Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 10 commandments......
Options
Comments
-
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »Yo may not have noticed that I quoted something you said and therefore directed the question to you.
I only noticed misquotations.
Why haven't you raised the issues of icons and statues with the Orthodox?
Is it a case that you only find statues and icons in catholic churches offensive?0 -
I only noticed misquotations.
Why haven't you raised the issues of icons and statues with the Orthodox?
Is it a case that you only find statues and icons in catholic churches offensive?
I find all statues to which people pray to be objects of idolatry.
Do you care to answer why the RCC took the command concerning not having graven images out of the original listing?0 -
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »I find all statues to which people pray to be objects of idolatry.
Do you care to answer why the RCC took the command concerning not having graven images out of the original listing?
I'm linking the page from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
What you assert is incorrect.0 -
-
An idol in todays english means "a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered." So we cant admire role models parents etc?
Of course you can! It is actively encouraged. There is a big difference between admiring and imitating a person and idolising them.
No. It's when a person uses the name of Jesus or the term "God" (the word we use to describe our Creator; a being that has no equal; etc) frivolously, as slang, disrespectfully or as a swear word, is when it's considered as taking their names in vain. Using bad language (even mods get cardy when they see bad language used here) is discouraged in Christianity but it's not on the same level as showing disrespect for the name of our Creator.So this one has apartently been changed by the church, now it just means dont swear etc.
It goes back to Jewish tradition. Sabbath begins on Friday night when the Sun goes down. Christians kept some traditions used in Judaism (because Christianity emerged from it...Jesus being a Jew and all) but the reason we keep Sunday as our Sabbath is because Christ rose on a Sunday.4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
How does this mean go to mass on Sunday, and how is it acceptable to go on a Saturday night? I have asked 4 different priest now does this mean you must pray on a sunday and not go to mass? and all of them shruged off the question and did not answer it.
The way i see it the only reason the church wants you to attend mass at least once on the weekends it to get there collections. Not to keep you holy or to give you communion. (Edit 1:And why are we meant to get communion once a week? Jesus did it once, once! why not do it once every easter?(Edit 2: And why are we still going to confessions, they were brought in by a pope wanting to learn the powerful peoples secrets in and around Rome, but i could write anther page on this so mybe some other time))
I could write more on Confession and Communion but like yourself, I could go on for pages...
lol!5.Honor your father and your mother.
Self explanitory cant argue with it, but Pope Francis is now changing it to keep up with modern thinking and allow for same-sex parents. Good job Francis, but how can he just change this whenever he wants to?
He didn't change it nor did he say anything of the sort...that site is a joke site. At the bottom of the page they have another article about how the Protestant denominations have come into communion with the Catholic Church, effectively ending overnight the Protestant Reformation. Don't believe everything you read online; even if the page looks like a serious website. Don't click on flashing banners either...0 -
Advertisement
-
lazybones32 wrote: »No. It's when a person uses the name of Jesus or the term "God" (the word we use to describe our Creator; a being that has no equal; etc) frivolously, as slang, disrespectfully or as a swear word, is when it's considered as taking their names in vain. Using bad language (even mods get cardy when they see bad language used here) is discouraged in Christianity but it's not on the same level as showing disrespect for the name of our Creator.
It goes back to Jewish tradition. Sabbath begins on Friday night when the Sun goes down. Christians kept some traditions used in Judaism (because Christianity emerged from it...Jesus being a Jew and all) but the reason we keep Sunday as our Sabbath is because Christ rose on a Sunday.
I could write more on Confession and Communion but like yourself, I could go on for pages...
thanks for the reply, dident really understand the don't use the name of god in vain commandment.
And i didn't notice that site was fake :P (I was linked to it by a friend)0 -
I'm linking the page from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
What you assert is incorrect.
Hinault you've referenced a link but failed to give account for the command to have no graven images. How does the RCC account for it when its use if graven images is legendary?
Maybe you'll answer the question this time !0 -
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »Hinault you've referenced a link but failed to give account for the command to have no graven images. How does the RCC account for it when its use if graven images is legendary?
Maybe you'll answer the question this time !
