Christianity Lounge

When it says the heavens above, above means above the earth. On the earth beneath, beneath refers to under the heavens. Remember that right before God gave the commandments, the Israelites crafted an image of Jehovah in the golden calf (a land animal), and this was deemed idolatry
The exact quote is 'in the earth beneath', not 'on'- as if viewed from the perspective of a human standing on the ground. That is the KJV and the NKJV.

We cannot imagine what God the Father looks like, and it seems highly degrading and blasphemous to portray Him as a calf, and then to worship that representation, it harks back to Babylonian and Egyptian paganism.


I do not think I need to point out to you that all three of these are images or contain images that signify Christ when they were used in their proper ordination. When they were taken out of their proper usage, and all three of them were at one time or another, they no longer signified Christ.
Now that Christ has come as the Messiah in human form, I do not see a problem with using an image that is not a mere symbol, but one that accurately portrays Him. The proper usage matters, that's what all the rest of us are getting at, and the RCC reminds her members the images are not to be treated as amulets or as having divine powers in and of themselves.

Going down this path the sign of the Cross can become objectionable, it occurred to me, I'm not sure about it but the Amish or the Mennonites may not have any in their worship spaces. You'll find the Rose of Martin Luther in Protestant churches, I don't know if it's related to the Rosary, I've heard he had a devotion to the Virgin Mary.

You don't need an icon (earthly materials) to worship the true Icon (Christ Himself).
We do worship Christ, the images don't diminish or hinder that, they keep us focused when we stray in our thoughts. You can do without them, to me it seems like some kind of misguided asceticism.


When the Muslims conquered Constantinople, despite praying to the icons for victory, the Byzantines grabbed the icons out of their churches and fled West. It was the icons that needed the people's protection, not the other way around.
They never expected the venerated icons themselves to help. Catholic leaders like Charles Martel, Ferdinand of Castile, Andrea Doria who captured the Standard of the Caliphs at Lepanto, John Sobieski, John Hunyadi, Skanderbeg, and others faced the Muslim menace with Catholic emblems in hand and succeeded in defeating them by the grace of God, which had not been denied them due to "idolatry". Russians defeated the Turks numerous times, Michael the Brave of Romania also, Count Dracula. In Western Europe, the Protestant nations without icons became the least Christian- caused or correlated, that's another discussion.
 
We cannot imagine what God the Father looks like, and it seems highly degrading and blasphemous to portray Him as a calf, and then to worship that representation, it harks back to Babylonian and Egyptian paganism.
Just as the frescoes, images, and statues harken back to Greek and Roman paganism. That is exactly what the converts who brought images into the church were. The problem is syncretism, always has been.

Now that Christ has come as the Messiah in human form, I do not see a problem with using an image that is not a mere symbol, but one that accurately portrays Him. The proper usage matters, that's what all the rest of us are getting at, and the RCC reminds her members the images are not to be treated as amulets or as having divine powers in and of themselves.
If the image is not a "mere symbol" then you are already admitting that it has power in itself. So which is it? Does the image have power and substance in it or is it only a symbol?

We do worship Christ, the images don't diminish or hinder that, they keep us focused when we stray in our thoughts. You can do without them, to me it seems like some kind of misguided asceticism.
This criticism doesn't really make sense since it was always the ascetics who depended on images. The images are man-made, the Word is God-revealed. This is why images can never be spiritual unlike the Word.

Going down this path the sign of the Cross can become objectionable, it occurred to me, I'm not sure about it but the Amish or the Mennonites may not have any in their worship spaces. You'll find the Rose of Martin Luther in Protestant churches, I don't know if it's related to the Rosary, I've heard he had a devotion to the Virgin Mary.
The Lutheran's are probably the closest to the early church (3rd century) on this topic. They don't venerate or worship through images, but neither do they reject Christian artwork altogether. Luther's Rose is not an object of worship or veneration. It is symbolic of his beliefs, a summation of his theology.

They never expected the venerated icons themselves to help.
The Byzantines had a procession for Mary the night before they were taken out by the Muslims. They prayed for the icon to save the city.
 
Last edited:
They prayed for the icon to save the city.
Does this ever get old for you?

No they didn't.

