 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:07:14 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Well, there's this widespread theology among many Christians (especially
> the evangelical ones) that if a nation commits enough sin and wickedness
> against God, then God will punish that nation. Therefore the less sin
> that the nation commits, the better.
That's not very widespread - it's very widely reported, but it's a small
number of high-profile nutjobs who make comments like this.
I've met exactly one person who wasn't in a high-profile position who
claimed that about the SLC tornado that took place - and after calmly
informing him that if the tornado was caused by God's anger over a gay
bar in SLC (seriously, he did believe that), then God missed, because he
killed some innocent people setting up for an outdoor retailers
convention and left the bar in question completely unscathed.
Then we fired him (he is a contractor who we had used for years to clean
our chimney and do various minor roof repairs).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 6:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:12:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> >
>> >But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
>> >as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
> That's only relevant to those who believe that particular mythology is
> true.
>
Taking a tangent here. How do Christians who believe that square that
with the prominence of crucifixes and religious icons. Is it, don't do
what I do but do what I say?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:45:44 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Taking a tangent here. How do Christians who believe that square that
> with the prominence of crucifixes and religious icons. Is it, don't do
> what I do but do what I say?
I can only guess, but that iconography refers to their deity of choice,
so there's probably an obscure exception in the Bible that makes that OK.
I'd be more interested in how they square their beliefs with the crass
consumerism most exhibit starting on "Black Friday". Because *shopping*
is what Jesus is all about....yeah....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> >> >But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
> >> >as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
> Taking a tangent here. How do Christians who believe that square that
> with the prominence of crucifixes and religious icons. Is it, don't do
> what I do but do what I say?
"Idols" is not the same thing as "icons". "Idol" is more like a false god.
OTOH, one of the 10 commandments forbids the creation and worshipping of
carved images (ie. icons.) How do they reconcile this? They dropped that
particular commandment. (The Roman church, which later split into the
Catholic and Orthodox churches, dropped that commandment a long time ago
because they wanted to use statues and paintings of biblical figures.
There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
having the power to do such things.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 9:23 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> "Idols" is not the same thing as "icons". "Idol" is more like a false god.
>
True but Idol means:
A picture or object that people pray to as part of their religion.
Cambridge Dictionary
An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship. Oxford
Dictionary
Icon
a devotional painting of Christ or another holy figure, typically
executed on wood and used ceremonially in the Byzantine and other
Eastern Churches.
> OTOH, one of the 10 commandments forbids the creation and worshipping of
> carved images (ie. icons.) How do they reconcile this?
Is that not what I asked?
(I read an article about double negatives, the other day. So I will
rephrase that. Although that sentence is not a double negative it might
be confusing.)
That is what I asked.
> They dropped that
> particular commandment.
News to me.
> (The Roman church, which later split into the
> Catholic and Orthodox churches, dropped that commandment a long time ago
> because they wanted to use statues and paintings of biblical figures.
Then brought it back, then dropped it, then brought it back, then
ignored it.
> There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
> church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
> having the power to do such things.)
>
Well, I would not put money on that. I bet a pound to a penny someone
can find something in the bible that says that it is okay. (And if not,
dreamed that God spake unto him, that it was so.)
BTW I prefer graven image to carved image. It sounds nicer, to my ears.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:23:56 -0500, Warp wrote:
> They dropped that particular commandment.
Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
still are. They changed the wording/translation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > They dropped that particular commandment.
> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
> still are. They changed the wording/translation.
Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the last
commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about coveting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> > They dropped that
> > particular commandment.
> News to me.
The second commandment according to the Catholic church (as well as the
Lutheran one, which adopted this from the former) is not "you shall not
make a carved image", but "you shall not take the name of the Lord your
God in vain."
> > There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
> > church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
> > having the power to do such things.)
> >
> Well, I would not put money on that. I bet a pound to a penny someone
> can find something in the bible that says that it is okay. (And if not,
> dreamed that God spake unto him, that it was so.)
There's no biblical rationale for dropping it. The Lutheran church uses
extra-biblical theology to rationalize why they don't have to follow the
commandment about not making images. (It's a bit contrived. Something
about Jesus having nullified that commandment by showing himself in
person.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:46:53 -0500, Warp wrote:
> There's no biblical rationale for dropping it.
It sounds like you're surprised that there's no rationale about something
written in the Bible.....Um, you do remember what we're talking about,
don't you? ;)
Rationale doesn't figure into it. It's about faith - with faith, you
don't need rationale, proof, or reason.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:43:24 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > They dropped that particular commandment.
>
>> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
>> still are. They changed the wording/translation.
>
> Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the last
> commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about
> coveting.
Have you a citation for that? (Not for the last two being about
coveting, but about it being changed and the last being split)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
