Thou shall make no graven images

>thou shall make no graven images
>makes Nativity scenes
Why are Catholics so idolatrous?

Other urls found in this thread:

orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>catholics
>shows image of baptist church

>Woodland Heights Baptist Church

Why is Veeky Forums illiterate?

OP's laziness aside. What's wrong with not taking bible autistically? It's not like Jesus would be angry about people gathering and making nice things together.

>nativity scene
Biblia pauperum.

>Churches and high altars
25th chapter of Exodus.

I can't wait for the day when people start taking hammers to the churches and altars, and begin smashing all that shit up.

That's happened for centuries. The current iteration is called ISIS.

Like 16th century heretics?

It ain't an exclusively Catholic thing.

Similar to 4th century Catholics

>Graven images
>ikons

Nope, for Christ Himself is an ikon of God Incarnate. We ourselves were made in God's image hence we are living Icons of God, as fallen as we are.
To deny the physical embodiment of God via Christ and hence the Incarnation, is what you do exactly when you denounce, defame, and destroy Ikons. You deny Christ.
The question, OP, is thus: Why do Iconoclasts like Protestants and Muslims deny Christ?

You Orthodox or something? Why do you jump back-and-forth with using a K in icon?

>Destroying idols of false gods
>Iconoclasm
Try again.

I think these gentlemen would agree with that sentiment.

veneration is not idolatry

read a fucking book every once in a while

Greek word, why not? Didn't mean to jump, but yes, Orthodox. Learning Greek, you'll realize that "Icon" and "idol" are completely different words with different meanings. This was confused in translation to Western European languages, hence all the mess in heterodox/heretical Christianity today - crypto-Arians that deny the Divinity of Christ, as mentioned in my other post. I'm a convert, not Greek, and was an fedora half my life before, sadly.

Millions of people have died for taking/not taking the bible autistically user. Its a serious issue.

>It's okay to destroy cultural heritage when we do it

You know, you people really aren't different to the muzzies despite how hard you trick yourselves into thinking otherwise.

I love history, so that saddens me, but yes, it's the destruction of idols, but the KEY difference is that these demon-worshiping Muslims are destroying statues where that have no been worshiped for centuries at the minimum, versus idols that were actively being worshiped. Call me a hypocrite if you want, but the issue is more complex than that.

Thats a goddamn shitty excuse and you know it.

see
>Orthodox the same as Islam
Really, read a book.

No it's Iconoclasm regardless it's just that, like those Muslims, you're able to justify it since you're operating from the perspective that your religion is the absolute divine truth. And that destruction of art and culture is worth it if you can rake in more converts.

This was a foreign mentality to the pagans of yesteryear. Not because they were super tolerant, it was just a batshit perspective to have of religion. Still is, but the church has been mostly de-fanged. To everyone's benefit.

I'd rather see a peaceful renaisance of reason and an appreciation for the historical architecture to go with it.

He's right, though.
>orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx

Simply click a link.

>To everyone's benefit.
In this corrupt world, yes, but not the next.
I recognized it as destruction, did I not? It is not iconoclasm, though, in that they're destroying idols, not icons. There is a huge difference, there.

I was using iconoclasm in its broader definition which includes the destruction of all objects of "sacredness". Whether its an ISIS member destroying pre-islamic architecture or Varg burning down a church it's iconoclasm. And should be discouraged.

Catholics have a more refined and intellectual religious tradition than protestants, deal with it.

>having religious statues and artwork
Why is it okay for Protestants to do it but not Catholics? We treat it all the same.

It's hilarious how Protestants are totally OK with doing stuff that they decry Catholics for just because "oh it's fine when we do it because we aren't them"

Rome's fault

Okay kiddo

Veneration = worship

It's the same thing, the Bible makes no distinction.

wtf I love muslims now

Then why protestants have nativity scenes?

Hi ISIS

Only Lutherans do.

Protestants don't actually venerate nativity scenes .

why what's your issue?

>papists 500 years ago
>lets genocide those smartass protestants for sola scriptura

>papists today
>dude chill bruh no one cares about that stuff just donate bruh

And then again, 25th chapter of Exodus right through your head.