We are the ancient christians. You're Johnny come lately. Then you accuse us of worshipping idols - we insist, NO, you have it wrong. You continue to insist we are lying in some way or another. Yet the Saints and all of the people, from the councils and on, indicate what we say.

Think of how retarded that is, for you to persist. It's insulting. Cut the crap.
 
I'm pretty sure the disagreement is between an ancient integrated view of reality versus a more modern separated view of reality.

It seems to me you have to accept the premise that things in this world can have a sort of synergy with God. And that something man-made is going to be partly God made too.

I'm pretty sure if one shys away from a possibility of synergy in people the same would go for objects.
 
I'm pretty sure the disagreement is between an ancient integrated view of reality versus a more modern separated view of reality.

It seems to me you have to accept the premise that things in this world can have a sort of synergy with God. And that something man-made is going to be partly God made too.

I'm pretty sure if one shys away from a possibility of synergy in people the same would go for objects.
I would put it like this: sacraments are not meant to reinforce a magical view of reality (which is the pagan influence coloring our understanding), they're covenant markers (the Biblical understanding).

"Integrated view of reality" sounds like a mixing of the holy (that which is supposed to be seperate) with the profane. If you believe in the categories of sacred and profane, a "separated view of reality" is inevitable on some level.

The conflict is not so much modern vs ancient worldviews (which ancient worldview?). But the Biblical worldview vs the non-biblical worldviews (in the many forms it takes).
 
Last edited:
I would put it like this: sacraments are not meant to reinforce a magical view of reality (which is the pagan influence coloring our understanding), they're covenant markers (the Biblical understanding).
My view of magic is simply finding ways to manipulate God to do your will, and/or manipulate angels, and/or demons, and/or objects/creation. Essentially trying to control Him. Magic is the opposite of prayer, which would be aligning yourself to God's will.

"Integrated view of reality" sounds like a mixing of the holy (that which is supposed to be seperate) with the profane. If you believe in the categories of sacred and profane, a "separated view of reality" is inevitable on some level.

"on some level" is probably the key statement to focus on. I don't think any earnest Christian would disagree that there are two ends to sacred and profane. It's how much is in between.
 
My view of magic is simply finding ways to manipulate God to do your will, and/or manipulate angels, and/or demons, and/or objects/creation. Essentially trying to control Him. Magic is the opposite of prayer, which would be aligning yourself to God's will.
This is true. Magick practitioners also believe that you can "charge" objects, imbue them with your magic. We should be careful to not believe in magic with a Christian veneer. Holiness ≠ Magical.

"on some level" is probably the key statement to focus on. I don't think any earnest Christian would disagree that there are two ends to sacred and profane. It's how much is in between.
What would you call this "in between" category?
 
What would you call this "in between" category?

Where we exist. One could still focus on us being "in between" in a binary way, but one could also recognize a gradational aspect of that, I would think. Or at least binary mixtures that amount to gradational things. I'm not sure though, do some Christians imagine simply flipping completely back and forth between things like sacred and profane?
 
Where we exist. One could still focus on us being "in between" in a binary way, but one could also recognize a gradational aspect of that, I would think. Or at least binary mixtures that amount to gradational things. I'm not sure though, do some Christians imagine simply flipping completely back and forth between things like sacred and profane?
There is no neutral ground between Christ and Satan. Holiness, by it's very definition, cannot mix with the profane. To be holy is to be set apart from the profane, it's not an ontological substance that can mix with the profane.

Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.
 
There is no neutral ground between Christ and Satan. Holiness, by it's very definition, cannot mix with the profane. To be holy is to be set apart from the profane, it's not an ontological substance that can mix with the profane.

Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

.Ok, I think the "in between" part is the sticking point. We are talking past each other a bit again, I think.
 
.Ok, I think the "in between" part is the sticking point. We are talking past each other a bit again, I think.
Just to lay my cards on the table, I do not see any warrant for an "in between" category. In Neo-Platonic thought, you do have this gradation of ontology, where salvation is essentially trying to climb up the metaphysical chain, or ladder, back to "the source." Not only is this unbiblical, it is actually anti-biblical. What's being assumed in "gradation" is emanation.
 
