Yes, I am arguing the affirmative and I will prove not only that idolatry was condemned by the ancient church
Easy argument to win here, since we're all in agreement o that point. But if you enjoy "preaching to the choir", go for it.
but also it is as we see in the second commandment- made things that are venerated.
Like the Cross of Christ?
Now my opponents are going to get desperate
I'm fairly frothing at the mouth even now.
, engage personal attacks
Hmmm... OK, You're literally Hitler.
and perhaps even deliberately tell lies.
I'm 6'3 and classically handsome.
Why? Becuase they are here to defend their church
My church is red hot, your church ain't diddly squat!
. I am here to defend the faith, one true faith.
I 've waiting for you to make that startling revelation.
There has already been a bogus term introduced - “icon”
OK, I admit it - I made that word up myself.
Well, I reckon if you say so then there's an end of it.
The people who attempt to make a (false) distinction between idol and icon are simply trying to justify their error and sin.
Yep, no question about it. And also in a vicious attempt to discredit a gallant defenddr og the faith (that would be you, of course).
"Your honor, I move that this case be dismissed on the grounds of the Sanity Clause!
Motion denied! Everybody knows there ain't no Sanity Clause!"
Justin martyr. Credited as the first Christian apologist defines idolatry as “set in shrines and called Gods”.
Right. And afaik, no, there are no icons or statuary claiming to be images of God, or any collectively caled "gods:". Do you know of any?
So something that is made and venerated.
That ain't what he saidc, is it? That's just what you happen to believe, worth the price charged.
So you wiffed that one. Any more you'd care to try?