For example:
The figure on the right represents God.
Is this an idol?
Posted on 03/11/2012 4:27:55 PM PDT by Heart-Rest
I think that you know that question was facetious.
Not at all facetious. I’m applying your definition. It fulfills all your requirements for an idol.
One would need to know clearly what an idol is in order to be taken seriously when accusing others of idolatry.
Would you like to clarify?
I think you ought to rethink this. Origen may have held Platonic heretical positions, but gnosticism was not one of them. His writings were largely to refute gnosticism.
Clement is not much different. If you are referring to St. Clement of Alexandria you will find his works were not sympathetic to the gnostic heresies. If you were referring to Pope Clement I he compiled no codices and very little of his writings survive. There is only one reference to the Gnostic's that I am aware of in his 2nd Letter to the Corinthians and it isn't flattering of them.
Please let's not get into a tit-for-tat exchange here. There is no need for rancor. I didn't ask any questions, silly or otherwise in my post. I have followed the thread within this thread regarding the origin's and the integrity of the Bible.
If you would care to point out an error in my postings and substantiate it with verifiable information I would love to see it. If I am wrong I will admit it and thank you for adding to my knowledge (and humility).
You keep posting the same things and we keep showing you that you are posting out of context and post the context, as well as supported Gospel and NT verses (as I have done several times here) and you simply ignore it and keep repeating your claim.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Perhaps we can say: when you make false claims, use not vain repetitions, as the bigots do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
You keep claiming Christianity, yet you have spoken often in the past about rejecting Christianity in favour of your own version of religion. One that is remarkable similar to the various spawn of Azusa Street from a hundred years ago.
We Christians on the other hand, believe in the Trinity (one of the last things that Christ told His Apostles about), and about their role in the Church that He created. You have rejected both of these ever on these boards.
Origen didn't write anything until the 3rd century.
Don't you see that this is yet another Vatican plot to rewrite history and again persecute the mythological subterranean family of the true Christian who stayed underground like moles and popped up unexpectedly in 1905 after nearly 1900 years in a cave, goggling their eyes in the light of day. Some accepted that light. Others simply hooded themselves and used their own lanterns which they called Christianity, refusing to believe that their own invention was not what they thought it was.
. Really a misconception. There really never was any movement to even have an official ‘catholic’ Bible until the KJV became available.
How is it that you are so wrong in so many ways so consistently?
You may bruit on about Origen, but Origen did not get the eventual canon correct. Scripture was accepted in a Catholic Council in 393 in Hippo and confirmed in Carthage in 397 and 419. Well, you only missed it by 1200 years or so.
What translation and what year is that?
Boy oh boy,you’d need a pretty big pointy hat to house a head like that! < rib >
Yeah, the guys with the hats don’t have the pointy heads and the guys with the pointy heads don’t have the hats. Go figure.
If you believe a chair is God, you are very confused.
If you believe the chair is or represents a god (to wit not God), then yes it is an idol.
And that’s the problem: praying to someone/thing other than God.
Thanks for your reply.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your answer is in the affirmative: In the example, if I believe the chair is God, it is an idol; if not, then no.
Would that be correct?
If you believe my TV is an SUV, discussions about gas mileage will not be productive.
True.
That would be wrong. As would believing a chair is God. Or a statue is God.
Agree?
You keep missing the word “represents” and the subject thereof.
For example:
The figure on the right represents God.
Is this an idol?
The linguistic trap you are setting requires nullification of the Second Commandment.
Do you really want to go there?
I’m not interested in traps or linguistics, but truth: what makes an idol an idol?
I should remind that this is in response to an accusation. The reason for going here is as I stated to begin with:
One would need to know clearly what an idol is in order to be taken seriously when accusing others of idolatry.
And, I should have also added, that this was in response to another poster’s allegation.
If it doesn’t apply, then, well, it doesn’t apply. We can discuss if you’d like, but it’s your choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.