Last edited:
Just to lay my cards on the table, I do not see any warrant for an "in between" category. In Neo-Platonic thought, you do have this gradation of ontology, where salvation is essentially trying to climb up the metaphysical chain, or ladder, back to "the source." Not only is this unbiblical, it is actually anti-biblical. What's being assumed in "gradation" is emanation.

I appreciate laying the cards out. That's helpful. Fair point guarding against Neo-Platonism. How you see things (that I've gathered) would guard against that. I agree that Neo-Platonism is unbiblical.

I see the incarnation making all the difference in this "in-between" space and with that it wouldn't be neo-platonic. But, how it works exactly would also boil down to a mystery for me. Maybe not satisfying for some.
 
I see the incarnation making all the difference in this "in-between" space and with that it wouldn't be neo-platonic. But, how it works exactly would also boil down to a mystery for me. Maybe not satisfying for some.
You can understand the Incarnation in a strictly ontological (Neo-Platonic) sense or you can understand it in a covenantal (Biblical) sense.

In a Neo-Platonic sense, the Incarnation serves as a "proof" that God can become man, and inversely, that man can become God.

In a Biblical sense, the Incarnation was necessary for Christ to become our atoning sacrifice and accomplish forgiveness for our sins.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brothers in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

The Sacerdotalist branches of Christianity are very much rooted in the Neo-Platonic mindset, given that was the milieu at the medieval time of their becoming. This is one of the reasons I remain a Protestant. What they're looking for ontologically, I've already found covenantally.

For your reading consideration:
 
Last edited:
The problem is syncretism, always has been.
The Israelites were surrounded by pagan cults of hybrid and animal-like deities, that's why the prohibition in Exodus 20:4, it says nothing about the images of those in Heaven.

If the image is not a "mere symbol" then you are already admitting that it has power in itself
The bronze saraph serpent was a symbol, like the Chi Rho sign, while an image is not a 'mere symbol' in the sense that it's a reflection that aims for a resemblance that approximates reality as closely as possible, like a photograph. It's a simple distinction, a photon has a symbol, but also can be viewed in the form of an image. If Jesus had not come until today, there would be videos of Him, and recordings of his teachings.

The RCC has a protocol for disposing of unwanted images or statues, they should be burned or destroyed in such a way as to not mix the remaining matter with trash or sewage, you don't do that to an object of worship if it had any Godly powers.

The Lutheran's are probably the closest to the early church (3rd century) on this topic. They don't venerate or worship through images, but neither do they reject Christian artwork altogether. Luther's Rose is not an object of worship or veneration. It is symbolic of his beliefs, a summation of his theology.
I know there's no veneration, the five petals must mean the Five Solas, I thought about it after writing the comment. There's no particular veneration, but the image is present in the house of worship which should still offend those who interpret Exodus 20:4 as prohibiting even the creation of likenesses of earthly things.

Depicting Jesus in movies or in non religious art isn't controversial as there's no veneration, however some enemies of Christianity still get an allergic reaction seeing them, like those TDS sufferers who might deface a Trump picture poster.

The Byzantines had a procession for Mary the night before they were taken out by the Muslims. They prayed for the icon to save the city.
My take on the Byzantines is that their sin was pride. When Constantinople became the capital its patriarchate secured the position of superiority over the remaining ones due to politics and economics. Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria lost the competition despite their seniority, but not without a fight. All subsequently fell, when with God's grace they should have expanded and conquered their enemies, nipping the rising scourge. Rome had no pull at the time, yet time has corrected the arrangement properly.


In Western Europe, the Protestant nations without icons became the least Christian- caused or correlated, that's another discussion.
But going back to the non-religious Europe, I still prefer westerners in general. If only judged by works and not by faith, I'd rather be among Danes, Swedes, Dutchmen, or Germans, than among Russians, Romanians, or Ukrainians. Westerners even in secular countries are much more trustworthy, dependable, and honest in personal and business dealings. Also if you watch the videos of Russian soldiers in the war thread, it would seem five really strong and ugly profanities make up three fourths of their language. I also appreciate the uncompromising attitude real Americans (Protestants and I assume WASPs at that) display in the piracy thread, that's what the America everyone admired was supposed to be about. But this issue is like Billy Joel- they showed you a statue, told you to pray. I don't understand this reduced approach.


