On the calf/calves/cherubim issue that you have raised in comments on three different posts (two on this blog and one on the debate blog), I've started preparing an answer. Your comments raise specific factual issues, and I don't want to answer hastily.
A have a draft answer, but it's not complete.
The bottom line, obviously, is that the most obvious difference between the cherubim and the golden calf (and rebuttal to the implied argument in some of your comment) is that the former were clearly not intended to represent God, and the later was intended to represent God.
-Turretinfan
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So, it's cool to have, like, cute little icons of Michael and Gabriel, or our Guardian Angel hanging `round, right? (Or of the Saints, for that matter, no?).
I perfectly understand one's need to prepare -- I did NOT mean for You to tackle the issue un-prepared ... but it's been weeks now since I've addressed that question, without getting any "Busy, Try Later" response from You ...
There's nothing inherently wrong with making representations of either imaginary or actual created things. However, making them for the purpose of worshiping them is wrong.
Thus, making a representation of a calf or of the Christokos (alone) or of the fictional goddess Krishna is not wrong, but making them for the purpose of worshiping them is wrong (as is the actual act of worshiping them).
If that renders your question moot, just let me know.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment