Suppose on Mt. Sinai, instead of writing the Law with his own finger on tablets of stone, God had written a carved or painted image. Would it have been worship-worthy? Not on your life, any more than stone tablets or the Bible is.
When we venerate (not "adore"! not "worship"!) sacred images, we are not venerating wood or paint or anything that resides in the image. Our veneration passes to the prototype for whom it's intended. When you gaze lovingly on a photo of someone special in your life, is your love directed at paper and chemicals or for the person they represent?
But what Paul is driving at in this passage is that Christ is "the image of the invisible God" because it is "by Him all things were created, both in the heavens on on earth," etc., and "all things have been created by Him and for Him." In other words, Christ is the "image" of God because he IS God--"He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). If Christ is to be worshiped because he is the "icon" of the Father, then why not worship other icons? Given your prooftext, we worship an icon, right? Why not worship all icons?
On the other hand, perhaps "icons" really are the things they represent, just as Christ is the "icon" of God and is therefore God?
Suppose on Mt. Sinai, instead of writing the Law with his own finger on tablets of stone, God had written a carved or painted image. Would it have been worship-worthy? Not on your life, any more than stone tablets or the Bible is. When we venerate (not "adore"! not "worship"!) sacred images, we are not venerating wood or paint or anything that resides in the image. Our veneration passes to the prototype for whom it's intended. When you gaze lovingly on a photo of someone special in your life, is your love directed at paper and chemicals or for the person they represent?
You're the one who tried to say that even Protestants worship Christ, the "Icon" (image) of the Father.