The images are man-made, the Word is God-revealed. This is why images can never be spiritual unlike the Word.
The deeds and words of Jesus are God-revealed, the rest of the Gospels are Holy Spirit inspired man-made writings. The Holy Spirit later spoke through the Apostles and most of it has not been recorded, we have what we need, the writings of the Church Fathers are inspired too. All of our gifts and talents come from God, so we cannot boast. Since God also revealed Himself- Jesus said whoever has seen Him has seen the Father- I see nothing wrong with the veneration of His images, pious and inspired, prayerful Christians made them. We have the Shroud, and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe which I believe were not man-made, they're not demonic deceptions, they evoke the names of Jesus and Mary which demons can't stand.
 
Last edited:
The Israelites were surrounded by pagan cults of hybrid and animal-like deities, that's why the prohibition in Exodus 20:4, it says nothing about the images of those in Heaven.
It does. Be careful not to read the text through our modern lens. The word for 'sky' and 'heaven' are the same in the original Hebrew. If what you say is true, then the Israelites did nothing wrong in making the golden calf.

I know there's no veneration, the five petals must mean the Five Solas, I thought about it after writing the comment. There's no particular veneration, but the image is present in the house of worship which should still offend those who interpret Exodus 20:4 as prohibiting even the creation of likenesses of earthly things.
Here's what the rose represents:

As you've said, the commandment refers to objects for worship, not a flat rule against art. The Lutherans do not do this with their rose. Having art in a church is not identical to venerating it or worshiping through it.

Depicting Jesus in movies or in non religious art isn't controversial as there's no veneration, however some enemies of Christianity still get an allergic reaction seeing them, like those TDS sufferers who might deface a Trump picture poster.
The more hardcore iconoclasts do have scruples over this. A friend of mine no longer watches movies about Christ, since he would picture The Passion of the Christ when he would pray. Since it causes him to stumble, he is right to avoid the images altogether. The art doesn't cause me to stumble, but I would never think to venerate it or worship it or through it. There's nothing to gain from the practice, but a lot to lose.

My take on the Byzantines is that their sin was pride. When Constantinople became the capital its patriarchate secured the position of superiority over the remaining ones due to politics and economics. Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria lost the competition despite their seniority, but not without a fight. All subsequently fell, when with God's grace they should have expanded and conquered their enemies, nipping the rising scourge. Rome had no pull at the time, yet time has corrected the arrangement properly.
No argument against most of this. All I will say is that the Jerusalem Church was lost when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, though the community fled prior to that thanks to heeding Jesus' prophecy. One wonders how the history of the church would've played out differently if this did not happen. Perhaps the syncretist tendencies of the medieval church would've been greatly tempered.

But going back to the non-religious Europe, I still prefer westerners in general. If only judged by works and not by faith, I'd rather be among Danes, Swedes, Dutchmen, or Germans, than among Russians, Romanians, or Ukrainians. Westerners even in secular countries are much more trustworthy, dependable, and honest in personal and business dealings. Also if you watch the videos of Russian soldiers in the war thread, it would seem five really strong and ugly profanities make up three fourths of their language. I also appreciate the uncompromising attitude real Americans (Protestants and I assume WASPs at that) display in the piracy thread, that's what the America everyone admired was supposed to be about. But this issue is like Billy Joel- they showed you a statue, told you to pray. I don't understand this reduced approach.
There's a lot of flack thrown at "the West." But the East is far less Christian and religious than the West. Only about 5% of Christian Russians attend church weekly.

The deeds and words of Jesus are God-revealed, the rest of the Gospels are Holy Spirit inspired man-made writings.
This is error. "All Scripture is God-Breathed" says Paul and "Know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever made by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" says Peter.

Scripture is Divine Revelation, it is not man-made. When you read it, it is God speaking to you.
 
Last edited:

Here was a video I enjoyed. The Scriptures and the Patristics taught Original Sin. Brother Augustine wrote a new book going into this and how a lot of the modern Orthobro movement revises the history on this issue. I particularly enjoy his comments around 1:03:00.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top