Mariology vs Mariolatry

DualHunter,

No Catholic is commanded to bow down and worship a statue of Mary.

Wow, that was easy.

God bless,

Grant

 

2 Chronicles 3
10 In the Most Holy Place he (Solomon) made a pair of sculptured cherubim and overlaid them with gold.

......

2 Chronicles 7

11 When Solomon had finished the temple of the LORD and the royal palace, and had succeeded in carrying out all he had in mind to do in the temple of the LORD and in his own palace, 12 the LORD appeared to him at night and said:

"I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.

 

2 Chronicles 3
10 In the Most Holy Place he (Solomon) made a pair of sculptured cherubim and overlaid them with gold.

......

2 Chronicles 7

11 When Solomon had finished the temple of the LORD and the royal palace, and had succeeded in carrying out all he had in mind to do in the temple of the LORD and in his own palace, 12 the LORD appeared to him at night and said:

"I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices. </font>[/QUOTE]So, Solomon can make statutes of the angels...but Catholics can't?

God bless,

Grant

 

So then to be consistent, you would have no problems with statues of Saints and Angles in Catholic Churches, so long as they are not worshiped?

 

Gracesaves:

You ignored the point that the attempted refutation of the idea that the Catholic church considers Scripture and their Tradition to be equal failed because the Catholic church calls both the Word of God and therefore makes them equal. You also singled out one thing that Catholics do with statues and ignored the rest and also make it sound like I said that the Catholic church commanded people to worship statues of Mary when that is not what I said.

 

You're ignoring the main point here. God said make the ark with cherubim on it. He did not say make statues of angels of people so that Catholics could look at them while they pray to the people they are supposed to represent.

 

Then you believe that God contradicted Himself?

 

I did not ignore the point. Clint is very adament about keeping this thread on track, and I told you that if you start a new thread, I'll be happy to answer your questions. Look back; my response is there. I did not ignore it.

I ignored nothing. Catholics do not pray to statues. Nor do they worship them. Nor do they bow to them. If there is a statue of a saint, they are praying to the saint. They are venerating the saint. The visible object is the statue. The object of reverence is not the statue.

You really don't know much about idolatry. Would you say that Hindus are idolators? I'd be interested to hear your answer.

As for the other point you made, you said this originally:

"As for the issue of the Ark, I seem to recall somebody having already said that God commanded that the Ark be made that way and He never commanded (to my remembrance at least) that anybody bow down to, kneel to, pray to... the ark."

We are comparing the Ark of the Covenant to modern Catholic icons. To state that God never commanded anyone to bow down to the ark, in retrospect, insinuates that Catholics are commanded (or at least expected) to do such to icons. If not, then there was no reason for you to make the statement, since we're all in clear agreement that God would never command anyone to bow down to a statue.

You are trying REALLY hard to catch me in word games. Any reason why?

God bless,

Grant

 

You're ignoring the main point here. God said make the ark with cherubim on it. He did not say make statues of angels of people so that Catholics could look at them while they pray to the people they are supposed to represent.</font>[/QUOTE]DualHunter,

For reference's sake, Trying's response here was to Clint's posted Scripture about Solomon, not the Ark of the Covenant.

God bless,

Grant

 

Have you ever looked at a picture of someone that you were talking to on the phone? I know I have. Same principle.

God bless,

Grant

 

Then you believe that God contradicted Himself?</font>[/QUOTE]No and you're still ignoring the point. God commanded that the ark be made and nobody was praying to the ark nor to the cherubim, whether the cherubim be on the ark itself, elsewhere in the Holy of Holies or even in Heaven.

Just as the Greeks had statues of their gods which they believed were in the heavens, Catholic use statues so that they have something to look at while they pray to somebody. If you ask a Catholic in another city to pray for you, do you make a statue of him or her? The practice of creating an image for the purpose of have something to look at while praying to something unseen is a practice of idolaters.

 

Then you believe that God contradicted Himself?</font>[/QUOTE]No and you're still ignoring the point. God commanded that the ark be made and nobody was praying to the ark nor to the cherubim, whether the cherubim be on the ark itself, elsewhere in the Holy of Holies or even in Heaven.

Just as the Greeks had statues of their gods which they believed were in the heavens, Catholic use statues so that they have something to look at while they pray to somebody. If you ask a Catholic in another city to pray for you, do you make a statue of him or her? The practice of creating an image for the purpose of have something to look at while praying to something unseen is a practice of idolaters.</font>[/QUOTE]I was right. You don't know what idolatry means. According to you, if I look at a picture of Jesus, and pray to Jesus, I'm committing idolatry. No ifs, ands, or buts; that's your definition. What a sad theology.

Further, you don't understand Catholicism nor desire to (not believe Catholicism to be truth, merely understand it). You think every statue/image/icon is for prayer purposes? You would think that, wouldn't you. When you're ready to listen, let me know. Since you already have all the answers, why are you posting anyway? You aren't going to change my mind about anything when you don't even understand the subject matter.

God bless,

Grant

 

"Since you already have all the answers, why are you posting anyway? You aren't going to change my mind about anything when you don't even understand the subject matter."

Why are you still here?

 

To present my version of the truth, DualHunter. What you are providing is not even your own version of the truth. What you are handing me is your version of MY truth. I don't come here telling everyone what Baptists (or otherwise) REALLY believe. I believe that you believe in your beliefs. I will challenge your beliefs against mine, but I will not tell you that your beliefs don't even mean what you say they do.

See the difference?

God bless,

Grant

 

Hey Grant...aren't you supposed to be taking some time off from the board? Are you being bad? Should I chastize you so you can get back to work?

Anyway....

I won't speak for DualHunter, but I will offer my $.02

I personally think that if you look at a picture of Jesus and pray to Jesus with that picture in mind you are commiting idolatry. Let me explain.

1. We do not know what Jesus looked liked. We only know that he was not a good looking man. Most likely he was darker skinned with hair much different than most of the representations you have seen.

2. By using the picture as a tool for prayer, I think it is too easy to move away from Jesus and start praying to 'Picture Jesus', who is not Jesus. This sounds legalistic, but it really is not.

Extreme example to follow:
Lets say that a man NEVER saw what his wife looked like...ever. Would he or would he not be commiting adultry by fantasizing about what he 'thinks' she looks like(based upon her descriptions etc etc)? Would he or would he not be commiting adultry if he fantasized about Cindy Crawford instead of her?

The answers
No (think) and Yes (Cindy). No because we all do it. When I picture my wife, I picture her as I see her, not how she is as I leave off some of her physical flaws that are actually there. But if I picture Cindy Crawford when I am supposed to be thinking of my wife, that is wrong (it isn't my wife).

So, if I prayed while viewing a picture (not Jesus, just some image), that is wrong (unless you think Jesus looked like the picture...but then you have to ask yourself why you think Jesus looked like the picture...). But if I prayed to a picture in my head...based upon what I thought Jesus might look like, that most likely is not wrong. Though, I believe God, being merciful and just (not to mention, realizing that we are weak) honors both types of prayer, I bet he frowns upon the image prayer as substandard to the ideal.

Did I make that understandable?

In Christ,
jason

PS. I don't get mad, but I get upset when I see all the "pictures" of Jesus all over the place. Sure, we are visual, but we have NO idea what the man looked like. I think it is poor taste to go around peretuating the myth of his appearance. I personally would be upset if someone started to show a picture of me that was, say, Brad Pitt. That isn't me, and no matter how good looking people find him, BP is not me and I don't want people to confuse us.

How upset would you be if you invented some great invention and your picture in all the history books was George Bush's picture? Imagine this magnified a trillion fold because you are the savior of humanity and you are presenented by "some hippy dude"*.

*NOTE: some hippy dude reference was from someone I knew in college who thought all the pictures and statues of Jesus made him look like a hippy.

[ October 29, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

Poor way to start this off. I was as upset as I sounded in that post, and it's not very nice for you to poke fun at that.

Umm, no. And your analogy is flawed - see below.

Cindy Crawford does not equal his wife. If he thought she looked similar to Cindy Crawford, based on descriptions, who are we to blame him? He has to base it on something; that's how the human mind works. If he is thinking about CINDY CRAWFORD, THE WOMAN, then of course he's wrong, because that is not his wife. These are different things, and you can't equate them.

An image that is not representative of Jesus? What would that be? A cross, maybe?

Two things. First, you say "most likely not wrong." You don't know? If you don't, then you can't say whether either extreme is right or wrong either.

Second, images in our head about what Jesus looked like...are what ends up being painted or drawn. A picture of Jesus is someone else's image of Jesus in their imagination, and it's just as accurate as our own, since none of us have seen him. According to you, if I picture Jesus with a bold cut and sunglasses, that's okay, as long as it's not a physical drawing and only a mental representation.

You're betting a lot on something that you don't have a lot of information to back it up with. Why did Jesus give us eyes? To use them. To glorify Him with them. Making pictures of Jesus can be used in evangelization! Are you opposed to that?

Yes, you did, but I don't think it quite works. You were comparing adulterous thoughts with images in prayer, and those things aren't really analogous enough to use as an appropriate example.

That's why you're not Jesus.

Jesus isn't vain.

God bless,

Grant

 

Please, follow your own standard and cite Scripture to support your belief.

BTW, I wonder if it means anything that you say "not a good looking man" and then talk about skin color.

 

Cute. Nice try. Considering you don't even know what race I am, or what my skin color is, I'll forgive that. Also, considering you have no clue as to my personal life or beliefs, it would behoove you not to make any future assertions or queries like this. It will only embarass you.

 

To present my version of the truth, DualHunter. What you are providing is not even your own version of the truth. What you are handing me is your version of MY truth. I don't come here telling everyone what Baptists (or otherwise) REALLY believe. I believe that you believe in your beliefs. I will challenge your beliefs against mine, but I will not tell you that your beliefs don't even mean what you say they do.

See the difference?

God bless,

Grant</font>[/QUOTE]You ignored the quote. Catholics treat Mary like a goddess but do not explicitly call her a goddess but instead officially deny such a statement. They give an acceptable name to an unacceptable practice to make it appear ok.

Here's an example of the deification of Mary:

Catholics will try to distract from the issue by claiming that prayers to Mary are requests for her to pray for them. Some prayers to Mary do indeed contain requests for Prayer. If you look at the above quote however you will notice that the pope asked not that Mary pray, but rather that Mary deliver their fleet.

11
"I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no (35) savior (36) besides Me. - Isaiah 43:11 NASB

God says that He is the only savior, so what does the pope do? He calls out to Mary to save the fleet as if she were God. If you were to ask this past pope if Mary was God or a goddess, I think that he would agree with you and say no. However his treatment of Mary as if she were God or a goddess denies his own denial of her deity.

It is because of such contradictions in Catholic beliefs, where one thing is said in denial of what is described, that Catholics must be told what they believe. The Catholic church says that it does not consider Mary to be God nor a goddess and yet it treats her like God, calling out to her to save.

[ October 29, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

Jason,

I appreciate the Bible verse. However, that doesn't mean he would be unattractive, merely ordinary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

God bless,

Grant