amend it is just a willful attempt to ignore what it says explicitly for the sake of argument.


i claim that it is about not making idols of strange gods. as i read the passage in exodus 20, thats what it says to me. as do all the passages quoted by gravenidol. dont be making stuff that is intended to be used to worship strange gods and dont be making stuff that you are pretending is innocent but is really about worshipping strange gods.

It does. Please show me where it SAYS do not make images of strange gods. I'll wait.



if its NOT talking about making idols that can be worshipped as strange gods then its talking about ALL graven images, statuary of anything above, on, or below the earth. that you DONT worship barbie or mt rushmore doesnt mean that someone in the future WONT.

Except it adds the clause about worship many, many times. It says that graven idols ARE false gods. They are not God and you are wrong to treat them as such and the direction is explicit in all of the passages Grave cites.


what it doesnt seem to me to say is "dont make an idol of ME, that is sucky"

No what it says is don't make any idols. Period. It never says but idols of ME are okay.

many protestants wear a cross around their necks as a symbol of their faith. its that also sacrilege?
Yes. It is. When was I talking about Catholics? Are you confusing me with someone else? Anyone who presents an idol as a representation of God and due reverence is violating the commandment as I see it. I can support that through scripture and it's explicit. It has nothing to do with what title you place on yourself.

Perhaps, Jocabia, you should hook up with some other self depriving people that want to live by what they think the old rules were, maybe that would work for you. But for the rest of Christianity I think that during their two thousand year history they have worked out most of those big theological boulders that had to be moved already, and are progressing quite nicely without needing to go backwards from here, thank you very much.

Yep, I'm hung up on what Jesus taught 2000 years ago. I admit it. So me and "some other self-depriving people" will go backwards to living by the Christ of 2000 years ago and you can move those pesky theological boulders that Jesus left behind. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what I've been accusing you of doing and what you've repeatedly claimed you weren't doing.

Since Christ's message 2000 years ago was good enough for myself and "some other self-depriving people" we'll call ourselves Christians. And you and those that agree with you can call yourselfs "Better than Christ-ians", since you don't want to live in the past or move back to the original message of Christ because you're beyond that now. Sound fair?

yep, for a start, it's gross. also, most reresentations show jesus as a caucasion - if that's not a false idol i don't know what is. since no-one knows what he looked like, any representation of him as part of religious symbolism is a false idol.

also, "graven" means 'man-made' - "thou shalt not worship graven idols" should mean "though shalt not worship anything made by human hands" and if you're really not wanting to be sacriligeous you should be waving you're hands at the sky and not clutching any macabre figurine constructed by human hands.

But the commandment isn't "thou shalt not worship graven images."

It's "thou shalt not carve unto thou an image of any thing under heaven."

It doesn't prohibit visual representation of God. It prohibits representational art. That's why there's so much non-representational art in the middle east dating back for centuries. In the West we didn't get much of it until after cameras became commonplace and portraiture was becoming obsolete.

let me be more clear about this.

im not saying that the catholic interpretations is the ONLY correct one. i dont particularly care which interpretaion you use. that is betewen you and god eh?

im saying that the catholic interpretation is legitimate.


1 Then God delivered all these commandments:
2 "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.

with verse 7 starting the next commandment not to take the name of god in vain.


if you wanted to, you could break those first 6 verses up into 3 commandments.

1) you shall have no other gods
2) you shall not make graven images
3) you shall not bow down before graven images.

is it illegitimate to say that those 3 can be grouped into one saying that there is one god and dont be making false idols to worship?

is it illegitimate to say that they are 3 different commandments each of which must be obeyed seperately?

why should they ONLY be cut into 2 commandments and if they are 2, is it ok to have a crucifix as long as i dont bow down before it?

these questions are only meant to illuminate my point that its a matter of interpretation as to what is meant by the first 6 verses of exodus20.

the catholic interpretation is as good as the protestant. there is no overriding reason to claim that all representations of things above below or on the earth are sacrilege.

to sum up. im not advocating that you are wrong in your interpretation. i dont care what interpretation you personally agree with . i am advocating that there are other legitimate interpretations that are not in violation of scripture and that you should recognize that no matter which interpretation you choose to go with.

Why don't you try Exodus 34 for a change? Where the real commandments are. The best one is that about not cooking a goat in its mother's milk... very useful :rolleyes:

But the commandment isn't "thou shalt not worship graven images."

It's "thou shalt not carve unto thou an image of any thing under heaven."

It doesn't prohibit visual representation of God. It prohibits representational art. That's why there's so much non-representational art in the middle east dating back for centuries. In the West we didn't get much of it until after cameras became commonplace and portraiture was becoming obsolete.

That's actually an excellent point. God says explicitly he would be comfortable with an "alter of earth" let's say, but not a representation meant to "look like God". (I know you know, but to clarify the jargon you're using).

Exodus 20: 24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

As you see, God tells them they make an alter provided the alter is nothing more than a pile of unworked stones. "You will defile it if you use a tool on it."

Kind of kicks the nonsense out of arguments that it's okay if the alter looks like something in heaven and earth provided it's an alter to God.

That's actually an excellent point. God says explicitly he would be comfortable with an "alter of earth" let's say, but not a representation meant to "look like God". (I know you know, but to clarify the jargon you're using).

Exodus 20: 24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

As you see, God tells them they make an alter provided the alter is nothing more than a pile of unworked stones. "You will defile it if you use a tool on it."

Kind of kicks the nonsense out of arguments that it's okay if the alter looks like something in heaven and earth provided it's an alter to God.

:rolleyes: Exodus 20: 24 did not pass into any law, so what are you talking about? It is of no further significance.

Why don't you try Exodus 34 for a change? Where the real commandments are. The best one is that about not cooking a goat in its mother's milk... very useful :rolleyes:

i can honestly say i have never broken that commandment. im a good girl i am!

that set seems rather situational to me so that if i ever decide to invade canaan or even to move to israel i will make sure to follow those. until then they arent as useful as they might seem on the surface.

:rolleyes: Exodus 20: 24 did not pass into any law, so what are you talking about? It is of no further significance.

I didn't say it was a law. I said it says that God clearly commanded an alter that was not worked upon, after just saying that cast idols were banned. A consistent interpretation would be that an alter or place for praying or worship should not be cast or worked upon with tools.

Are you suggesting the command of God has no probative value to the will of God? I'd like to here a logical justification for that.

Meanwhile, notice that it's not the only statement of God consistent with the premise expressed by Domici (minus the part about worship).

Leviticus 26
1 " 'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

I didn't say it was a law. I said it says that God clearly commanded an alter that was not worked upon, after just saying that cast idols were banned. A consistent interpretation would be that an alter or place for praying or worship should not be cast or worked upon with tools.

Are you suggesting the command of God has no probative value to the will of God? I'd like to here a logical justification for that.

yes but then in chapters 35, 36, and 37 he instructs them on making the ark which includes all sorts of handiworks including gold cherubs.

:rolleyes: Exodus 20: 24 did not pass into any law, so what are you talking about? It is of no further significance.

Since when is gods will bound by law ... Exodus 20: 24 was used as an example of a command from god. What does it matter if it was passed into law or not?

Are you suggesting the command of God has no probative value to the will of God?What command of god? Words between "god" and Moses that have never been given to the people? Commands that are not delivered are pointless.
One has to wonder though how miraculously these commandments ended up in the Bible. Jew-ish time travel?

Since when is gods will bound by law ... Exodus 20: 24 was used as an example of a command from god. What does it matter if it was passed into law or not?see above. :rolleyes:

yes but then in chapters 35, 36, and 37 he instructs them on making the ark which includes all sorts of handiworks including gold cherubs.

the bible contradictory at times :eek: say it aint so

What command of god? Words between "god" and Moses that have never been given to the people? Commands that are not delivered are pointless.

see above. :rolleyes:

But would that be a failing of god or moses? If moses gods intent was the same, the impact was the differing factor.

But would that be a failing of god or moses? If moses gods intent was the same, the impact was the differing factor.You don't get the logic, do you? How can you possibly follow a divine command which you have not been informed of (e.g. through law) ?

the bible contradictory at times :eek: say it aint so

go figure eh?

You don't get the logic, do you? How can you possible follow a divine command which you have not been informed of?
I did not say it was reasonable to follow ... though I do not find a lot of things in Christianity reasonable ... so it rather fits.

In the end the knowledge of a command does not effect the existence of that command nor the reasoning. I am not saying that I would find people guilty as you are right it is not possible to follow a command that has not been issued but that does not necessarily change gods view on the matter either.

yes but then in chapters 35, 36, and 37 he instructs them on making the ark which includes all sorts of handiworks including gold cherubs.

Yeah, hmmm... well, I notice that the instructions by Moses refer to the location being ornamental, but not the alter itself. They definitely create an ornamental alter, however.

I don't worry as much about actions as I do the explicit words of the Lord as quoted. The primary for that being, that it appears no matter how explicit the instruction of the Lord is, human beings are perfectly comfortable claiming it means whatever they'd like it to mean.

Many of the characters in the Bible even those that specifically meet God are not shown to be particularly pure or committed to the commandments.

What is clear is the alter is not, for sure is not, a representation of God. I wonder how people who are caught in the claim the Bible is always literal rectify the two descriptions.

I did not say it was reasonable to follow ... though I do not find a lot of things in Christianity reasonable ... so it rather fits.

In the end the knowledge of a command does not effect the existence of that command nor the reasoning. I am not saying that I would find people guilty as you are right it is not possible to follow a command that has not been issued but that does not necessarily change gods view on the matter either.WTF?

What command of god? Words between "god" and Moses that have never been given to the people? Commands that are not delivered are pointless.
One has to wonder though how miraculously these commandments ended up in the Bible. Jew-ish time travel?

The Bible was passed down verbally, so it seems this command was given to the Jewish people by Moses.

By the way, I love how willing to be deceptive you are. Are you aware that many of the authors claim to be prophets? If not, then you've not the education to have this discussion. If so, then you know the answer to the question and are just acting foolish.

Now, back on the subject, are you actually trying to logically claim that the command that God gave to Moses was not meant to be carried out? One wonders why God gave it? Maybe God likes his own voice. I bet it's pretty.

Yeah, hmmm... well, I notice that the instructions by Moses refer to the location being ornamental, but not the alter itself. They definitely create an ornamental alter, however.

I don't worry as much about actions as I do the explicit words of the Lord as quoted. The primary for that being, that it appears no matter how explicit the instruction of the Lord is, human beings are perfectly comfortable claiming it means whatever they'd like it to mean.

Many of the characters in the Bible even those that specifically meet God are not shown to be particularly pure or committed to the commandments.

What is clear is the alter is not, for sure is not, a representation of God. I wonder how people who are caught in the claim the Bible is always literal rectify the two descriptions.
You should rather wonder why an altar is needed at all. Because this "god" delights in blood. So he's not at all that dissimilar to the other gods he goes against...

WTF?

Ha. I'm sorry you had trouble following that. Would smaller words help?

whether or not it was passed down has no bearing on the FACT that according to Bible, God commanded it. It remains a command regardless of your pointless claims. Your claims might show the will of Moses, but they have no bearing on the will of God.

You should rather wonder why an altar is needed at all. Because this "god" delights in blood. So he's not at all that dissimilar to the other gods he goes against...

Why would I wonder that? What difference does it make?

The Bible was passed down verbally, so it seems this command was given to the Jewish people by Moses.

By the way, I love how willing to be deceptive you are. Are you aware that many of the authors claim to be prophets? If not, then you've not the education to have this discussion. If so, then you know the answer to the question and are just acting foolish.

Now, back on the subject, are you actually trying to logically claim that the command that God gave to Moses was not meant to be carried out? One wonders why God gave it? Maybe God likes his own voice. I bet it's pretty.So why was there a need for a second set of commandments?
And btw biblical prophets are all bloody liars, just like the mormon prophet. it is more likely that the so called prophecies were recorded much later anyways.

Yeah, hmmm... well, I notice that the instructions by Moses refer to the location being ornamental, but not the alter itself. They definitely create an ornamental alter, however.

I don't worry as much about actions as I do the explicit words of the Lord as quoted. The primary for that being, that it appears no matter how explicit the instruction of the Lord is, human beings are perfectly comfortable claiming it means whatever they'd like it to mean.

Many of the characters in the Bible even those that specifically meet God are not shown to be particularly pure or committed to the commandments.

What is clear is the alter is not, for sure is not, a representation of God. I wonder how people who are caught in the claim the Bible is always literal rectify the two descriptions.


delusion.

the altar is definitely not a representation of god. there can be no representation of god, that would limit him in our minds.

however, jesus did exist (if you are a believer) and did have a physical body. to depict that body is not a limitation on god. the orthodox churches believe that icons showing jesus and mary are showing what they actually looked like, that they were exactly copied down through the ages.

Yep, I'm hung up on what Jesus taught 2000 years ago. I admit it. So me and "some other self-depriving people" will go backwards to living by the Christ of 2000 years ago and you can move those pesky theological boulders that Jesus left behind. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what I've been accusing you of doing and what you've repeatedly claimed you weren't doing.

Since Christ's message 2000 years ago was good enough for myself and "some other self-depriving people" we'll call ourselves Christians. And you and those that agree with you can call yourselfs "Better than Christ-ians", since you don't want to live in the past or move back to the original message of Christ because you're beyond that now. Sound fair?

To be a bit of the devil's advocate here, can you point me to any passages in which Christ speaks to this issue personally? The discussion at this point seems to have been based entirely in Levitical law.

It is my understanding that the Temple of Christ's time was really quite ornate, but Christ himself seemed more worried about the use of the Temple than it's decoration.

Actually Mary is the new Ark, the living vessel to contain the living word of god, while the Ark was only the dead vessel for the words written on dead stone and scrolls.
Read the Kebra Nagast.

Point out the verse(s) in the Bible that state that Mary is the new ark. The Kebra Nagast means nothing.

