[PLUG-TALK] Credibility...

[Ronald Chmara]

On Jan 8, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Michael Robinson wrote:

> Having a crucifix is not idol worship

Praying before a "symbol", be that symbol a golden calf, a sculpture  
of a man on a cross, or a golden buddha, is praying to/before a symbol.

There are interesting theological debates to be had on this topic,  
but I think the difference here is that Christians began to worship  
the the thing that they were "praying in front of".

> and no the early
> Christians would not have used a crucifix as a symbol
> for obvious reasons.  Frankly, if the image of Christ
> is a graven image that is pretty confusing.

What?
(or, in internet patois, "Wat?)

Catholics often worship a man (in effigy).

Since they say that a man can be a God, they worship with the effigy.  
*shrug*

>  Follow
> that logic, every human being becomes a graven image
> because man is made in the image and likeness of God.
> Please don't go there.

Well, I've already gone there, early Christians say it's heresy, and  
you're not making any sense.

I suggest you study the first 300 years of Christianity.

No, really, take a few years. It helps to learn ancient greek.

> A symbol representing
> the 1 true God cannot be an idol, by definition.

Wrong, in early Judaism/christianity.

The "golden calf" represented God. It was wrong at times, right at  
other times.

Quiz: Was "God's name", rather than a alternate choice, acceptable  
for the YHVH/Elohim  groups 200 years ago?

> You
> don't worship a symbol, if it represents God you worship
> the God person that it represents.

I do not disagree, as most buddhists do not worship some guy who  
lived a long time ago.

Many Christians, however, seem to worship some guy who lived a long  
time ago.

> "You see, early Christians were kind of upset about the
> idea of  worshipping god in the form of a man
> (or other "earthly" things), as that was a Gentile,
> pagan, custom. It wasn't until Arius's battle  with
> Alexander of Alexandria, and the resulting Nicean
> creed/heresy, that Christians decided to, well, kind
> of ignore the issue, and  declare that worshipping a
> man figure, *as* a part of God, was really  just
> plain "ok"."
>
> Hmm, sounds like you don't believe in the divinity
> of Jesus Christ.  The idea that Jesus is fully God
> and fully man.  Am I correct?

You didn't pick that part up about Arius, did you?

Do you have any idea about that history?

> What in the Nicean creed is there that makes you
> call it a heresy?

Worshipping a man, instead of his (Jesus as a man) worshipped god.

> You see, God impregnated Mary with the God-man Jesus
> Christ which refutes the Arian heresy which says that
> Jesus isn't God.

Even if if God "impregnated" Mary, Jesus still isn't God....., just  
the product of impregnation by God.

Zeus impregnated lots of maidens, that didn't make their offspring  
"God".

Same rules.

-Bop