>sola scriptura
What "Scriptura"?

The one Luther butchered while claiming it should be the only source of worship and truth.

OP's pic was a Baptist church, One of the most obsessively "anti-papist" churches

Neither do Catholics

Then it's not a problem.

KJV from 1611 will do?

>reading Bible in English

Exactly, that's the point.

Protestants can do exactly what Catholics do which they condemn Catholics for but it's OK when they do it because they aren't Catholics.

I don't have a problem with Catholics building statues. I do however have a problem with them bowing to statues and act like they're fucking divine, not even mentioning the high idolatry that is the relics.

You're the one that thinks it's divine.

We think it's a sign of reverence to those who we consider to be heroes that have achieved a great reward of Heaven and as such are worthy of admiration. This admiration is expressed through practices that have gone out of style due the death of monarchies in Christendom which took that chivalrous "kneeling before a superior" attitude with it.

No. St. Peter explicitly told Cornelius not to bow before him because he's only a man. If even Peter himself doesn't deserve such reverence then a fucking statue sure does not either.

>I have a caveman's capacity for nuance, so therefore it is an excuse

Protestantism was a mistake.

>the high idolatry that is the relics

Pic related is a relic of Judy Garland

>person = statue
Welp. That IS idolatry.

I have no idea who that is and why should I care.

She's the actress who played Dorothy Gale

Well no pictures of family and friends for you then

If God wills it, relics can be a medium of delivering grace and blessings.

2 Kings 13:21
Luke 8:43-44
Matt 14:35-36
Act 19:11-12

Who?

I never bowed to a picture of my dad.

>thou shalt not practice usury
>Catholics AND Protestants engage in usury
Christians are a joke

Well, I don't. Can't speak for the rest.

Cornelius was a pagan. Cornelius most likely believed that anyone who is in contact with a divine being like Peter was would be elevated to the status of demigod.

Peter was a fish merchant, A lonely position at the time akin to a burger flipper. He would not have any frame of reference for someone revering him as though he had much status.

He corrected Cornelius in the fact that no, he was not deified by Jesus and The entire situation is like your friend in high school finding out you're rather closely related to [insert popular musician] and you respond "dude I'm just an ordinary guy, you don't have to act like I'm a celebrity" when he starts treating you like, well, a celebrity.

Have you seriously never heard of the Wizard of Oz? You're either pathetic or trolling or both.

You're literally making shit up right now, though.

And I've never bowed to a statue of Saint Anthony, what's your point?

Never. Probably some American nonsense, why should I give a single fuck about it?

If you didn't then there's no problem.

>what is exegesis
>what is basic logic
>what is not furiously masturbating to Sola Scriptura

It's literally one of the most famous films of all time

Maybe in America.

That's a piss poor exegesis though, Peter explicitly said he doesn't want Cornelius bowing to him.

>Roman centurion convert does something you'd expect a pagan to do to some one who was hanging around a God
>Peter says "yeah don't do that, this ain't a Roman Sun Cult or some shit"
>this is somehow shit exegesis

Got a savings account at the bank, a credit card or loan?

>credit card or loan
I thought you were allowed to borrow but not lend at usurious rates.
It doesn't matter because he uses paper money which is based on usury anyway.

That's a bit presumptive, you don't know what Jesus would do

Tbf he, God, said that graven images stuff as well according to the faith.

Yeah dude, all those other idolatrous religions are incapable of "venerating" a statue as a focal point or symbol of the divine. When polytheists pray to a tiny figurine they literally think the figurine itself is a god.

No they don't. Not all the time. Most do the same "veneration through statues" meme, like Hindus, ancient Euros, have many statues of the same deity, they worship/venerate the deity via the statue

Yes, actually.

Am atheistic but I prefer Catholicism's academic background (based Jesuits) than the Protestantic desire for Christfaggotry to "go back" to being ISIS-style desert tribe scum.

Because humans fucking love idolatry. They love polytheism too. Christians gets around it by basically saying "NUH UH THIS TOTALLY ISN'T THE THING THAT WE CLAIM IS BAD". When you realize that every argument they put forward is post hoc, their behavior makes a lot more sense.