Point out the verse(s) in the Bible that state that Mary is the new ark. The Kebra Nagast means nothing.It's the logical parallel.

delusion.

the altar is definitely not a representation of god. there can be no representation of god, that would limit him in our minds.

however, jesus did exist (if you are a believer) and did have a physical body. to depict that body is not a limitation on god. the orthodox churches believe that icons showing jesus and mary are showing what they actually looked like, that they were exactly copied down through the ages.

They're not. They aren't even trying. Nearly none of them have a depiction that matches the Bible or what one would logically expect. To suggest, those depictions are at all faithful attempts and realistic depictions requires one to believe the depicters are ignorant of obvious clues about the color of His skin.

Meanwhile, you still run into the difference between the instructions of God (don't use a tool upon the alter) and the eventual alter.

Or the instructions about lying, incest, etc. and the actions of favorities like Abraham.

There are clear differences between the idealist instructions and what we find God will tolerate due to the failings of man.

For my personal behavior I take the lesson of Jesus and keep it simple. The summary of God's Law is to love God and love others as we love ourselves. The rest really becomes a distraction. These kinds of arguments are really valuable in showing only that there is much for us to figure out for ourselves, many of our own planks to address before claiming that we should be permitted to force our moralitiy on others. I have strong beliefs about what I should and shouldn't do. I am not willing to put any of those beliefs into law except where it protects one individual from another (within reason).

They're not. They aren't even trying. Nearly none of them have a depiction that matches the Bible or what one would logically expect. To suggest, those depictions are at all faithful attempts and realistic depictions requires one to believe the depicters are ignorant of obvious clues about the color of His skin.

Meanwhile, you still run into the difference between the instructions of God (don't use a tool upon the alter) and the eventual alter.

Or the instructions about lying, incest, etc. and the actions of favorities like Abraham.

There are clear differences between the idealist instructions and what we find God will tolerate due to the failings of man.

For my personal behavior I take the lesson of Jesus and keep it simple. The summary of God's Law is to love God and love others as we love ourselves. The rest really becomes a distraction. These kinds of arguments are really valuable in showing only that there is much for us to figure out for ourselves, many of our own planks to address before claiming that we should be permitted to force our moralitiy on others. I have strong beliefs about what I should and shouldn't do. I am not willing to put any of those beliefs into law except where it protects one individual from another (within reason).

The summary of "god" 's law is to obey god.

To be a bit of the devil's advocate here, can you point me to any passages in which Christ speaks to this issue personally? The discussion at this point seems to have been based entirely in Levitical law.

It is my understanding that the Temple of Christ's time was really quite ornate, but Christ himself seemed more worried about the use of the Temple than it's decoration.

He doesn't, but then I wasn't calling Smunkee a bad Christian because she doesn't adhere to the Laws as I see them. That's the point. Pooty was. I think Smunkee is a very good Christian in that she believe very much in what she believes but in keeping with the direction and spirit of loving God and our neighbors she does not force her views on others. Or at least she appears to be.

I can't answer what is God's will for another individual and as such I am not in a position to judge them. What I do know is that I won't allow people to use ignorance to use Christ as a weapon against others.

I think the decoration of the temple is not really poignant. The temple is not equal to the alter. It seems apparent through the instruction of God that the alter itself was not meant to be ornate or even tooled.

As far as the instruction of Jesus, I was replying to a snarky comment directed at me about how I was stuck on the teachings of 2000 years ago when theologians have managed to correct all the errors in those outdated teachings.

This specific issue is one I don't find particularly worrisome, really. I was making a point since Pooty was chastising Smunkee for not showing enough reverence to graven idols.

I have spoken against the Catholic Chuch's use of graven idols in the past, but that is because they do actual place alters of men next to those of God and consider it normal to regularly bow down to the graven image of men. I worry about such behavior only in that it supports the idea of a hierarchy of the faithful, when Jesus suggested we were all equal. I think this affects the entire faith. The specific actions of using a crucifix is really an issue for people to deal with in their interaction with God.

the bible contradictory at times :eek: say it aint so

If it is contradictory, it is not proven by these examples. Not all images and stones are banned, only stones and images and idols and altars to other or foreign gods. Please notice the small g...

Obviously not ALL images and stones are forbidden…

Images set up for the Lord…

Exodus 25:17-22
"You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

Numbers 7:89
And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.


And stones set up for the Lord…

Deuteronomy 27:1-8
Now Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, "Keep the whole commandment that I command you today. And on the day you cross over the Jordan to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall set up large stones and plaster them with plaster. And you shall write on them all the words of this law, when you cross over to enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you. And when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, concerning which I command you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with plaster. And there you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones. You shall wield no iron tool on them; you shall build an altar to the LORD your God of uncut stones. And you shall offer burnt offerings on it to the LORD your God, and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God. And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law very plainly."



And as for the Crucifix and the cross and the remembrance of Jesus and the cross…

Hebrews 12:2
looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Galatians 3:1
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

(someone showed them an image of Christ crucified)

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Philippians 3:17-19
Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.


God has no problem with remembering the cross, in fact, we are not to forget it, but to celebrate it and boast of it, and beware of those that teach against it.

...
I don't worry as much about actions as I do the explicit words of the Lord as quoted. The primary for that being, that it appears no matter how explicit the instruction of the Lord is, human beings are perfectly comfortable claiming it means whatever they'd like it to mean.
...

The words are explicitly clear about EXACTLY how the images were to carved and set up and the images to be placed there. Both on the Ark, over the Mercy seat in the Holy of holies because God would dwell there himself and speak to Moses from there...not from the altars of uncut stone and earth.

The summary of "god" 's law is to obey god.

Actually, not according to Jesus. The summary of God's Law is to love God. One would likely hold that obeying God goes with loving Him, but it is not how the Law was summarized according to Christianity.

The words are explicitly clear about EXACTLY how the images were to carved and set up and the images to be placed there. Both on the Ark, over the Mercy seat in the Holy of holies because God would dwell there himself and speak to Moses from there...not from the altars of uncut stone and earth.

Really? So God didn't tell Moses not to use any tools on the alter?

Is this unclear?
24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

Hmmmm... you will defile it if you use a tool on it. Yep, I guess that's means do a little carving.

and for the alter to be natural.

Actually, not according to Jesus. How so?The summary of God's Law is to love God. One would likely hold that obeying God goes with loving Him, but it is not how the Law was summarized according to Christianity.
The summary of "god's" Law is to love "god" in order to not be punished by "god" for not loving "god".

Really? ...snip...


Yes. You are aware that the Tabernacle tent and the Holy of Holies are NOT the Altars for the burnt offerings... right? Two different places, one in front of the other, or altars built up in hight places... different discriptions for different places.

He doesn't, but then I wasn't calling Smunkee a bad Christian because she doesn't adhere to the Laws as I see them. That's the point. Pooty was. I think Smunkee is a very good Christian in that she believe very much in what she believes but in keeping with the direction and spirit of loving God and our neighbors she does not force her views on others. Or at least she appears to be.

Ok, I see. It just seemed that you were arguing rather stringently on this issue, and I was wondering where it came from, if not completely from Levitical law.

I think the decoration of the temple is not really poignant. The temple is not equal to the alter. It seems apparent through the instruction of God that the alter itself was not meant to be ornate or even tooled.

I meant that, from what I understand of the temple, it would have been decorated with quite a few graven images. None of God specifically, but, as Grave has pointed out, the written law is not that specific. To my mind, making a huge deal out of the issue of making images would be emphasizing the letter of the law without any regard for the spirit of the law - something I think Christ was rather clearly against.

Oh, and I'm not usually a spelling/grammar nazi, but this one has been bugging me for the last couple of pages. It's altar, not alter. =)

As far as the instruction of Jesus, I was replying to a snarky comment directed at me about how I was stuck on the teachings of 2000 years ago when theologians have managed to correct all the errors in those outdated teachings.

While you may be right that it was meant that way, I took it more as suggesting that you were stuck on theological questions that have since been solved. Of course, whether or not you think they have been satisfactorily solved is your viewpoint. While there doesn't seem to be much on this issue from the very early church, there was quite a debate over it later, and the questions were "officially" answered.

Of course, in the very early church, a member of the clergy was expected to martyr himself before he would even give up his copy of holy writings. Another of the major debates in the church was whether or not those who actually handed over such writings rather than go to execution with them hidden should still be seen as ordained priests. It points pretty clearly to the early church putting a great deal of stock in holy items, albeit not specifically graven images.

I have spoken against the Catholic Chuch's use of graven idols in the past, but that is because they do actual place alters of men next to those of God and consider it normal to regularly bow down to the graven image of men. I worry about such behavior only in that it supports the idea of a hierarchy of the faithful, when Jesus suggested we were all equal. I think this affects the entire faith. The specific actions of using a crucifix is really an issue for people to deal with in their interaction with God.

I agree here. I think the practice of venerating human beings draws too much attention from the message and lifts them too close to the status of God. A friend of mine recently had an item go missing in a Catholic church and when she called to see if it had been found, she was told to pray to the patron saint of lost items for its safe return. To me, the idea that any human being has a monopoly on the ear of God on any issue suggests that someone has seriously missed the point.

But when it comes to depicting Christ, whether it be on the cross, in a painting, or in a theatrical manner, I simply don't see an overall problem with it. It certainly can be a problem if the focus is not beyond that representation - if the representation itself becomes Christ in the person's mind - but it isn't a problem in and of itself.

I think, given that one was the actual words of God and one was a passing on of those words, the first would be considered more reliable if either are.How could you possibly distinguish? Because you believe that the biblical author twisted meanings?

If it is contradictory, it is not proven by these examples. Not all images and stones are banned, only stones and images and idols and altars to other or foreign gods. Please notice the small g...

Hmmm... we have this instruction...

24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'


And this instruction ...

1 "Build an altar of acacia wood, three cubits [a] high; it is to be square, five cubits long and five cubits wide. [b] 2 Make a horn at each of the four corners, so that the horns and the altar are of one piece, and overlay the altar with bronze. 3 Make all its utensils of bronze—its pots to remove the ashes, and its shovels, sprinkling bowls, meat forks and firepans. 4 Make a grating for it, a bronze network, and make a bronze ring at each of the four corners of the network. 5 Put it under the ledge of the altar so that it is halfway up the altar. 6 Make poles of acacia wood for the altar and overlay them with bronze. 7 The poles are to be inserted into the rings so they will be on two sides of the altar when it is carried. 8 Make the altar hollow, out of boards. It is to be made just as you were shown on the mountain.

How is "using tools will defile the alter" and "make an intricate tooled alter" not contradictory?

How could you possibly distinguish? Because you believe that the biblical author twisted meanings?

Honestly? I don't. I don't believe the old testament can be considered literal. But that's me. Arguments like these are for those that do take the Bible as literal, in which case, you must give more weight to the expressed words of God.

Yes. You are aware that the Tabernacle tent and the Holy of Holies are NOT the Altars for the burnt offerings... right? Two different places, one in front of the other, or altars built up in hight places... different discriptions for different places.

Yes, I am. And the information you are referring to shows the contradiction being pointed to by others. I find it amusing that you think the Jedi mind trick works "there is no contradiction" and suddenly no one notices that there are two references to Moses having an alter and one of those references says that a single tool will defile the alter and the other calls for a ridiculously ornate offering.

Hmmm... we have this instruction...

24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'


And this instruction ...

1 "Build an altar of acacia wood, three cubits [a] high; it is to be square, five cubits long and five cubits wide. [b] 2 Make a horn at each of the four corners, so that the horns and the altar are of one piece, and overlay the altar with bronze. 3 Make all its utensils of bronze—its pots to remove the ashes, and its shovels, sprinkling bowls, meat forks and firepans. 4 Make a grating for it, a bronze network, and make a bronze ring at each of the four corners of the network. 5 Put it under the ledge of the altar so that it is halfway up the altar. 6 Make poles of acacia wood for the altar and overlay them with bronze. 7 The poles are to be inserted into the rings so they will be on two sides of the altar when it is carried. 8 Make the altar hollow, out of boards. It is to be made just as you were shown on the mountain.

How is "using tools will defile the alter" and "make an intricate tooled alter" not contradictory?

God Told Moses to Collect the material AND gave him explicit directions..
Exodus 25:
1The LORD said to Moses, 2"Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me. 3And this is the contribution that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, 4blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, goats' hair, 5tanned rams' skins, goatskins, acacia wood, 6oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, 7onyx stones, and stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastpiece. 8And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. 9Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.

Honestly? I don't. I don't believe the old testament can be considered literal. But that's me. Arguments like these are for those that do take the Bible as literal, in which case, you must give more weight to the expressed words of God.If you don't take the bible literal, then why follow or regard it at all? Although in the New Testament Yeshua is clearly depicted to be in the continuation of Moses and Elijah?

Ok, I see. It just seemed that you were arguing rather stringently on this issue, and I was wondering where it came from, if not completely from Levitical law.

Pooty, as usual, made this about how I'm stuck on Jesus' words. He hates that about me, you know sticking to the teachings of Christ when suggesting what is called for regarding Christians. I'm odd like that.



I meant that, from what I understand of the temple, it would have been decorated with quite a few graven images. None of God specifically, but, as Grave has pointed out, the written law is not that specific. To my mind, making a huge deal out of the issue of making images would be emphasizing the letter of the law without any regard for the spirit of the law - something I think Christ was rather clearly against.

The spirit of the law seems to be to turn your eye to God rather than treating objects like God.

The argument itself is really one for people who believe in a literal Bible. Because once you get past that rather unlikely concept, given the obvious contradictions. People like you or me aren't very likely to get to worried about wearing two fabrics, or graven idols, except where it might extend into treating men as condiuts to God, for example.



Oh, and I'm not usually a spelling/grammar nazi, but this one has been bugging me for the last couple of pages. It's altar, not alter. =)

Dang. Didn't even notice. Not a spelling error. It's a slip of the brain. I do actually know the difference, but my brain to finger coordination seems to be losing it in translation.