Did you get an answer from the Orthodox Church?
Did you ask them? If not why not?0 -
Did you get an answer from the Orthodox Church?
Did you ask them? If not why not?
Ive asked you as an active member of the RCC.
Whether I've asked members of the orthodox church is irrelevant.
It appears you either can't or won't answer the question
So back to my question.
What is the RCC stance on the command to not have any graven images.?0 -
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »Ive asked you as an active member of the RCC.
Whether I've asked members of the orthodox church is irrelevant.
It appears you either can't or won't answer the question
So back to my question.
What is the RCC stance on the command to not have any graven images.?
So the icons and statues in the Orthodox Churches don't bother you, but the icons and statues in Catholic Churches do bother you?0 -
Advertisement
-
So the icons and statues in the Orthodox Churches don't bother you, but the icons and statues in Catholic Churches do bother you?
You said you couldn't speak for non catholic Christians. Why do you expect me to answer for them?
It seems you're refusing to give a simple answer.
It's obvious that the RCC don't believe that particular command from their actions.0 -
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »You said you couldn't speak for non catholic Christians. Why do you expect me to answer for them?
Yeah.
Why do you not object to icons and statues in the Orthodox Church?0 -
Yeah.
Why do you not object to icons and statues in the Orthodox Church?
I never said I didn't object as I've already said.
You on the other hand said the 10 commandments continuedcto apply to the RCC.
I've asked you to justify that statement in the light of the command and the practice.
It seems you don't want to. Its much easier to ignore that bit of the 10 commandments than to say the RCC ( as you can only speak for them) omit that part to allow the practice of idolatry.0 -
thanks for the reply, dident really understand the don't use the name of god in vain commandment.
And i didn't notice that site was fake :P (I was linked to it by a friend)
Lazybones was spot on about the use of Gods name. The actual term is to speak it lightly and without purpose.
In context , even today Jews will not speak the name of God - Yaweh and instead use the name Jehovah ( God of covenant ) or Adonis (Lord)
In the modern era as Christians we still have these commands and as Jesus is also God l, consider His name used lightly to break this command, more often His name is used as a swear word.
The Apostle Paul commands the early church to stop using corrupt words and to speak put of the place of a clean heart which is a result of the salvation of God being worked out in believers.0 -
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »I never said I didn't object as I've already said.
You on the other hand said the 10 commandments continuedcto apply to the RCC.
I've asked you to justify that statement in the light of the command and the practice.
It seems you don't want to. Its much easier to ignore that bit of the 10 commandments than to say the RCC ( as you can only speak for them) omit that part to allow the practice of idolatry.
In the link I supplied you with earlier, it shows the Catechism and it lists the commandments in 3 formats.
So the commandments as told in the Bible are in the Catechism including the Book of Exodus account.
The Book of Exodus lists I think 16 verses, 10 of which are commandments.
Verses 3,4,5, and 6 in Exodus concern idols/images
When the Commandments are listed, they are often listed in short-hand form
Because Latin Catholics group 3, 4, 5 and 6 together as all pertaining to the concept "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,"
That Eastern Catholics list the Commandments differently never enters the equation for people who accuse the Catholic Church of changing the commandments;0 -
In the link I supplied you with earlier, it shows the Catechism and it lists the commandments in 3 formats.
So the commandments as told in the Bible are in the Catechism.
The Book of Exodus lists I think 16 verses, 10 of which are commandments.
Verses 3,4,5, and 6 in Exodus concern idols/images
When the Commandments are listed, they are often listed in short-hand form
Because Latin Catholics group 3, 4, 5 and 6 together as all pertaining to the concept "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,"
That Eastern Catholics list the Commandments differently never enters the equation for people who accuse the Catholic Church of changing the commandments;
So if you group 3-6 together, why does the RCC have graven images?0 -
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »So if you group 3-6 together, why does the RCC have graven images?
They don't.
The statues that you see in Catholic Church's are images of saints who enjoy the beatific vision ie.sainthood, God's favour.
Welcome to the ignore list.0 -
They don't.
