Protestant pastor expelled for refusing to participate in Catholic ritual in Mexico

RileyG · Feb 2, 2026

FireDragon76 said:
It's closer to Voodoo. They are actually completely distinct religions. I wouldn't describe them as syncretistic in the usual sense- once you get beyond some of the shallow symbolism, you have essentially a west African religion with no Catholic influence (unlike a genuinely syncretic religion, like the Vietnamese religion of Cao Dai). Santeiria sometimes hides its meaning behind Catholic saints, but it isn't a very serious effort, IMO.

Ah, thanks for the info!

Peace

tdidymas · Feb 3, 2026

RileyG said:
Catholics don’t worship idols. There might be some involved in Santeria do, but Catholics only worship God and God alone,

I disagree with you for this reason: in the Bible, when someone kneels before a statue (idol), they are committing idolatry. That's obviously the view of the man they persecuted, since he clearly refused to do it. When you claim "it's not worship, it's veneration," you are making a distinction without a difference. Even the dictionary says that veneration is worship as one of its definitions.

Do you kneel before statues? Can you explain how the sentiments of kneeling before the statue is different than kneeling to pray to God, or kneeling in worship to God? How exactly is it different, without playing games with words?

FireDragon76 · Feb 3, 2026

tdidymas said:
I disagree with you for this reason: in the Bible, when someone kneels before a statue (idol), they are committing idolatry. That's obviously the view of the man they persecuted, since he clearly refused to do it. When you claim "it's not worship, it's veneration," you are making a distinction without a difference. Even the dictionary says that veneration is worship as one of its definitions.

Do you kneel before statues? Can you explain how the sentiments of kneeling before the statue is different than kneeling to pray to God, or kneeling in worship to God? How exactly is it different, without playing games with words?

Considering that God's presence is illocal (in no particular place), perhaps the idea of "kneeling before" needs to be bracketed, rather than taken at face value? The same would apply to the notion that kneeling before an image is automatically identical to the kind of worship one would reserve for God.

tdidymas · Feb 3, 2026

FireDragon76 said:
Considering that God's presence is illocal (in no particular place), perhaps the idea of "kneeling before" needs to be bracketed, rather than taken at face value? The same would apply to the notion that kneeling before an image is automatically identical to the kind of worship one would reserve for God.

Evading the question. The point is that kneeling or bowing to an image is what was condemned in the OT, because it stank of polytheism. Just knowing that there is only one true God doesn't excuse bowing to an image, since the act is a witness of what one believes. If you have to explain "veneration vs. worship," then there is already confusion, since the observable act is the same.

When John bowed down to the angel in Rev. 22:9 "to worship," the angel replied, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." One might argue, "it says to worship" but the act is the same. Thus the question, what is the difference in sentiment?

jas3 · Feb 3, 2026

tdidymas said:
Just knowing that there is only one true God doesn't excuse bowing to an image, since the act is a witness of what one believes. If you have to explain "veneration vs. worship," then there is already confusion, since the observable act is the same.

Do you think every observable action means the same thing in all contexts?

tdidymas · Feb 3, 2026

jas3 said:
Do you think every observable action means the same thing in all contexts?

Ex. 20:4-6 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Notice that it explicitly says "you shall not bow down" to the statues. Since God considers bowing down (kneeling) to a statue as idolatry, I think I'll take His word for it. This is one of the reasons why Jesus said "not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but only those who do the will of My Father in heaven."

The refusal to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's 90 ft gold statue got Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego thrown into a furnace (persecuted). And though the man in question is persecuted slightly in comparison, it's still persecution, for doing God's will.

And you're evading the question.

jas3 · Feb 4, 2026

tdidymas said:
And you're evading the question.

The question wasn't put to me. You, on the other hand, are evading a question that was directly put to you. Do you think every observable action means the same thing in all contexts?

tdidymas · Feb 4, 2026

jas3 said:
The question wasn't put to me. You, on the other hand, are evading a question that was directly put to you. Do you think every observable action means the same thing in all contexts?