While you may be right that it was meant that way, I took it more as suggesting that you were stuck on theological questions that have since been solved. Of course, whether or not you think they have been satisfactorily solved is your viewpoint. While there doesn't seem to be much on this issue from the very early church, there was quite a debate over it later, and the questions were "officially" answered.

Which is my point. I think it's ludicrous to suggest that the teachings of Christ needed to be corrected by men while claiming Christ is God incarnate. Christ taught us what He thought was important for us and those teachings are very clear until you try to filter them through the teachings of men.

Pooty has made it very clear that he believes that Christ's words can be overridden by folks like Paul, various Popes or the Nicean council.


Of course, in the very early church, a member of the clergy was expected to martyr himself before he would even give up his copy of holy writings. Another of the major debates in the church was whether or not those who actually handed over such writings rather than go to execution with them hidden should still be seen as ordained priests. It points pretty clearly to the early church putting a great deal of stock in holy items, albeit not specifically graven images.

Given the value to such documents, because there was no way of mass producing them, I can see how they might hold something that was literally irreplaceable in such high regard. A crucifix isn't exactly comparable.


I agree here. I think the practice of venerating human beings draws too much attention from the message and lifts them too close to the status of God. A friend of mine recently had an item go missing in a Catholic church and when she called to see if it had been found, she was told to pray to the patron saint of lost items for its safe return. To me, the idea that any human being has a monopoly on the ear of God on any issue suggests that someone has seriously missed the point.

Yes, exactly. And I think it speaks to the faith. The acts of the Church are important in this fashion, but getting caught up on individuals has little value. I think we can find an example for this in Christ.



But when it comes to depicting Christ, whether it be on the cross, in a painting, or in a theatrical manner, I simply don't see an overall problem with it. It certainly can be a problem if the focus is not beyond that representation - if the representation itself becomes Christ in the person's mind - but it isn't a problem in and of itself.

I don't have a problem with depicting Christ. I have an issue with bowing down before images or idols. When you get into to the claim that image or object itself deserves veneration or reverence then you cross the line. I believe this is supported by the many references to bowing to graven images.

God Told Moses to Collect the material AND gave him explicit directions..
Exodus 25:
1The LORD said to Moses, 2"Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me. 3And this is the contribution that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, 4blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, goats' hair, 5tanned rams' skins, goatskins, acacia wood, 6oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, 7onyx stones, and stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastpiece. 8And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. 9Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.

Great, you can read. It doesn't address the argument.

Untooled altar (almost misspelled it again) - tooled altar. That's a contradiction

Again, address this -
24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

How is it not contradictory? I didn't ask if the instructions were explicit. I asked how they aren't contradictory.

If you don't take the bible literal, then why follow or regard it at all? Although in the New Testament Yeshua is clearly depicted to be in the continuation of Moses and Elijah?

You don't think there is anything to be taught unless a story is literal? Jesus would likely disagree given that much of his teaching was through figurative stories. I think Jesus was a continuation of the earlier faith. How does that make the Bible literal? Keep in mind that because not all of it is literal doesn't mean none of it is. I can give tons of scenarios where a description could be accurate in terms of what it means while not literally describing what it is that they see.

I'll give you the example of the slave spirituals of a hundred and fifty years ago. If one doesn't put them in context and examine them with the right understanding, one might believe they were singing about God (and they were), but they were also giving instructions for escape and masking them as songs. To take them based on what they literally say is to miss the exact purpose these songs held. We could argue the specifics of why the slaves were calling for the Lord to protect them, but it will never actually answer why they were singing the songs or what the songs meant.

You don't think there is anything to be taught unless a story is literal? Jesus would likely disagree given that much of his teaching was through figurative stories. I think Jesus was a continuation of the earlier faith. How does that make the Bible literal? Keep in mind that because not all of it is literal doesn't mean none of it is. I can give tons of scenarios where a description could be accurate in terms of what it means while not literally describing what it is that they see.Well, if you can't trust the words, then why trust the text overall?

Well, if you can't trust the words, then why trust the text overall?

Because I trust the message. I don't trust history books when they give the specifics of events 1000 years ago, but I do believe they got the gist right. I do believe that the New Testament is more accurate and we have original documents to help us keep a level of accuracy that simply isn't available to us regarding teachings that were not even written down until long, long after they were being taught.

There is a value when examining history to discussing whether or not the holocause occurred, but discussing whether or not Hitler said he was God is of little value unless we have some specific and direct record of it.

Because I trust the message. I don't trust history books when they give the specifics of events 1000 years ago, but I do believe they got the gist right. I do believe that the New Testament is more accurate and we have original documents to help us keep a level of accuracy that simply isn't available to us regarding teachings that were not even written down until long, long after they were being taught.

There is a value when examining history to discussing whether or not the holocause occurred, but discussing whether or not Hitler said he was God is of little value unless we have some specific and direct record of it.What original documents are there for the New Testament? And what would make them more trustworthy than any other narrative written long after the actual event?

What original documents are there for the New Testament? And what would make them more trustworthy than any other narrative written long after the actual event?

Who said they would be? Much of history comes from documents that are equally reliable. History cannot be by definition an exact science, particularly at a time when we don't have things like mass production of written materials and where there is much reason for the powers that be to suppress and even destroy what we would want to find today in order to study the history.

I don't believe that getting too deep into specifics necessary, but the gist of the teachings was of a personal relationship with God. Once you cross that bridge, while the Bible has value in bringing us to questions or, with an examination of historical information that might have affect how the Bible was compiled or how it may have been edited, some edification on the early church, it is left to our personal relationship to answer the questions finally.

To be a bit of the devil's advocate here, can you point me to any passages in which Christ speaks to this issue personally? The discussion at this point seems to have been based entirely in Levitical law.

It is my understanding that the Temple of Christ's time was really quite ornate, but Christ himself seemed more worried about the use of the Temple than it's decoration.

heres the thing (for me) about christianity and the strictures of the old testament.

jesus said he came to fulfill the law but he wasnt interested in a legalistic interpretation of the law, not even of the 10 commandments.

in several places in the new testament, jesus catches a ration of shit for working on the sabbath. in exodus it not only says to keep the day holy but also that one shall do absolutely no work on the sabbath. you are not even supposed to light a freaking lamp. (exodus 35:1-3)

the passages about keeping the sabbath holy are completely clear in the old testament yet jesus feels free to flout that commandment and to have other people do the same.

this indicates to me that it is the spirit of the commandments that is important not the slavish figuring out every nuance. the command against graven images is about not worshipping strange gods. that is important. having a statue may or may not lead you into false worship. that is for YOU to know and for you to avoid. if a crucifix or other religious statuary leads helps you focus on god and jesus, its fine. if it becomes a superstitious idol, its not so fine.

it seems that there have been religiously oriented statues and symbols from the earliest days of chrsitianity. no one seems to have preached against them. there has to be a reason for that.

heres the thing (for me) about christianity and the strictures of the old testament.

jesus said he came to fulfill the law but he wasnt interested in a legalistic interpretation of the law, not even of the 10 commandments.

in several places in the new testament, jesus catches a ration of shit for working on the sabbath. in exodus it not only says to keep the day holy but also that one shall do absolutely no work on the sabbath. you are not even supposed to light a freaking lamp. (exodus 35:1-3)

the passages about keeping the sabbath holy are completely clear in the old testament yet jesus feels free to flout that commandment and to have other people do the same.

this indicates to me that it is the spirit of the commandments that is important not the slavish figuring out every nuance. the command against graven images is about not worshipping strange gods. that is important.

Except it doesn't say that. It is regularly repeated and certainly there is evidence that in some cases people were instructed to destroy alters or graven images to strange gods, but ever reference to the rules about graven images speak to the idea of bowing using images to represent that which we worship, rather than to strange gods. THe part about bowing before images is repeated several times, but the part about strange gods is NEVER said and requires one to ignore the seperation found in Exodus 20.

It appears the spirit of the law is in treating images as if they can ACTUALLY represent God. The crucifix is designed to do exactly that. Don't believe me, try, oh, I don't know, putting a skirt on one and listen to how it is mocking God to mock the image or idol.

having a statue may or may not lead you into false worship. that is for YOU to know and for you to avoid. if a crucifix or other religious statuary leads helps you focus on god and jesus, its fine. if it becomes a superstitious idol, its not so fine.

Again, where does it say that? Where do we get such a thing from? All evidence suggests that the spirit of the law was against treating any image as if it could represent a divine being.


it seems that there have been religiously oriented statues and symbols from the earliest days of chrsitianity. no one seems to have preached against them. there has to be a reason for that.

Tell me that's a joke. Seriously.

Except it doesn't say that. It is regularly repeated and certainly there is evidence that in some cases people were instructed to destroy alters or graven images to strange gods, but ever reference to the rules about graven images speak to the idea of bowing using images to represent that which we worship, rather than to strange gods. THe part about bowing before images is repeated several times, but the part about strange gods is NEVER said and requires one to ignore the seperation found in Exodus 20.

It appears the spirit of the law is in treating images as if they can ACTUALLY represent God. The crucifix is designed to do exactly that. Don't believe me, try, oh, I don't know, putting a skirt on one and listen to how it is slight against God.



that YOU find a seperation in exodus 20 doesnt mean that everyone does. its FINE for you to see this seperation, its equally fine to read the passage and see that its all connected. there is nothing special about graven images except that they are of strange gods or might lead to the worship of strange gods.

you might also take into consideration that the old testament writers knew only of the one aspect of god that christians recognize as a trinity. god "the father" cannot possibly be represented by an idol, statue, or painting of any kind. jesus, however, can. he had a physical body. that physical body is depicted on a crucifix, in an icon and in a painting of jesus on velvet.

no matter how many times you write it, it doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of christianity has always been OK with the depiction of jesus.


Again, where does it say that? Where do we get such a thing from? All evidence suggests that the spirit of the law was against treating any image as if it could represent a divine being.

i read the passage and INTERPRETED it, just as you did. just as people throughout the ages have. my intepretation does not come out of left field, it is the interpretation of the vast majority of christianity for the past 2000 or so years.




Tell me that's a joke. Seriously.

what part do you have a problem with? if the fathers of the church from 1500 years ago had no problem with icons, fish, crosses, and other monuments, why would *I*?

now would you care to respond to the point i was making? that jesus himself found no reason to slavishly follow the 10 commandments even when they are much clearer than the prohibition on graven images?

I was young, and didn't know I was supposed to bow down to all the statues at the church, nor did I know that most of the service was in Latin, when I asked after about the bowing they said "it is holy, we are unworthy" and when I asked about the translation of the latin they said "we don't know, God stuff we think"

I think I need to pick other people to visit mass with........

You really, really do. Most Catholic churches do not use Latin anymore, and ever since I've been Catholic the past 8 years, I've never seen anybody bow down to all the statues. (Very few even aknowledge the statues are there except to ask "Who is that supposed to be?")

Unfortunately, one of the Church's many failings is that it often neglects to tell people about why they worship the way they do. Which is sad, because a lot of planning and thought goes into making the Mass the best celebration of God's grace that it can be.

Great, you can read. It doesn't address the argument.

Untooled altar (almost misspelled it again) - tooled altar. That's a contradiction

Again, address this -
24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, [b] your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

How is it not contradictory? I didn't ask if the instructions were explicit. I asked how they aren't contradictory.

There is no contradiction because there are two different types of Altars being describe between those verses.

The earthen altars are built by the people where they need them, temple or no temple, priest or no priest, if they needed an altar there or if someone had a vision there or otherwise thought God revealed himself there, they would build an Altar there. Additionally, the people themselves could use the earthen or unworked stone Altars, they didn't need a priest to use it for them.

A horned Altar is the type that is built in front of the tabernacle or in front of a temple etc., where a priest uses it to make community sacrifices. It is also the type of Altar that a person could seek refuge at or asylum, by grabbing hold of one of the horns.

that YOU find a seperation in exodus 20 doesnt mean that everyone does. its FINE for you to see this seperation, its equally fine to read the passage and see that its all connected. there is nothing special about graven images except that they are of strange gods or might lead to the worship of strange gods.

Yes, except that seperation is supported by all other references to the command, and a lack of seperation is not supported anywhere. I don't put the seperatione there. The writers of the Bible did.

you might also take into consideration that the old testament writers knew only of the one aspect of god that christians recognize as a trinity. god "the father" cannot possibly be represented by an idol, statue, or painting of any kind. jesus, however, can. he had a physical body. that physical body is depicted on a crucifix, in an icon and in a painting of jesus on velvet.

no matter how many times you write it, it doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of christianity has always been OK with the depiction of jesus.

They also had no problem with creating a hierarchy, even going so far as to call those in the hierarchy fathers after Jesus established a personal faith. They also had no problem with putting an individual at the top of that hierarchy who took up himself names that in the Bible were only used for God, like Holy Father. They also felt it was okay to have massive holy wars. They also thought it was reasonable to take the teachings of Jesus who they deem to be the incarnation of the God and amend them with the teachings of a man. They als thought it was reasonable to go directly and explicitly against the teachings of that incarnation of God.

Where should we start? I think each one of those could be and has been a thread.

Appeals to popularity usually underly a weak argument and certainly NEVER bolster an argument.


i read the passage and INTERPRETED it, just as you did. just as people throughout the ages have. my intepretation does not come out of left field, it is the interpretation of the vast majority of christianity for the past 2000 or so years.

Again, appeal to popularity. It offers nothing to your argument. The vast majority of Christians used the Bible to justify all sorts of hatred. So if you use it to support white supremacy it's not out of left field either, but I'm pretty sure you'll not actually find any logical support for the concept in the Bible. If anything, the Bible argues for white inferiority. The fact that your view has been held widely ever doesn't help you given the history of the Church.

Your interpretation requires us to ignore all or most of the evidence we have.



what part do you have a problem with? if the fathers of the church from 1500 years ago had no problem with icons, fish, crosses, and other monuments, why would *I*?

now would you care to respond to the point i was making? that jesus himself found no reason to slavishly follow the 10 commandments even when they are much clearer than the prohibition on graven images?

