Outlaw, YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT!
WHY WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT WHETHER JESUS DIED ON A CROSS OR A STAKE?
by dgp 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
JuanMiguel
Villabolo:
Catholics generally do not prostate before crucifixes themselves. People think they are doing this when they see them enter a church for Mass, but this is not what is happening.
When Catholics enter their church they genuflect before sitting in the pew only when the sanctuary light is lit. This light tells them that there is blessed Eucharist in the container behind the altar, a container called the Tabernacle. Because they believe that God is literally present in the species offered during their Holy Communion, what people are seeing is an act of worship to God. True, it is in the direction of a crucifix because the main church crucifix with the corpus of Christ is usually hung over the altar and the Tabernacle, but it is not that which Catholics are genuflecting to.
Interestingly, if the sanctuary light is not lit, they do not genuflect upon being seated regardless of the fact that the cross if present.
As to whether or not the way Catholics genuflect before or treat any type of image constitutes worship, one has to take into account what the person themselves understands they are doing, not what we or Fundamentalists or Jehovah's Witnesses believe is happening.
We often speak of people who worship God "without their heart being in it," and we usually judge this to be unacceptable as worship to God, regardless of how grandiose one is in "going through the motions."
Taking that in mind, if someone performs an act that we might believe to be worship but their heart is not engaged in worship, then is it worship? How then do we justify our view of those who give things like mere "lip service" to God? Why does the heart need to be involved at all?
The person has to believe that they are engaged in worship and their heart has to be in it for it to qualify as such. Genuflecting before a cross is not different from the way the bronze or copper serpent was used, is it? How about the way the ark of the covenant was handled? Take into consideration the way faithful Jews turned to the direction of the physical temple to offer prayer.
Isn't prayer worship? The word "graven" means carved. Wasn't much in the temple carved? How about it's very stones? How about the angels on the top of the ark of the covenant and that serpent we just mentioned. Does the law just say that people should avoid worshiping these objects? No, it says you "shall not make for yourselves graven images" and, on top of it, these images should not be worshipped.
Since the Israelites were commanded to make many "graven" images as well as not to worship them, wouldn't that mean that the serpent, the cherubim on the ark of the covenant and the temple itself were such objects (since the stone of the temple were carved)?
Besides, the Hebrew words for "You shall not make for yourselves a graven image" are often not translated this way in modern versions. Why not? Scholars have learned that the text is better rendered "you must not make an image of a false god." If one renders it "graven image" then God broke his own laws in having his people make such types of images. The context shows that God was forbidden the creation of images that represented concepts not connected with worship of him.
As I always tell people, the fact that I mention something should not be construed as my own advocation of it. But I do mention this because when I was a Witness I was taught to use the pattern of reasoning you offered in your answer. I often accused Catholics and others of things I later learned I was totally wrong about.
This type of reasoning is not based on any type of fact. It doesn't matter if we agree with Catholics or not. The main point is that we don't hang onto any fallacies offered by the Watchtower now that we've left. If we do, then our current positions--whatever they may be--are weakened by our continuing to hold onto misinformation.
And when we use misinformation, the outcome is that our conclusions will be incorrect.
-
villabolo
NewYork44M:
"Someone can look up the reference. I distinctly remember a Wt that equated the cross with a penis and that the worship of the cross represents just one more aspect of sex crazed Babylon the Great."
NewYork, I remember the phallic connection being explained in the Babylon The Great Has Fallen Book (1960s) as originating with the Egyptian Ankh. The Egyptian Ankh was interpreted by the Society as being a combination of a stylized penis (the T like shape at the bottom) and vagina (The O like segment at the top).
I've posted an image below. Try to get into the Governing Body's mind and use your imagination:
Villabolo
-
villabolo
JuanMiguel:
"Prostation" is, in my opinion, and most probably that of the ancient priesthood in Israel, any submissive physical act, no matter how ritualized, directed at an image or human being. That would include genuflecting. The rest that you mentioned is merely symbolic elaboration.
The cult of the saints is an even more pointed example. Semi-deification of "saints" who specialize in certain "blessings" is in direct opposition to the mono-manical focus on Yahweh as the sole provider of blessings that the ancient cult of Yahweh tried to instill in Israelites. Witness the mass purging of Asherah, by the Jerusalem Temple priesthood. She was originally Yahweh's consort, both of them illustrated as a male bull and female (Two breasted) cow in an upright anthropomorphic posture. Where do you draw the line between that and polytheism (There are many nuances within "polytheism")?
The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Which were probably modeled after Egyptian Sphinx.) would only illustrate that ancient Israel was not what the Hebrew Scriptures, written and or rewritten by the Jerusalem Temple's priesthood ,would like us to have believed.
In other words the Bible is grossly inconsistent within itself and with external social reality. Archaeological evidence for example, shows that Asherah was commonly worshipped. Was that idolatry or not? And if so, how does it compare to the cult of Mary, who seems to serve as an auxilliary intercessor?
