Yes and no. First, when the scripture discusses God's displeasure with praying before idols, it was during the time when people were bowing before idols of cats and other such objects. Did these people actually pray to the cat statues? Nope. They prayed to what the cat statues represented.
Accepting that as the case, then do you have a problem with praying to what Christian imagery represents (ie. God?)
Still, as a result of God's language, people went around smashing these other statues.
Yes, there was a heretical sect in history called the
Iconoclasts who, as one writer put it, were siezed by a fit of collective vandalism and went around smashing Christian statues, artwork, etc until theyr had to be forcebally restrained. It is interesting to see how their ideas influenced others, including neighbouring non-Christian religions.
Second, many Catholics to not pray with their mind to God. Many of them pray to Jesus and/or Mary. The latter was definitely a human--granted a human who acted as a vehicle for the son of God, but not someone that even God would want people to bow to. Remember, "I am a jealous God."
This is the difference between Adoration and Veneration I referred to earlier. The Early Christians were well aware of this difference and this discernment is retained in the Catholic Church. To pray to someone is not necessarily to worship them. There is another meaning to the word "pray" which is retained in the English language through archaic phrases such as "pray tell me".
It literally means "to ask".
When Catholics pray to Mary or the Saints, they are asking them to petition God on their behalf. Catholics pray to the entire Church (Church Militant & Church Triumphant) to intercede on their behalf.
St Paul himself asked his fellow Christians to pray for him. Catholics do the same but they also include the saints and Mary as full members of the Church.
The saints and Mary are venerated (as said in the Bible during the Annunciation and the Visitation - "Hail Mary, full of Grace" and "Blessed art thou amongst women" and "All generations shall call me blessed"), that is that they are accorded great respect due to their virtue and being favoured by God.
Adoration, however, is true worship and is reserved for God alone.
Actually, I've rarely met a Catholic who understands even the basics of their religion based on the original scriptures.
Or rather, your interpretation of the Scriptures?
They rely on translations of translations of translations, and form opinions and interpretations based on an imperfect understanding of the texts.
As opposed to what? What do you base your interpretation on?
Private interpretation of the original Greek texts and a thorough background in ancient Hebrew linguistic and cultural nuances?
I'm interested in the scriptural authority you subscribe to.
I seem to recall scripture itself saying that there is definitely no Private Interpretation (2 Peter) . So what is your scriptural authority and where does it derive it's authority from?
What's worse, they pick and choose which aspects of their scriptures they want to adhere to and which aspects they conveniently want to ignore.
This applies to most people I know, Catholic or otherwise.
Catholics regularly ignore those who steal (i.e., embezzle), commit adultery, blaspheme the name of the Lord, and work on the Sabbath--all *DIRECT* violations of the Ten Commandments.
Specific Catholics you know or all Catholics as a general rule?
I know of no perfect people personally, nor do I believe them to exist in our world.
Yet, somehow these individuals seek to create *HUMAN LAWS* to forbid gay marriage and the like. Nothing in the Ten Commandments about gays, but somehow a rare mention of homosexuality becomes far more important than other religious admonishments in the bible, such as sleeping with a woman during her menstral cycle or eating pork.
I do not consider the Ten Commandments to be the sum total of Christian morality. Even if I were a Sola Scriptura adherent, there is plenty of talk regarding sexual immorality in the bible. Were not the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah engaging in "unnatural relations"? It specifically mentions that "even their women engaged in unnatural relations with each other" and the "men were inflamed with lust for each other".
If you are accepting of homosexuality, then that is fine & entirely your own business. I do not tell people that their sexual urges are wrong or whatever. I have an opinion based on my religion but I do not moralise but rather respect the individual's Free Will. But to claim it sits fine with Christian morality is, I feel, a gross misrepresentation.
(Just to jar your memory, the Lord spoke to Moses in Lev. 24:13-16, telling him that all should stone Shelomith's son for blaspheming the name of the Lord. We also see admonishments that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (Exodus 35:2). These are clearly things that *REALLY* upset God, but we don't see our supposedly religious Congressional leaders trying to create laws to outlaw working on the Sabbath. Instead, they try to outlaw homosexuality, even though it is not even as "bad" in the eyes of God himself. Again, selective, convenience religious zealousness that serves personal goals and not God's goals. I feel this comes from relying on interpreters, rather than personal interpretation of the original texts.)
We do not live by the Old Law anymore. Christ was very specific about that. In any case, with Private Interpretation you simply exchange one interpretor with another (yourself).
I speak bluntly because I have deeper experience than most--I was head alter boy at my Catholic church and my father was in seminary to become a priest before falling ill, then in love, and then into marriage and children.
No offense intended, but I find that some of the most vociferous anti-Catholics have had negative personal experiences in the past.
Same with ex-smokers, etc. Pople who reject what they once were or had tend to become the biggest opponents. It is not limited to Catholicism.
I think it fair to objectively say that if your father had not left the seminary then you would not be here, thus you have a vested interest in opposing it, right?
Aside from those pursuing priesthood, I have never *EVER* met a Catholic/Christian who had enough interest in the scripture to *LEARN* the actual languages in which the scriptures were written, and seek out the original texts.
Never met anyone, period.
Again, as I reject Sola Scriptura as a heresy then it is not so important for me.
This the despite the fact that so many Catholics/Christians claim that the scriptures guide their life.
Christ guides my life through his divinely ordained Church. I believe that Christ founded a Church to guide with authority otherwise he would have written the Bible himself and simply used the Apostles to flog his book. I do not rely
solely on the writings of the early Christians (assembled and pronounced infallible by the Catholic Church, btw
). The Church existed before there was a Bible.
let us not put the cart before the horse
Both Jews and Muslims are very different on this point. Both Jews and Muslims read their original texts in their original languages, and subsequently, are far more strict with the way that they read the scriptures.
Rather, they are more literal...or as the bible puts it - their understanding of scripture is "carnal"
However, a biblical scholar of any worth would rightly tell you that much of the bible is written in allegorical, rhetorical and un-literal form.
This is why Private Interpretation is such a bad idea and is denounced in scripture itself. The pratical proof? Look at all the countless sects and demoninations, reading their bible, privately interpreting it, and coming away with countless doctrinally-contradicting creeds. This one believes in the Real Presence, that one doesn't, this one believes in infant baptism, that one doesn't believe in it at all, this one believe in seven sacraments, that one three, the other none, this one believes in the Trinity, this one believes in only One indivisible God, etc.
This is the fruits of Private Interpretation where every man sets himself up as his own Pope and supreme authority.
Anyway, interesting discussion