I don't believe in slavishly following them either. I didn't jump on PootWaddle out of the blue. I jumped on him after he claimed that Smunkee wasn't protecting his graven idols enough. You decided that you'd like to protect him because you happen to believe that the as long as the vastly corrupt church believed it, then it's a-okay with God. I beg to differ.

You really, really do. Most Catholic churches do not use Latin anymore, and ever since I've been Catholic the past 8 years, I've never seen anybody bow down to all the statues. (Very few even aknowledge the statues are there except to ask "Who is that supposed to be?")

Unfortunately, one of the Church's many failings is that it often neglects to tell people about why they worship the way they do. Which is sad, because a lot of planning and thought goes into making the Mass the best celebration of God's grace that it can be.

we havent had mass in latin except for a few special occasion for about 45 years. where would you go to hear a latin mass these days?

maybe it was an orthodox church and everyone was confused...

There is no contradiction because there are two different types of Altars being describe between those verses.

The earthen altars are built by the people where they need them, temple or no temple, priest or no priest, if they needed an altar there or if someone had a vision there or otherwise thought God revealed himself there, they would build an Altar there. Additionally, the people themselves could use the earthen or unworked stone Altars, they didn't need a priest to use it for them.

A horned Altar is the type that is built in front of the tabernacle or in front of a temple etc., where a priest uses it to make community sacrifices. It is also the type of Altar that a person could seek refuge at or asylum, by grabbing hold of one of the horns.

Really. Quotes from God please saying that he was talking about different types of altars. Or are you just making things up. You might be surprised but I don't find you to be an authority on the Bible.

You really, really do. Most Catholic churches do not use Latin anymore, and ever since I've been Catholic the past 8 years, I've never seen anybody bow down to all the statues. (Very few even aknowledge the statues are there except to ask "Who is that supposed to be?")

Unfortunately, one of the Church's many failings is that it often neglects to tell people about why they worship the way they do. Which is sad, because a lot of planning and thought goes into making the Mass the best celebration of God's grace that it can be.

This is precisely my issue with Catholicism. When you get caught up more on ceremony more than a relationship with God, you get what amounts to superstition "oops, you jinxed us, knock on wood three times and throw salt over your left shoulder." All of our actions that are superstitions have meaning, but what we find on examining them is that they primarily come from a misunderstanding of the world around us.

EDIT: Which isn't to say that Catholics are bad Christians. It's not for me to say. At all. My issue is with the Church. I think it's entirely appropriate to examine the actions of the Church and to encourage changes that would again personal religion, however, it believe it's not appropriate to judge individuals. I think this follows the example of Christ is his addressal of the Church of the day for its sins while protecting the individuals "let he who is without sin..."

Really. Quotes from God please saying that he was talking about different types of altars. Or are you just making things up. You might be surprised but I don't find you to be an authority on the Bible.

Perhaps you would rather read about Altars in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T424)

So Hindus are not breaking that commandment when they pray to their idols, is that right?

When moses got the 10 commandments and came back to the town he was angery because of what the people were doing with idols. Was he mad becasue they were praying to the items themselves or because they were praying to god in front of the idols? And how did he know that they were praying to the idols themselves and not to god? Or do I have the story significantly wrong.\?

They're breaking your commandments. But why the hell would they care?

...

maybe it was an orthodox church and everyone was confused...

D'oh, You made me spit up soda... :p

Perhaps you would rather read about Altars in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T424)

Or perhaps, you'd care to make an argument. I don't care to hear about how other people justify the contradictions. Either the God said what we find in the Bible or He didn't. Are you claiming, that His Word only has value when filtered through some non-biblical document?

EDIT: You do realize that this source actually supports the idea of worshipping at untooled altars.

3. Dangers of the Custom:

But a custom of erecting altars might easily lend itself to abuses. Thus archaeology has shown us one altar--though of a much later date--which is adorned with faces, a practice that was quite contrary to the Mosaic ideas of preserving a perfectly imageless worship.

In other words, the the mosaiic concept was altars for worship were meant to have no design whatsoever. Hmmm... kind of shoots a hole in your foot when you fire a gun before you get it out of the holster. Might want to read your own source next time. In order to make it not contradictory you have to shoot your entire claim about the restriction on images being only related to strange gods right in the foot. Oops.

Back to the main topic:
The passage says to not worship idols.
(It also said to make the ark, but not what to do with it.)
What people did hundreds of years later doesn't matter.
The point is that God (supposedly) said not to, even if people went and did it later.
Of course, there's all sorts of explanations where God was supposed to actually physically be in/on the ark.
But even if they're not true, "straight from God" is the highest level of canon you can have in a religion.

EDIT: About the altars:

This:
25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.
Obviously doesn't contradict this:
1 "Build an altar of acacia wood, three cubits [a] high; it is to be square, five cubits long and five cubits wide.
Notice the bolding.
In the first line, God said explicitly his directions are for an altar of stones.
In the second, he tells the people to build a tooled altar out of wood, which is not one of the altars of stone mentioned in the first line, so that line doesn't apply.

Really, there are lots of better contradictions then this one if you wanted one.

Back to the main topic:
The passage says to not worship idols.
(It also said to make the ark, but not what to do with it.)
What people did hundreds of years later doesn't matter.
The point is that God (supposedly) said not to, even if people went and did it later.
Of course, there's all sorts of explanations where God was supposed to actually physically be in/on the ark.
But even if they're not true, "straight from God" is the highest level of canon you can have in a religion.

it doesnt say that. it says much more than that. then it contradicts itself later by ordering/allowing representational art on other holy items.

it is our job as thinking people to read it all and decide just what the point was.

then you might wonder why jesus didnt follow all the commandments and what the implications of that are.

then you might remember the difference between god the father and god the son in both corporal existence and in revelation to the world.

then you might consider the history of the usage of various things that might be contrued as idols (of jesus) thoughout christian history and why no one had much problem with it until the puritan movement.

Or perhaps, you'd care to make an argument. I don't care to hear about how other people justify the contradictions. Either the God said what we find in the Bible or He didn't. Are you claiming, that His Word only has value when filtered through some non-biblical document?

EDIT: You do realize that this source actually supports the idea of worshipping at untooled altars.

3. Dangers of the Custom:

But a custom of erecting altars might easily lend itself to abuses. Thus archaeology has shown us one altar--though of a much later date--which is adorned with faces, a practice that was quite contrary to the Mosaic ideas of preserving a perfectly imageless worship.

In other words, the the mosaiic concept was altars for worship were meant to have no design whatsoever. Hmmm... kind of shoots a hole in your foot when you fire a gun before you get it out of the holster. Might want to read your own source next time. In order to make it not contradictory you have to shoot your entire claim about the restriction on images being only related to strange gods right in the foot. Oops.


*looks back over the posts looking for someone that said it was okay to decorate earthen, stone or horned altars...*


Nope, didn't find any.

Looks like the only person that shot themself in the foot is you.

we havent had mass in latin except for a few special occasion for about 45 years. where would you go to hear a latin mass these days?

A Traditionalist parish, I guess. They're rare, but it's possible Smunkee stumbled upon one.

maybe it was an orthodox church and everyone was confused...

ROFL! :D

This is precisely my issue with Catholicism. When you get caught up more on ceremony more than a relationship with God, you get what amounts to superstition "oops, you jinxed us, knock on wood three times and throw salt over your left shoulder." All of our actions that are superstitions have meaning, but what we find on examining them is that they primarily come from a misunderstanding of the world around us.

You make a good point, but I'm not sure it encapsulates the particular case we have here. The superstition thing applies to the vast majority of religions.

The Catholic Church in particular has a problem of separating form, function, and focus. They develop wonderful and complex forms for pointing to religious truths, and over time the forms cease to fulfill their function because the people are not taught well to use them as a focus or confuse the form for the function.

For example, the Christian cross (often worn around the neck) or the crucifix (often displayed in a church or home) that is the subject of the thread. The cross/crucifix is a form which has the function of reminding the Christian of what their focus is to be. If it becomes a mere display piece, then it has lost its function. It is useless. If it becomes an object of worship rather than a pointer to greater truth, it is idolatry. Unless the person has the right focus (has been taught what it means and how it operates), the form does not serve its function.

On the other hand, to a person who does have the proper focus, a cross or crucifix can be a valuable aid in developing a more consistent and healthy relationship with God.

EDIT: Which isn't to say that Catholics are bad Christians. It's not for me to say. At all. My issue is with the Church. I think it's entirely appropriate to examine the actions of the Church and to encourage changes that would again personal religion, however, it believe it's not appropriate to judge individuals. I think this follows the example of Christ is his addressal of the Church of the day for its sins while protecting the individuals "let he who is without sin..."

Indeed. I am a Catholic, and I have many problems with the Church, and I make no secret of the fact that I do. I figure I'm not much of a Christian if I don't help the body of Christ see where it needs to start acting more Christ-like and less Pharisaic. There are plenty of good Christians within the Church who are serving the body of Christ very well, and I'd like to see the other parts of the body start cleaning up so they can do their part too.

For example, the Christian cross (often worn around the neck) or the crucifix (often displayed in a church or home) that is the subject of the thread. The cross/crucifix is a form which has the function of reminding the Christian of what their focus is to be. If it becomes a mere display piece, then it has lost its function. It is useless. If it becomes an object of worship rather than a pointer to greater truth, it is idolatry. Unless the person has the right focus (has been taught what it means and how it operates), the form does not serve its function.

On the other hand, to a person who does have the proper focus, a cross or crucifix can be a valuable aid in developing a more consistent and healthy relationship with God.

here is my point, I guess, most of the crucifix people I know think (it seems to me) like there is something magic about it, they have it in their home for "protection" and they wear it around their neck for "to give them faith" and the whole thing seems wrong and superficial to me. I get closer to Christ through prayer and Bible study, I just don't get the "I need a wooden replica to remind me" thing.

I do have family who are very superstitious with their faith though, and that's probably why it makes me so uncomfortable.

I do have family who are very superstitious with their faith though, and that's probably why it makes me so uncomfortable.

Indeed. I can understand that.

You see, my family and most of the Christians I know aren't much for the superstitious bits about using a cross for protection and such. So I don't have anything to react against there.

But what really does bother me is people who don't bother to learn much about their religion and/or that the religious community never taught them well. And the reason it bothers me is that I've known a lot of people who gave up their religion or converted to another religion without even understanding what they've given up or converted to.

On the other hand, if people walk away from a religion because they fully understand and dislike it, that's fine. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

here is my point, I guess, most of the crucifix people I know think (it seems to me) like there is something magic about it, they have it in their home for "protection" and they wear it around their neck for "to give them faith" and the whole thing seems wrong and superficial to me. I get closer to Christ through prayer and Bible study, I just don't get the "I need a wooden replica to remind me" thing.

I do have family who are very superstitious with their faith though, and that's probably why it makes me so uncomfortable.

its a good thing you dont know all that much about the catholic church, there are far more superstitious aspects than the crucifix or cross.

i dont think ive ever met anyone who thought a crucifix would protect them from anything. i see it more as a dedicating your home to jesus kind of thing.

in any case, many if not most people have superstitions in their life. how many people do you know who think that their faith protects them from the horrible things that happen in this life? as if good and bad dont fall on people equally no matter what their faith. the catholic church helps people focus that superstitious feeling in a better direction by keeping it focused on god instead of other unseen forces in the world (like astrology as an example even though i dont think that the church replaces astrology for anyone)

i dont argue that its particularly correct, just that it channels feelings that cant be stamped out of human beings. and that in the end, its how you live your life not the minutiae of belief that matters. (which i suppose is odd considering that the church would disagree with me)

i dont argue that its particularly correct, just that it channels feelings that cant be stamped out of human beings. and that in the end, its how you live your life not the minutiae of belief that matters. (which i suppose is odd considering that the church would disagree with me)

The Church as a whole would not disagree with you on that. Some within the Church heirarchy would, generally those who have either dedicated their lives to studying doctrine and have developed an inflated sense of its importance, or those who on a more local level have become intent on having the form right rather than having the function right.

*looks back over the posts looking for someone that said it was okay to decorate earthen, stone or horned altars...*


Nope, didn't find any.

Looks like the only person that shot themself in the foot is you.

I love how you're constantly pulling the Jedi mind trick. Again, you posted a source that says that people were banned from worshipping before images under mosaic law which is EXACTLY what I said. Actually, the exact words of a source you provided "perfectly imageless worship".

The fact that you have no answer for your own source shows us where your debate lies. Now, come on, how about one of your amazing arguments "you're a dirty, liar, Jocabia, stop making me look silly."

Why does your source say that mosaic law says that ANYTHING you worship before must be imageless? But let's see what amendments you've now added. You're allowed to worship before images provided they are not altars and they are of God. I can't wait for the next amendment. How about a little foreshadowing? Give us a hint... this is fun.

A Traditionalist parish, I guess. They're rare, but it's possible Smunkee stumbled upon one.



ROFL! :D



You make a good point, but I'm not sure it encapsulates the particular case we have here. The superstition thing applies to the vast majority of religions.

The Catholic Church in particular has a problem of separating form, function, and focus. They develop wonderful and complex forms for pointing to religious truths, and over time the forms cease to fulfill their function because the people are not taught well to use them as a focus or confuse the form for the function.

For example, the Christian cross (often worn around the neck) or the crucifix (often displayed in a church or home) that is the subject of the thread. The cross/crucifix is a form which has the function of reminding the Christian of what their focus is to be. If it becomes a mere display piece, then it has lost its function. It is useless. If it becomes an object of worship rather than a pointer to greater truth, it is idolatry. Unless the person has the right focus (has been taught what it means and how it operates), the form does not serve its function.

On the other hand, to a person who does have the proper focus, a cross or crucifix can be a valuable aid in developing a more consistent and healthy relationship with God.