You have made a similar argument that Burns, a Catholic, has made against me; one that is in ignorance of my personal circumstances and thoughts. Your beliefs are more projections of your experiences. You think that I am prejudiced by previous Watchtower propaganda that I have internalized unconsciously. I'm a little smarter than that.
I was baptized a Catholic and performed first communion. Now, as an Atheist with a Pantheistic outlook, I have completely purged myself of Watchtower influence. More importantly, I never considered the Catholic Church as enemy number one, either as a JW or afterwards. It was Christian Fundamentalists, particularly emotive (Read demonized) fanatics like Pentecostals, that I and most Witnesses feared and loathed.
Nowadays, my attitude as an Atheist is very liberal. I really could not care less whether or not you believe in fairies or stand on your head in front of paper dolls. Until, that is, your fairies or paper dolls start whispering into your ears, "Pssst, you see that guy who doesn't believe in me? He's evil/wretched/needs saving etc..
Most Catholics that I know, and official Catholic teaching, I believe, damn non Catholics to hell. That is why my animosity is still reserved towards Christian Fundamentalists (Would you blame that on my JW upbringing?) And yes, I'm aware that Catholics have their fundamentalist component as well and I have dealt with a nasty Catholic Fundamentalist in my family; and further still, even though I despise authoritarianism in all its forms (And the Catholic Church in its entirety is Authoritarian); I consider Catholicism to be, sociologically speaking, a mostly harmless, toothless old whore without much of a bite.
Villabolo
-
JuanMiguel
Villabolo,
None of us here are mere avatars and screen names. It becomes too easy for some people on the Internet to see those they are interacting with in this way. Where some might merely shrug it off as an eventuality due to subscribing to the theory of Dunbar's number, others sometimes just don't stop to realize that they are not interacting with merely a picture on a computer screen or that there is far much more to each person here than what we can glean from reading their comments.
In no way did I mean to make you feel that you were lacking in intelligence by my comments, but I can see how they can sound that way. Where you feel I have misrepresented your statements, I thoroughly own that and apologize. But on the same vein you are far from correct if you think I was offering mere "projections" based on my personal "experiences."
However my words were directed to something else in your statement that you did not hit on until now.
My comments were inferring that we cannot judge what others are doing on the basis of what we say they are doing. If I say that a Catholic is engaged in worship when they say they are not engaged in worship, who is right? Am I right who is ignorant of their personal circumstance and thoughts or are they the one to define what their actions mean?
If you or I claim one thing about them that they claim does not apply, are we not guilty of projecting our experiences and values and viewpoints on them? The Watchtower does this in regards to anyone who is not a Witness.
Your claim that your personal definition of what Catholics are doing when they genuflect as standing objectively correct, is it not the same thing you accuse me of--being ignorant of their views on the matter, disregarding their point of view and taking no account of their personal circumstances and thoughts?
Just because you were once a Catholic, does that mean that you can project your experiences and current beliefs as objective standards of definition we should all accept regarding what a Catholic does when they genuflect? I was raised in the Catholic faith, even went further than merely making my First Communion before becoming a JW. So? I've worked in Catholic television and media--even in Internet presentation. Does that make me sound like my comments hold anymore weight to you?
I consider myself nothing. My experiences aren't worth dirt between one's toes, neither are my comments or opinions. Thus I often write not as someone who knows things merely by personal experience, but as someone who is just trying to present information. What you find here may not say much of what you meet in person. I can and have defended my many friends who are atheists and practicing pagans. I don't have to subscribe to their convictions to defend what may be right in a situation. I don't think it's ever right to say that someone else's act has to fit my definition of what I say it means. That is "the pattern of reasoning" that I said you were copying from off the Watchtower, nothing else.
Where I gave any other impression in my previous writing about you, I again apologize. I remind myself all the time that the person who makes a comment is more than an avatar and far more dimensional than what a screen name of comment can say about them. Where that did not show itself in my previous post, blame that on my poor writing skills and failure to realize how important it was to keep that impression foremost.
The reason I feel so important about this is that when we do force others and their actions to be what we define them as being, force them to be as we project them to be, then we are acting like the Watchtower (and that was the point I was making). But just as you should be offended where I may have done the same about you, so should you realize you have done the same against Catholics by saying that what they do has to be worship when they say it is not just because you--and not them--define it as such.
-
punkofnice
The 'filthful slave' say JC died on a stake (or was it steak? Char grilled?), why? Call me cynical but I recon it's just so the JW's can say: 'Hey, we're different!' as they normally like to.
It's all a sales pitch for a 'new improved product'. 2 Tell the tooth, the whole borganization is about sales and cash!
-
jgnat
Leolaia's definitive study of this question,
-
dgp
jgnat, wonderful article by Leolaia.
-
Leolaia
With respect to the use of images in ancient Judah, Hezekiah used the (pagan!) winged dung beetle as his royal emblem during his reign, the same man who initiated a reform against cultic iconism.
-
jgnat
Hoo, you've caught my imagination, Leolaia. Here's a winged dung beetle.
