Posted on 03/27/2016 11:47:44 AM PDT by marshmallow
Yup!
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Oh?
Rome has SHOWN what it means by 'veneration'.
...and the jury recoiled at the witnesses statement.
And scriptural; too!
You can read all about the flowers that were placed at Christ's tomb!!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
Our Saints are ALIVE!!!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
You’re wonderful, Elsie.
You’re wonderful, Elsie. But your alter-ego is sometimes a bit silly.
Amen!
Anointing of, incensing of, bowing to, parading/holding processions with, ritual handling of sacred object. See “Ark of the Covenant.”
That is far from self-evident, and does not become true just because you've said so.
If a person says he is not adoring, and does not intend adoration, then he is not adoring. Why would he lie?
What?! That is absurd! Why? What saith Scripture: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.' (Psalms 58:3) It remains that the premise that giving worship, which is an activity, or for that matter veneration, or benevolence, or other assertions of motive are to be determined based upon what one says they are doing is not Scriptural and is untenable, as anyone could deny or affirm that they were engaging in such. How convenient. In Scripture worship is described and only God is the recipient of certain manifestations of worship by believers given to Mary, and only idolators are described engaging in such toward created beings.
One could bow down to a statue of Moses in praise and adulation, and even proclaim that he could not praise him to excess, whose radiant eminence transcends that of any other creature, surpassing in power and virtue all the angels and saints in Heaven, and that all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to him, and constantly beseech and implore him for supernatural aid, as one one who alone is solicitous for us in Heaven and hears all our prayers addressed to him, and that sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember his name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus, and that God receives his requests as commands, and that he is the dispenser of all grace, that there is no grace which he cannot dispose of as her own, and if his intervention be not accepted then neither is that of Christ, and so forth. Yet while merely kneeling or bowing down before a statute of an unseen entity in praise and adulation and beseeching such for supernatural aid would constitute worship in Scripture, under the Catholic rational one could not be judged for doing so if they deny that "worship" was in their heart. Or assert that such is not blasphemous.
Again, it remains that one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven.
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Not sure he meant it the way you’re taking it....
Hoss
Indeed, and which includes what only pagans would ascribe to created beings.
ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)
Catholic version: ye might learn in us to think of men above that which is written, that the church of Rome may be puffed up as the most high one against any other.
This is no way to argue. To begin with, you have a tendentious definition of a pagan per se: a guy who is wicked and is speaking lies. So of course then, when your hypothetical pagan says he is not worshiping Entity X, he must be lying! That's not an argument, it's a flippin' tautology.
You're surely smart enough to see that.
Instead of your artificial pagan, let's look at a real one. Let's look at a Yazidi.
As I understand it, they worship a Supreme Being who is self-existing and transcendent. This Supreme God created the earth, sun, moon, stars and everything in the sky, plus the body of Adam.
Then he created seven archangels, the principal one of which is Tawsi Melek, the Peacock Angel. Colorful Tawsi Melek endowed God's creation with colors; found Adam and gave him a soul; then after Eve's creation, he taught them prayers by which they were to worship the Supreme Creator God and Him alone.
At some point, God commanded Tawsi Melek to bow and worship Adam, but he refused. Then God punished him and he cried for 7,000 years, filled seven great jars with tears and then with these extinguished the fires of hell. Then God forgave him. He said he accepted his repentance and that, actually, Melek had chosen the good, because it would be wrong to worship Adam or anyone but the Supreme Creator. This was a test of Tawsi Melek's loyalty, and he passed the test.
I repeat this Yazidi lore in order to make this point: the Yazidis say they worship the Supreme Creator God but not Tawsi Melek, an archangel. They do not worship him and he does not worship them. The Muslims, though, say that Tawsi Melek is really Shaitan, their Satan; and that the Yasidis are really Satan-worshipers.
ISIS, as you probably know, consider it rather a service to God to wipe out Yazidis.
Now I am no believer in Yazidi theology, but I can see that their insistence that they worship only One God is one of the central points of Yazidi belief. They greatly honor Tawsi Melek and the other Archangels, but do not consider them equal to the One Supreme God who is the Creator of all things.
To me, it is a matter of the Muslims' typical obtuse arrogance that they would appoint themselves true interpreters Yazidi belief, and tell them that they adore Tawsi Melek who is Shaitan, when the Yazidis say that Tawsi Melek is NOT Shaitan and furthermore, they do not adore him.
It's just offensive and stupid to tell people they believe what they do not believe, and that they adore as God Almighty whom they do not so adore. Muslims interposing themselves as interpreters of Yazidism, leads to moral defamation ("The Yazidis worship evil Satan"), which leads, as we so often see, to murder.
This is exactly what St. Paul didn't do at the Areopagus.
Don't do that, Daniel. If people say they do not adore Entity X, they don't. You can't adore someone whom you quite intentionally and vehemently do not adore.