Indeed. I am a Catholic, and I have many problems with the Church, and I make no secret of the fact that I do. I figure I'm not much of a Christian if I don't help the body of Christ see where it needs to start acting more Christ-like and less Pharisaic. There are plenty of good Christians within the Church who are serving the body of Christ very well, and I'd like to see the other parts of the body start cleaning up so they can do their part too.

I rarely say this, but I have nothing to add. I very much respect your position on this. I wish you weren't a mod though. I say this so infrequently, that it looks hokey.

I rarely say this, but I have nothing to add. I very much respect your position on this. I wish you weren't a mod though. I say this so infrequently, that it looks hokey.

Well thank you for the respect. I do appreciate it. :)

I'm just confused about the wishing I was not a Mod comment...

I'm just confused about the wishing I was not a Mod comment...
Sadly... anytime someone compliments a Mod it looks like said person is either grinding sesame seeds or bucking for a Mod position themselves...

Well thank you for the respect. I do appreciate it. :)

I'm just confused about the wishing I was not a Mod comment...

Oh, come on. I say something like that to, oh, I don't know, Bottle, and people know I'm serious. I say it to you and the motives are suspect. Rest assured it's an honest assessment. Given what I said, many people rather than responding to the point would get defensive and nonsensical. You stood up for your religion, you did it logically and you placed the responsibility for that religion right where it belongs.

I think it's unfortunate that so many people treat the general view of Christianity on the world instead of recognizing that as Christians we are responsible for the image we're putting out there.

Obviously, we can't answer for others. However, rather than constantly trying to force people to have a better view of Christianity through threats of Hell or through law, we can help the image of Christianity by encouraging others to adhere to the principles espoused by Jesus and to stand up to those who use those teachings, or worse the teachings of people who aren't Christ claiming them as the core teachings of our faith, to attack people.

Sadly... anytime someone compliments a Mod it looks like said person is either grinding sesame seeds or bucking for a Mod position themselves...

I don't know what grinding sesame seeds means, but it seems like that was my point.

Sadly... anytime someone compliments a Mod it looks like said person is either grinding sesame seeds or bucking for a Mod position themselves...

I don't know what grinding sesame seeds means, but I think I agree that this was the point I was making.

Sadly... anytime someone compliments a Mod it looks like said person is either grinding sesame seeds or bucking for a Mod position themselves...

Fair point. I should have thought of that.

Especially considering that I often use puppets to debate in the interests of eliminating that sort of bias. I like to debate without the "oh yes please give me more your Modliness" and "you're a Mod so I'll assume you're a humorless asshat" camps chiming in, along with the occasional "you're a Mod so you should be enlightened and agree with everything I say" line.

Mod status, like idolatry, tends to get in the way of a genuinely positive and healthy experience.

I don't know what grinding sesame seeds means, but it seems like that was my point.
Sorry... the Japanese version of brown nosing is grinding seasme seeds for some reason and I've picked up the term and the hand gestures.

Mod status, like idolatry, tends to get in the way of a genuinely positive and healthy experience.
True, but you guys do get the cool pictures. ;)

Fair point. I should have thought of that.

Especially considering that I often use puppets to debate in the interests of eliminating that sort of bias. I like to debate without the "oh yes please give me more your Modliness" and "you're a Mod so I'll assume you're a humorless asshat" camps chiming in, along with the occasional "you're a Mod so you should be enlightened and agree with everything I say" line.

Mod status, like idolatry, tends to get in the way of a genuinely positive and healthy experience.

oh great now you have me wondering if your puppet is someone i like or some idiot that i have to hold back from flaming. grrrrrrr

I love how you're constantly pulling the Jedi mind trick. Again, you posted a source that says that people were banned from worshipping before images under mosaic law which is EXACTLY what I said. Actually, the exact words of a source you provided "perfectly imageless worship".

The fact that you have no answer for your own source shows us where your debate lies. Now, come on, how about one of your amazing arguments "you're a dirty, liar, Jocabia, stop making me look silly."

Why does your source say that mosaic law says that ANYTHING you worship before must be imageless? But let's see what amendments you've now added. You're allowed to worship before images provided they are not altars and they are of God. I can't wait for the next amendment. How about a little foreshadowing? Give us a hint... this is fun.

Are you kidding? Reminder; You are quoting an article about ALTARS. The biblical encyclopedia article tells you about different types of Altars, which you seem to have forgotten that you didn't even want to believe existed until I posted the article for you. Now at least you know there are differences between unworked stone/earthen altars and horned altars and their uses and applications.

The article you are quoting is was NOT an article about imagery though, the only thing about imagery in it is about imagery on ALTARS. IF you want to talk about imagery and graven images and sculptures etc., of the Hebrew people under Moses, lets look at some more aspects of their faith then shall we? Such as Bronze Snakes, and the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the Tabernacle tent. WE can talk about Cherubim, lions and palm trees... all things carved and engraved, painted and woven and inlaid on the holy of holies.

You say this is fun? Well of course this is fun for you, because you are getting a free education, but it is tiresome for us. Please do some of your own research if you want to continue to dispute that the SAME Moses who you want to quote for the reasons you say we are not to create iconography today is ALSO the same Moses who told the Hebrews to create iconography when he told them to set up sacred stones and build Arks with images on them and Tabernacles and Mercy seats with graven images on them as well. Mind you, these icons were all to be placed in the very same place that God himself was to dwell, it’s NOT like Moses was going to be able to hide these things from God if Moses wasn’t supposed to be making them…

Are you kidding? Reminder; You are quoting an article about ALTARS. The biblical encyclopedia article tells you about different types of Altars, which you seem to have forgotten that you didn't even want to believe existed until I posted the article for you. Now at least you know there are differences between unworked stone/earthen altars and horned altars and their uses and applications.

No. I still hold them to contradictory. YOUR source explains why THEY think it is okay that it's contradictory, but it doesn't change that it is. Yes, they are talking about two different types of alters. The contradiction is that repeatedly throughout the Bible it is said that we should not bow before images. Accordding to your own source, mosaic law says this. So either the parts your citing are about an alter we do not worship and bow before, in which it case it pretty nonsensical you brought it up or it's a contradiction. I leave the decision up to you.



The article you are quoting is was NOT an article about imagery though, the only thing about imagery in it is about imagery on ALTARS. IF you want to talk about imagery and graven images and sculptures etc., of the Hebrew people under Moses, lets look at some more aspects of their faith then shall we? Such as Bronze Snakes, and the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the Tabernacle tent. WE can talk about Cherubim, lions and palm trees... all things carved and engraved, painted and woven and inlaid on the holy of holies.

Okay, perhaps you're missing it, but the article YOU cited says that when we bow to worship that it should be "perfectly imageless". Perhaps you don't know that imageless has to do with imagery, but a dictionary should fix that for you or just knowing how to spell the words.

Lots of exceptions in your Bible apparently. No graven idols, unless they're of God. Oh, and perfectly imageless worship unless it's an alter. Oh, and you don't support graven idols of God and me suggesting you do is lying, but then you explain how graven idols of God are okay because the Bible never expressly says that God is among the things in heaven we're not supposed to make graven idols of. If you don't think this is embarrassing for you, then you're not reading.



You say this is fun? Well of course this is fun for you, because you are getting a free education, but it is tiresome for us. Please do some of your own research if you want to continue to dispute that the SAME Moses who you want to quote for the reasons you say we are not to create iconography today is ALSO the same Moses who told the Hebrews to create iconography when he told them to set up sacred stones and build Arks with images on them and Tabernacles and Mercy seats with graven images on them as well. Mind you, these icons were all to be placed in the very same place that God himself was to dwell, it’s NOT like Moses was going to be able to hide these things from God if Moses wasn’t supposed to be making them…

Amusing. It's fun for me because you keep allowing me to embarrass you over and over again. How could I be less than amused by someone who refuses to actually making an argument instead just plugging his ears and screaming "lalalala"? You keep describing how the information you are presenting is contradictory and then claiming it's not. If that's not fingers in the ears, I don't know what is.

Are you claiming that mosaic law did not call for "perfectly imageless worship"? If it did, then that obviously supports my claims that worshiping before images is forbidden. And if it didn't, then that proves the source you gave without even so much as offering your own argument isn't a reliable source. Again, I'll let you decide. Am I right because your source says I am or because your source which makes up the entirety of your argument about contradictions is unreliable. I think it's both.

Fair point. I should have thought of that.

Especially considering that I often use puppets to debate in the interests of eliminating that sort of bias. I like to debate without the "oh yes please give me more your Modliness" and "you're a Mod so I'll assume you're a humorless asshat" camps chiming in, along with the occasional "you're a Mod so you should be enlightened and agree with everything I say" line.

Mod status, like idolatry, tends to get in the way of a genuinely positive and healthy experience.

My experience is that in debate some mods deserve respect, some don't, and some do at certain times and don't at others. Being a mod doesn't make your opinion more valuable unless it relates to the rules of the site.

I think many people think that mods are kind of like bosses, officers or referees and therefore more likely to be older like most bosses, officers or referees are. The fact we can't see you more than likely gives a false impression, good or bad.

...
Amusing. It's fun for me because you keep allowing me to embarrass you over and over again. How could I be less than amused by someone who refuses to actually making an argument instead just plugging his ears and screaming "lalalala"? ....

OMyGoodness.... It has just become self evident that you don't have any actual idea about the field of study you are trying to participate in do you?. It is clear now that you have an opinion but you don't know anything about the actual topic that you are discussing, nothing to use to try and buffer your position anyway.

Bronze Snakes, Arks, Tabernacles... you don't have a clue, so you don't talk about them at all, instead you try and pretend they don't exist or they don’t matter. When resources are cited, you dismiss them, when verses are quoted, you ignore them.

I'll tell you what I'm embarrassed about, I'm embarrassed that I wasted any time at all trying to bring actual information into this discussion with you, when now it has become apparent that you don't understand the topic and field data at all or how it applies to the erroneous position you hold.

Please educate yourself, until then, Have a nice day.

OMyGoodness.... It has just become self evident that you don't have any actual idea about the field of study you are trying to participate in do you?. It is clear now that you have an opinion but you don't know anything about the actual topic that you are discussing, nothing to use to try and buffer your position anyway.

Personal attacks. No value. You opinion is not supported by the fact that you cannot make an actual argument yourself and your sources prove you wrong. You claimed that images were okay for the purpose of worship provided that they were of God, but your source calls for perfectly imagelss worship. Explicitly, clearly and obviously. You can't even find a source that agrees with you so instead you have to attack me for noticing.



Bronze Snakes, Arks, Tabernacles... you don't have a clue, so you don't talk about them at all, instead you try and pretend they don't exist or they don’t matter. When resources are cited, you dismiss them, when verses are quoted, you ignore them.

Amusing. I know you dropped this argument because it makes you look like an idiot, but does God enodrse lying simply because he didn't condemn Abraham for lying? What about incest?

Meanwhile, you claim there is no contradiction then you claim that images are acceptable while your source says that imegless worship is not only required but that it must be perfectly imageless, giving the example of people who put faces on the places where they would bow down to worship. I guess the faces are wrong until you add in legs and a cruxifiction, right? But, hey, good thing that there is no contradiction.


I'll tell you what I'm embarrassed about, I'm embarrassed that I wasted any time at all trying to bring actual information into this discussion with you, when now it has become apparent that you don't understand the topic and field data at all or how it applies to the erroneous position you hold.

Information? What do you know yet again you drop every argument you're not comfortable with and then blame other people for you doing it? So much for personal responsiblity. If you have an argument make it. You claim my argument is ignorant. Was your source ignorant? Addreess why it calls for perfectly imageless worship. Quit dropping the argument in exchange for personal attacks.

The information you introduced contradicts your claims and when I cite YOUR SOURCE you call me ignorant. I'd be laughing with you if you were joking. Unfortunately I'm not sure how completely you are making your arguments have no credibility at all.


Please educate yourself, until then, Have a nice day.

Should your source? "Perfectly imageless worship." That's according to your source. Worshipping before faces is wrong according to your source. Is your source not educated enough? This is just sad. You don't bother to make a single argument in this post. Just personal attacks and vague references. Make an argument and stop acting silly.

The last argument you ran away after calling me a liar repeatedly for saying that you supported graven idols of God. Then you start a thread proving that I was completely accurate.

This argument you end by calling me ignorant for pointing out that a source you thought was so complete that you posted it with no comment says that worship should be "perfectly imageless."

The argument with TCT, same thing. You end it with personal attacks and completely dropping every argument of substance.

Do you think this presents you as a patient Christian trying to actually introduce his faith to others or as someone who came here to preach and can't actually provide evidence for the claims found in that preaching? I can tell you how you come across, but I'm curious how you think "I don't have to answer because you're a liar" and "I don't have to answer because you're ignorant" and "I don't have to answer because I don't wanna" comes off?

EDIT: I enjoying educating people about the Bible. You find it tiring. I wonder what that says about whether you're here to preach or actually enlighten people.

True, but you guys do get the cool pictures. ;)

True. And I did choose a really cool one. :p

Of course, I don't worship it for it's coolness. That would be idolatry, you know. ;)

oh great now you have me wondering if your puppet is someone i like or some idiot that i have to hold back from flaming. grrrrrrr

Based on your behavior towards one of them I'd say you like it a little. Others, however, have expressed either neutrality or dislike. I figure that's about how it should be.

My experience is that in debate some mods deserve respect, some don't, and some do at certain times and don't at others. Being a mod doesn't make your opinion more valuable unless it relates to the rules of the site.

Exactly! I hate it when folks bring my Mod status into a debate that has nothing to do with the site rules. It's just irrelevant.

Exactly! I hate it when folks bring my Mod status into a debate that has nothing to do with the site rules. It's just irrelevant.


Well, to be fair, I'm the one who brought it up, but my point was only that I wish you were doing it as a puppet. Mentioned or not, it's there and it affects how people your interaction with us and vice versa.

