← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 11308 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2003-11-30
2003-11-30 18:42 | User Profile
Gentlemen,
While I was raised in the Catholic Church and still consider myself a Christian, I must admit to having some serious doubts about the validity of certain Christian dogmas. One of the issues I find particularly contrary to my conscience, and even to reason itself, comes from the following Biblical passage:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good.* But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
-- Romans 13:1-13 *The statement highlighted in bold type above seems to fly in the face of common sense. Around the world, many rulers and other authority figures (e.g., police officers) routinely commit acts of the most demonic sort, and their victims are often completely innocent (e.g., young children). What Paul seems to be saying above is that tyranny and corruption do not exist in government. Obviously they do!
To those who believe the Bible is infallible, I ask: How do you reconcile the above verses with the common knowledge that many (and probably most) governments are highly corrupt and commit many evil acts? In particular, if we are supposed to follow the Bible to the letter, then shouldn't we bow down to ZOG?
2003-11-30 19:16 | User Profile
To those who believe the Bible is infallible, I ask: How do you reconcile the above verses with the common knowledge that many (and probably most) governments are highly corrupt and commit many evil acts? In particular, if we are supposed to follow the Bible to the letter, then shouldn't we bow down to ZOG?
Angler, good question. FWIW, here's a tract from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod on civil government and despotic leaders that seems to delineate the orthodox Lutheran perspective on such matters:
[url]http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/society-01.html[/url]
What was the position of WELS during WW2 with respect to the Nazis, and what pressure was brought to bear on the Lutheran Church in Germany to resist them? How did this period in our history relate to the Bible's teachings on obedience to those in authority over us?
*Since we believe that it is the church's responsibility to proclaim the gospel of salvation rather than make political pronouncements, I don't believe that the WELS took any official position with respect the the Nazis, nor did we bring any pressure on Lutherans in Germany to resist them. Many WELS members fought in WW2 and our synod provided camp chaplains in this country at our own expense to serve the spiritual needs of our members serving in the armed forces. We encouraged obedience to the government which God had given us in this country.
Christians owe obedience. St. Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, "Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans 13:1-2).
The Roman government was guilty of many injustices. The Christians in Rome would soon be experiencing brutal persecution at the hands of that government, if they weren't already. Nevertheless, Paul tells them that they have no right to rebel.
God will hold those whom he has placed in authority responsible for how they use that authority and perform their office. He tells us to be obedient and holds us responsible for our actions. The only time that we have the right to disobey those in authority is when they command us to do something God has forbidden or forbid us to do something which God has commanded. In such a case "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).*
As a practical example, I could actually see a Christian case for a soldier refusing to participate in the (Israeli-sanctioned) invasion and occupation of Iraq based on Augustine's doctrine of Just War. Or a civilian dodging a draft to conscript troops for this unjust occupation and future mid-east invasions. Both may bear severe temporal consequences for acting on their consciences, however.
2003-11-30 19:54 | User Profile
The Roman government was guilty of many injustices. The Christians in Rome would soon be experiencing brutal persecution at the hands of that government, if they weren't already. Nevertheless, Paul tells them that they have no right to rebel. This does seem to be the general consensus among mainstream Christianity, including the Lutherans, Catholics, etc. Nevertheless, the rationale Paul gives for his injunction against rebellion seems awfully flimsy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if those versus that are today attributed to Paul were in fact written by someone else -- perhaps a ruler who sought to strengthen his own power against possible challengers?
Christianity today does generally consider it lawful for one nation to wage war against another in order to defend territory, national interests, etc., as long as reasonable efforts to reach a diplomatic solution have failed. This, however, seems inconsistent. If a defensive war can be considered moral when it's waged by a nation -- a large collection of individuals ruled by a smaller group of individuals -- then I see absolutely no reason why the laws of morality should be any different for non-state groups of individuals, or even single actors.