Wrong. You argued that a person should not be disbelieved about whether he is worshiping, and asked by should a person lie, thus defining man as being honest and defining worship by what you claims he is doing ("If a person says he is not adoring, and does not intend adoration, then he is not adoring"), which is no way to argue, and my response is that men are liars by nature, which is why one could lie.
So of course then, when your hypothetical pagan says he is not worshiping Entity X, he must be lying! That's not an argument, it's a flippin' tautology.
Wrong: my argument is that whatever the hypothetical pagan says, whether he is engaging in giving worship or not is determined by the external evidence. If his heart is not in his words and actions then at the least he is guilty of blasphemy, as are Caths even if their heart is not in their manner of "veneration" in word and deed as described. And the things i described certainly constitute the activity of worship when one's heart is in them, giving to another the manner of obeisance, praise, adulation which is only given to God by believers, and ascribing to such uniquely Divine attributes.
Instead of your artificial pagan, let's look at a real one. Let's look at a Yazidi. Then he created seven archangels, the principal one of which is Tawsi Melek, the Peacock Angel. Colorful Tawsi Melek endowed God's creation with colors; found Adam and gave him a soul; then after Eve's creation, he taught them prayers by which they were to worship the Supreme Creator God and Him alone. At some point, God commanded Tawsi Melek to bow and worship Adam, but he refused. Then God punished him and he cried for 7,000 years, filled seven great jars with tears and then with these extinguished the fires of hell. Then God forgave him. He said he accepted his repentance and that, actually, Melek had chosen the good, because it would be wrong to worship Adam or anyone but the Supreme Creator. This was a test of Tawsi Melek's loyalty, and he passed the test. I repeat this Yazidi lore in order to make this point: the Yazidis say they worship the Supreme Creator God but not Tawsi Melek, an archangel. They do not worship him and he does not worship them. The Muslims, though, say that Tawsi Melek is really Shaitan, their Satan; and that the Yasidis are really Satan-worshipers. ISIS, as you probably know, consider it rather a service to God to wipe out Yazidis. Now I am no believer in Yazidi theology, but I can see that their insistence that they worship only One God is one of the central points of Yazidi belief. They greatly honor Tawsi Melek and the other Archangels, but do not consider them equal to the One Supreme God who is the Creator of all things.
That is hardly analogous, for what you describe as "greatly honor Tawsi Melek and the other Archangels" is not even close to the hyperveneration given to Mary, which would be worship if given to Tawsi Melek, or at the least blasphemy, as it is toward Mary, take your pick! Actually, to blaspheme is to engage in a form of worship, ascribing to a created being that which only belongs to, and is given to God.
God ordered Tawûsê Melek not to bow to other beings, while Caths even build statues to do so for their fabricated Mary. Where do you see the Yazidis bowing down to a statue of Tawsi (Melek Taus) in praise and adulation, and proclaiming that he could not be praised to excess, whose radiant eminence transcends that of any other creature, surpassing in power and virtue all the angels and saints in Heaven, and that all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to him, and constantly beseech and implore him for supernatural aid, as one one who alone is solicitous for them in Heaven, and like God, can hear all their prayers addressed to him, and that sometimes salvation is quicker if they pray to him rather than to God directly, and that God receives his requests as commands, and that he is the dispenser of all grace, that there is no grace which he cannot dispose of as his own, and if his intervention be not accepted then neither is God's, and so forth?
The more you try to rationalize away giving to your false unScriptural Mary the manner of adulation not given to any created being but only to God, then the more it illustrates the recourse to making semantical distinctions without a real difference.
It's just offensive and stupid to tell people they believe what they do not believe, and that they adore as God Almighty whom they do not so adore.
Tell that to Moses, under whom idolatry was not charged based upon mere assertions of worship, but by their words and deeds, giving to another the manner of obeisance, praise, adulation which only belongs to God and is only given to God by believers, but which Caths give to a created being, and claim it is mere "veneration."
This is exactly what St. Paul didn't do at the Areopagus.
You mean Paul was merely charging them with "veneration" in saying,
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Acts 17:23-25)
. If people say they do not adore Entity X, they don't.
That is just as absurd as the first time you said it, as it is no more valid than claiming that if a person denies that he is lusting after a women whose beauty he raves about and simulate sexual relations with then he is to be believed. And thus souls can take the Mark of the Beast and claim that they are not worshiping the Beast, though the former signifies the latter.
Perhaps you can argue the two need not mean the same, based upon a distinction btwn worship of the heart versus giving worship by words and deeds, as seen in Scripture. Yet you make what one professes to be what defines worship and idolatry. But i submit that to blaspheme, ascribing to a created being that which only belongs to, and is given to God, is to be guilty of giving worship and engaging in idolatry, whether one claims to worship of not.
You are; of course; correct on both counts.
Wait!
Is this a Mary assumption thread?
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.