I'm not Christian and probably missing something, but I should think its not an idol since it is not a false (non-abrahamic or polytheistic) God, it is merely a symbol of that which cannot be portrayed and thus the only conveniant way to display your faith and be universally understood (a colour code, for example, might cause confusion since colours are used for a wide variety of political concepts varying between countries).

See iconoclasm. Lenghty debate for the early christians.

Two threads ago, not a single reply to substantive posts, just attempts to make the subject ANYTHING else than the subject you're getting owned on.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323617&postcount=137

I write a long and substantive post in reply. Your reply -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323667&postcount=142

Again, you substitute attacks for arguments.

TCT makes a long and substantive post -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323649&postcount=140

Your reply - pretend it doesn't address the point (a recurring theme, no) -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323671&postcount=141

You snipped the entire substance of the argument only to argue the same points later in thread. Interesting that his points have no relevance when you're arguing about those very points, like arguing that state constitutions tell us anything about the first amendment when first applied.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323716&postcount=146
TCT tries again with explicit questions and you once again avoid them

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323850&postcount=153
Your entire reply was to one of his edits dropping the rest of his arguments. Once again, notice how PootWaddle claims the ENTIRE thread is misrepresenting his arguments.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335453&postcount=246
Now we have myself, Smunkee, TCT, Nervun, Bottle, and others all misrepresenting your position. Hmmmmm... I wonder what the common thread is.

What passes as a valuable post from PootWaddle -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12332787&postcount=65

And the namecalling -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12332288&postcount=32
Calling Nervun a donkey (an non-insult in the language you chose)

And where the good arguments start. Pages of posts about graven idols, you're response - Liar
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333127&postcount=101

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333694&postcount=143
Keep in mind what I accused you of is endorsing graven images of God. Also, keep in mind that in reply you started a thread where you argue that graven images of God are acceptable, thus endorsing them. Yet, you called me a liar. Repeatedly.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333716&postcount=147
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333726&postcount=148
"I don't have to reply to your points, if I just call you a liar."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333929&postcount=161
And again.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333957&postcount=163
And again. Amusingly, I accused you of claiming the image can be bowed before, treated with reverence, used as an object for worship, representative of God. Amusingly, you've argued exactly that in this thread.

Even a third party tries to explain it to you.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333980&postcount=165

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12333989&postcount=168
Even further explanations of the many things you claim not to believe and then argue for in this very thread. Interesting that you were calling me the liar.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12334015&postcount=170
Amusingly, in this thread and before this thread, you are of course advocating making these images. Again, interesting that I'm a liar for pointing it out.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12334073&postcount=174



And finally, in this thread, suddenly I'm too ignorant to argue with and you don't have to address the substance of my post. It seems the recurring theme of these threads is that as soon as you start getting owned you claim that there is some flaw in the poster and thus don't have to address their arguments. It's remarkably consistent.

Or, hey, here's a thought. If my arguments are ignorant, how about you debunk them. I'll wait.

I'm not Christian and probably missing something, but I should think its not an idol since it is not a false (non-abrahamic or polytheistic) God, it is merely a symbol of that which cannot be portrayed and thus the only conveniant way to display your faith and be universally understood (a colour code, for example, might cause confusion since colours are used for a wide variety of political concepts varying between countries).

According to a source by the OP, who happens to be arguing for graven idols of God, mosaic law REQUIRES perfectly imageless worship. This isn't just an analysis of the Bible, but an analysis of the application of the Bible under mosaic law. The idea that images are suddenly okay to bow and worship before is a new one.

EDIT:

But a custom of erecting altars might easily lend itself to abuses. Thus archaeology has shown us one altar--though of a much later date--which is adorned with faces, a practice that was quite contrary to the Mosaic ideas of preserving a perfectly imageless worship.

Based on your behavior towards one of them I'd say you like it a little. Others, however, have expressed either neutrality or dislike. I figure that's about how it should be.

Exactly! I hate it when folks bring my Mod status into a debate that has nothing to do with the site rules. It's just irrelevant.

hmmm ill have to give that some thought.

it bothers me too when people give a mod too much credence in his/her arguments just because s/he's a mod. especially when they are afraid that if they rip into a mod's post and succeed in showing that the mod was completely wrong that there will be reprocussions. especially especially when they normally go right for the jugular with other posters.

hmmm ill have to give that some thought.

it bothers me too when people give a mod too much credence in his/her arguments just because s/he's a mod. especially when they are afraid that if they rip into a mod's post and succeed in showing that the mod was completely wrong that there will be reprocussions. especially especially when they normally go right for the jugular with other posters.

I don't buy into that mods are unreasonable crap. I've seen lots of decisions that had I been in their shoes I would have done differently. Tons. They aren't perfect. They aren't consistent (meaning how one mod might react wouldn't necessarily be how another would). They aren't even always responsive. HOWEVER, they do appear to try to apply the rules as intended and definitely I see no specific leaning by the mod crew across the board. Because of this, I find it unlikely that a mod would react much differently to being dressed down than anyone else, if for no other reason, that other mods would likely call them on it.

The one thing I do like about mods being present is that people do have a tending to behave more as they think people on this site should behave rather than behaving how they think they can get away with. One would think that would be the same, but I'm sure the mods as well as you and I notice that this isn't the case.

That's the one advantage I'll give to HR being here over a puppet. I think this is more true of the more polite mods. Some mods, Melkor jumps to mind, have as much tendency to go for the jugular as most posters and, as such, I doubt their presence makes much of a difference in most threads. It's kind of like people going whatever speed the cop on the road is going rather than the speed limit.

...snip...


Nice flambait, griefing, and thread hijack all in one.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

Thread Hijacking: Appropriating a thread for a discussion totally unrelated to the original purpose of said thread. Hijacking can take the form of a single post or a long discussion. Such posts may be split or deleted, and the poster warned.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3

Are you Max Barry or something that they let you get away with that kind of crap on such a regular basis?


And finally, in this thread, suddenly I'm too ignorant to argue with and you don't have to address the substance of my post. It seems the recurring theme of these threads is that as soon as you start getting owned you claim that there is some flaw in the poster and thus don't have to address their arguments. It's remarkably consistent.

Or, hey, here's a thought. If my arguments are ignorant, how about you debunk them. I'll wait.

If you want to bring substance to your argument please do so. As to debunking your postion that's been established since the OP of this thread.

I don't buy into that mods are unreasonable crap. I've seen lots of decisions that had I been in their shoes I would have done differently. Tons. They aren't perfect. They aren't consistent (meaning how one mod might react wouldn't necessarily be how another would). They aren't even always responsive. HOWEVER, they do appear to try to apply the rules as intended and definitely I see no specific leaning by the mod crew across the board. Because of this, I find it unlikely that a mod would react much differently to being dressed down than anyone else, if for no other reason, that other mods would likely call them on it.

The one thing I do like about mods being present is that people do have a tending to behave more as they think people on this site should behave rather than behaving how they think they can get away with. One would think that would be the same, but I'm sure the mods as well as you and I notice that this isn't the case.

That's the one advantage I'll give to HR being here over a puppet. I think this is more true of the more polite mods. Some mods, Melkor jumps to mind, have as much tendency to go for the jugular as most posters and, as such, I doubt their presence makes much of a difference in most threads. It's kind of like people going whatever speed the cop on the road is going rather than the speed limit.

i think i must have phrased my post badly

what i dont like is for posters who would normally respond "robustly" who hold back because they assume that if they tear a mod's post to shreds that the mod will retaliate.

i also dont like "sesame seed grinding". (i dont understand the allusion but i like the phrase)

i havent noticed any mod being unfair. and im pretty sure that if a mod went rogue and started punishing someone for beating him in an argument that the upper mods would stop him. (once it is brought to their attention)

melkor amuses me to no end. (just wanted to say it)

Nice flambait, griefing, and thread hijack all in one.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

Thread Hijacking: Appropriating a thread for a discussion totally unrelated to the original purpose of said thread. Hijacking can take the form of a single post or a long discussion. Such posts may be split or deleted, and the poster warned.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3

Are you Max Barry or something that they let you get away with that kind of crap on such a regular basis?

Look at the holier-than-thou approach. For an entire thread, you're entire argument was "LIAR!!!"

You claim griefing when you started this thread with quotes of me from the thread I'm referencing. That's so illogical as to be flooring.

If you want to bring substance to your argument please do so. As to debunking your postion that's been established since the OP of this thread.

Report me if you think that'll work out for you. It's not flamebait. You dropped all of my arguments and suggested it was because I was too ignorant. For those who are looking on, I simply demonstrated that this is your modus operandi.

I'm not baiting you to flame me. I pointing out that you already have and baiting you to actually reply.

Here, you want substance, I'll say it again. According to your source -

But a custom of erecting altars might easily lend itself to abuses. Thus archaeology has shown us one altar--though of a much later date--which is adorned with faces, a practice that was quite contrary to the Mosaic ideas of preserving a perfectly imageless worship.

According to YOUR source, the mosaic practice required perfectly imageless worship. That's your source. It says that the idea is supported by BOTH archeological and biblical evidence.

Rather than showing how this isn't true or admitting you were wrong, you claimed that their claim here isn't applicable because the topic of the article was Altars. If you can't see how explicit language that says images are not permitting when we bow before something when we worship relates to your claims that such practices are acceptable then I don't know what to tell you.

Your claim wasn't established in the OP. It completely ignored a half dozen arguments choosing to display PART of one.

Prove that the old testament says that it is acceptable to create images of God for the purpose of worship. It doesn't. Neither does the new testament. You give a bunch of examples of images they didn't show any reverence to and to which they NEVER prayed or worshipped. That doesn't support your idea that images of God were acceptable. It hurts it.

Give ONE example in either testament that shows God or Jesus saying that it is acceptable to bow or worship before images of Him. Give one example of God endorsing the idea of bowing before very pious men as is the Catholic custom (since you brought up Catholics as an example of proper behavior).

We've got examples in the Bible say that one should not worship before graven images, clearly meaning that those images are of what you are worshipping or to whom you are praying. Numerous examples.

We've got YOUR source sayinng that mosaic law as evidenced by the Bible AND archeological evidence required perfectly imageless worship.

An argument of mine you cited -
Meanwhile, can you show me where in the Bible, it says bow before cast idols as much as you like provided they are of me[God]? And please make it explicit since the text requiring us not to is.

Your reply -
It has already been made perfectly explicit in the verses above about bowing down and revering the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord is not only allowed but expected. And those verses show how alters were built for the Lord and sacred stones were laid out at the Lord’s command. So instead of repeating those now established facts I will tell you how that practice correlates with today’s crucifix.

So apparently, images of Cherubim are images of God. Come on. Just give one explicit example of God okaying the worship before images of him. You cited a bunch of action all of which were not addressing the images, but the altar they were designed to protect and all of which not being images of God or someone or something they thought was God.

Amusingly, you then go so far as to claim the commandments no longer apply (this is from the commandments, of course)

And in regards to your trying to force Jewish law onto Christians today, why stop with just the graven images stuff you claim to be so offended by? But why not also say that we need to obey the dietary restrictions and following all of the other old orthodox customs of the Hebrews as well?

Seriously? Are you claiming the commandments no longer apply? Based on what?

Nice flambait, griefing, and thread hijack all in one.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

Thread Hijacking: Appropriating a thread for a discussion totally unrelated to the original purpose of said thread. Hijacking can take the form of a single post or a long discussion. Such posts may be split or deleted, and the poster warned.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3


I'm no Mod, so I don't want to argue about whether there is flamebaiting or threadjacking, since I think those are things that might require an amount of judgement.

However - the idea that Jocabia could be 'griefing' you is ridiculous. You stated in your opening post that this thread was designed specifically to continue a debate introduced into a different thread:

"This topic needs it’s own thread and a Truce was declared in the previous thread that these quotes come from…

The topic is Crucifixes and Christianity. The proposition was made that Christians are breaking the old testament commandment to NOT bow down to graven images and false idols, when they bow down and pray at Crucifixes in a Church or hang them in their houses or around their necks etc.,. I contend that the accusation is incorrect, I say that it's okay to use a crucifix to focus your attention on God when you pray."

I might also point out - you quoted Jocabia, specifically, in your opening post.

You started the party, and you sent out the invite. Accusation of 'griefing' is just silly.

Nice flambait, griefing, and thread hijack all in one.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

Thread Hijacking: Appropriating a thread for a discussion totally unrelated to the original purpose of said thread. Hijacking can take the form of a single post or a long discussion. Such posts may be split or deleted, and the poster warned.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3

Are you Max Barry or something that they let you get away with that kind of crap on such a regular basis?

As it happens, I've been watching both Jocabia's behavior and yours from the first I saw of this thread. There has been no threadjacking, griefing, or flamebaiting that I can see from either of you, though both parties have been somewhat snarky at times. Yeah, that means both you and Jocabia.

If you no longer wish to continue debating another poster in an aggressive fashion after inviting such a debate and continuing it, then simply recuse yourself or place the poster on your Ignore list.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

As it happens, I've been watching both Jocabia's behavior and yours from the first I saw of this thread. There has been no threadjacking, griefing, or flamebaiting that I can see from either of you, though both parties have been somewhat snarky at times. Yeah, that means both you and Jocabia.

If you no longer wish to continue debating another poster in an aggressive fashion after inviting such a debate and continuing it, then simply recuse yourself or place the poster on your Ignore list.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I placed a thread about this in moderation. I have no issue with him being snarky (particularly when I'm commonly snarky myself), but it should not substitute for debate and it has. I have more than a dozen examples where personal attacks were the only substance in his post.

too long to read and not enough time.

To me, the Crucifix is not an Idol. it's a symbol. nothing more.