I do believe that government has certain legitimate purposes: the protection of citizens from murder, theft, and so forth. But should government punish "crimes against morality" such as drug laws? If so, then we have to wonder why Jesus stopped that crowd from stoning the woman who was caught in the act of adultery. And then we have other dubious functions of government, such as taking the fruit of citizens' labor and using it to drop bombs on people on the other side of the earth. I just don't see how the Church can sanction such actions by nations and then condemn an individual for, say, shooting a cop who was clubbing the head of a handcuffed suspect. It doesn't make any sense to me.
2003-11-30 20:18 | User Profile
Christianity today does generally consider it lawful for one nation to wage war against another in order to defend territory, national interests, etc., as long as reasonable efforts to reach a diplomatic solution have failed. This, however, seems inconsistent.
It certainly says something about the faith of dispensationalist warmongers who agitated for the current mess in Iraq. I would even go so far as to say that such actions reveal the dispensationalist worldview as the rotten fruit of a counterfeit Christianity, which, unfortunately is so prevalent in America nowadays that it's considered "mainstream."
2003-12-01 18:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] To those who believe the Bible is infallible, I ask: How do you reconcile the above verses with the common knowledge that many (and probably most) governments are highly corrupt and commit many evil acts? In particular, if we are supposed to follow the Bible to the letter, then shouldn't we bow down to ZOG?[/QUOTE]
The Bible is infallible, but our understanding is definitely fallible. Countless people have fallen away from the Christ or been led into false and heretical doctrines by reading the Scriptures without proper understanding and assigning their own private interpretations. Please don't take my words as an insult against your intelligence or comprehension, since this applies to everyone.
Many things in the Bible seem simple enough, but one sign of incorrect understanding is when a particular Scripture throws one's mind into confusion or depression. Since nothing is really new, reseaching the opinions of the Church Fathers will usually clarify things. If that doesn't solve the issue, its best to pray and discuss it with your Priest or spiritual advisor.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-02 04:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It certainly says something about the faith of dispensationalist warmongers who agitated for the current mess in Iraq. I would even go so far as to say that such actions reveal the dispensationalist worldview as the rotten fruit of a counterfeit Christianity, which, unfortunately is so prevalent in America nowadays that it's considered "mainstream."[/QUOTE]
Hi Centinel
The ZOG controlled so called [I]America Christian right [/I] and the Freemasons are a large part of the problem. We must continue to expose these hieratic, traitors and misguided fools. The Jews are certainly keeping good company and are catching some fire by association. A small price to pay I suppose for their Anti-Christ, ZOG world order.
Many Nationalists are in my opinion overly obsessed with the Jews and whilst I quite understand why. We should really be focusing more of are criticisms on these traitors as well. The Jews do not trust these people any more than we do and they are now really becoming a liability to them. Which is why they are now increasingly being forced in to fielding their own kind as political candidates.
The Jew is a puppet master who works better from the shadows. However he is in trouble as international public opinion is overwhelmingly against him in is efforts to build his little Imperium in the Middle East. Israel is also reportedly suffering from increasing levels of corruption.
The Christian Nationalist lobby on the other hand is expanding rapidly. The bottom line is that if we are not given the power and influence that we deserve by the ballot box then we will take it by other means.
The Muslims thanks to the Internet and their own information gathering now know far to much. The Asian Muslims have apparently been whistle blowing to their fellow Muslims in are favor. They know full bloody well that it's not a European influence that's driving the US's current foreign policy.
Gregz
"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte
2003-12-02 12:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]The Bible is infallible, but our understanding is definitely fallible. Countless people have fallen away from the Christ or been led into false and heretical doctrines by reading the Scriptures without proper understanding and assigning their own private interpretations. Please don't take my words as an insult against your intelligence or comprehension, since this applies to everyone.
Many things in the Bible seem simple enough, but one sign of incorrect understanding is when a particular Scripture throws one's mind into confusion or depression. Since nothing is really new, reseaching the opinions of the Church Fathers will usually clarify things. If that doesn't solve the issue, its best to pray and discuss it with your Priest or spiritual advisor.
