RC claims to Idolatry in the Mass

What images do you suppose the Apostles focused upon?

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--We beheld his glory.

2Pet.1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--"eyewitnesses of his majesty"
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You do not address the question. Would they have an image of him in their minds that faded with the years? Would they have spoken to others about what he looked like. It is not me that has a problem with any of this. I am mearly pointing out inconsistencies in your position that become obvious as to the extremist ways that you interprut the words of the first commandment about graven images.

By the way, it is your tradition of man Protestantism that provides your definition of the word pray in the more restrictive sense. Sorry but that is cold hard fact.

 

DHK,

You so crazy. Are you saying that in Heaven, if I talk to you, I'm worshipping you? I doubt it. So natural-to-natural is fine. And supernatural-to-supernatural is fine. But natural-to-supernatural is automatically worship? YOU create the false dichotomy, because THAT is not in Scripture. If you claim we argue from Scriptural absense, you do the same. We did not redefine "prayer." You have redefined it.

But alas, your ears are plugged.

 

Would a person who watches a movie which portrays the events of the New Testament (ie: Jesus) also be guuilty of violating the commandment?

How about those little Chick tracts with the pictures of Jesus, the Holy Spirit (portrayed as a dove), and the Father (portrayed as a giant lightbulb)?

Is it a violation to print them? buy them??? distribute them??? read them???

It seems to me that most Babptists would have no problem with any of the above. Most Christians for that matter. </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I don't have a lot of use for Chick tracts.
There are many things in the Bible that are clear-cut. For example, to make a graven image and to bow down in front of it, and/or pray to it or in front of it, such as Catholics do in front of images of Christ (the crucifix), Mary, the stations of the cross, is clearly idolatry--a transgression of the Ten Commandments. From there where do we stop? There begins a slippery slope, at some point in time where one must draw a line, and say "enough!" Where that line is drawn is a matter of personal conviction based on the study of Scripture. Some draw it more conservatively than others; I am one of them. Romans 14 gives us some principles to go by.

Rom.14:5b "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
--Be absolutely persuaded that what you are doing is right.

Rom.14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
--You have a conscience. Does it condemn you in that which you are doing? Is it telling you in any way that what you are doing is wrong? Then don't do it. "Happy is he that condmeneth not himself."

"He that doubteth is damned." If there is any doubt at all in your mind if what you are doing is wrong, then don't. Be sure you are right.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Faith is confidence. In this context, it is the confidence or trust that what you are doing is completely right. Are you absolutely sure you are right about what you are doing?

The Scriptures are clear on some things, such as the idolatry that I described above. On the things that are not so clear, there is a matter of soul liberty among Baptists (and others).
DHK

 

Context is everything. You refuse to take words in their context. The context of the Ten Commandments is not a man talking to another man. It is man's relation to God in the first four commandments. That is the subject at hand. You introduce a red herring by changing the definition of prayer to man speaking to man. We are not talking of man speaking to man. We are talking about man speaking to God. If you want to consider me as God, and request me to respond to your posts, you will be worshipping me. Now, who is the one who is crazy?? Keep your definitions within the context of the subject at hand (i.e., man speaking to God--prayer). Either request me (man), or worship me (God). When you request God, it is worship. Context is everything. I hope you are "worshiping the true God.
DHK

 

Assessed? Levy?

I would say that there is either a gross misunderstanding or a gross misreprentation on some person's part in this matter.

The Church does not "assess" or "levy".

No doubt, as members of a particular Parish Church, your father in-law was asked to contribute volutarily for a particular purpose (ie. repairs and retirement needs of elderly priests).

Most likely, it was explained what amount of money needed to be raised for these purposes and someone, perhaps the finance committee or the Pastor, did a simple arithmatic calculation as to how much would be needed from each family in the parish to meet the goal.

But all contribute voluntarily. Some more than others, some less than others, based on their personal convictions.

Is it much different in your church?

What your in-laws believe may or may not be correct, and it would be within their rights to weigh such beliefs in the decision as to whether or not they wish to volutarily contribute and to what degree they would volntrily contribute.

 

Now I'm confused.

Isn't the commandment not to make graven images?

You seem to be equivocating by now adding bowing to them.

Can we have statues (graven images) as long as we don't bow to them?

Can we bow to statues as long as someone else made them?

Well then why do you not allow Catholics to do the same? Because you are convinced that you are right?

I know that you hate it when I say this, but that is merely your personal interpretation of Scripture.

I am.

Quite the contrary. I am absoutely convinced that my behavior in this regard is both right and pleasing to God.

Since I am secure in my confidence of right doing, as you say, there is no sin. Thank you for that concesion.

Since the Church is able to make a reasonable arguement contrary to your position on this matter, it would appear to be not as clear as you claim.

 

DHK, what happened to "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"?

Doesn't apply if it is not in agreement with your faith?

Why do you deny me my soul liberty?

BTW, how can you call my behavior sin if you do not know my heart (faith)?

And isn't there something in Scripture about judging others?

 

Read the rest of the Ten Commandments.
Whatsoever is not of faith does not apply when applied to:
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

It also does not apply to the first few commmands:
Thou shalt not make any graven image.
Thou shalt not bow down to them.

The Bible is very clear on these commands.

Why do you insist on obeying some of them, and not all of them? Are you not being a hypocrite?
DHK

 

Why should I even answer that? You have stated, what, 30 times or more that there is no other way to take it. If I said "yes," you would just go, "Ah ha, see, I told you!" And if I said "no," you would tell me how I'm wrong.

When one has already made up their mind, why discuss? Heck, I've already stated my opposition to the statement pretty elaborately, but you rejected it.

I'm guessing you know! Congrats!