The statues that you see in Catholic Church's are images of saints who enjoy the beatific vision ie.sainthood, God's favour.
Welcome to the ignore list.
Which they pray to and give their adoration to.
A total disregard for the command.
Success ....I got to the list first ...anyone want to join me;)
Its always intersting that hinault ignores people who make him feel uncomfortable when they face him with the Word of God as opposed to tradition and church dogma.0 -
-
MOD NOTE
Let's leave the discussion of ignore lists alone as it's off-topic.
Also, it would be appreciated if the soapboxing about graven images is put to an end.
Thanks for your attention.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »How do you account for the fourth commandment which says to have no idols or as is actually referred to "graven images" and yet go into any RC building /school or grotto and there are graven images everywhere which have candles and other votives and which are prayed to
In Ex 20:4 it reads "Do not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." (CCB) The word 'graven' is used in other translations but that's the one I have here. Strictly speaking, the command forbids any image and any likeness of anything on heaven or earth. But in Ex: 25:18 God commands Moses "to make two golden cherubim of hammered gold" - cherubs being angels.
In Num 21:8-9 Yahweh commands Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a standard, so that when a man was bitten by a snake he could look on the serpent and live. (In 2Kgs 18:4, Hezekiah - who did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh - destroyed this same serpent because "...the Israelites were offering sacrifices to it and called it Nehushtan.")
Dotted throughout 1Kgs 6 when Solomon is building the Temple, there are references to images of creatures being used to decorate the building and God was happy enough that He consecrated it in chapter 9 of the same book.
Ezekiel, when he had a vision of an ideal Temple (41) saw graven images on the walls of it.
So, now we have God commanding one thing in one part of the bible and seemingly commanding violations of that initial command in other parts (only a few chapts. later in the case of Exodus). Could it be that God wants images of His creation used in His worship, as long as the creatures don't take the rightful place of the Creator? (like what happened with the bronze serpent?)
The Church, a long time ago, held a Council to decide whether the use of icons was legitimate or whether it broke the command about idols and if they were graven images (they are effectively images of God, the Son). The decision they reached was that since these were pictures of Jesus, who came in the flesh and had a finite body, they were allowable because God chose to reveal Himself in this fashion. The Church doesn't 'allow' images of the Father because no-one has seen His face and no image can do Him justice (they phrased it much better than me). The images of the Spirit includes a dove and tongues of fire because that's how the NT depicts Him; that's how He revealed Himself to us.
God forbids the worship of statues as gods but doesn't forbid their use.
Has Tatranska ever asked another Christian to pray for him or an intention? (Does he have a picture of Jesus?!) When I pray 'to' a Saint, I'm basically asking him or her to present my petition to God in a manner more favourable than I can. As perfect as I am among humans, I'm just a bit off when it comes to the inhabitants of Heaven. If "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much", why shouldn't I ask my brothers and sisters in Heaven, where there is no unrighteousness, for help? The statues, to me anyway, are an aid to prayer. If you have photos of your kids - which I'm sure you do - the photos are special because of whose image and likeness they portray...you don't have a particular preference for the material the photograph is printed on.
If you're still awake, thanks for reading and maybe inform yourself instead of making inaccurate accusations of your fellow brothers and sisters in future?0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »In Ex 20:4 it reads "Do not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." (CCB) The word 'graven' is used in other translations but that's the one I have here. Strictly speaking, the command forbids any image and any likeness of anything on heaven or earth. But in Ex: 25:18 God commands Moses "to make two golden cherubim of hammered gold" - cherubs being angels.
In Num 21:8-9 Yahweh commands Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a standard, so that when a man was bitten by a snake he could look on the serpent and live. (In 2Kgs 18:4, Hezekiah - who did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh - destroyed this same serpent because "...the Israelites were offering sacrifices to it and called it Nehushtan.")
Dotted throughout 1Kgs 6 when Solomon is building the Temple, there are references to images of creatures being used to decorate the building and God was happy enough that He consecrated it in chapter 9 of the same book.
Ezekiel, when he had a vision of an ideal Temple (41) saw graven images on the walls of it.
