₦airaland Forum

Another interesting occurrence about the marvels of our biological makeup.

Does this challenge or provoke your curiosity?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrIkUXwsNk

Krayola:
Poll!!    Please answer either yes or no. . . (u can briefly state why if u like sef) 

Is the universe alive?

Lol, how do you mean 'alive'? In contrast to what?

Krayola:
Reality is, IMO, illogical. It is best observed, critically, from as many vantage points as possible.

Beautiful! I especially like this clause: "from as many vantage points as possible." It was precisely what I had in mind earlier when saying -

I do not even intend to lace this thread with assertive conclusions that limit our musings to any ardent system(s).

However, it need not be limited to "abstract quantifying" - other considerations are very welcome.

I'm not disappointed with your entry, and thank you for those core questions to help contextualize further discussions.

The first two are vital enough to warrant careful answers; in which case I shall resist the temptation to proffer impetuous responses. Given that, here's a note about the concise last question:

Deep Sight:
Do you think illogicalities exist?

Yes, they exist. Not only so, they are necessary.

'Illogicalities' is assumed in two contexts here:
       (a) invalid or incorrect reasoning, and
       (b) criticism.

There is indeed 'invalid reasoning', and this statement could be founded on the premise that valid reasoning follows a set of principles which are both formal and systematic.

However, in order to recognize illogicalities in any type of reasoning, there is necessarily a set of criticisms that are employed to weigh the validity of that type of reasoning. This does not mean that every 'illogicality' is thereby assumed to be a contradiction or invalid; it would rather point out the weaknesses in such a reasoning that do not measure up to a set of established paradigms.

What does this mean in simple English? In simple terms, illogicalities are the necessary criticisms that weigh the validity of any reasoning. Without these criticisms, it would be difficult to establish the validity or invalidity of any type of reasoning.

The value of illogicalities is seen all around us in our various endeavours. One such will be seen repeatedly in this thread in the application of criticisms to whatever views we share . . . as well beyond this thread, it is the 'Cinderella' of social philosophers.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=343779.msg4839832#msg4839832 date=1257086283]Sorry, but you're clearly taking the meaning wrongly. I merely tried to imply that deep sight has said nothing different that we do not accept already. This thread is hinged on the "singularity" which science already accepts. When i saw this thread, i expected somthing I don't already know to blow my mind away.

As a side note, deep sight frequently talks about new ideas and how we atheists aren't original.[/quote]Quite apt, thank you Tudór. I missed your point and take it on board.

Fair enough, but what I saw was someone whinge on the singularity and mysteriously declare it as conclusive proof for god. This "oneness of infinity" stuff is absolutely pointless IMO. . . . What I expected to see was simply a link between his arguments and his definition of god.

I should reserve further comments while appreciating your view. However, suffice to say for now that for some people like myself, I find tremendous value in what he has stirred up in our thoughts on the oneness of infinity and ancillary discourses. As regards his definition, maybe not sufficient enough to register with the expectations of may readers.

Quotes like this dont quite cut it. . ."Interlaced in this subtle answer I have laid out is, I believe the very equation that leads nothingness to somethingness-namely-a singularity which I call God. . . . HOW What equation?
How did the singularity (something) come from nothing?

I feel you. Perhaps the fault was mine in my preliminary observations (for which I deeply regret any diversions mine may have caused). Could I interest you with some discussions along such lines later on? Perhaps. . ?

Cheers.

olabowale:
It simply means Viaro does not know. The only sensible post I have seen from him.

Lol, rather, you don't know what I have stated - which means your remarks are not sensible, sorry!

You see the benefit of not being so overtly emotional? You may actually be correct if you apply rationality.

If you first apply that inward to yourself, maybe you'd come off understanding others before drawing conclusions on their behalf.

Perhaps I should not be too hasty to jump to the intrigues of numbers . . but let me start by making a few preliminary remarks that birthed this thread.

First, I'd like to note that this is not a thread to offer carbonated religious appetizers. No offences meant; but even though I am a Christian, I sincerely believe that we can reason outside the box and consider exploring what we might not have ever dreamed of in our comfortable religious specters. I do not even intend to lace this thread with assertive conclusions that limit our musings to any ardent system(s).

That said, let me highlight another point that sparked my interest to float this thread: playing with numbers. Like I said sometime ago, as long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4819222) - and this "magic" among other things is what I'd like to demonstrate for those with some interest in this area. It might be somewhat pivotal to drum home this very point just so that we get to appreciate the value of 'universality index' (if you grant that) in all of this.

This is not some cosmetic talk with cleverly framed grammar, lol. Rather, it is important for us to see the possibility of just how we could all be "both right and wrong" at the same time, particularly depending on the context & perspectives of each discussant's insight. However, it need not be limited to "abstract quantifying" - other considerations are very welcome.

Now a few things need to be cleared up.

(1).  What in the world would I mean by 'universality index'?
[list]Nothing special other than an idea - the idea being the possibility that nearly all contrasting, coherent and consumate phenomena point back to a singularity upon which any form of diversity is predicated. Hmmm, that is certainly a mouthful, and indeed an ambitious statement to assert. Along the line, I'll try and develop the idea and probably help to prod (and possibly awaken) a philosophical spark in some of my audience.[/list]

(2).  Secondly, what could be meant by "abstract quantifying/quantification"?*
[list]Again, as far as this thread goes, no special deal to that other than the idea that certain entities and qualities assume only 'specific parameters' for them to be valid. Therefore, outside those given parameters, the same qualities would be invalid and thus mirror a false image. A 'false image' here does not mean they are a 'lie' altogether, but simply that they do not prove valid when tested under other conditions or parameters.[/list]

Let's talk.



Disclaimers:
Please note that what is shared here do not 'conclusively' prove anything; nor does it set out to draw any conclusions that are water-tight about the existence of any phenomenon. If anything at all, it is intended to help us think carefully about our own known world, our existence and experiences in relation to existences and potentialities in possible other worlds.


_{* 'abstract quantifying' is not used here in a strictly mathematical sense.}

Deep Sight, please hang on and let me make some preliminary remarks.

viaro:
If yes, then watch this space.

Deep Sight, dinner is served. Come munch away and forget the toothpicks!

Okay, Deep Sight. . as you can see, I don't have the poetic prowess you wield in the prolegomena of your various thoughtful threads. I shall continue to toss my hat to you for that mastery. So allow me to simply invite you (and our interested friends) to this thread - from here.

