Why does the catholic church accept depictions of Jesus in their temples, and sometimes even God or their saints, and why do they bow to them? It's explicitly stated in Exodus 20:4:
>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
Catholics are heretics.
>major world religion in contradiction shocker
You don't get peasants to church only on uninteilligible gibberish
You could read the Christian chapters of Eliade's "History of Religious Ideas" vol. 2 (it might be 3 actually, can't remember anymore) if you cared to have a scholarly explanation on the matter. But you don't, you want anons to imperfectly and clumsily articulate the sentiment so you can *tip* all the more and feel bigger and more enlightened that something you've already pre-discredited in your mind; in essence striving to validate yourself, to yourself, which is why you would ask a layman rather than consult a religious scholar's approach on the very same matter.
I'm joining the catholic church you dumbass, but before I do so I want my questions answered instead of diving in and joining the dogma. You could have at least checked the right book.
Still, mine is not a very complex question, it does not demand a complex (long) answer. Everything I questioned regarding confession, the sacraments, the saints, te canon, was answered easily by citing the Holy Scripture. If it doesn't have a biblical basis, or at least a very convinceable tradition basis, then it goes against the faith. An article could do, or at least show me why it requires me to read a whole book to understand it.
Pagans used to think their spirits and gods literally resided in the statues. That's what that commandment means. Catholics know they're merely representations.
That's why I cited Exodus. "Thou shalt not make unto thee ANY graven image, or any LIKENESS of any thing that is in HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the earth beneath[...]"
The short of Eliade's analysis is that the OT Yahweh didn't show himself so to create an "image" of him is sacrilegious in its own right, whereas Jesus was God in the flesh therefore the "image" of him wasn't anything for man to decide on his own. There is further justification for the prayer paid to his image but honestly I'm on break and work and haven't the time to try and get into it.
Are you a trad-style Christian?
If so, would you mind recommending any books or writers you think are particularly good?
A graven image is a symbol that is believed to be a god. Depictions of Jesus are not graven images, they're merely symbols. I don't know why Protestants have such a hard time understanding this. If every symbol were a graven image then you're committing idolatry right now by using the English language. Pictures and statues are symbols that serve to transmit ideas and concepts just like every word I'm using right now.
The meaning of the passage is implicit, "graven" does not mean a symbol believed to be a god, graven is the same as carved. Some translations have it as carved instead of graven. OBVIOUSLY it doesn't mean you can't make an image of anything, that's why it's implicit
Yeah its referring to a specific practice of pagans at the time. They fashioned small statues from wood or bronze and they believed they were literal gods who had power over the universe. It's not saying that all symbols are graven images and it's not saying that you can't take a knife to a pumpkin without fear of it turning into a "carven image."
>we should take so-and-so passage literally
>n-not this one, theres c-context and stuff! think of the times!
why not just say jesus fulfilled the law? he himself said that there are only a few commandments that really matter.
PLEROO
yeah, i'm sure serfs would really have vibed with the latin mass in some austere calvinist chapel. There's nothing wrong with representing something which has/had an objective corporeal form.
the old testament is pretty much toilet paper.
Did you reply to the right person? I said nothing about taking some passages literally and some not. You couldn't have possibly got that from my post.
Catholics do not praise images in themselves but as a depiction of something to be praised.
Also, Jesus explicitly says He is the new law, and that His coming breaks the old law apart. You are not to take OT commandments to the core, but understand it as a sign of God's will before Christ.
I wouldn't know what sect of Christian to call myself per-se because I'm also shopping around churches since they all seem to think each other is heretical and for the layman, like me, the differences are confusing and overwhelming. I just know what sort of things I believe in and try to make peace with the world in all its ails around me so that I can remain positive or at least not hedonistically nihilistic. The limited extent of my reading has been things like Jung/Neumann to grapple with the paradoxical nature of mythology/mythic narrative, as well as Eliade for his insights and comparison of the religions of the world and how they're not necessarily so different as it seems on the outside (which also provides contingent explanation for the monotheistic nature of Abrahamic faith in the shadow of the polytheistic/paganic tendency of so many other places/tribes/nations). Veeky Forums might press S to spit on Peterson's grave, but I also found Maps of Meaning to be a particularly interesting exploration into the way people assign value to aspects/abstract phenomenon in their life to create their own meaning, and it really rebuffs everyone's idea that he is some sort of tradcon ideologue as he is constantly railing against staunch conservatism through his analysis of mythic narrative as the he recognizes the totalitarianly conservative society as being an aspect of the "tyrannical king/patriarch" archetype as demonstrated in many different mythos (which he does go into detail about).
This probably doesn't exactly answer your question but in the context of your wondering what I've familiarized myself with, this stream of consciousness blurb is about as good as I can contribute without having some more specific direction to elaborate or deliberate upon.
>any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
If we were to follow that rule today, there wouldn be no paintings or photographs, as they are representations of things in the earth.
Also, God prohibits his followers to eat certain foods that any Christian eats. You must understand that certain laws were given to certain people in a certain time. You can't read the Old Testament and expect it to reflect contemporary doctrine.
Pretty interesting to see the icons in ancient synagogues depicting Old Testament stories.
Would be fun working as an archeologist in Israel.
>because I'm also shopping around churches since they all seem to think each other is heretical
That's what happens when you are a protestant. It doesn't matter which protestant church you go, they are all heretic in the end. By the way, how can a protestant church say that something is heretical? Heresy towards whom? Calvin, Luther or the new nondenominational church?
The funny thing is that they try to appeal to the sola scriptura, the same book that was preserved and compiled by the Church.
>Heresy towards whom? Calvin, Luther or the new nondenominational church?
>The funny thing is that they try to appeal to the sola scriptura, the same book that was preserved and compiled by the Church.
It's weird telling this exact argument to Protestants. My reaction has always been "No. Just shut up."
Why are you asking on a literature board?
t. Gadolig
the only union in protestantism lies in its rebellion against the Church
Because they think that rule doesn't apply anymore, same as the execution if homosexuals and a bunch of others, for that matter.
as much as you might hate lit its actually not a bad board
youre a fucking retard
catholic or orthodox church, pick one of those you dumb amerifat protestant subhuman
>no pictures allowed
>ever
okay genius, you think about it for a while and see if you figure it out.
Why do historylets say this? Ancient authors were perfectly aware that their statues were just statues. They even offer similar arguments to Catholics. "Our ancestors thought they were magic but we know better", "they're a good focus for religious feeling", etc. There's also the eternally amusing back and forth of Jews/Christians going "they're not alive! they're not real gods!" and pagans responding "And? what of it?"
The iconoclasm chapters of Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture give an overview of these old-ass canards.