So, now we have God commanding one thing in one part of the bible and seemingly commanding violations of that initial command in other parts (only a few chapts. later in the case of Exodus). Could it be that God wants images of His creation used in His worship, as long as the creatures don't take the rightful place of the Creator? (like what happened with the bronze serpent?)
The Church, a long time ago, held a Council to decide whether the use of icons was legitimate or whether it broke the command about idols and if they were graven images (they are effectively images of God, the Son). The decision they reached was that since these were pictures of Jesus, who came in the flesh and had a finite body, they were allowable because God chose to reveal Himself in this fashion. The Church doesn't 'allow' images of the Father because no-one has seen His face and no image can do Him justice (they phrased it much better than me). The images of the Spirit includes a dove and tongues of fire because that's how the NT depicts Him; that's how He revealed Himself to us.
God forbids the worship of statues as gods but doesn't forbid their use.
Has Tatranska ever asked another Christian to pray for him or an intention? (Does he have a picture of Jesus?!) When I pray 'to' a Saint, I'm basically asking him or her to present my petition to God in a manner more favourable than I can. As perfect as I am among humans, I'm just a bit off when it comes to the inhabitants of Heaven. If "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much", why shouldn't I ask my brothers and sisters in Heaven, where there is no unrighteousness, for help? The statues, to me anyway, are an aid to prayer. If you have photos of your kids - which I'm sure you do - the photos are special because of whose image and likeness they portray...you don't have a particular preference for the material the photograph is printed on.
If you're still awake, thanks for reading and maybe inform yourself instead of making inaccurate accusations of your fellow brothers and sisters in future?
For a very simple reason. They can't hear you. You might as well walk into your garden and pray to a tree.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »
So, now we have God commanding one thing in one part of the bible and seemingly commanding violations of that initial command in other parts (only a few chapts. later in the case of Exodus). Could it be that God wants images of His creation used in His worship, as long as the creatures don't take the rightful place of the Creator? (like what happened with the bronze serpent?)
Whenever we pray to anyone or thing other than God, we make them take the place of the creator.
Even John in Revelation when he worships the angel is rebuked and told not to.lazybones32 wrote: »The Church, a long time ago, held a Council to decide whether the use of icons was legitimate or whether it broke the command about idols and if they were graven images (they are effectively images of God, the Son). The decision they reached was that since these were pictures of Jesus, who came in the flesh and had a finite body, they were allowable because God chose to reveal Himself in this fashion. The Church doesn't 'allow' images of the Father because no-one has seen His face and no image can do Him justice (they phrased it much better than me). The images of the Spirit includes a dove and tongues of fire because that's how the NT depicts Him; that's how He revealed Himself to us.
Not one of us has seen Jesus, who is also God.lazybones32 wrote: »God forbids the worship of statues as gods but doesn't forbid their use.
The verb Worship is defined as
Show reverence and adoration for (a deity) 1.1 [no object] Take part in a religious ceremony:
1.2Feel great admiration or devotion for
What takes place before statues and icons in any church falls under the definition off worship. God forbids it.lazybones32 wrote: »
Has Tatranska ever asked another Christian to pray for him or an intention? (Does he have a picture of Jesus?!) When I pray 'to' a Saint, I'm basically asking him or her to present my petition to God in a manner more favourable than I can.
Jesus Himself said the time would come when we wouldn't even pray to the Father in His Name, but would ask the Father directly. As referred to above, John was told not to worship the angel.
If Scripture is so clear, were is the justification for praying to a heavenly being or person.lazybones32 wrote: »If you're still awake, thanks for reading and maybe inform yourself instead of making inaccurate accusations of your fellow brothers and sisters in future?
I was awake and what I said was accurate. If you disagree with it, that's another issue and is entirely your own.
Having been RC for many years and on the verge of joining a religious order. I am well aware of what goes on in the RCC and its ceremonies.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »When I pray 'to' a Saint, I'm basically asking him or her to present my petition to God in a manner more favourable than I can.