I don't Pray to the Crucifix, niether do I pray TO the Cross. I pray to God.

an Idol is something/someone you worship. you pray to that person/thing and expect your prayers to be answered by that thing/person. take the old testiment, Ba'al. they made a statue in it's form and worshiped the statue. that's wrong. they turned the statue into an Idol.

that doesn't mean that the Crucifix is not an Idol. it can become an Idol if you pray TO the crucifix as apposed to praying towards the crucifix.

the same can be said for Muslims. they have to pray in a certain direction... (can't remember if it was to Mecca or Jerusalam) but that doesn't mean they are PRAYING TO that place. only towards it.

ttake the old testiment, Ba'al. they made a statue in it's form and worshiped the statue. that's wrong. they turned the statue into an Idol.They prayed to a Ba'al, Asherah, or Yah statue no differently than you would pray to a crucifix. They prayed to the gods, not the statues. The statues were just symbols, or representations, just like you claim the crucifix or the cross to be.
Do you really believe Israelites were so much smarter and more capable of abstraction than others? Smarter even that Egyptians? Ridiculous! That's just jewish-christian presumptuousness!

They prayed to a Ba'al, Asherah, or Yah statue no differently than you would pray to a crucifix. They prayed to the gods, not the statues. The statues were just symbols, or representations, just like you claim the crucifix or the cross to be.
Do you really believe Israelites were so much smarter and more capable of abstraction than others? Smarter even that Egyptians? Ridiculous! That's just jewish-christian presumptuousness!

read my post again. It has nothing to do with abstraction, but purpose and intent. they prayed to the statues. Most Christians don't pray to the Cross.

the statues were the physical representation of their "gods" the crucifix is not a physcial representation of God, but a symbol of Jesus's sacrifice. no one is told to pray to the crucifix. I don't. next time you're in a church, ask them, do they pray To the cross or do they pray facing the front of the church?

and as I also said, the moment someone prays TO the crucifix, then it becomes an Idol.

read my post again. It has nothing to do with abstraction, but purpose and intent. they prayed to the statues. Most Christians don't pray to the Cross.

the statues were the physical representation of their "gods" the crucifix is not a physcial representation of God, but a symbol of Jesus's sacrifice. no one is told to pray to the crucifix. I don't. next time you're in a church, ask them, do they pray To the cross or do they pray facing the front of the church?

and as I also said, the moment someone prays TO the crucifix, then it becomes an Idol.They did not pray to the statues, they prayed to the gods represented by the statues. They did well know to distinguish between a god and a piece of metal, stone, or wood. You shouldn't believe all the Bible claims.
BTW, if I recall right it was the Israelites who supposedly believed their god was actually living on the Ark (between the Kherubim figures).
And why do Christians sometimes kiss their crosses?

They did not pray to the statues, they prayed to the gods represented by the statues. They did well know to distinguish between a god and a piece of metal, stone, or wood. You shouldn't believe all the Bible claims.
BTW, if I recall right it was the Israelites who supposedly believed their god was actually living on the Ark (between the Kherubim figures).

they prayed to the statues.

consider when Moses went to recieve the ten commandments.

what did the people do? they built statues of Ba'al and others. they made idols and prayed to them.

if they were really praying to other 'gods' then they wouldn't have needed to make those statues. the need for the statues means they were praying TO the statues for those statues were the Representation of what they were worshipping.

the Christians of the OT only raised altars for their offerings to God (outside the Church)

the New Testament, doesn't have them raising crosses inorder to pray or worship God. that's the difference.

oh and I didn't hear that part about the ark before. but if that is true, notice, it's between the figure of the angels... not the ark nor the angels themselves.

as for kissing the cross. dunno, I suppose, but cannot prove, that it's to thank Jesus for his sacrifice. I've never kissed any cross.

they prayed to the statues.

consider when Moses went to recieve the ten commandments.

what did the people do? they built statues of Ba'al and others. they made idols and prayed to them.

if they were really praying to other 'gods' then they wouldn't have needed to make those statues. the need for the statues means they were praying TO the statues for those statues were the Representation of what they were worshipping. You use a biblical narrative as evidence for your position? You must be kidding. The Bible was written specifically to despise other beliefs/religions, so you really shouldn't give a shit for its description of non-Jew-ish ways of worship.

When Moses came back from Mt Horeb folks had crafted a golden calf, a symbol and representation of the Egyptian goddess Hathor, patroness of the Sinai and its mines and their workers. And they prayed to Hathor, and not to the metal of the calf.

the Christians of the OT only raised altars for their offerings to God (outside the Church)There are no Christians in the OT. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

the New Testament, doesn't have them raising crosses inorder to pray or worship God. that's the difference.Of course not. The cross became a Christian symbol only much later.

they prayed to the statues.

consider when Moses went to recieve the ten commandments.

what did the people do? they built statues of Ba'al and others. they made idols and prayed to them.

if they were really praying to other 'gods' then they wouldn't have needed to make those statues. the need for the statues means they were praying TO the statues for those statues were the Representation of what they were worshipping.

the Christians of the OT only raised altars for their offerings to God (outside the Church)

the New Testament, doesn't have them raising crosses inorder to pray or worship God. that's the difference.

oh and I didn't hear that part about the ark before. but if that is true, notice, it's between the figure of the angels... not the ark nor the angels themselves.

as for kissing the cross. dunno, I suppose, but cannot prove, that it's to thank Jesus for his sacrifice. I've never kissed any cross.

They erected altars in order to pray to their gods. Places for bowing before and for worshipping whatever god. These altars were shaped as representations of their god and Jewish Law forbade it in the commandments. God never releases us from the obligation and that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required is supported by biblical AND archeological evidence.

You use a biblical narrative as evidence for your position? You must be kidding. The Bible was written specifically to despise other beliefs/religions, so you really shouldn't give a shit for its description of non-Jew-ish ways of worship.yet others bring up scriptures to support their stance that it's sacrilegious. :rolleyes:
and also, you're talking Christian faith so of course the bible is brought forth. :rolleyes:
add to the fact that this entire thread is based off of what is described in the bible kinda makes your argument just plain stupid. :rolleyes:

When Moses came back from Mt Horeb folks had crafted a golden calf, a symbol and representation of the Egyptian goddess Hathor, patroness of the Sinai and its mines and their workers. And they prayed to Hathor, and not to the metal of the calf.and yet they needed the calf to pray to Hathor. that makes it an Idol. :rolleyes:

There are no Christians in the OT. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ok, point. but doesn't disprove anything.

Of course not. The cross became a Christian symbol only much later.see, you admit it, it's a symbol, not an Idol. Thanks.

yet others bring up scriptures to support their stance that it's sacrilegious. :rolleyes:
and also, you're talking Christian faith so of course the bible is brought forth. :rolleyes:
add to the fact that this entire thread is based off of what is described in the bible kinda makes your argument just plain stupid. :rolleyes:

Well, if you're going to make the argument, you should recognize that Jews held while they were passing this religion orally that worship should be imageless.

and yet they needed the calf to pray to Hathor. that makes it an Idol. :rolleyes:

Like we needed altars. God said that we were permitted those altars provided they DID NOT intend to represent Him. In fact, he directed them to create them of stone and to not design them at all.


ok, point. but doesn't disprove anything.

see, you admit it, it's a symbol, not an Idol. Thanks.

These are not mutually exclusive. It's true that for some it is a symbol and for others it is an idol, but it's always a graven image of God.

Trying to win the argument because he used a word you like better makes it seem like you don't trust you can win the argument on logic. The bible often refers to images, not only idols. Idols were used to describe three dimensional symbols for the gods and images were two dimensional.

They erected altars in order to pray to their gods. Places for bowing before and for worshipping whatever god. These altars were shaped as representations of their god and Jewish Law forbade it in the commandments. God never releases us from the obligation and that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required is supported by biblical AND archeological evidence.yep. the altars were places to worship God, not Idols to be worshipped.

the altars were not in the shape of God. it was a tool for the burnt offerings. by your definition, Churches are idols since people go there to bow and worship God. the Priest is an idol since people bow before him (in Christian churches) and worship God.

all that is stupid and you know it.

and out of curiosity what Archeological evidence is there that supports that God never released us from the obligation?

if a person worships the crucifix, as in, that person places his faith, hope and belief in the crucifix then that is worshiping an idol. but so far as I know, many worship God and not the crossed pieces of wood.

yep. the altars were places to worship God, not Idols to be worshipped.

Neither were the altars that other religions used or altars for other gods. They believed the images or idols represented their gods, not were their gods.

the altars were not in the shape of God. it was a tool for the burnt offerings. by your definition, Churches are idols since people go there to bow and worship God. the Priest is an idol since people bow before him (in Christian churches) and worship God.

No, by my definition the image of Christ is in the shape of God. I'm great that you've dictated this is the difference. Really doesn't help your claims that statues of Christ are not idolatry, now does it. Or is that NOT an image of God that we bow before in order to worship God?


all that is stupid and you know it.

Profound argument. I wonder how, oh how, I might refute such a compelling argument. Um, I know you are but what am I? See how useful that is.

My point is that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required. Now people aren't always the best proof, but this was an oral tradition. If you're going to claim they were wrong to require this then you'll have to establish why? Can you give an example of the erection of an alter shaped like God (Jesus) or a man (the saints) before the Catholic Church started doing it?

and out of curiosity what Archeological evidence is there that supports that God never released us from the obligation?

Amusing. A that's not what I said. You want me to prove something didn't happen. Incidentally, there is archeological evidence for the fact that mosaic law required imageless worship, what evidence do you have that God changed that commandment? Yours is the positive assertion.

if a person worships the crucifix, as in, that person places his faith, hope and belief in the crucifix then that is worshiping an idol. but so far as I know, many worship God and not the crossed pieces of wood.

You realize that people were not doing this at the time of Moses, no? You realize that the golden calf was also a symbol, no? Apparently, God thought that was okay, too, no? Oh, wait...

yep. the altars were places to worship God, not Idols to be worshipped.

the altars were not in the shape of God. it was a tool for the burnt offerings. by your definition, Churches are idols since people go there to bow and worship God. the Priest is an idol since people bow before him (in Christian churches) and worship God.

all that is stupid and you know it.



Hmm - what does Jesus say about churches and priests?

In Mosaic times, there were a 'class' of priests - but they were divinely chosen, and proven to be so through miracles. Jesus taught a personal relationship with God, and worship in privacy. Without the traditional tabernacle, the Temple, and the miraculous election of 'speakers for god'... the modern church, with it's church buildings and salaryman preachers IS idolatry.

Exodus 25:18–20
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be."

The Mercy seat is of course where God is found…

Num. 21:8–9
"And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. "

God tells the people to make a graven statuette and place it on a stick, and that the simple sight of it would heal a person from snake bites. Interestingly enough, Jesus compared himself the bronze snake…

John 3:13-15
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Apparently neither God, who commanded the fiery serpent statuette be made in the first place, nor Jesus who compared himself to the snake, have a problem with the images and statuettes being used in either the OT or the NT.

1 Chronicles 28:18–19
"for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD. All this he made clear to me in writing from the hand of the LORD, all the work to be done according to the plan."

Ezekiel 41:17–20
"to the space above the door, even to the inner room, and on the outside. And on all the walls all around, inside and outside, was a measured pattern. It was carved of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Every cherub had two faces: a human face toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around. From the floor to above the door, cherubim and palm trees were carved; similarly the wall of the nave."

In the scripture I’ve quoted, God Himself commands that graven images be made and Jesus goes so far as to even compare himself to one of them. Now either God is incapable of following his own rules, or the position that says all graven images are wrong and by extension crucifixes as well, must be an erroneous translation/interpretation of the Commandment.

The answer, of course, is that the translation/interpretation of the Commandment is wrong, God does can and does follow his own rules.

God approves of the use of graven and carved objects, including statuary and engravings, and by extension, stained glass pictures and other artworks and statuary, when they are used for their intended purpose of helping the viewer focus on the right things to help them focus on God, exactly like the Cherubim wings told the priest the precise spot, above the mercy seat and between the Cherubim's wings, to find God when he was in the Tabernacle.

We can all agree that God forbids the worship of statues themselves, he says they have no ears to hear… We do not all agree on the definition of Graven Image when applied to the original intent of God via Moses.

Hmm - what does Jesus say about churches and priests?

In Mosaic times, there were a 'class' of priests - but they were divinely chosen, and proven to be so through miracles. Jesus taught a personal relationship with God, and worship in privacy. Without the traditional tabernacle, the Temple, and the miraculous election of 'speakers for god'... the modern church, with it's church buildings and salaryman preachers IS idolatry.

He also fostered a community of believers who eat and drink and discuss together and serve each other, with there being some among them who were noted teachers of the faith, so I don't think that supports the allegation that churches are idolatry. Saying that salaried preachers is idolatry is iffy too, given the mutual service that Jesus advocated.

There's plenty of idolatry in modern churches. I just don't think you're hitting on it.

read my post again. It has nothing to do with abstraction, but purpose and intent. they prayed to the statues. Most Christians don't pray to the Cross.

the statues were the physical representation of their "gods" the crucifix is not a physcial representation of God, but a symbol of Jesus's sacrifice. no one is told to pray to the crucifix. I don't. next time you're in a church, ask them, do they pray To the cross or do they pray facing the front of the church?

and as I also said, the moment someone prays TO the crucifix, then it becomes an Idol.

You quibble.

You say that the crucifix is not a 'physical representation' of 'god'... but I say that isn't so - I say there is never a time when you imagine the cross in front of you might be occupied by someone other than Jesus. You say it is a symbol of the 'sacrifice'... but it is the specific sacrifice of 'god', dying on the cross.

You say it is an idol when someone prays to it. I say that the commandment against graven images says much the same thing - and that that is why the Hebrew scripture forbids their construction.

I think you apply a different set of rules, to those that the Hebrew scripture suggests. The way I read it, the love of money is idolatry - because you 'serve' wealth - and yet money is not an idol, not necesarrily a graven image (although faces on currency might suggest it could be). I think you try to be overprecise on what 'idolatry' is, on what an 'idol' is, and on whether or not 'graven images' are allowed in certain cases.