---

One of the intriguing ideas that has lighted upon our humanity is not merely thinking about our existence, but about existence itself. Burning questions continue to warm the summers through the histories of our reason and experiences:

* who are we?

* where did we come from?

* how did we get here?

* is it useful to even think at all about existence -
- of our universe?
- of our[/b]selves?
- of something/someone other than [b]us?

Various attempts to appease these enquiries have been anything but the proverbial Balm of Gilead - the ulcers continue to fester, the quests of our humanity increase daily, and in the midst of the buzz we are constantly wowed by new insights that retire old bandages.

But in the solemnity of our humanity's hope (and probably the audacity of courage), we dare. . .

We dare to ask questions and more questions.

We dare to probe our own calcified prejudices in order to give place to
the understanding of ideas expressed by others.

We dare to see things differently - after all, is our known world not 'different'
from yet-to-be-probed regions within the possibilities of "existence" outside our own?

Yes, we even dare to discuss further insights and possibilities that offer a different flavour or flavours than the palate we grew up with and are accustomed to.

Could it be that we may come off with 'ahs' and 'wows' and 'uhms' as dinner is served? What possibilities lie within our domains that we have not yet considered awakening?

Welcome, Deep Sight and friends. Enjoy.

Deep Sight:
Great, i am really game. . .

Good man! I wasn't sure if it may merit a separate thread; but let's give it a shot and see how far, yes? If you concur, just requote this line and gee a smiley! I just didn't want to derail this one by hijacking its premise. Kudos.

i do wonder what section would be ideal for it though. . .

I don't know, and you might've been reading my mind. However, if the current one is a basket for discussions about belief in "God or higher powers", it might just be sufficient for the mo.

this is why i had begged the Admin to create a Child Board for Theology, Philosophy and other abstract stuff. . .

I absolutely concur with the move to create such a board for philosophical and abstract stuff; and perhaps I might sense that the admin might have (or may not have) considered that move. One reason for delaying that move is prolly because not so many people might have registered enough strength to discuss with philosophical depth at any stretch. Bless the day when such a board is born on NL!


Edit:

---

Deep Sight:
Viaro. . .where will you create that thread?

Perhaps still on the Religion board? Yes?

If yes, then watch this space.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=343779.msg4839223#msg4839223 date=1257076086]I must say, you're yet to say ANYTHING fresh which science does not acknowledge already. Its general scientific thought that the state of the universe at the big bang was a singularity, so whats novel in your ideas?[/quote]Hi Tudor, I may have been missing something; but I think it may be fair to frequently remind us to be careful where we read what others are saying and not what they are not saying. At that, I don't know if Deep Sight has claimed that his ideas were novel. If he did, I missed it.

You're free to call this "singularity" god but you're yet to show how it fits into your definition of god.

Maybe, and maybe not. I think he made a good attempt (IMO) to do that very thing, rather than just freely calling the singularity 'god'. An example is that, after reasoning things through, he came round to indicate that the basis for his ascribing 'God' to that singularity is this -

One single infinity. That is what i mean by the term "Oneness of Infinity". Interlaced in this subtle answer i have laid out is, i believe, the very equation that leads nothingness to be somethingness - namely - a singularity - which i call God

.

I think that says quite a lot for me, personally; and I appreciate it may not do so for you and some others. But even so, I am glad that some of us have come back to express these sentiments:

duduspace: Chrisbenogor, I think this is a bit different because Deepsight does sound sincere so far in his discussions . . . yes we can get bored and drift away but I think we will someday come back and take a look at the various posts and therein reexamine and refine our individual understanding of our existence.

duduspace: I think the whole point of discussions such as this is to test and reexamine your own beliefs and understanding, while hearing other people's ideas, . . .

I saw that summary point as the substance in discussions like this, which whet my appetite to engage Deep Sight in a separate thread and rub minds together along such lines.

Zikkyy:
You can find an answer in my previous post. Maybe, a copy (& paste) is found below;

"We all fail to appreciate Christ commandment of loving your neighbour as yourself. Truly, if you love your neighbour (widows, orphans, poor, e.t.c.), you not neglect them, if you love your place of worship you will see to its good condition, if you truly love your MOG, you see to his welfare e.t.c. if we all abide by this commandment there is no need for the MOG to squeeze a tenth out a tenth of our earnings".

We should all see to our MOG's welfare especially if he has no other source of income. I believe he should be comfortable enough to allow him focus on the service he is rendering. Excess will result in distraction. You see Viaro, the work of the MOG is not a corporate sector job, and he should not expect the the kind of compensation comparable to that of the CEO of General Motors. I see it as a sacrifice for which the reward is beyond cash. That's why i added that extract from 1 Timothy 6, for Tonye-t to read. As long as the MOG is permanently ocused is on how to collect tithe, offerings and other collections to make ends meet (or live in absurd luxury like other colleagues or even corporate sector executives), there will definitely be no time to focus on the critical issue of wining souls or keeping those already won on track. This is the situation you find in the area i live.

In many things we essentially agree - and I've made just about the same points earlier. The thing I find funny is that anytime people say anything, we tend to be up in arms while trying to convey our own points. This was why I was wondering that your first line of defence was the reference to luxury etc. Anyhow, that's the point I wanted you to clear, not that I skipped through your earlier response.

Zikkyy:
What do you mean? The basis for my statement is clear; the man is a tither, he tithes out of free will, he believes people should not be deceived into tithing i.e. people should chose their own motivations for doing things. What else do you want Viaro?

I hope you could see indeed from my response that his arguments are simply fake? You may not have noticed; but what is the use in his being too reactive as if he is the best thing after sliced bread? Am I not a tither as well? Do I go about shouting everyone down because they also tithe but not according to my own arguments?

We can all learn to discuss issues with people; what I resent is this false pride to "demand" things of people that we are often found guilty of.

debosky:
That is a wider argument you are talking about - this current discourse is clearly defined: Is Tithing a New Testament practice? Yes or no? This is not about discerning the level of giving of people, it is simply about what the bible says and what it doesn't. The wider discussion has merit but let's not muddle up issues.

I should have simply said that the anti-tithing argumentations are simply rubbish and leave it there. It baffles me that so many people who are too glad to argue against tithing are waiting to see it as a "practice" before they get afoot on tithing themselves. So, if they see others tithing, they immediately get so disturbed that the whole strain of their anti-tithing arguments peters off on very unspiritual dogmatism.