This is really presenting God as some sort of judge, sitting on a throne not really able to make his own mind up about issues. He requires the help of some intermediaries and that is ridiculous, given he is an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, omnipotent being.0 -
This is really presenting God as some sort of judge, sitting on a throne not really able to make his own mind up about issues. He requires the help of some intermediaries and that is ridiculous, given he is an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, omnipotent being.
God Incarnate - Jesus Christ - was willing to heed the pleading of His mother Mary during his ministry on Earth.
Do you really believe that the loving relationships in this existence are forgotten or are disregarded in the next life?0 -
God Incarnate - Jesus Christ - was willing to heed the pleading of His mother Mary during his ministry on Earth.
Do you really believe that the loving relationships in this existence are forgotten or are disregarded in the next life?
Safehands...can you also tell hinault that when Mary and his bothers and sisters came to him and the crowd told them they were outside, He ignored them and continued with what he was doing, asking "Who are my mother and my brothers?"0 -
God Incarnate - Jesus Christ - was willing to heed the pleading of His mother Mary during his ministry on Earth.
Do you really believe that the loving relationships in this existence are forgotten or are disregarded in the next life?
We know very little about the next life. The thought that loving relationships continue and that human feelings and emotions are part of the spiritual condition, is really comforting. It is however, completely unrealistic, unfortunately. These emotions are part of the human condition, part of our brains and our minds. Our brain dies when we die. I'd like for it to be othewise, but it's not. Love and hate are part of this life, like breathing and going to the toilet. They won't be necessary in the next life. We won't need our bodies in a spiritual world. That is very hard for us to contemplate and really, it is probably not necessary to think about it in those terms. We are probably better off thinking about the next life in a human context, it's easier, even if it is totally unrealistic.0 -
We know very little about the next life. The thought that loving relationships continue and that human feelings and emotions are part of the spiritual condition, is really comforting. It is however, completely unrealistic, unfortunately. These emotions are part of the human condition, part of our brains and our minds. Our brain dies when we die. I'd like for it to be othewise, but it's not. Love and hate are part of this life, like breathing and going to the toilet. They won't be necessary in the next life. We won't need our bodies in a spiritual world. That is very hard for us to contemplate and really, it is probably not necessary to think about it in those terms. We are probably better off thinking about the next life in a human context, it's easier, even if it is totally unrealistic.
I accept that we know little about the next life however we're told that the metaphysical church has two forms - the human form in this existence and the spiritual form in the after life.
Are we really saying that the ties that bind both strands of the metaphysical church are loosed when it comes to relations between members of same?
It's absurd to say that on one hand we have a bound church (physical church and spiritual church) but that binding ceases when it comes to the relations between the members of the bound church.0 -
I accept that we know little about the next life however we're told that the metaphysical church has two forms - the human form in this existence and the spiritual form in the after life.
Are we really saying that the ties that bind both strands of the metaphysical church are loosed when it comes to relations between members of same?
It's absurd to say that on one hand we have a bound church (physical church and spiritual church) but that binding ceases when it comes to the relations between the members of the bound church.
Very interesting Hinault. The human form is physical, not metaphysical. Human emotions could be described as metphysical in that they are beyond physicality. But human emotions are inextricably linked with our brain and our mind. Our brains are physical, our minds are not. I don't think for a second that its absurd to suggest that the human emotions cease in the next life. We simply don't know.0 -
Advertisement
-
We know very little about the next life. The thought that loving relationships continue and that human feelings and emotions are part of the spiritual condition, is really comforting. It is however, completely unrealistic, unfortunately. These emotions are part of the human condition, part of our brains and our minds. Our brain dies when we die. I'd like for it to be othewise, but it's not. Love and hate are part of this life, like breathing and going to the toilet. They won't be necessary in the next life. We won't need our bodies in a spiritual world. That is very hard for us to contemplate and really, it is probably not necessary to think about it in those terms. We are probably better off thinking about the next life in a human context, it's easier, even if it is totally unrealistic.
Surely if we dont have our bodies in any kind of afterlife, will that mean our brain and memories dont go with us? perhaps the Hindus are on to something and we are all reincarnations of other animals who spent a good life, we just dont know it as we left our memories in our previous body???0
Advertisement