The Ten Commandments

[kastenbrust]

Certain extremist Christian sects, especially ones such as the Catholic sect have always made me wonder, surely hanging pictures of Jesus, making models of him and hanging them on crosses, etc etc are blasphemy in the eyes of God.
Let me explain:

The Ten Commandments:

1. You shall not make for yourself an idol

(Widely interpreted as, dont make idols of false Gods, or God himself.)

Now Since Jesus IS God

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

Surely making idols of him goes against the main, and the first of the Ten Commandments?!?

[Sun Baked]

blasphemy would be saying they are cannibals always talking about consuming the body of their savior on weekends.

[Macaddicttt]

I think this debate has been done to death already throughout history. See the iconoclast debate.

[yg17]

Surely making idols of him goes against the main, and the first of the Ten Commandments?!?


Hypocrisy in religion? No way! Who would've ever thought there could be such a thing?

[iJohnHenry]

blasphemy would be saying they are cannibals always talking about consuming the body of their savior on weekends.

As long as there is wine (Klingon blood wine is acceptable) then I'm there.

[bruinsrme]

As long as there is wine (Klingon blood wine is acceptable) then I'm there.

I usually bring my own glass, I prefer Manichevitz

[jav6454]

Yes, it says so. Why do people make idols is up to each one. We are given a guide book, we choose to follow it or not.

No, its not hypocrisy, rather than willful negligence.

[sammich]

An idol is something you worship. If you 'make' something your idol, be it physical (money, property) or status (position, fame) you make something greater than God in your own eyes. Having something in a higher place in your heart/mind than God is the warning of the first commandment.

Something I found on the web.

The main thing to say first is that we do not worship the pictures or stautes or saints or St Mary. There is a purpose for images and statues, and this could be found from the old testament itself. Also, it is important to note that if there is a statue of Abraham Lincoln on a mountain, or if the image of someone dear to us is kept with us etc., it is more than just mere foolishness to assume they are being worshipped. The claim that catholiocs worship idols and saints is made by protestants who CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY tries NOT to understand or know that it is not worhsihp or anything like that, and whose sole purpose is to create confusion among everyone and make their own theology, and to picture catholics as evil in the eyes of those who leave the universal church and go to these heretics for advice.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AlMa

[adrianblaine]

...willful negligence.

aka Hypocrisy

[iJohnHenry]

No, its not hypocrisy, rather than willful negligence.

Ah, Lord protect us from well-meaning fools.

[Macaddicttt]

I'm glad all of you feel qualified to participate in a theological debate without any understanding (or at least you haven't shown any) of the theological issue in question. But that's right, you don't have to debate intelligently on this forum so long as the subject is religion bashing. I guess I forgot. :rolleyes:

These intellectually lazy, insulting posts would not be tolerated on any other subject (as long as we're talking about hypocrisy).

[jav6454]

aka Hypocrisy

tocuhe?:p

[adrianblaine]

the OP should have posted the entire text. I think it sheds more light on the subject.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6)

I'm not catholic, so I'm unaware of what transpires between the statue and the person

[jav6454]

...

Not aiming at you, but, somehow, some catholics how bash out other religions, yet, omit to mention they fail following this rule.

Again, no offense intended.

[techfreak85]

thats exactly why i dont have a crusifix statue thingy. I dont worship it, i worship god. all that is to me is just an artist's interpretation of the crucifixion.

[Macaddicttt]

Not aiming at you, but, somehow, some catholics how bash out other religions, yet, omit to mention they fail following this rule.

Again, no offense intended.

Again, you don't even bother to understand the theology behind Catholic thought, but feel comfortable criticizing them. To a Catholic, Catholics definitely obey this "rule."

[emt1]

I seriously can't believe people waste their lives with garbage like this. Who the hell cares? :rolleyes:

If God was real, he'd be pissed at you for doing so little good for your fellow humans. Get out there and live life, be happy, help others, love everyone.

[techfreak85]

...Get out there and live life, be happy, help others, love everyone.

And yet that is the true essence of Christianity.;)

[Macaddicttt]

I seriously can't believe people waste their lives with garbage like this. Who the hell cares? :rolleyes:

If God was real, he'd be pissed at you for doing so little good for your fellow humans. Get out there and live life, be happy, help others, love everyone.