Looking at the hebrew scripture - there were 'allowed' graven images - but they were specifically appointed by God. I can't think of a scriptural verse that says it is okay to create an image of god - in either 'god' form, or in earthly incarnation, and without that special divine sanction, and image must be a commandment breaker.

Hmm - what does Jesus say about churches and priests?

In Mosaic times, there were a 'class' of priests - but they were divinely chosen, and proven to be so through miracles. Jesus taught a personal relationship with God, and worship in privacy. Without the traditional tabernacle, the Temple, and the miraculous election of 'speakers for god'... the modern church, with it's church buildings and salaryman preachers IS idolatry.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

Exodus 25:18–20
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be."

The Mercy seat is of course where God is found…

Num. 21:8–9
"And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. "

God tells the people to make a graven statuette and place it on a stick, and that the simple sight of it would heal a person from snake bites. Interestingly enough, Jesus compared himself the bronze snake…

John 3:13-15
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Apparently neither God, who commanded the fiery serpent statuette be made in the first place, nor Jesus who compared himself to the snake, have a problem with the images and statuettes being used in either the OT or the NT.

1 Chronicles 28:18–19
"for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD. All this he made clear to me in writing from the hand of the LORD, all the work to be done according to the plan."

Ezekiel 41:17–20
"to the space above the door, even to the inner room, and on the outside. And on all the walls all around, inside and outside, was a measured pattern. It was carved of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Every cherub had two faces: a human face toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around. From the floor to above the door, cherubim and palm trees were carved; similarly the wall of the nave."

In the scripture I’ve quoted, God Himself commands that graven images be made and Jesus goes so far as to even compare himself to one of them. Now either God is incapable of following his own rules, or the position that says all graven images are wrong and by extension crucifixes as well, must be an erroneous translation/interpretation of the Commandment.

The answer, of course, is that the translation/interpretation of the Commandment is wrong, God does can and does follow his own rules.

God approves of the use of graven and carved objects, including statuary and engravings, and by extension, stained glass pictures and other artworks and statuary, when they are used for their intended purpose of helping the viewer focus on the right things to help them focus on God, exactly like the Cherubim wings told the priest the precise spot, above the mercy seat and between the Cherubim's wings, to find God when he was in the Tabernacle.

We can all agree that God forbids the worship of statues themselves, he says they have no ears to hear… We do not all agree on the definition of Graven Image when applied to the original intent of God via Moses.

I've pointed it out before - God can make exceptions to his own rules. The Ark of the Covenant, the tabernacle, the temple... Moses' groovy snake - all of these were directly appointed by God, for his own purposes.

Where does the scripture give the same sanctity to images of an impaled Nazarene?

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

First - shouldn't that be read to mean something like the 'lilies of the field' speech? That is - the Gospel should be sustaining? I certainly don't see that it says there should be priests (the text describes witnessing, not interpreting), or that they should be paid. I also see no justification for churches and cathedrals.

Second - You realise that is not Jesus you are quoting, right?

Neither were the altars that other religions used or altars for other gods. They believed the images or idols represented their gods, not were their gods. but the point is that those idols were needed for daily prayers and worship. the OT only had the alters being used for sacrifices and not for daily worship.

No, by my definition the image of Christ is in the shape of God. I'm great that you've dictated this is the difference. Really doesn't help your claims that statues of Christ are not idolatry, now does it. Or is that NOT an image of God that we bow before in order to worship God?but you called the altars in gods shape.

They erected altars in order to pray to their gods. Places for bowing before and for worshipping whatever god. These altars were shaped as representations of their god and Jewish Law forbade it in the commandments. God never releases us from the obligation and that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required is supported by biblical AND archeological evidence.

as for the Statues of Christ. they are just statues until someone worships the statue.

just like a machette is a tool until it's raised against another human, then it becomes a weapon. Intent and use.

Profound argument. I wonder how, oh how, I might refute such a compelling argument. Um, I know you are but what am I? See how useful that is. nah, it was just a comment to show how idotic things get when taken to the extreme. :p

My point is that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required. Now people aren't always the best proof, but this was an oral tradition. If you're going to claim they were wrong to require this then you'll have to establish why? I'm not claiming they were wrong. but how can you have a truely imageless worship if one defines an idol as something you bow to? an Idol in the sense of worship, isn't just a statue but the receptical of that person's faith and belief. so as I also said, if someone is praying to the cross and they are praying TO the cross, putting their faith and belief in the cross itself, then they turn that into an Idol. but if they are praying to God and the cross just happens to be infront of them, then it's not an Idol.

Can you give an example of the erection of an alter shaped like God (Jesus) or a man (the saints) before the Catholic Church started doing it? not shaped like a human, but what of objects such as the Ark of the Covenant? the Star of David? as for men? what of Moses, Abraham, and others that God touched before the birth of Jesus. were they worshipped? I hope not. exhalted yes, but being exhalted is not the same as being worshipped. however, one cannot be sure since those days are long gone.

Do I pray to Saints? nope. but then I'm not Catholic.

Amusing. A that's not what I said. You want me to prove something didn't happen. Incidentally, there is archeological evidence for the fact that mosaic law required imageless worship, what evidence do you have that God changed that commandment? Yours is the positive assertion.

you didn't say that?
[QUOTE]They erected altars in order to pray to their gods. Places for bowing before and for worshipping whatever god. These altars were shaped as representations of their god and Jewish Law forbade it in the commandments. God never releases us from the obligation and that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required is supported by biblical AND archeological evidence.
then what support is there that God never releases us from the obligation?

You realize that people were not doing this at the time of Moses, no? You realize that the golden calf was also a symbol, no? Apparently, God thought that was okay, too, no? Oh, wait...
really, can you show evidence of worship of those other 'gods' without the Calf or other statues being present?

I've pointed it out before - God can make exceptions to his own rules. The Ark of the Covenant, the tabernacle, the temple... Moses' groovy snake - all of these were directly appointed by God, for his own purposes.

Where does the scripture give the same sanctity to images of an impaled Nazarene?

And as I pointed out before, and again now, God didn't make exceptions to his own rules. YOU misunderstand what those rules are and because of that misunderstanding you think God broke his own rules. He did not.

He also fostered a community of believers who eat and drink and discuss together and serve each other, with there being some among them who were noted teachers of the faith, so I don't think that supports the allegation that churches are idolatry. Saying that salaried preachers is idolatry is iffy too, given the mutual service that Jesus advocated.


But Jesus gives us examples of what that 'service' for each other means - and it is not a privileged position, much less a salaried one. Indeed, he describes it as being basically a servant or slave - and that one should seek to make one's self lesser than other men to do it.

This idea that you can go to a 'church' where an expert can tell you what the scripture is supposed to mean to you - is the exact thing Jesus fought against during his earthly ministry. The modern christian church is just the Pharisees, reborn in 20th century dress.

Well, if you're going to make the argument, you should recognize that Jews held while they were passing this religion orally that worship should be imageless. and if you read, it was in response to another posters comments about useing the bible as support in a religious discussion.

Like we needed altars. God said that we were permitted those altars provided they DID NOT intend to represent Him. In fact, he directed them to create them of stone and to not design them at all.exactly, the alters were not worshipped. they were tools but they were not the objects receiving the worship.

These are not mutually exclusive. It's true that for some it is a symbol and for others it is an idol, but it's always a graven image of God. A graven Idol is different than a symbol.

Trying to win the argument because he used a word you like better makes it seem like you don't trust you can win the argument on logic. The bible often refers to images, not only idols. Idols were used to describe three dimensional symbols for the gods and images were two dimensional.and the point was not what the object was called but how it was used.

First - shouldn't that be read to mean something like the 'lilies of the field' speech? That is - the Gospel should be sustaining? I certainly don't see that it says there should be priests (the text describes witnessing, not interpreting), or that they should be paid. I also see no justification for churches and cathedrals.

Luke 10:1-7
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. And he said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages.

Second - You realise that is not Jesus you are quoting, right?


Oh great :rolleyes:

And as I pointed out before, and again now, God didn't make exceptions to his own rules. YOU misunderstand what those rules are and because of that misunderstanding you think God broke his own rules. He did not.

This is a nonsense reply.

Obviously (if you believe Moses brought commandments down) God said there were to be no graven images.

Obviously - those he specifically he allowed are still graven images... just one's that he allowed.

I don't see how there can be any misunderstanding there. I wonder if you have even read the scripture.

(And, if you don't think God makes exception to his own rules, you must have an amazing ability to ignore the irreconcilable - from the soothsaying of Joseph, to the allowance of exceptions to 'thou shalt not kill'.)

Regardless of which - you avoided answering the question - where does the scripture say it is okay to construct images of jesus, crucified?

Luke 10:1-7
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. And he said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages.


This passage describes those who travel bearing witness. This passage also clearly describes how the witness is entirely dependent on the charity of the people to whom the witness attends.

Noweher does it suggest churches, cathedrals, or people who stand in a pulpit as a job.


Oh great :rolleyes:

Oh great.... what?

Glad to see that Job and his cronies are still jabbering at the dung heap.

A crucifix, like many other religious symbols have morphed from their original purpose. Originally, the cross (and someties the fish) were used to quietly tell followers where to meet without incurring the wrath of the Roman authorities. The Hebrews have also used these symbols (the Mezzuzah primarily) as well to help throw off the oppressors. Over time, the symbol did indeed become the focus of worship and battle. Is it a violatioin of the Second Commandment? Probably. But I won't know that definitively until I go to the other side and ask.

And I won't be able to share the answer.

what i dont like is for posters who would normally respond "robustly" who hold back because they assume that if they tear a mod's post to shreds that the mod will retaliate.

I haven't noticed much of that. Of course, I don't pay particular attention to who is and is not a mod unless they are actively moderating at the time. I have, on occasion, ripped into a post to realize later that the person was a mod. On at least one occasion, the person in question brought up the fact that they were a mod to, as far as I could tell, try and get me to stop the debate. But I haven't seen much of that.

i havent noticed any mod being unfair. and im pretty sure that if a mod went rogue and started punishing someone for beating him in an argument that the upper mods would stop him. (once it is brought to their attention)


I'm pretty sure they watch for this pretty closely. I've had one mod who actually put me on ignore (with, as I understand it, permission from the moderators as a whole) because they personally disliked me enough that this looked like a possibility.


They did not pray to the statues, they prayed to the gods represented by the statues. They did well know to distinguish between a god and a piece of metal, stone, or wood.

That depends on the particular religious practice. There certainly were religious beliefs that a god of some sort was housed within a statue, temple, etc. Even the ancient Hebrew religion seems to have picked that up - with the idea of God actually traveling above the ark, and the Temple being seen as a "home" of sorts for God - complete, IIRC, with a throne for God to sit upon. Deities in older religions were often seen as being much more physically limited than the more common ideas of the divine today.

This is a nonsense reply.

Obviously (if you believe Moses brought commandments down) God said there were to be no graven images.

Obviously - those he specifically he allowed are still graven images... just one's that he allowed.

There is no numerical division of the Commandments. Interpreting the images as seperate from the commandment to not have other gods is an interpetive choice. Thus, the ability for you to misunderstand it.

I don't see how there can be any misunderstanding there. I wonder if you have even read the scripture.

Oh, right, very good ... :rolleyes:


(And, if you don't think God makes exception to his own rules, you must have an amazing ability to ignore the irreconcilable - from the soothsaying of Joseph, to the allowance of exceptions to 'thou shalt not kill'.)

Interpreting dreams is not soothsaying, but we understand your intent. However, in soothsaying one tries to draw up the spirits to accomplish the tasks, spirits other than God, and thus, forbidden. Joseph didn't do that.

regardless of which - you avoided answering the question - where does the scripture say it is okay to construct images of jesus, crucified?

Galatians 3:1
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

This passage describes those who travel bearing witness. This passage also clearly describes how the witness is entirely dependent on the charity of the people to whom the witness attends.

Noweher does it suggest churches, cathedrals, or people who stand in a pulpit as a job.

I noticed you changing the focus from preachers to catherdrals and the organized church et al., but I don't have time for more and more at this very moment, I'll come back later... too difficult with sick 9 mos., old on my lap and dinner waiting to be started.... ;)

and if you read, it was in response to another posters comments about useing the bible as support in a religious discussion.

exactly, the alters were not worshipped. they were tools but they were not the objects receiving the worship.

Which is exactly how other religions used them. They didn't worship the golden calf, but the god that it represented.

A graven Idol is different than a symbol.

A graven idol is ALSO a symbol. Claim it's a symbol doesn't change that it may or may not be a graven idol. What makes it a graven image is when we make an image we claim represents God or gods.


and the point was not what the object was called but how it was used.

Yes, and how it was used is that they bowed and worshipped before it. The fact that you look at their worship differently is a factor of your bias, not a matter of fact.

You say that the crucifix is not a 'physical representation' of 'god'... but I say that isn't so - I say there is never a time when you imagine the cross in front of you might be occupied by someone other than Jesus. You say it is a symbol of the 'sacrifice'... but it is the specific sacrifice of 'god', dying on the cross. and that symbolism doesn't make it an Idol unless one Worships it.

I think you apply a different set of rules, to those that the Hebrew scripture suggests. The way I read it, the love of money is idolatry - because you 'serve' wealth - and yet money is not an idol, not necesarrily a graven image (although faces on currency might suggest it could be). I think you try to be overprecise on what 'idolatry' is, on what an 'idol' is, and on whether or not 'graven images' are allowed in certain cases.no, I apply the same rules that you mentioned. I use money, but i don't worship it. as you say I don't "Love money" to the point of serving wealth. the same with idols. I don't love the Crucifix to the point that it supersedes God. as I said, intent and use.

Looking at the hebrew scripture - there were 'allowed' graven images - but they were specifically appointed by God. I can't think of a scriptural verse that says it is okay to create an image of god - in either 'god' form, or in earthly incarnation, and without that special divine sanction, and image must be a commandment breaker.which hebrew scriptures allowed which graven images?