That's a loaded question. If you mean bowing to a statue is equivalent to bowing to God, then the obvious answer is yes, it is, according to Ex. 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them."

jas3 · Feb 4, 2026

tdidymas said:
That's a loaded question.

Then let's loosen the parameters of the question. Can the same observable action mean different things in different contexts?

Obviously the answer is yes, which is why we have different senses of words. You might call an athlete "awesome" and you might also call God "awesome," but even though the action is the same, you mean something infinitely higher and in reality totally different when God is the subject rather than when the athlete is. The fact that you might have to explain the difference between the two to someone who's ignorant of the distinction doesn't mean you should avoid any and all terms of praise for creatures in case somebody is confused.

In fact, most Protestants acknowledge this when they understand the beginning of the commandment in question, the prohibition not only of bowing down to idols, but of making them (Ex. 20:4), to be confined to the context of idols. They have no problem, for example, with religious art, or secular art, or with having a picture taken of them, even though those are instances of making images of "things in heaven above, or in the earth below." By the same reasoning, the prohibition on bowing to idols would pertain to idols.

tdidymas · Feb 4, 2026

jas3 said:
Then let's loosen the parameters of the question. Can the same observable action mean different things in different contexts?

Obviously the answer is yes, which is why we have different senses of words. You might call an athlete "awesome" and you might also call God "awesome," but even though the action is the same, you mean something infinitely higher and in reality totally different when God is the subject rather than when the athlete is. The fact that you might have to explain the difference between the two to someone who's ignorant of the distinction doesn't mean you should avoid any and all terms of praise for creatures in case somebody is confused.

In fact, most Protestants acknowledge this when they understand the beginning of the commandment in question, the prohibition not only of bowing down to idols, but of making them (Ex. 20:4), to be confined to the context of idols. They have no problem, for example, with religious art, or secular art, or with having a picture taken of them, even though those are instances of making images of "things in heaven above, or in the earth below." By the same reasoning, the prohibition on bowing to idols would pertain to idols.

The purpose of the statue of St. James is to bow down and worship at it. That's the idolatry and sin. If it was merely art, then people would not be kneeling before it. Furthermore, the fact that the leaders persecuted the man who refused to kneel before it, thus declaring it's mere art and nothing to be venerated by kneeling, it proves that it's a sacred cow - an idol. The org leaders worship the idol, and they want to pressure others by means of persecution, or threat of it, to also worship it (kneel to it). This sort of attitude is the same as the Pharisees who threw people out of the synagogues because they chose to follow Jesus. It's religious abuse and hypocrisy. It proves they have a sacred cow and are idolators.

jas3 · Feb 4, 2026

tdidymas said:
The purpose of the statue of St. James is to bow down and worship at it. That's the idolatry and sin. If it was merely art, then people would not be kneeling before it.

You've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying sacred images, icons or statues are "merely art," I'm saying that the distinction between art and icons is meaningless in the context of Ex. 20:4-6 because what is forbidden is not only "bowing down" to idols but even "making them." So it's inconsistent to say that, for example, bowing in front of an image of Christ is idolatry, but making the same image as art is fine as long as people don't venerate it.

tdidymas · Feb 6, 2026

jas3 said:
You've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying sacred images, icons or statues are "merely art," I'm saying that the distinction between art and icons is meaningless in the context of Ex. 20:4-6 because what is forbidden is not only "bowing down" to idols but even "making them." So it's inconsistent to say that, for example, bowing in front of an image of Christ is idolatry, but making the same image as art is fine as long as people don't venerate it.