I am not one, I do not appreciate being called one because I do not believe in name calling - you would do well to abstain from such as well. All it does is unduly inflame passions and distract from the subject at hand.

I could care any less. Like I often said, I really don't care two scoobies what anyone wants to call me (and I have loads in return) nor do I care two rats behind what they call themselves. I do not mean by that to inflame passions indiscriminately, but this argument that polarises people to such divides in the Body of Christ is really unnecessary. That said, I repeat that I don't make you into anything that you don't identify as - I have stated that point so clearly. Let it be for those who have taken it as a career to be categorically called "ant-tithers".

Guilting people into giving by claiming they are robbing God is wrong and reprehensible. God doesn't demand you to give x amount else he will not bless you.

I have not discussed tithes or giving as mandatory. Anti-tithers (in my experience) are too quick to guilt-trip themselves and others in their bid to wage a war against anyone tithing! That is simply an adventure on the wrong footing. On either side, the argument about and against guilts should not be cast as if one is arguing that 'my guilt trip is better than yours' - rather, it may do us far better deals to share truths with our brethren and encourage them to tithe. We many times stand as anti-tithers because we do not want to see other people tithe, not because we think that tithing is okay. If anti-tithers believe that it is good for people to tithe at all, then where's the argument in the first place?

God does not say you will not prosper unless you give 10% as some people have been saying here. If you don't see the danger in such teachings, I am truly surprised.

Lol, where have I argued along such lines?

My giving is a personal decision, not a mandated or compulsory one. There is a world of difference in freely accepting to do something or making a decision of your own and being told you MUST do it.

I see. Let others enjoy that personal preference as much without requiring them to produce scripture for their own preferences where you do not want to do so. The best arguments they may have may not measure up - that's fine: and then we can help them see things in a better perspective. So far what I see is the adventure of anti-tithers to stamp out tithing altogether - that is just what is dubious about this whole affair. If you do not see how dangerous this unspiritual dogmatism of anti-tithing arguments are, I should not be surprised. Someone has noted earlier that one of the things about my discussions is that I resent the way that anti-tithers go about trying to establish their misgivings on the subject - not that I could care any less whatever anyone wants to make of themselves about it.

No one can make such an argument - my decision is FULLY backed by the scripture telling us to determine in our hearts how much to give and to do so. That is the summation of what my giving is about, not about compulsion of any form or out of obligation.

I sense the same irritable and riscible self-importance there again. Your decision is thinly laced, not fully backed for your "10% every month". WHY then do you do it? The simple thing you're struggling with here is an inclination to make your own argument sound like law for others while still suffering from the same malady. Please pardon my tone, I do not mean to be accusative at all - but I often shake my head at reading people who think of their own self-importance more than others: and that applies to me as well, if you have noticed.

I  demand scripture because people term this form of giving as MANDATED by Christ and necessary. Without evidence from the scripture you CANNOT claim something is mandated in scripture.

You cannot DEMAND anything. Nada, nothing, zilch. You can ask for references, not demand for them. It is this attitude of demanding things from people that you cannot yourself give that muddies the waters.

If I request such references and someone is not able to give them, I do not assume therefore that my arguments should be overwhelming upon that person. I could share with them why I think they're mistaking without trying to "demand" anything from them. If they assume that it should be a "MUST" in our lives, all we need do is leave them to their own persuasions and see how far they carry on that idea. Sooner than later, they soon begin to see what they never considered in the first place.

Now, the twist here is that many people in their over-reactive zeal begin to argue unnecessary and then start demanding what they themselves cannot deliver when queried. To make their concerns more dramatic, they begin to stretch things far too wide and then muddy the waters by illations of this and that MOG did so and thus, therefore x. y. z.

My giving of 10% is based on the examples in the scriptures, simple - I am not compelled, nor required to give any fixed percentage, but decided of my own accord.

Lol, did I read you say "examples"? What "examples" - drawn from where? From Christians in the NT? That is good news. Bro, I'm not antagonizing you; but suppose an anti-tither came along and "DEMAND" that you show the examples where Christians gave 10%, what would you say?

I would like for you to see why I put you on spot: it's simply because what I've read from yours is the same mistake that anti-tithers make. You're doing a good thing by even giving at all; and 10% is not an easy feat - I know, because I do the same periodically. But if you have ever been in forums, blogs, or social networking sites where you try to argue this with "anti-tithers", you would come off simply sad and blistered. I know, because I have been there, argued with them, blasted their empty threats, and done all that. What surprises me is that most of these anti-tithers never ever try to be reasonable. For them, it is just one thing: they are ANTI-tithers in any form or shape - and nothing you say about 10% (whether voluntary or obligatorily) would ever appeal to them. The reason why I try to engage you is so you don't trail off making the very same damning anti-tithing mistake that many of them make.

No one is throwing out anything - my motive here is clear: to disprove wrong theology being promoted by some as the truth. Whether you consider it worth doing or not is a choice you will have to make.

And has my position not been made any clearer to you all this while?

I do not base my 10% giving on any other scriptural basis than this:

2 Corinthians 9:7

"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver"

Thank heavens for you; and no, I do not disparage you on that. I have other references that persuade me to tithe - and that verse does not stipulate any tithes at all. You can base your 10% everytime on that verse; but how many anti-tithers would you convince about tithing on that verse? I hope you see where I'm coming from? Anti-tithers often "DEMAND" people to prove from the NT that Christians should tithe at all. That has been the question that is at the center of their argument. Use 2 Cor. 9:7 and they would simply laugh at your attempt as being lame. For me, even though one can argue out that verse as not supporting tithing, I yet can appreciate that as worthy of note for your own persuasion - and I don't have to demand anything from you thereto.

Now, if Tonye-t had used those same references (2 Corinthians 9:7) to discuss his reason for tithing under the topic of "Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental?" do you think anti-tithers would have been happy to applaud that? Even if he did not argue from that verse that it is a "MUST", do you think that anti-tithers would have encouraged the use of that verse for tithing in the NT? No, they would NOT. I know, because I've used it elsewhere many times, and anti-tithers have always argued to the contrary, even though I tried to reason with them that my discussions are not making any type of giving a mandatory thing. What we often fail to realise is that every time we think we're damn too smart in our own backyards than other Christians, there's always a point along the road where our own superiority get wasted.

That is all. I have purposed in my heart and I give accordingly. How am I being overzealous by saying I don't believe there is any scriptural evidence in the New Testament ?  Where is the superiority?  

You don't get it, do you? One minute you're drawing 2 Corinthians 9:7 to argue for your own tithing; and then you don't believe there is any scriptural evidence in the NT for that. Good man - but such inconsistencies are the very things I had already highlighted in your style of argumentations; and no one needs tell you that is a waste of time and space. It would be the same for me to argue that I have scripture for my "23% every month" (that is tithing for some theologians), and then turn round to argue that I don't believe there is any scriptural support for that same thing! This is why I'd rather look at the way we Christians shout at one another and wonder what use there really is in this adventures that are going nowhere?

I do not believe something is justified in the NT - the response is to show where it is justified if you think otherwise. To equate that with being overzealous is quite a stretch of the imagination for anyone.

That's okay. I truly get the point in your inconsistencies; so there's really nothing further to highlight there, is there?

Again, I am not arguing against you or anything you have said - my motive is clear: disprove wrong theology being peddled here about men of God being levitical priests in the order of Jesus and the like.

That's not the only thing to "disprove" - we should also disprove those rubbish that anti-tithers have repeatedly peddled for their career to pat themselves on the back as they divide the Body of Christ on false alarms. I did that a couple of times with the deliberate falsehood of Ernest L. Martin who is as much an anti-tither as any comes in grey colours. My point is that if we are going to sit here all day trying to disprove this and that, it should cover all platforms, including those deliberate falsehoods peddled by anti-tithers themselves. The finger should not always and only be on those who would like to tithe - and if you cannot recognize that the falsehood of anti-tithers are equally hideous, what really can you understand?

Again, feel free to read what you want into my posts. If wanting Christians to have a clear knowledge of what is purported to be biblically based is dogmatic, then I accept completely. I have not sought to compel anyone to change their practices, simply refuting wrong ideas not contained in the bible from my perspective. I am open to listen to contrary views if they come up.

If you haven't noticed, I'm always open to discussions - let anyone (including you) read whatever they want. There is just no line where anyone would accuse me of making any type of giving a compulsory act; so if anyone is going to be zealous enough to fault me on that one, I wish them grand luck!

This is not an anti-tithing argument, if anything it is a pro-tithing argument given the starter's motive. Again, I am not an 'anti-tither' or any other name you choose to come up with - I am simply focused on investigating the basis of beliefs and determining if they stand up to scrutiny. If they don't, I am duty bound to say so.

Have I called you an anti-tither, debosky? What is all this pity-party you often sound out? Is it too much to examine your own "10% every month" if you believe that you're right and others are necessarily wrong? What kind of dancing around am I reading from you?

Again, I am not debating that - with regard to TITHE, the ONLY reference by Christ is to Dill and Cummin. Again you have gone off on tangent talking about other issues.

The only reference by Christ is NOT the "only" reference to tithing in the Bible. I was on course to make that point clear; so what is this tangential counter you see in my statement that you necessarily have to highlight and yet fail to see the fact in my statement? Was the reference in Christ's statement the ONLY Biblical tithing you read in the entire Scripture? Are dill and cummin the only types of TITHES in the Bible? What is so big a deal that you want to see tangent on that and fail to see that is a clear point in line with the same topic being discussed?

Finally, feel free to discuss your hang ups and general opposition to the arguments if you like, but kindly separate those thoughts from the clear and distinct discourse we are trying to have here.

I await any other over zealous reaction you may be delighted to produce - and I shall be too glad to waste their non-qualitative utility.

Zikkyy:
Please clarify so i can provide an appropriate response. Thanks

According to those verses, should Christian ministers be paid for the work they do in the churches?

Krayola:
@Viaro. In your opinion should everything in the Bible be taken literally?

In my opinion, No.

I'm not a literalist - but then, nobody's faith stands or falls with what I believe or how I personally interpret anything from the Bible.

wirinet:
@ Viaro,

Your accusations about drawing hasty conclusions is clearly unfounded. I base my conclusions on information provided.

I did not accuse you, so please stop being unnecessarily reactive. The points I made are clear enough for anyone to read.

i honestly do not understand your complaint, when you discuss with anyone you should understand the subject matter, that is the important points in the argument.

Just what is your subject matter - the glorification of your own importance about a passage you wrongly interpreted? Please.

The part you bolded is highly irrelevant to the discussion. You are upset because i said Abraham went to get blessings from high priest of God. I just do not want to be dragged into the argument of who went to meet who, it is completely irrelevant. but the passage says "who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings" So it shows both met on the way. but if it upsets you that i said Abraham went to meet Melchizedek, then i can accommodate Melchizedek traveling to Abraham's village to pay homage, it does not matter to me.

Lol, sorry I'm not upset about anything. It matters absolutely nothing to me whatever your change of figuration, having first twisted the passage that Abraham then 'went to get blessings' as if that was predicted upon the slaughtering of kings.

my grouse against the passage is the glorification of war, slaughter and plundering(spoils of war). I will forever never support such an action, whether by Jews, Christians or Muslims. I can never find justification for going to war against others just to kill their kings and plunder their belongings, not even if they are worshiping foreign gods. This was the same thing criminals like Alexander the Great, Hitler and Napoleon did to others, and we all condemn them.

Yea, you can yap all day long about non-essentials. The passage does not glorify war, you rather twisted it to mean it that way. Did you take the time to read the background of what had happened that led Abraham to that war? I guess not. While I would not glorify war, I would most certainly not apologise if I had to go to war to recover my own relatives. You can shout to the roof if it please you and then come back and yap to twist that to mean I would glorify war. If you never wanted to be dragged into a useless discussion, you didn't need to twist the passage to mean what it does not mean so that you can hoot about non-essentials.

Correct me if you did not call  Melchizedek prince of peace and at the same time you said he blessed Abraham who was returning from slaughtering kings, and collected his own tithes from the spoils. Why do you not correct my hasty conclusions instead of bringing out irrelevant issues of who met who.

I pointed out what you had misinterpreted - because your hasty conclusions were based on that. If that does not go down well with you, my apologies - and you're most certainly welcome to yap till break of day.

I don't know if you do this as a special talent; but I'm beginning to wonder that you have a penchant for drawing hasty and often vacant conclusions upon your own misgivings. This is not a healthy way to discuss with anyone. But let me highlight a small problem with your assertion:

wirinet:
Christianity and its glaring contractions;
Abraham (a nomadic tribal king) went into war and slaughtered other kings, and then went to get blessings from the high priest of God (the king of Salem), and in appreciation Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils of war. Then in the same breath they would label the priest that blessed a slaughterer , a king of peace and elevate such a person to be Jesus Christ.

It seems the only part that you could have seen in your quoting Hebrews 7 is that part highlight earlier in your post - "slaughter of the kings". And without even giving considerations to anything at all, you jumped quickly to assert that Abraham "then went to get blessings".

Dear wirinet, just incase you're calling for attention, please observe - Abraham did not "went to"! You're reading a deliberate falsehood into the text. Rather, it is clear that it was Melchizedek who went out to meet Abraham! Here's the quote again -

"this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings,"

It was Melchizedek who met Abraham returning, not the other way round. It's quite a sad event for people to chance upon just about anything in other people's beliefs and call unnecessary attention here and there when there is absolutely no need for such over-reactive dramas. In your case, you were declaring a "contradiction" when clearly it was you who had misread and contradicted the text.

It is a pity non Christians without the holy spirit in them cannot understand such contradictions.

Well, if those 'non Christians' have not been too busy deliberately contradicting themselves as you certainly did. One does not need an anointing or anything to see what you've done; then what was the substance in your attempts?

Zikkyy:

>>17 Pastors who do their work well should be paid well [offerings]and should be highly appreciated, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching.

>>18 For the Scriptures say, "Never tie up the mouth of an ox when it is treading out the grain-let him eat as he goes along!" And in another place, "Those who work deserve their pay!"

Well, if you refer to luxury automobiles (with custom registration plate) and mansions, as well as private jets as well paid, i guess i understand where you're coming from.

@Zikkyy,
Luxury this and that aside, please could you exegete on the verses as quoted in yours from Tonye-t? What are your thoughts thereto?

chukwudi44:
@viaro

when I said anglican ,I never meant all the churches bearing the name anglican,I was only refering to the churches under the leadership of the archbishop of canterbury.

The fact that the anglican churcg headquartsers[b] permits[/b] the veneration of saints in the same way it is done in the RCC,means anglicans also ask saints to intercede for them except you want to tell me that those traditional anglicans are not under the archbishop of canterbury.

I never saiid[b] all[/b] anglicans venerate saints,I only meant that the anglican church[b] permits[/b] the veneration of saints

That is okay, chukwudi. I feel you on that one; although I may find some of those statements hard to contain. But your context and observations are well noted.

---

dgreatrock:
Thanks Viaro, you have put up the best post, nay scholastic work on this topic.

@dgreatrock,

Lol, thank you. I forgot to leave one more thing: when I showed my friend that post, he shook his head vigorously and argued that I had misrepresented "Anglicans"! I thought I was helping both myself and some of our Anglican friends to understand this issue. . but I can't even begin to type what he argued in his defence. All I can say for now is. . . hmmm, I've learnt some lessons.

However, if that post helped you and some others, that's a great relief to me. Thanks.

The puzzling aspect for me is the desire to read something into the bible that is not there - why create a reason to do something instead of simply saying you have a divine inspiration for doing so?  

That truly might be puzzling. Guess what? if tithers use that same inference you suggested, anti-tithers would explode a new series of arguments to deny that same "inspiration"! I have seen this happen again and again, so please try and see that such an idea is not even scratching the surface. Many people I know who are self-confessed anti-tithers and anti-tithing theologians are never satisfied to see anybody tithe - in some cases they pride themselves with waging a "war" about ending tithing in "any shape or form". What baffles me is when I ask simple questions about what such theologians themselves are doing in the area of giving, they never are able to convince anyone that they can give beyond their loud mouths (I don't mean this against you personally). The logic is simple: at the end of the day, these folks do not know what it means to give; and because money is everyone's poison, a lot of people are happy to see giving in church condemned and stamped out! By experience, many anti-tithing theologians with their mischevous arguments do not know what giving is about in a practical way.

I don't appreciate the name calling.

Nobody appreciates it either - and no, I didn't call you names if you read my queries in context. Many anti-tithers have no qualms labeling others with all sorts of idiosyncracies and appellations - and if you have been following this thread, you will see that I have repeatedly highlighted such attitudes as unnecessary while at the same time calling for reason in our discussions. So, no - I was not calling you names. I personalize my questions with a qualifier: "you lot" - especially for those who are self-confessed "anti-tithers". If you are such, my apologies (I did not see you as one until now, if that's what you want me to see you as).

I have no 'career' of 'anti-tithing' and I have clearly said I personally give 10% of my income monthly, not as a regulation or requirement or custom or anything else, but simply as a fulfillment of my own decision to give.

If you tithe (10% or anything at all), what then is the argument all about? Please don't even try to impress me with the redundant argument of shouting "mandatory". But I would have supposed that as one who tithes (for personal preference), you would then have been able to easily see indeed that the whole anti-tithing debate is wrong-footed and ill-conceived indeed! Someone else might even argue that your "own decision" has no scriptural backing and therefore you fall into the list of tithers who do not know why they do so! Why demand "scripture" from others when you take the convenient road of "my own decision" - why 10% every month? Why not any other figure or percentage? Where did you learn to give 10% every month from your income? Did the idea just come out from the blues to you without your knowledge one way or another that 10% is also a tithe?

You see, this is why I have often stated my position - it does not matter two scoobies to me what anyone wants to argue on this subject. As far as I'm concerned, many anti-tithing arguments are childish complaints by minds too busy about absolutely nothing! In the same way, I do not see why pro-tithers should be trying to sweat out convincing any anti-tithers why they tithe. On either side, we can talk and deal with the real issues of our concerns instead of arguing from jingoism. If I give 10% every month (which unfortunately I do not - it varies), then I have no grounds to argue endless against others who do so! All I could do is reason with them on some of the things that I feel they got wrong. The same thing with my dealings with anti-tithers: I'm ready to discuss, and have shown this tendency so many times even outside Nairaland. My point is that we can all encourage tithing in a healthy way; not completely throw the baby out with the bath water and then sit back and bite our fingernails.

What I object to is twisting of scripture to justify something that simply is NOT justified/mandated in scripture. I will always stand for that regardless of the names you decide to use. I will never claim anyone has to give 10% or any other percentage, I do not believe the bible mandates that in any guise for Christians, using the clear teachings of the new testament church as a reference.

Oh please! What do you think you're sounding like? Your arguments are the least intelligent I have ever come across in recent times - so what is this overzealous attitude coming from you? This is the type of thing that is a put off where people assume a superiority and then fail to deliver! If you do not believe this or that, on what SCRIPTURAL basis do you argue your own 10% every month in the same manner?

This type of argument reminds me of what the apostle said in his epistle to the Romans: do you have faith? Have it to thyself! If one is giving 10% and believes others should do so, what then is the basis of your loud arguments and yet you do the same "10% every month"? The best that you can do is discuss with him without this overzealous attitude. Not long ago, ttalks made an observation that Tonye-t and viaro are tithers - we only disagree on how it could be done. I saw our disagreement from the onset and I tried to point out a few things to him. If you debosky also give "10% every month", perhaps someone might say that you're also a tither - the only difference is that you do not resort to Scripture for your "own decision". I, on the other hand, do so whenever I am able, both on Scriptural basis and my understanding of what those Scriptures say. If someone else says something I never noticed, I can appreciate them - whether they are "anti or pro", it doesn't matter.

Dear debosky, I did not expect this of you at all!

The aim here is clear - Let people see what the bible says in plain reality without imputing meanings into things and letting people CHOOSE their own motivations for doing things. There is far too much dogmatism in this area for my liking and the simple truth must be made known.

Pardon me, but what I see in yours is an equal set of dogmatism! Some of us should learn how to allow others the freedom we choose for ourselves without spewing unnecessary arguments that completely miss the point. I could say that in some way, we stand in the same place - to oppose dogmatism. But in my case, I stand completely against ANY type of dogmatism regardless of whether the person is an anti-tither or pro-tither! It is this characteristic anti-tithing dogmatism that I often like to waste for the emptiness it truly is!

bro, we can tithe - let that be by our volition. Me, I can confess my tithing is below the standard of what I see in Scripture, but I don't go making out myself to be anything above anyone. Do you realise that the anti-tithing argument is many times just red-herring?

And what is Christ's teaching on giving? From my reading, it is NOT tithes in the way churches today practice it, since the only tithe Jesus ever mentioned was the one of dill and cummin - the tithing of agricultural produce and livestock as stated in old testament LAW.

The "tithing of dill and cummin" is NOT the only tithing in the entire Bible! If you look at the widow's giving, you may begin to see why so many Christians are shameless loud mouths who know how to argue endlessly about anti-this and anti-that and know next to nothing about real giving.

@debosky,

You complained, I listened. Now let's talk a bit more grown-up. Yes? Yes.

There's really no need for us as Christians to keep shouting at one another - it produces absolutely nothing for the health of our collective faith in Christ; and I'd have to remind us again that no singular argument (whether anti-tithing or pro-tithing) is law for the Body of Christ. As such, we could do better to discuss. Where disagreements arise from a lack of convictions, each one of us ought to take heed to the apostolic admonition given in Phil. 3:15 - "if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you".

The end of our faith is not unnecessary shouting to win fruitless arguments if we can only be known for our talk and not for our practical walk.

debosky:
Let me be clear - tonye-t's claim was that Jacob was TAUGHT tithing as a regular practice, hence it was practiced regularly even before the law. He knows this by 'biblical intuition' which is nothing but his imagination in my view. We have no records of tithing being taught as a practice and hence we CANNOT use that as justification of what people do.

Guess what? I would agree with Tonye-t "100 and 1%" on that. Many times people only try to read the Bible in a plastic manner - ie., if they do not see it written and spelt out in black and white, they would argue endlessly and feverishly in negation. That is not helpful at all.

First, let me remind you that many of the doctrines of the NT are embedded in the OT - and some of the claims of the NT drawn from the OT are not even found written in black and white. An example? The writer of Hebrews argues that levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. When you tunr over to the OT, you will not find any single verse even remotely teaching such a thing. However, the inspired author of Hebrews knows this as a divine fact, and thus draws upon that same interpretative skill which Tonye-t calls "Biblical intuition" to assert that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek (doing so "in Abraham" - Hebrews 7:9-10.

Secondly, turning back to the OT narratives, we find indeed that Jacob would never have lighted upon the idea of a tithe if he was not acquainted with the practice in one way or another. Whether he was directly taught is arguable - but there's no denying the fact that he learnt it from others who already were engaged in tithing before his time.

Thirdly, the argument could be further strengthened that Abraham would definitely have passed down valuable lessons to his generation from his singular act of tithing to Melchizedek. How? Well, please open your Bible and carefully read it for yourself! Genesis 26:5 records that Abraham obeyed God's voice and kept His charge, commandments, statutes, and laws. Not only so, earlier in Genesis 18:19 the manner of Abraham is definitely recorded one who "will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD". Is it too much to infer in the same manner that Abraham taught his household the very lessons he had learnt in his walk of obedience with God? Would it be too much to see from these that Jacob would not have been a stranger to the ways of the LORD as regards what he pronounced in Genesis 28:22?

I really do not see how your assertions should be so loud when you obviously have not taken the time to consider these issues carefully. No matter what anyone may claim, it is factual that Jacob had learnt about tithing in some way before he made those pronouncements of tithing himself - the concept and practice did not suddenly arrive upon him out from empty space.

Now, if you object that Jacob was not taught or did not learn about tithing before desiring to engage in it, it is up to you to show us how such a knowledge stumbled upon him out of nowhere. Failing to do so just simply throws out this unnecessary argument to the contrary in yours.

With regard to frequency, it has EVERYTHING to do with it - today people are taught that MUST bring 10% of their income monthly to church, using examples of[b] one off[/b] giving by Abraham and Jacob to justify such, especially when the two giving examples used were NOT mandatory and were done out of the freewill of the givers.

There is nothing wrong if people decide to tithe monthly or quarterly or yearly - allow them the freedom to choose within their own wills to tithe as they may. Incidentally, I know of several groups and many pastors who do not teach the idea that tithing should be mandatory or a "MUST". Your generalizations are too broad, and I can allow for that because you most certainly are speaking from your local experience. However, that is not the totality of what is going on in the Body of Christ - and beyond where you live, many people today tithe and do so voluntarily and happily. Guess what? They do so following the example of faith in the life of Abraham.

That being so, I do not see how your argument to negate tithes have anything to do with the fact of Abraham's singular act of tithing to Melchizedek. It sounds rather that your comments were reactionary instead of paying attention to what is written. If the Bible attacks Abraham's tithes just because he gave it "only once", I would see the point in yours. But since that is a vacant argument, please retire it. There are so many, many things that are done once by others that Christians emulate repeatedly - so what is the substance in this tired old semantics of Abraham tithed as a one-off. . as if that is even an argument at all?

You cannot by any stretch of the imagination extend a one off action and turn it into something we must do continuously without biblical evidence. Jesus instructed us to eat the Lord's Supper in remembrance of him, allowing us to decide how often to do it. The individual givers of tithe OUTSIDE the law DECIDED of their own accord when to give and it was a one off - why now[b] compel[/b] people to give monthly using one off events as justification?

I can see where you're coming from - "compelling" people to do something against their will. Yes, we've heard that yada yada so many times that it has long ceased to be any more intelligent. People who feel compelled to do this or that now understand that such should not be the case. However, tithing did not and does not cease or stop upon this understanding - many people who tithe continue to do so today out of their own free wills. Maybe not where you are; and that's fine. But outside of where you are, people tithe freely of their own volitions and are not even concerned at all about these weathered arguments.

There are many instructions scattered about in the Bible (both OT and NT) concerning the giving and gifts of God's people - many of them did not even state how often they should be done; and no one in their right senses would start arguing that such are "one-off" etc., etc., etc. therefore it is expressly "forbidden" that we should adopt them as principles. Abraham tithed once - and that singular act affected his progeny, so much so that even his unborn generation were affected by what he did. If his tithing were not that significant, who would bother discussing them beyond Genesis 14? But that it should be discussed in the NT as to be far more important than the Levitical tithes should make us slow down and really think for ourselves. If anti-tithers do not want to tithe, that's okay; but trying to foam up every unnecessary argument against the tithes of Abraham is pure waste of time and space. Does it not strike you at all that there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible where tithes are condemned?

Zikkyy:
Thank you Debosky, you are a good man and truly a rare type. If all tithers were to be like you, we will not be having this discussion.

Lol, I had to wait for that. If there were just a few tithers like debosky, we're in trouble.

Deep Sight, so that this thread would enjoy a tidy flow and not be derailed, I'm considering a new thread for us to talk more on this dimension stuff. You captivated my imagination on a few pointers which I'd hitherto not considered deeply enough. What say you?

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=345254.msg4833268#msg4833268 date=1256956516]Now, I'm wondering about those people called Nephilim, or giants/sons of God in Gen 6.

Is it possible they were around prior to that time chapter? Taking a wild and possibly wrong guess.[/quote]There's nothing wild about your guesses, so I think there's much value in your question. Personally, I would say that the way Genesis puts the narrative in chapter 6 about the Nephilim could suggest indeed that there were some beings closely identified as human in one form or another. Especially verse 4 -

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they
bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old,
men of renown.

There seems to be a delineation between two periods here:

(a) in those days

(b) and also after that

The question that immediately comes to mind is this: where and when did the giants emerge? Surely, that verse did not say that they giants were the products of angels having sired human children from women - no, for that is the traditional way many people have read it.

Looking carefully, the verse first notes that there were giants in those days and after that. . Certainly, after the angels came down to do their 'thing' with those women, we read the product was some species which became "mighty men" (distinct from the "giants" in the earlier part of the verse).

Now, if this line of reasoning has some substance, I dare say that the giants were already there before the angels sired children through women. The necessary question would lead to the inference that some beings closely in semblance to humans were already on the scene - how far back or when exactly they appeared is not something I can decipher from Genesis at the moment.

wirinet:
I agree that i did not read up enough on your link, but you will agree with me that the first picture did not provide adequate base for comparism between Anna Bates and her parents.

I always try to verify stories before i accept.

This is one reason why you should not be too hasty to draw conclusions, especially where you've not done any checks. Your previous assertions were really uncalled for:

wirinet:
The photo of the picture of the woman standing between two people is sheer deceit, how can you judge her size when she is standing in front and the others are behind. Obviously, those behind would appear smaller, it is called perspective.

brian60:
melchedsec was shem,a very righteous man of God,and a Biblical "Type" of Christ.There are many extrabiblical works including the book of jasher,and from the jewish historian Flavious Josephus to name just a couple.There are also other ways to do a study on who this person was.It is well known in the scriptures and secular history that when a person in ages past would take his family,household,servants,flocks,etc.to another place or land,he would either name the place after his own name,his son's name,or after an event he or a family member experienced.when we look at the name "Jerusalem" which means :city of peace"/Heb: "yarushaliym",we see something. just follow the sound of the name,"shem","salem" or more pronounced "sha'lem" and the hebrew word for "peace","shalom"!,arabic "salam".Its really easy once you know what to do by God's leading.The reason melchesedic is not recorded in the bible as having a recorded family and such is because before the Aaronic Priesthood was established,there were no records of High Priests recorded.This is fact!.

Quite interesting. Another interpretation is that Melchizedek is Shem because he "outlives all of the generations of his own son” (read it at BibleTruthOnline.com).

However, that theory of making Melchizedek into the same person as Shem is froth with problems. The theory cannot be established by similarities in pronunciation of names (shem, shalem, shalom, salam) - No. Waht about the similarity in the pronunciation of the name 'Shelah' (1 Chronicles 1:18)? We know that 'shelah' means 'a sprout' rather than assuming the meaning of 'peace' for shem.

A few questions need to be asked:

The reason melchesedic is not recorded in the bible as having a recorded family and such is because before the Aaronic Priesthood was established,there were no records of High Priests recorded.This is fact!

(a) In the first place, Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek is without descent; but we know that the generation of Shem is recorded in the Bible. The first mention priesthood is not with Aaron, but with Melchizedek; so if anything at all, then certainly Aaron's priesthood would have been foreshadowed by such priesthoods as preceded his. Hebrews 9:9 makes clear that the Aaronic priesthood was a figure for the time then present; and as such, it cannot be used as the prism for all other concepts of priesthoods, priests, or high priests.

(b) Secondly, in the OT, Shem’s descent, genealogy or ancestry is recorded in several places, including Genesis 11:10ff; 1 Chron. 1:4, & 17; and Luke 3:36. Shem’s father is Noah (Gen. 5:32 & 6:10). But all these details clearly do not align with what is said regarding Melchizedek’s, who is said to have been without father or mother or descent in Heb. 7:3. The reason is not because of Aaron's high priesthood; rather, it was because Melchizedek enters the scene without a pedigree and also vanishes without anything being said about him for centuries until the Psalms. If we're looking at the same individual named Shem, then we would have to first answer the question of how he managed to have lived up until the generation of Abraham where Melchizedek appears to him as the priest of the most high God (Genesis 14). One cannot make such huge leaps to cover the wide gaps between these generations.

No, Shem is not Melchizedek. To make the connection between both individuals leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

debosky:
Excuse me - there is NOTHING like scriptural intuition. The tithing events by Jacob and Abraham were ONE OFF events SIMPLE. Be careful not to introduce your own ideas into the bible as we are warned in Revelations.

Why do you talk like this, debosky? Yes, Abraham's tithes were a one-off? And then. . .? How many times was he supposed to have given to anyone before it could be recognized in the Bible as tithes - in both the OT and NT? What has the frequency of his tithes got to do with the argument that it was done only once?

Let me ask you lot: what has the career of "anti-tithing" arguments done to your personal lives as Christians?

Please carefully consider that question before you hastily answer (where you can).

It seems to me that the while lot of us folks tearing at one another's throats are not concerned with the fact that we are NOT truly obeying the teaching of Christ on giving. That is one reason why I asked that question.

A key point to note.

It is important to understand that the appellation of 'Anglican' suggests a diversity of faith and tradition within Anglicanism. This diversity points out that not every church with the name 'Anglican' should be regarded as being connected with the 'Anglican Communion'. To this end, there are indeed churches bearing the name 'Anglican' who venerate images, icons, and saints (even though they are in the USA but not part of the ECUSA). An example is the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite (HCC-AR).

The HCC-AR's position is subtle and may confuse many unsuspecting visitors/observers. About who they are, they state on their website that -

* they are 'Catholic' but not 'Roman Catholic';

* they are Anglican but not a Protestant church;

* they share only a historical connection to the Church of England,
but they are not associated with Canterbury

* they are part of present-day Anglican bodies collectively and commonly known as the ‘Continuing Church’

Another example of churches known as "Continuing" is the "Church of England (Continuing)" - who on their website state that they are "a group of Anglican congregations outside the Church of England".

Indeed, the HCC-AR is one of those examples of churches with an 'Anglican' appellation that venerates and/or honours icons/images and saints; but such an example should not be confused for a vast majority of Anglicans (like the ECUSA) who do not hold such beliefs and practices. Indeed, when you check the website of Anglicans Online, you will find that the HCC-AR is one of the churches among several with either names of either 'Anglican', 'Episcopal' or 'Catholic' that are not in the 'Anglican Communion'.

In summary, therefore, I think that on either sides, we can have a balance of views:

(a) yes, there are some Anglicans that 'venerate' saints one way or another; this is especially true of such 'Anglican' churches with a Catholic (not Roman Catholic) leaning - an example is the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite (HCC-AR), which is not to be confused for the ECUSA (the Episcopalian Church - which is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the USA and several other countries);

(b) but there are also a majority of Anglicans who confess that they do not 'venerate' saints or icons as do the Catholics. This is true of the ECUSA (defined above);

(c) drawing from (a) and (b) above, it would be quite inappropriate to assert that there are "no differences" between the Anglican and Catholic churches, for there evidently are such many differences.

chukwudi44:
But as far as eneration of saints is concerned ,there is no difference between veneration of saints in the RCC and the anglican church

I think you're somewhat correct in the highlighted statement in yours; but again, that does not cover all Anglicans (as dgreatrock has repeatedly observed). Further, your assertion is just the recurring problem here, because it seems to cast Anglicans in 'Catholic' mold.

There is a vast difference between RCC and Anglican theologies on the 'veneration' of saints - a vast difference indeed. While we try to understand (and agree) that some Anglicans have a semblance of Catholic rites in their Anglican beliefs and practices, this does not hold for the many, many other Anglicans worldwide. There are examples that have been cited already. The Episcopalian Church (which is largely the Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and many other places) clearly confesses that they -

* do not pray to saints

* do not ask saints to intercede for them

* do not venerate icons or other images

http://www.graceepiscopal-chillicothe.org/We%20Believe.html

These three things (among several others) are believed to be entrenched in Catholic doctrines and practices; and yet, these Anglicans (in the 'Anglican Communion') do not hold such doctrines or practices.

Now, just to help our Catholic friends see why many Anglicans deeply object to assertions that there are no differences in veneration of Saints and icons, it may be helpful to cite a few commonly held Catholic confessions and see how Anglicans answer to them.

Examples -

Catholic

O Lord Jesus Christ,
who gave us your Mother Mary, whose renowned image we venerate,
to be a Mother ever ready to help us.
~~ Prayer of Pope Pius IX
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english3/p02290.htm

* 58. We earnestly pray God to prevent any damage to this valuable, beneficial, and necessary union.
* 96. We pray earnestly to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whose Immaculate Heart Our predecessor,
Pius XII, consecrated the entire human race.
~~ Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John XXIII On Truth, Unity and Peace, In A Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959

I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration is to be given them.
http://www.the-latinmass.com/id108.html

---

ANGLICAN

"While some of us use icons, pictures and/or statues of Saints, Martyrs and events to focus our thoughts and prayers, we do not pray to the Saints or venerate icons or other images.
Neither do we ask Saints to intercede for us with God.
We pray to God directly. We do not need to have our prayers go through a priest, being able to talk with God directly. We may ask the congregation to add their prayers to ours when we are in need. We also offer thanks to Saints for the example of their lives."
~~ Episcopal Church (Province of the Anglican Communion in the USA and other countries)
http://www.graceepiscopal-chillicothe.org/We%20Believe.html

These are not cited to disparage anyone or any group (either Catholic or Anglican) especially because as a non-Catholic I cannot confirm them firsthand that they are truly the beliefs and practices of the RCC (may be they are). But I'm seeking to understanding and possibly gather my thoughts from events in my experiences. Several times I hinted that there are a few of my friends who have argued bitterly over these differences; and I wonder that if there were no differences at all, they wouldn't be arguing in the first place, would they?

Now, how do Anglicans answer to these things quoted above? How many Anglicans would come in here and say yes, they do exactly as those Catholic authorities have asserted in the example of the veneration of images/icons and saints? I don't know - but hazarding a good guess, I don't think that many Anglicans would agree to those and say that there are indeed "no differences" there.