Right, because debating this and doing lots of good for your fellow humans are mutually exclusive. :rolleyes:

Come off it.

[Sun Baked]

Ah, Lord protect us from well-seasoned fools.

Yes, the wrong wine and failing to season the body can really ruin a meal. :o

[kastenbrust]

i was actually looking for a serious theological answer, because the Catholic church always seems to enforce its policies rigidly on the exact word of the Bible, all the way down to banning the use of condoms etc, but lets not open that can of worms, so why would they then go against this and allow idols of God and Jesus in their own Churches when even their version of the Bible clearly states as the first commandment this is wrong.

thats exactly why i dont have a crusifix statue thingy. I dont worship it, i worship god. all that is to me is just an artist's interpretation of the crucifixion.

Valid point, but the commandment imply's not to make any idols, whether you worship them or not isn't important.

I seriously can't believe people waste their lives with garbage like this. Who the hell cares? :rolleyes:

Well you obviously care since your reading the "Politics, Religion, Social Issues" Forum. Hypocrite

[emt1]

i

Valid point, but the commandment imply's not to make any idols, whether you worship them or not isn't important.

Yup you're right. God is pissed and they will get a really bad room in heaven, that is, if they even get there. He will probably send them to spend an eternity in hell for worshiping the wrong way. I mean, he made it really, really clear, didn't he? No?

[kastenbrust]

Yup you're right. God is pissed and they will get a really bad room in heaven, that is, if they even get there. He will probably send them to spend an eternity in hell for worshiping the wrong way. I mean, he made it really, really clear, didn't he? No?

It doesn't matter what will happen to them, what matters is that Christianity preaches one thing and does another, conisistently, which erodes peoples confidence in it.

Theres so many children on this forum!

[emt1]

It doesn't matter what will happen to them, what matters is that Christianity preaches one thing and does another, conisistently, which erodes peoples confidence in it.

Theres so many children on this forum!

The reason there is a lack of confidence in Christianity is because none of it is based on a shred evidence.

[t0mat0]

Certain extremist Christian sects, especially ones such as the Catholic sect have always made me wonder, surely hanging pictures of Jesus, making models of him and hanging them on crosses, etc etc are blasphemy in the eyes of God.
Let me explain:

The Ten Commandments:

1. You shall not make for yourself an idol

(Widely interpreted as, dont make idols of false Gods, or God himself.)

Now Since Jesus IS God

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

Surely making idols of him goes against the main, and the first of the Ten Commandments?!?

Or you can go the simple Bill Hicks route NSFW link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHey5g56CIs#t=2m48s)

[Thomas Veil]

An idol is something you worship. If you 'make' something your idol, be it physical (money, property) or status (position, fame) you make something greater than God in your own eyes. Having something in a higher place in your heart/mind than God is the warning of the first commandment.

Something I found on the web.


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AlMaAs someone who was raised Catholic, I appreciate your clarifying this to those who wish to depict Catholics as some sort of statue-worshiping cultists.

Catholics don't worship statues, crosses, etc.

I've got an Obama t-shirt in my closet. But if I want to make my position on an issue known, I write a letter to the White House, not to my shirt.

[kastenbrust]

As someone who was raised Catholic, I appreciate your clarifying this to those who wish to depict Catholics as some sort of statue-worshiping cultists.

Catholics don't worship statues, crosses, etc.

I've got an Obama t-shirt in my closet. But if I want to make my position on an issue known, I write a letter to the White House, not to my shirt.

Thats the whole point, im not saying Catholics or any Christians worshop statues or crosses, but God clearly says in the Bible making any form of statue or idol of him is wrong, and the worst sin, then Catholics go and hang them all over the inside of their Churches. Irony :confused:

[djellison]

the OP should have posted the entire text. I think it sheds more light on the subject.

Indeed - it not only quite explicity and specificlayy bans people from making any representation of this 'god', it also, via the jealous statement, shows this god to be a fairly bitter egomaniac.

It's quite simple - ever crucifix, stained glass windows, painting, mural, tapestry, statue, relief, sketch and structure depicting Christian religious themes is in DIRECT breach of that commandment.