No, I disagree with you on this, since you are taking it out of context and making it mean something different. Moses wrote Ex. 20:4-6 with the purpose of telling people not to worship idols (1 Jn. 5:21). So every subcommand in the command is against worshipping idols. Therefore, the "making them" - carving of statues, drawing of images, etc. for the PURPOSE of worshipping a god other than the one true God is in view here. This includes bowing down to anything (for veneration or worship) such as angels, saints, animals, or anything else created. If God told them not to carve or mold any image at all, then they wouldn't have done the many religious art statues, icons, and images in the temple. Since those things in the temple were authorized by God, then it negates your argument. You need to familiarize yourself with scripture and rethink that idea.

jas3 · Feb 6, 2026

tdidymas said:
Moses wrote Ex. 20:4-6 with the purpose of telling people not to worship idols (1 Jn. 5:21). So every subcommand in the command is against worshipping idols. Therefore, the "making them" - carving of statues, drawing of images, etc. for the PURPOSE of worshipping a god other than the one true God is in view here.

Yes, that's what I'm saying is actually the case.

tdidymas said:
This includes bowing down to anything (for veneration or worship) such as angels, saints, animals, or anything else created.

According to you.

tdidymas said:
If God told them not to carve or mold any image at all, then they wouldn't have done the many religious art statues, icons, and images in the temple.

Exactly, so the commandment is obviously not applicable to literally all images, such as a statue of St. James.

tdidymas · Feb 6, 2026

jas3 said:
Yes, that's what I'm saying is actually the case.

No, you didn't mean the same thing, it's obvious by your previous response.

jas3 said:
According to you.

According to the guy who was persecuted by the Catholic leaders who tried to coerce him into committing idolatry.

jas3 said:
Exactly, so the commandment is obviously not applicable to literally all images, such as a statue of St. James.

Wrong. Any image (such as a statue of St. James) for the purpose of venerating (which is a form of worship) is an idol in the sight of God. Anyone kneeling to the statue, thinking and praying that "he" (that is, the ghost of the man) will hear their prayer and somehow "get it to God" is exalting the man to divine status, and that's an abomination to God, according to the OT scripture.

Why are they kneeling (and praying) to "St. James" anyway? It's because they don't believe that God hears their prayers, so they don't believe they are reconciled to God through Christ. It poses a doubt that they are in Christ to begin with.

jas3 · Feb 7, 2026

tdidymas said:
Any image (such as a statue of St. James) for the purpose of venerating (which is a form of worship) is an idol in the sight of God.

Again, according to you; the Amish believe that even photographs of people are violations of the commandment against images. How could you justify your preferred kinds of images to them as not being condemned by this commandment? There's no record in the Bible of God commanding the creation of the likeness of a person. One could then argue that generic images of angels or plants might not be idols, but a picture of a specific person would still be condemned.

The point here is not to get into the weeds about arguing against a hypothetical strict Amish iconoclast, but to show that your definition of "idol" is arbitrary, or more specifically, circular, because you start with the assumption that images of saints are condemned by this commandment and then use the part about bowing down as your rule for what is and isn't an idol, so that what you want to be condemned is condemned, and what you want to be allowed is allowed.

tdidymas · Feb 7, 2026

jas3 said:
Again, according to you; the Amish believe that even photographs of people are violations of the commandment against images. How could you justify your preferred kinds of images to them as not being condemned by this commandment? There's no record in the Bible of God commanding the creation of the likeness of a person. One could then argue that generic images of angels or plants might not be idols, but a picture of a specific person would still be condemned.

The point here is not to get into the weeds about arguing against a hypothetical strict Amish iconoclast, but to show that your definition of "idol" is arbitrary, or more specifically, circular, because you start with the assumption that images of saints are condemned by this commandment and then use the part about bowing down as your rule for what is and isn't an idol, so that what you want to be condemned is condemned, and what you want to be allowed is allowed.

The amish have it wrong, as do you.
And no, my definition comes from the context of scripture, which I can see you are unfamiliar with.
I'm merely applying the scripture and its meaning, as did the man they persecuted.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Protestant pastor expelled for refusing to participate in Catholic ritual in Mexico

Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads