I don’t see Jews worshipping StatuesOkay, let's go to the Hebrew in which "graven image" means an object that is worshiped as a god or in the place of a god.
You quote Chapter 20, but read five chapters ahead where God commands, that two cherubim be carved out of gold. God's direct command: "The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover." Exodus 25:20
Chapter 20, "Carve no idols for personal use (worship)." Chapter 25 has God commanding Cherubim be constructed out of gold and placed on the Ark. We have the clear distinction from God himself of idols being carved and used for personal worship and those that are clearly symbolic works of art.
One Jewish artist has this concern--that a person should buy his art for its monetary worth instead of it valuing it inspiration. Buying art as an investment, he seemed to be saying, is closer to idolatry described in Chapter 20 than the reasons for having a graven image in Chapter 25 (inspirational symbolism).
Non-Catholic Christians who wish to accuse Catholics of worshiping statues (which is grossly untrue) might wish to give some consideration to the Commandment against bearing false witness.
The more poignant question is, "Why should they?"The better question is whether the US government should enforce the Ten Commandments. I take it you believe the government should not. Why?
Does anyone have any questions or concerns about the Catholic faith?
I do. How does Christian faith explain things like immaculate conception and virgin births when science can prove it is a physical impossibility?
I may have to retract my last statement about not denying it is paid by private contributions because of your PP statement. They get a bucket of money. To argue that that bucket of money does not allow them to perform abortions is accounting tomfoolery. Absent that bucket of money they would most likely do less abortions as the funding of other items by that bucket of money frees up money for abortions that might be allocated differently had said bucket not been provided by tax payers.
Not living under a rock, maybe you are to accuse others of that, I can't say for sure. Truth has never been a popularity contest. Maybe that's how you determine what is true but I have standards that are higher than that.
I don't see these as imaginary problems and there is no right to take a human life no matter how you try to dehumanize it. Science is very clear on this. A genetically distinct person who has never existed before and will never exist again is created at conception.
Raised Catholic. Nuns taught us that lucky rabbit's foot, lucky penny, or any other lucky charm were what were in line with graven images. In Biblical times, graven images were thought to carry the quality and attributes of the reality (i.e. golden calf, rams, etc.). (We were not allowed to bring any of these into the classroom.)
Take a look at the description of the Ark of the Covenant. Oh, dear! Graven images on the vessel holding God's covenant!
Catholics (like Jews in ancient times) do not worship carvings or any art. Statuary and carvings are not believed to hold any power, but direct attention to God. A lucky rabbit's foot, a golden calf, a totem of a ram do not direct attention to God, rather away from Him.
I believe it is very clear that the Catholic Church promotes the worshiping of Images
and the Roman Church also promotes worshiping another - God
The Catholic The Catholic Church claims within Catholic Catechism 2 nd ed 841 that
'' Muslims;... these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us [Catholics].....they adore the one, merciful god, mankind's judge on the last day
The catholic god is the Muslim god
that’s why your pope can kiss and stroke / caress - and bow to the unholy Quran
In May 1985 - Pope John Paul ll - repeats Rome’s declaration to audience of thousands the pope said: “Catholics Muslims, we have many things in common as believers and as human beings....
we believe in the same god
Meeting with the young Muslims in Casablanca - Morocco (August 19, 1985) | John Paul II
The reality of the situation is that not only do Catholics claim to worship Allah - which is worshiping another God
but they also promote Idol worship by bowing down to Images and even believe that bodily fluids and bodily secretions and excrements are and discharging from the orifices of their idols they serve,
their pope spends millions making trips to check the bodily fluids Catholics claim are oozing and secreting from these idols.
You will find in the Old Testament that the high priest was never instructed to bow down to these wings of cherubim or to pray to the angels in heaven that they represented.
the bible condemns bowing to any angel and image.
and never were congregation ever ever …. allowed to even go into the temple to venerate anything where the gold wings of the cherubim were placed.
Also - no one was told to bow down to the brass serpent, and neither was anyone instructed to pray before it, the golden cherubim and other images of the Hebrew sanctuary were not used to bow down before and were never the focus of any prayer or veneration
Remember - Moses did not have the people venerate and bow down before the brass serpent, they only needed to look upon it and be healed by recognizing their sin was represented in the serpent.
but many years later, when the people began to venerate / worship the brass serpent as an idol by burning incense before it, King Hezekiah did right in the sight of the Lord and destroyed it, breaking it into pieces.