Of course, building a huge, epic, massive, fancy cathedral is in epic breach of common sense if religion is anything other than a method for control of the public.

Again - here we have a explicit, non interpretable statement in the Bible - and yet again, Christians dodge it, claim it unimportant/in need of interpretation etc etc. It's like saying "Well - I know the highway code says I have to drive on the left hand side of the road, but, you know, it's all about interpretation and context"

Let's get this clear. The bible doesn't JUST say 'Don't worship false idols...' - it says, quite clearly

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

You must not make any likeness of anything in heaven, under ground or in the water.

Ever drawn a fish? GET THEE TO HELL.

http://www.thecompushoppe.com/ChristianFish.gif

:O

Ironic, no?

If any Christian replies with "but we don't worship them" - then they're going straight to hell for not reading the Bible properly.

[takao]

Thats the whole point, im not saying Catholics or any Christians worshop statues or crosses, but God clearly says in the Bible making any form of statue or idol of him is wrong, and the worst sin, then Catholics go and hang them all over the inside of their Churches. Irony :confused:

dont feel so alone .. there are plenty of others with your opinion .. like the taliban when they blew up that buddhist statue

the evangelics just never will get over it...


on a more serious note:
- there is a difference between an idol and a simple statue (and so is there a difference between an iconography .. but there it gets more difficult)
- the catholic church is old ... from a time where not everybody could read (i think you can get it from here)
- there are differences between bible translations: as far as i understood the hebrewic part is more precise than the english one ... again on banning idols

but oh just get along with evangelic tradition and plunder/vandalize your local catholic church

[obeygiant]

Certain extremist Christian sects, especially ones such as the Catholic sect have always made me wonder, surely hanging pictures of Jesus, making models of him and hanging them on crosses, etc etc are blasphemy in the eyes of God.
Let me explain:

The Ten Commandments:

1. You shall not make for yourself an idol

(Widely interpreted as, dont make idols of false Gods, or God himself.)



What about the other nine commandments? Don't just leave us all hanging here! Keep Going!

[iJohnHenry]

Thats the whole point, im not saying Catholics or any Christians worshop statues or crosses, but God clearly says in the Bible making any form of statue or idol of him is wrong, and the worst sin, then Catholics go and hang them all over the inside of their Churches. Irony :confused:

That's there to reinforce the guilt in you, that God was forced to sacrifice His only begotten Son for "our" sins.

Always keep in mind that this all started 2,000 years ago. Anyone seen a Roman chariot lately??

[Thomas Veil]

...but God clearly says in the Bible making any form of statue or idol of him is wrong, and the worst sin...I think djellison said it: if you interpret the commandment that broadly, even stained glass windows and paintings become idolatry. For hundreds of years, spectacular cathedrals have been erected as a testament to the glory of God. Are they idolatry as well?

[imac/cheese]

...Again - here we have a explicit, non interpretable statement in the Bible - and yet again, Christians dodge it, claim it unimportant/in need of interpretation etc etc. It's like saying "Well - I know the highway code says I have to drive on the left hand side of the road, but, you know, it's all about interpretation and context".

No one is dodging this commandment. No one is claiming it is unimportant. I am not sure how you can say it is non-interpretable.

Here is the translation from the NIV:

"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;"

Other translations offer similar insights into this verse. It is not the image making that is wrong. It is the image making for purposes of worship that is wrong. God does not want us to make an image of him for us to worship.

[Don't panic]

Certain extremist Christian sects, especially ones such as the Catholic sect have always made me wonder, surely hanging pictures of Jesus, making models of him and hanging them on crosses, etc etc are blasphemy in the eyes of God.


the catholic church is -by very very far- the largest christian denomination.
therefore, by definition, they are not a sect, and most certainly not an extremist one.
they embody, whether you like it or not, mainstream christianity.
the second largest christian denomination, eastern orthodoxy, also uses images of saints and such.
if you extend the use of images to jesus and god, or to their symbols (the cross) then you are including probably upward of 99% of christians, so your definition of 'extremists' non-sensical.

i was actually looking for a serious theological answer, because the Catholic church always seems to enforce its policies rigidly on the exact word of the Bible, all the way down to banning the use of condoms etc, but lets not open that can of worms, so why would they then go against this and allow idols of God and Jesus in their own Churches when even their version of the Bible clearly states as the first commandment this is wrong.
again, i think you have a bit of misunderstanding of what the whole catholic church is about, that is interpretation of the scriptures. They pretty much never went by the letter of it.

[djellison]

God does not want us to make an image of him for us to worship.

And yet there are Churches. What are 'God's House' if not a direct breach of this principle. I saw a documentary that showed THOUSANDS of people worshiping at a statue of the Virgin Mary.

http://www.grahamowen.com/Uk/St-Asaph-Alter.jpg
http://www.vladmission.org/constructionprojects/6%20Altar%20decorated%20(smallest)%5B1%5D.JPG
http://www.saintignatiusnyc.org/Photos/Parish_Life_Photos/Altar_Frontal_DSCN0243.jpg

Epic epic fail.

So much hypocrisy. So much 'do as I say, not as I do'.

There are people who earn a living make statues of religious figures for people to kneel infront of and worship.

Firstly - that's just wrong. If God was anything other than an ego maniac - that money would be spent doing GOOD, not making statues.

Secondly - The very same God forbids it. As well as many many other things that alleged 'Christians' do every single day.

It's all lies, contradiction, subversion, marketing, extortion (fiscal and moral). What a pity that someone with clearly a level of intelligence has been suckered into it.

[floyde]

What about the other nine commandments? Don't just leave us all hanging here! Keep Going!

How about these then:

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Seems awfully universal and far-sighted. :rolleyes:

Let's not get into translations though, there's another version in which God commands not to covet another man's ass. :eek::p

Edit: Let's not forget what was left out:

Thou shalt not rape.
Thou shalt not abuse children.
Thou shalt not enslave.
...

[mactastic]

This has got to be the silliest thread we've had this week. And considering the amount of stupid we've seen this week alone, that's sayin' something...

If you actually think Catholics worship the "graven image" of God rather than God himself -- and yes, it's most definitely a HIM for Catholics -- you're "gravely" mistaken.

[kastenbrust]

the catholic church is -by very very far- the largest christian denomination.
therefore, by definition, they are not a sect, and most certainly not an extremist one.
they embody, whether you like it or not, mainstream christianity.
the second largest christian denomination, eastern orthodoxy, also uses images of saints and such.
if you extend the use of images to jesus and god, or to their symbols (the cross) then you are including probably upward of 99% of christians, so your definition of 'extremists' non-sensical.

Thats subjective, and my opinion, but it has nothing to do with the point i made


again, i think you have a bit of misunderstanding of what the whole catholic church is about, that is interpretation of the scriptures. They pretty much never went by the letter of it.

What are you talking about? The Catholic Church made the Bible. They decided what passages and texts go in, and what stays out. It wasn't made by God at all, but they would put it down to 'divine inspiration'.

[imac/cheese]

And yet there are Churches.

How are churches graven images that we worship? I have never heard of the First Church of Church or St. Church's Cathedral.

What are 'God's House' if not a direct breach of this principle. I saw a documentary that showed THOUSANDS of people worshiping at a statue of the Virgin Mary.

Worshipping at something and worshipping something are two different things. If I kneel down beside my bed at night and pray to god, am I worshipping my bed? I don't know any christian that worships the cross, the images of St. Peter, the giant statue of Jesus in Brazil, or any other graven image. These images tell a story and remind us of god, but do not replace god as the object of our worship. I do know christains that worship sex, money, power, family, sports, and computers, but that is another topic completely.

It's all lies, contradiction, subversion, marketing, extortion (fiscal and moral). What a pity that someone with clearly a level of intelligence has been suckered into it.

This is really a horrible argument to try to say that Christianity is all lies and extortion.

[kastenbrust]

This has got to be the silliest thread we've had this week. And considering the amount of stupid we've seen this week alone, that's sayin' something...

If you actually think Catholics worship the "graven image" of God rather than God himself -- and yes, it's most definitely a HIM for Catholics -- you're "gravely" mistaken.

You clearly dont understand the point. Im not saying Catholics worship the IMAGE of God, im saying simply having any images of God is against their own rules. Their number one rule. Its like making a constitution simply so you can break the first rule over and over again.

[imac/cheese]

You clearly dont understand the point. Im not saying Catholics worship the IMAGE of God, im saying simply having any images of God is against their own rules. Their number one rule. Its like making a constitution simply so you can break the first rule over and over again.

The rule is not about having images, it is about worshipping those images.

[floyde]

OP, I think you would have a better argument if you focused in the worship of divine figures other than God.

Having been a Catholic myself, and coming from a Catholic country, I can say from experience that a lot (granted, not all) of Catholics do worship a lot of saints in a manner similar to how they worship God. Also, the cult of Mary is pretty big, and I'm sure that a great number of Catholics turn to her or the saints before even thinking about Jesus. Not sure there's anything wrong with that in terms of Catholic theology, though.

[localoid]

You clearly dont understand the point. Im not saying Catholics worship the IMAGE of God, im saying simply having any images of God is against their own rules. Their number one rule. Its like making a constitution simply so you can break the first rule over and over again.

Looks like they're not breaking "their own rules"... Because the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Simplified (http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_ten_commandments.html) doesn't even list the "graven image" commandment.

1. "I am the Lord your God you shall not have strange Gods before me" (Ex 20:2-6, Deut 5:6-10)
2. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" (Ex 20:7-8, Deut 5:11-12)
3. "Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day" (Ex 20:8-11, Deut 5:12-15)
4. "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex 20:12, Deut 5:16)
5. "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17)
6. "You shall not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14, Deut 5:18)
7. "You shall not steal" (Ex 20:15, Deut 5:19)
8. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Ex 20:16, Deut 5:20)
9. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21)
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor's goods" (Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21)

[mactastic]

You clearly dont understand the point. Im not saying Catholics worship the IMAGE of God, im saying simply having any images of God is against their own rules. Their number one rule. Its like making a constitution simply so you can break the first rule over and over again.
It's been pretty clearly demonstrated that it is *you* who doesn't understand the point.

I know a thing or two about this subject. I'm a recovering Catholic myself, born and raised in the tradition. Catholic teaching is very clear on the subject -- the commandment relates to not worshipping "idols", or false gods.

Thus, anyone who worships Carrie Underwood is going to hell.

[Macaddicttt]

The Bible is not a rule book to Catholics, even if they put it together. (In fact, they did not put together the Old Testament. They took the Septuagint from the existent Jewish tradition, and put together the New Testament.) They put the Bible together to support what they teach. It's not a rule book and is no where near to a complete theology. The Catechism fulfills that role; it was written to synthesize the Bible and the Catholic Tradition of translating the Word of God (literal and non-literal).

The Second Council of Nicea, which (as an ecumenical council) is actually what the Catholic Church follows, unlike your personal misinterpretation of one tiny part of the Bible, went further and declared iconoclasm heretical. Now had that council decreed the opposite, then yes, you'd be right. But the Church got together, discussed this very passage for a long time, and came up with the current interpretation. It's no where near as straightforward as you present it with your poor translation and interpretation.

[djellison]

""He wrote them upon two tables of stone and gave them to me" (Deut 5:22). These two tables are called "the testimony," the terms of the Covenant between God and Israel which were to be placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:16)."

Where are they? Seriously - possibly the most important physical artefact in all of Christianity. Where did it go?

I've been to Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, Galilee, the Wailing Wall, the Dome of the Rock, the Wailing Wall, Damascus Gate and Bethlehem and the Church of the Nativity and I didn't see them there.

I nearly drowned in the Dead Sea. Perhaps God was telling me something. :rolleyes:


The Bible either IS

A. The word of god (thus is must be perfect, in no need of interpretation and to be taken literally) or it's

B. not (in which case it means as much as The Lord of the Rings)

Which is it.

(PS - given that there are multiple interpretations of something as simple as 10 rules, A isn't actually the right answer. Seriously - why would the word of god need discussion at all. These very holy people surely had spiritual ADSL, and if such a God existed he'd be sending out the same message to all of them, the same one written in this book of his)

If God exists and he has authored a book, then it should be a pretty good
one. There should be no contradictions, errors, or logical flaws; it
should be clear, easy to read, consistent, and accessable; and, it goes
without saying that it should be morally irreprehensible.

Unfortunately, the book that is purported to be God’s official
communication with humans contains all of these flaws, in abundance.

[Queso]

Where are they? Seriously - possibly the most important physical artefact in all of Christianity. Where did it go?
The US government has had top men working on it since the 30s.

Top men.

[Macaddicttt]

""He wrote them upon two tables of stone and gave them to me" (Deut 5:22). These two tables are called "the testimony," the terms of the Covenant between God and Israel which were to be placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:16)."

Where are they? Seriously - possibly the most important physical artefact in all of Christianity. Where did it go?

I've been to Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, Galilee, the Wailing Wall, the Dome of the Rock, the Wailing Wall, Damascus Gate and Bethlehem and the Church of the Nativity and I didn't see them there.

I nearly drowned in the Dead Sea. Perhaps God was telling me something. :rolleyes:

Um, no. It's probably the most important artifact in Judaism, so take it up with them. Second of all, it was lost when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem. The most important artifact in Christianity would probably be the True Cross of Christ, which was paraded in front of the Crusader armies. That was lost when Jerusalem fell to Saladin. Later, a peace deal was brokered that gave Jerusalem and the Cross back to the Christians, but it never got there. It was lost.

The point is, just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it didn't exist a couple thousand years ago. And it's not as if its existence would prove anything. You'd have to be crazy to think that the Ark never existed. The question is whether God decreed that they be made. Their modern existence would not be an argument either way.


The Bible either IS

A. The word of god (thus is must be perfect, in no need of interpretation and to be taken literally) or it's

B. not (in which case it means as much as The Lord of the Rings)

Which is it.

(PS - given that there are multiple interpretations of something as simple as 10 rules, A isn't actually the right answer. Seriously - why would the word of god need discussion at all. These very holy people surely had spiritual ADSL, and if such a God existed he'd be sending out the same message to all of them, the same one written in this book of his)

That is a total false choice. The mere fact that the will of God was put into words makes it necessary to interpret. Unless you can read Hewbrew, Aramaic, and Ancient Greek? There isn't one language that all of history knows, so as soon as anything is written, it must be interpreted.

Second, not only would we have to have the exact same language everywhere, but we'd also have to have the exact same culture. There are lots of metaphors and other figures of speech that just don't make any sense to us today. That's no failing of the Bible; it just means times change and language changes.

Third, Christians do not believe it was written literally by God, but by God through humans. Transcription errors abound. That's why the Catholic Church, the original subject of this thread, is not in the business of making a timeless book that encapsulates all Christianity, but are organic, living interpreters of Christianity with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Your quote is incorrect in regards to the Catholic Church. The Bible isn't God's official communication with the world, the Catholic Church is.

[arkitect]

""He wrote them upon two tables of stone and gave them to me"
Where are they? Seriously - possibly the most important physical artefact in all of Christianity Judaism. Where did it go?

Tsk.
Now don't be silly.
We all know the stone tablets were placed inside the ark of the covenant and that is stored here: ;)
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll32/drs3y/Raiders_Of_The_Lost_Ark_Government_.jpg
:D:D

[patrick0brien]

Arguing faith always goes badly. This thread is a good example.

Still disbelieving I read this, now moving on...

[djellison]

So as soon as anything is written, it must be interpreted.

:rolleyes:

This God of yours really is crap at communication.

[Macaddicttt]

:rolleyes:

This God of yours really is crap at communication.

Um, my point was that language is imperfect, not that God was. I mean, take our little exchange here. I was quite unambiguous, yet you misinterpreted my post. I said that language was imperfect and therefore anything written must be interpreted, yet you took it to mean that God was incapable.

Even with Judaism (i.e. written, explicit rules), there was always room for interpretation just because it uses human modes of communication. But you miss the whole point of Christianity in terms of this. Jesus replaced the Old Testament rules with a Church that is a living, breathing purveyor of God's word. If you want unambiguous, clear direction about what God wants you to know in terms of morality, consult the works of the Catholic Church.

EDIT: And if what you wanted was an unambiguous set of rules, just look at modern law to see the impossibility of that. Not only would you have to trap for every possible circumstance in history dealing with things that didn't even exist when the book was written (can you imagine how big this thing would be?), but taking one look at modern law with it's huge books intentionally written to be as unambiguous as possible, you see that even that has to be interpreted, which is why we have judges.

[emt1]

Um, my point was that language is imperfect, not that God was. I mean, take our little exchange here. I was quite unambiguous, yet you misinterpreted my post. I said that language was imperfect and therefore anything written must be interpreted, yet you took it to mean that God was incapable.

Even with Judaism (i.e. written, explicit rules), there was always room for interpretation just because it uses human modes of communication. But you miss the whole point of Christianity in terms of this. Jesus replaced the Old Testament rules with a Church that is a living, breathing purveyor of God's word. If you want unambiguous, clear direction about what God wants you to know in terms of morality, consult the works of the Catholic Church.

How does the Catholic church know what God wants?

[Don't panic]

The point is, just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it didn't exist a couple thousand years ago. And it's not as if its existence would prove anything. You'd have to be crazy to think that the Ark never existed. The question is whether God decreed that they be made. Their modern existence would not be an argument either way.


Mmmh. Is there any independent evidence of the ark or of the stone tables supposedly in it?
I mean, 'Raiders' was great, but i wasn't aware it was a documentary.

by the way, the Ark had (allegedly) images of cherubins and it was clearly a sacred/worshipped object, so the "interpretatory" school of thought on rule #1 would have started with moses himself

[Macaddicttt]

How does the Catholic church know what God wants?

If you believe the Catholic Church, it's because the Holy Spirit guides the Church (as instituted by Jesus on Pentecost).

[Macaddicttt]

Mmmh. Is there any independent evidence of the ark or of the stone tables supposedly in it?
I mean, 'Raiders' was great, but i wasn't aware it was a documentary.

Don't you think that contemporaries would have been a little suspicious if the Jews were going on and on about the ark, but never showed it to anyone. Why wouldn't they have made one, even if it was all just a story that God told them to?

[iJohnHenry]

If you actually think Catholics worship the "craven image" of God rather than God himself -- and yes, it's most definitely a HIM for Catholics -- you're "gravely" mistaken.

Despite the graven/craven miss-spell I did snicker at gravely. :p

[Don't panic]

Don't you think that contemporaries would have been a little suspicious if the Jews were going on and on about the ark, but never showed it to anyone. Why wouldn't they have made one, even if it was all just a story that God told them to?

what makes you think that the contemporaries weren't suspicious about The Ark or even just dismissed it as an irrelevant myth? They all probably had their own secret holy weapon they went on and on about.
Besides, all the current 'holders' of The Ark claim that they have reasons not to show it or have it examined, so it seems a viable approach.

My question was whether there is any evidence to actual physical existence of The Ark or of the Tablets of the Commandments, outside of what's written in the holy texts (and since the bible has all sorts of scarcely believable stories about its powers, i'm not sure it can be considered a reliable source on the subject).

I agree with your previous point that the actual existence of the ark/tablet wouldn't prove much either way. Unless you believe the stories/traditions about them, as they supposedly were pretty remarkable artifacts, with obvious physically impossible properties.

[Macaddicttt]

Despite the graven/craven miss-spell I did snicker at gravely. :p

Actually, the correct word is "graven." :confused:

[Macaddicttt]

what makes you think that the contemporaries weren't suspicious about The Ark or even just dismissed it as an irrelevant myth? They all probably had their own secret holy weapon they went on and on about.
Besides, all the current 'holders' of The Ark claim that they have reasons not to show it or have it examined, so it seems a viable approach.


I guess my point is that why would they overlook making this one piece for their Temple? Why would they melt down gold and make a menorah, but not the Ark? If they're going to spend tons of money making the Temple, why wouldn't they actually make the most important artifact? Sure, there's no hard evidence of the existence of the ark, but it would be absurd to assume that it didn't exist. This is definitely a case where you'd have to prove that something didn't exist, not the other way around.

Do you believe that the True Cross of Christ existed during the Crusades? I'm not asking if you think it was actually the cross Christ was crucified on, but since it was lost and there's no evidence for it (aside from the writings of religious fanatics, i.e. crusaders) are you not convinced that it existed? In history, many artifacts have been lost to time, but that doesn't make them any less likely that they existed in most cases. There's a different set of criteria in the field of history than, say, science.

[mactastic]

Actually, the correct word is "graven." :confused:
Indeed, that's what the penguins always told me. :p

[Don't panic]

I guess my point is that why would they overlook making this one piece for their Temple? Why would they melt down gold and make a menorah, but not the Ark? If they're going to spend tons of money making the Temple, why wouldn't they actually make the most important artifact? Sure, there's no hard evidence of the existence of the ark, but it would be absurd to assume that it didn't exist. This is definitely a case where you'd have to prove that something didn't exist, not the other way around.

Do you believe that the True Cross of Christ existed during the Crusades? I'm not asking if you think it was actually the cross Christ was crucified on, but since it was lost and there's no evidence for it (aside from the writings of religious fanatics, i.e. crusaders) are you not convinced that it existed? In history, many artifacts have been lost to time, but that doesn't make them any less likely that they existed in most cases. There's a different set of criteria in the field of history than, say, science.

i agree that it is likely that 'an Ark' existed at some point (and even more likely that several of them existed at different points), and that this has nothing to do with where it came from, what it contained and with its physical properties.

but even if the references in the bible likely point to an historical artifact, a gilded box with cherubins, they still don't prove that it did exist.
Or than anyone would be crazy to think it's a myth. After all it's described in a collection of stories which are, for the largest part, myths.

as far as the 'true cross', i suppose there were likely several 'true crosses' displayed during the crusades, or at least there were enough of 'true pieces' to account for plenty, because there appear to be multiple independent accounts of it/them.

bottom line: i pretty much agree with your point there, just think that you put a bit too much emphasis on that aspect, AND i was curious if any independent evidence existed of it. guess not :)

[Macaddicttt]

bottom line: i pretty much agree with your point there, just think that you put a bit too much emphasis on that aspect, AND i was curious if any independent evidence existed of it. guess not :)

Gotcha. Does a mention in the Koran count? :p

[Don't panic]

Gotcha. Does a mention in the Koran count? :p

derivative. sorry ;)

[techfreak85]

A. The word of god (thus is must be perfect, in no need of interpretation and to be taken literally) or it's

B. not (in which case it means as much as The Lord of the Rings)

Im sorry its not that black and white tho.

[djellison]

consult the works of the Catholic Church..

Sorry - I don't take advice from such an organisation.

Intentionally repressed scientific progress and tortured and killed those who were trying to discover the truth about the universe.

Is against the use of contraception and thus responsible for the spread of AIDs across Africa.

Has a leader, the voice of God on Earth we are told, no less, that has stated that the world needs 'saving' from Homosexuality, which is the destruction of Gods work.

Whilst paedophillia in supposed celebate priests is a problem with a small number of actual preists - many more were involved in an intentional cover up of hideous acts against children.

If this is the result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit - then the Holy Spirit is evil.

If this is the organisation for whom guidance must be sought to interpret the Bible - then this God has failed, catastrophically, to do his job.

The Bible is full of violence, hideous outrageous laws, and contradiction.
So it needs interpretation, are told, by a corrupt church

How much incompetence, evil, hypocrisy and egomania does this God need to demonstrate before those who elect to believe in him realise, that actually, if he does exist he is worthy of no worship, and that actually, he doesn't exist at all.

IF the 10 commandments have been interpreted and held to be basically, right....then why not what the bible says about those who don't follow them. The tens of millions people who work on a Sunday should, under the 10 commandments, be killed.

[Cromulent]

Theres so many children on this forum!

What has that got to do with anything?

If I had my way teaching religion to children would be banned until they were old enough to make their own minds up as to whether they believe in God or not (say 14 years old or so).

[iJohnHenry]

Actually, the correct word is "graven." :confused:

Ouch. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/feel-ashamed.gif

[Don't panic]

What has that got to do with anything?

If I had my way teaching religion to children would be banned until they were old enough to make their own minds up as to whether they believe in God or not (say 14 years old or so).

that would be an interesting approach.
Like alcohol, sex, and other similar activities, it should be only be available to a mature audience.