KamiLara:

Hmm. I salute and stand at attention

Since when did "not giving a monkey's" started been analysed and interpreted as been upset

". . . I felt that the mention of the bronze serpent would stimulate discussion in line with the subject of the thread . . ." yeah right,

stimulate discussion laced with a bit of "talking snake" time, isnt it?

This is all a disguise, isnt it?

The romance with iconography OR iconolatry is a ruse, as the interest really is in graven images (i.e. idolatry)




So what's with the cherubims now?

You're all over the place, one minute its Paul's handkerchief, next its Jesus' gown, or now its cherubs

OK, now that you are pushing the boat out to sea.

Why doesn't the discussion deliberate on the significance of the bronze serpent?

Why the choice was a snake and why the snake had to be brass for that matter too?



SMH

they are far because:

- they are not bowed down to
- not shown any reverence to by gesture of the body
- no prostration bending of knee, kissing of hand, lifting up of hands or eyes to
- no outward action expressing a religious esteem of them, as if there was divinity in them

Would be intriguing to know what you understand by the term worship

to worship is to ascribe divinity to a being and act according. To worship is more of the mind and heart. If one doesnt ascribe divinity to something the all signs are interpreted as respect or veneration.

chukwudi44: 57. KamiLara: Quote Post

chukwudi44:

@kamilara

Are disputing the fact that the cherubims and bronze serpents were graven images


I understand your interest . . .

Let it first be known that the cherubims and bronze serpent are in a league of their own

and that the cherubims and bronze serpent had privilege statuses enjoyed or made available to a group of people at a particular period of time

I am not disputing the fact that the cherubims and bronze serpent were graven images

but questioning the truth whether they were

- bowed down to
- shown any reverence to by gesture of the body
- offered prostration, bending of knee, kissing of hand, lifting up of hands or eyes to as if there was divinity in them
- shown outward action expressing a spiritual esteem of them, as if there was divinity in them

in conjunction with the below verses, with particular reference to verse 5


4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me

Please expatiate on your assertion that the bronze serpent and cherubs were "in a league of their own"
Also you are claiming there were made available to a group of people @ a certain time yet you keep quoting commandments given to those same people at that time.I would want to believe God outlawed making of idols and not graven images .God will be braking is own commandment by asking moses to make graven images if that is what he actaually meant.

Now now that idols and graven images do not mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangebly.Idols are images which are worshipped which supposes that images that are not worshipped cannot be regarded as idols.

You also claimed moses was the only one in the bible God instructed to make graven images.That claim is fallacious as solomon also constructed graven images during the construction of the temple.Even his throne had graven images of lions

this a very true. There is a difference between having religious images and idol. Many people confuse the two.

Ubenedictus: this isnt true. You are making a baseless statement. another lie. the catholic church was never give on tithe, the indulgence case wasnt used to amass wealth it was used to renovate only one basilica called st peter. The accumulated wealth came from donations as old as 1500yrs. they were never into the tithe thing

Evidently you know nothing about the history of tithes in the christian church. The catholic church first mooted the idea of collecting tithes at the council of macon in the year 567AD and it became an accepted practise in the catholic church in the year 585AD. Even then tithes was still basically collected from agricultural produce. Monetary tithe from income is relatively recent, it started in the 1870s in america and the practise was 'invented' by pentecostal churches there.

Ubenedictus: to worship is to ascribe divinity to a being and act according. To worship is more of the mind and heart. If one doesnt ascribe divinity to something the all signs are interpreted as respect or veneration.

Ubenedictus: you are on ur own, hail is a word of respect not worship a bow is also a symbol of respect. To worship something it takes more than a sign it come from the heart.

Ubenedictus: to worship is to ascribe divinity to a being and act according. To worship is more of the mind and heart. If one doesnt ascribe divinity to something the all signs are interpreted as respect or veneration.

UBenedictus has hit on a very important point here. A point that I've been hoping to investigate for a while here.

Pastor AIO: What is worship? I ask this because I am currently reading the Qu'ran and I read the passage where Allah tells Iblis to 'prostrate' to Adam. In the notes at the bottom of the page it said Prostration is not worship because only God is deserving of worship.

This then reminded me of something that I think Lady said regarding the saints and Mary. That they are 'honoured' but not worshipped.

Then the subject of prayer came up and she pointed out that prayer just means petition which is true. So prayer is not worship. Talking to God is not worshipping God.

(It might not have been Lady that said these things so I apologise in advance if so, but I do recall reading these things on this forum).

So the Question I ask is: What is Worship? What are it's defining characteristics? When are you worshipping someone and when are you just hailing him. Is the injunction not to bow to anything but god an injunction against worshipping anything other than God?

https://www.nairaland.com/143699/what-worship


There is a very interesting historical anecdote that I came across recently.

It is regarding the life of Alexander the Great, the Greek/Macedonian conqueror. After he conquered Persia he started to copy Persian customs. He assumed the role of Persian monarch in the Persian style of monarchy. This included what is called Proskynesis. That is the Kissing of the Hands. Persians kissed the hands of their Kings as a gesture of respect.

However in Greece the act of kissing someone's hand was considered an act of Worship reserved only for Gods. When Alexander insisted that his hands be kissed a lot of his followers started to grumble against him and say that it was hubris.

Same Action. In one culture it is a gesture of respect. In another culture it is a gesture of Worship reserved only for deities.

Is not what we call Worship a culturally specific phenomenon that changes from one culture to another?

Idobale, the act of prostration that Yoruba people do to their elders is considered an act of worship in Jewish culture. And also in Islam. Are the Yoruba really worshipping their elders when they prostrate? Or shouldn't we allow for that fact that we are dealing with a different culture?

My conclusion is that Acts of Worship are culturally specific, and what matters is not the act itself but the intent behind the act.

Those people that don't like or respect references to Wikipedia should please close their eyes now:

Proskynesis (Greek προσκύνησις from the words πρός pros and κυνέω kuneo, literally meaning "kissing towards" refers to the traditional Persian act of prostrating oneself before a person of higher social rank.
According to Herodotus in his Histories, a person of equal rank received a kiss on the lips, someone of a slightly lower rank gave a kiss on the cheek, and someone of a very inferior social standing had to completely bow down to the other person before them. To the Greeks, giving proskynesis to a mortal seemed to be a barbarian and ludicrous practice. They reserved such submissions for the gods only.
This may have led some Greeks to believe that the Persians worshipped their king, who was the only Persian that received proskynesis from everyone, and other misinterpretations caused cultural conflicts. Alexander the Great proposed this practice during his lifetime, in adapting to the Persian cities he conquered, but it failed to find acceptance amongst his Greek companions (an example can be found in the court historian, Callisthenes) - and in the end, he did not insist on the practice.
The emperor Diocletian (A.D. 284-305) is usually thought to have introduced the practice to the Roman Empire, forming a break with the Republican institutions of the principate, which preserved the form, if not the intent, of republican government.[1] The political reason for this change was to elevate the role of the emperor from 'first citizen' to an otherworldly ruler, remote from his subjects, thus reducing the likelihood of successful revolt, which had plagued the Empire during the preceding 50 years.
Similarly, the emperor was hailed no longer as "Imp(erator)" on coins, which meant 'commander in chief" but as "(ominus) N(oster)" - 'Our Lord.' With the conversion of Constantine I to Christianity, proskynesis became part of an elaborate ritual, as asserted by historian John Julius Norwich, whereby the emperor became God's vice-regent on Earth. Titular inflation affected the other principal offices of the Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proskynesis


One last point. Circumcision was the Jewish sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh. When christianity (while it was still a jewish cult) was spreading through the Roman empire one major obstacle that it had was the Greek repulsion to the act of circumcision. This act of self mutilation was disgusting to the Greeks and it stop many from joining Christianity and Judaism. What is the significance of st. Paul abrogating the necessity of this ritual? Is the significance of circumcision absolute or is it only significant within the Jewish cultural context?

Se this thread don die?

Pastor Kun:

Evidently you know nothing about the history of tithes in the christian church. The catholic church first mooted the idea of collecting tithes at the council of macon in the year 567AD and it became an accepted practise in the catholic church in the year 585AD. Even then tithes was still basically collected from agricultural produce. Monetary tithe from income is relatively recent, it started in the 1870s in america and the practise was 'invented' by pentecostal churches there.

thanks for correcting me, i totally agree.

Pastor AIO:






UBenedictus has hit on a very important point here. A point that I've been hoping to investigate for a while here.



https://www.nairaland.com/143699/what-worship


There is a very interesting historical anecdote that I came across recently.

It is regarding the life of Alexander the Great, the Greek/Macedonian conqueror. After he conquered Persia he started to copy Persian customs. He assumed the role of Persian monarch in the Persian style of monarchy. This included what is called Proskynesis. That is the Kissing of the Hands. Persians kissed the hands of their Kings as a gesture of respect.

However in Greece the act of kissing someone's hand was considered an act of Worship reserved only for Gods. When Alexander insisted that his hands be kissed a lot of his followers started to grumble against him and say that it was hubris.

Same Action. In one culture it is a gesture of respect. In another culture it is a gesture of Worship reserved only for deities.

Is not what we call Worship a culturally specific phenomenon that changes from one culture to another?

Idobale, the act of prostration that Yoruba people do to their elders is considered an act of worship in Jewish culture. And also in Islam. Are the Yoruba really worshipping their elders when they prostrate? Or shouldn't we allow for that fact that we are dealing with a different culture?

My conclusion is that Acts of Worship are culturally specific, and what matters is not the act itself but the intent behind the act.

Those people that don't like or respect references to Wikipedia should please close their eyes now:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proskynesis


One last point. Circumcision was the Jewish sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh. When christianity (while it was still a jewish cult) was spreading through the Roman empire one major obstacle that it had was the Greek repulsion to the act of circumcision. This act of self mutilation was disgusting to the Greeks and it stop many from joining Christianity and Judaism. What is the significance of st. Paul abrogating the necessity of this ritual? Is the significance of circumcision absolute or is it only significant within the Jewish cultural context?

your point is well made. Circumcision is only significant in the jewish covenantal context, in the african context it is a initiation into manhood. That is the thing, so when protestants say catholic worship idols it is because they dont know the difference between veneration and worship. When catholic bow, kneel etc they dont ascribe divinity the venerate, but protestants think it is worship. So i see a difference in understanding.

That's because they believe that the tithe laws supersedes the new testament.

mkmyers45: I wonder why they are following the tithe rule..

@ Pastor AIO, are you Catholic? If not what's your creed?

italo:
@ Pastor AIO, are you Catholic? If not what's your creed?

No, I'm not a signed up member of the Catholic church establishment, I'm Church of England, but I have an interest in the entirety of man's religious experience and expression of this religious experience.

I've developed a lot of resentment over the years towards people who try to denigrate other people's beliefs especially when they are also being hypocritical and not applying the same stringent criteria on their own beliefs that they use on others.

This is probably why I seem to come into threads on the side of Roman Catholics, as well as the fact that I think C of E is not part of the catholic Church due to an accident of History rather than due to any real ideological differences.


However I also like to downplay the membership of any establishment as a part of religion. I think religion is a lot deeper than that.

Pastor AIO:

No, I'm not a signed up member of the Catholic church establishment, I'm Church of England, but I have an interest in the entirety of man's religious experience and expression of this religious experience.

I've developed a lot of resentment over the years towards people who try to denigrate other people's beliefs especially when they are also being hypocritical and not applying the same stringent criteria on their own beliefs that they use on others.

This is probably why I seem to come into threads on the side of Roman Catholics, as well as the fact that I think C of E is not part of the catholic Church due to an accident of History rather than due to any real ideological differences.


However I also like to downplay the membership of any establishment as a part of religion. I think religion is a lot deeper than that.

again i see your point. The accident in history was unfortunate. One thing surprise me though, you talk of the catholic church as an establishment, it seems you mean business venture which i think isnt cool. Why do you refer to the church as an establishment?

Pastor AIO:

No, I'm not a signed up member of the Catholic church establishment, I'm Church of England, but I have an interest in the entirety of man's religious experience and expression of this religious experience.

I've developed a lot of resentment over the years towards people who try to denigrate other people's beliefs especially when they are also being hypocritical and not applying the same stringent criteria on their own beliefs that they use on others.

This is probably why I seem to come into threads on the side of Roman Catholics, as well as the fact that I think C of E is not part of the catholic Church due to an accident of History rather than due to any real ideological differences.


However I also like to downplay the membership of any establishment as a part of religion. I think religion is a lot deeper than that.

again i see your point. The accident in history was unfortunate. One thing surprise me though, you talk of the catholic church as an establishment, it seems you mean business venture which i think isnt cool. Why do you refer to the church as an establishment?