I’m sorry if the truth, as I see it, hurts, irritates or angers anyone on this forum. I still believe that ChatNor, the originator of this thread has valid concerns. The scriptures state that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. As I understand the concept, whatever a person does that their conscience bothers them that they may be going contrary to God, are sinning if they continue in the practice. As Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthians.
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. -1Cor 8:1-13
Now, I am not implying that the use these images are approved by God. What I am saying is that conscience can make all the difference in the world as far as sin is concerned. Looking at the other side, things that are definitely contrary to the law may not accounted as sin if the person is ignorant of the prohibition. As Paul also wrote to the church at Rome:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. -Romans 5:13
Though I definitely consider the Roman Catholic use of images a promotion of idolatry, I do not judge those who have been raised to believe otherwise and in good conscience participate in such rituals.
Yes, God, through Moses approved, yes, even commanded the making of images whose purposes were to be of a religious nature. Among these were included the golden angels on the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen oxen under the laver, and yes the brazen serpent. If you read carefully, you will find that God himself specifically ordained each one of these. They were not the rule, but exceptions to the rule. Nowhere in scripture will you find a single instance where the making of images at man’s discretion was approved.
Again, my question, unanswered as of yet is:
How can Catholics claim that their division of the 10 commandment is a mere matter of opinion or chance as to where they have placed the numbers? How can this be a rational explanation given the facts. The Roman Catholic version of the numbering places a divide between coveting a neighbor’s wife and coveting their goods as follows:
Code:
9. Do not covet your neighbour's wife.
10. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.
Let’s look at the verse in question in its entirety.
17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his donkey nor any thing that is his.
Tell me where in this series of words would the division be made in order to make it these two distinct commandments? After the word “house”? After the word wife? If you end the 9th at house, the 10th would include not just “wife” but also, “servant”, “handmaid”, “ox”, “ass” and every “thing” else that belongs to one’s neighbor! Well, how about making the division after the word, “wife”? Wait a minute, that would put the “house” and the “wife” both in the 9th commandment! Do you see why I have a hard time accepting this explanation? It seems inescapable that the Roman Catholic division has been contrived; And if contrived, what other plausible explanation can there be but that it was done to preserve the number of commandments as 10, after removing the second commandment about images (from the summarized catechism version)?
Am I missing something here? Is their a logic that I have failed to grasp?
) . . .you have all the above and them some which you have no problem with.