The fact is, Roman Catholics worship another God by proclaiming that the God of Islam is the God of the Bible - Allah is not the God of Jews and Christians.
Allah is another god - yet Catholics demand that they worship Allah as the same God of the Bible. Catholics also bow down and venerate images and they have deleted and removed and changed their Translation - in every single last commandment in the entire Bible that commands to not bow down before images - they deleted this completely.
they change and alter everything in the Bible that does not conform to their faith system,
Which natural science says mother Mary had not been a young unmarried woman when she was not tainted with sin so she was able to agree with god on her own absolute free will to become the mother of his son? What is physically impossible in this story? It's not a story about sex - it's a story about innocence.
Already covered in this thread. Happy reading.
Science has never commented on anything related to religion or gods.
Like me, it is totally false and not worth investigating.
Pathenogenisis is impossible in mammals, like humans.
Mary was not a virgin.
Your Jesus was the the third child of her apparent 6 children.
She was not married ever so they were all illegitimate.
There goes your theory about being sinless.
There was no God communicated with her to get permission. It makes no reference to that conversation in any books and she was not inseminated by any spirit or ghost.
The immaculate conception is about a child being born, from a virgin of child bearing age, very conveniently born without your silly original sin, fertilized by some spirit or ghost to produce a son of a God that didn't exist?
The story is fanciful, ridiculous , absurd even. There's nothing innocent about a fantastic lie like that.
But you do, because you do not have a big idea about philosophy and science.
You cannot say who has a knowledge of science and be a godbotherer simultaneously. Clearly it's you who refuses to read science.
What is ¿mathematically? false? Goedel for example made a mathematical proof of god. This proof was controled many times and is not falsified but formally correct.
No he didn't. He made a vacci lk action that believers embraced because to that point, anything was worth grabbing to justify it. His theory was never presented to be validated. Its total rubbish.
What a nonsense. Do you understand the word "pathogenesis" (=desease development)?
Pathenogenisis means being able to reproduce without the input of male sperm. If you believe otherwise, you are believing rubbish. That can be checked in any dictionary but you'll never find it in a bible.
Mary was a young unmarried woman - and not a child any longer. No one doubts this.
I know she was unmarried. That's why her children were all illegitimate. Further down you say she was married to Joseph. You cant have it both ways.
That is in reply to where I suggested she did not have communication with any God and I stand by that comment. Its probably some that religion fabricated to add more mystery and Intrigue to an already ridiculous scenario.
She was married with Josef from Nazareth - who somehow "legalized" her and her child.
SOMEHOW LEGALISED? What a load of rubbish. You don't know but you think you know everything else.
They were never married.
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
In all those references, not one marriage is recorded or proven. In other words, they were ALL illegitimate children again st the laws if the Catholic church.
You must be feeling a bit of a goose by implying all the sanctity and purity of religion. They were nothi g but a bunch of bed hopping harlots. The same for Mary magdeline who was your jesus's bit on the side. You're not quite up to speed with the truth.
If you are right and Mary had not be without sin then god is evil or a delusion.
That's correct. There's is No such thing as original sin. Its another threat placed on infants to force parents to get it taken away and consequently follow the religion. So, Mary a rabid sexual desire which six kids proves.
Why can't you comment or support what you believe took place? Be abuse like that, you have no proof of anything.
That's what you believe about the belief of others. And if I meet such hateful people like you then I think often her name had been Mary or Silvia or Petra or whatever had been any other nice name of one of our sisters - and she had done well to marry someone else. By the way: The knight on the white horse had been a warrior who had been a monk. When a lady asked him then he left his monastery for a fight. He fought not to win her - he fought against an evil dragon for her right to make her own totally free choice to marry whomever she likes to marry.
I am not angry.
I am an atheist
who obviously has far more knowledge of religion than the blind faith you have.
Why must atheists be angry?
That's a very poor rebuttal to explain what you can't explain.
I'll go one step further and explain what the usual chronology if events is when you realise you're on as loser.
Usually, commrnts come that I will learn on judgement. I refute that as BS also.
Then, it's assumed my life will become increasingly difficult until the end when you feel I should be to God for forgiveness. More crap.
Then to wind up the the threats, you will suggest eternal fire awaits me.
That also is fanciful. No one suffers anything after they are dead.
It's about now you realise your not dealing with a garden variety atheist.
I know my stuff.
I welcome your continued debate but you must post verifiable facts.