Regards, Wild Bill[/QUOTE]
Wild Bill,
Thanks for your comments. No, I don't find them the least bit insulting, and I likewise hope that neither you nor anyone else will be offended by anything I say.
Having said that, I need to ask: How do you know the Bible is infallible? How do you know that any part of it was divinely inspired? Many people believe as much simply because they were raised to believe it, and the fear of hell keeps them from asking questions about their faith. It was until fairly recently that I fell into that category myself.
There is a great deal in the Bible that doesn't add up or make any sense. There are explicit contradictions with known scientific fact, and there are internal contradictions. There is also a model of morality that my conscience rebels against. For example, we are told that Jesus was sent by God to save the world from eternal damnation. Why was God's creation in such danger? Because God didn't keep a talking snake out of the Garden of Eden? If God is perfect and knows everything, then why would he allow Adam and Eve to fall? Even more to the point, why should all of humanity be punished for Eve's act of eating an apple? Is that fair or just?
The Biblical account of the flood states that God sent it upon the earth because mankind's sin caused Him to be sorry that He made mankind. How is it possible for an infinitely perfect and omniscient Being to be "sorry" or "repent" for anything?
Christian tradition teaches that a certain angel, Lucifer, rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven; now this Lucifer is known by mankind as "Satan" or "the Devil" and roams the earth with his followers seeking to tempt men and lead them astray. Why did God create Lucifer if He knew that this was going to happen? And who tempted Lucifer into rebelling? There was no Devil yet! So, if no one tempted Lucifer into rebelling against God, then that means Lucifer was created with the potential for evil already in him. Where did that evil come from? It couldn't have come from God, who is held to be 100% perfect in every way.
I didn't ask to be born; why should I find myself brought into existence already in danger of eternal torture in hellfire, when I had never done anything wrong prior to my birth? Is that justice? If I create a robot and then give my enemy permission to program my robot to insult me, then should I be offended when the robot does, in fact, insult me?
To my knowledge, eternal punishment is not mentioned in the Old Testament except in one place (at the end of Isaiah). Hence, when God was giving the Mosaic Law to the Israelites, He never mentioned hell. Why not? Wouldn't it have made sense to let the early humans know what great danger they were in? And how can a God who loves His creation -- in fact, who is said to be Love -- possibly send any part of that creation to unimaginable torment for eternity? And as for those human being who make it to heaven, what's to stop them from rebelling once they're there, just as Lucifer did?
The above questions barely scratch the surface when it comes to difficulties with the Bible and with Christianity in general. Have I rejected my faith? No. But I have yet to hear anything even approaching a satisfactory answer to a single one of the above questions.
You'd think that if the Bible were written by God, then its tremendous importance would have led Him to make it perfectly clear to mankind, especially since anything a perfect God does can be expected to be perfect, and clarity in communication is part of perfection. As it turns out, the early Church council that voted on the inspiration of the many books under consideration for inclusion in the Bible couldn't even agree on the Canon, and that disagreement continues to this very day.
Others who have written a great deal about the enormous difficulties with Christianity are Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll. Here's a very powerful essay by the latter that expresses many of the reasons why my faith is exceedingly weak:
[url]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html[/url]
2003-12-02 15:57 | User Profile
Angler,
One thing I have noticed is that you keep linking to that 'infidels' site. Maybe you're spending too much time over there soaking in all that soul-killing negative vibe. You should go to tektonics or some other well-done apologetics site. Your questions are ones that one or another of us have pondered on at some point in our spiritual lives. I'm confident that the good Lord and the Scriptures themselves will eventually give you all the answers you're looking for and corresponding peace.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
2003-12-02 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Wild Bill,
Others who have written a great deal about the enormous difficulties with Christianity are Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll. Here's a very powerful essay by the latter that expresses many of the reasons why my faith is exceedingly weak:
[url]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I agree with our friend from Texas who wonders why you are exposing yourself to anti-Christian writings and propaganda specifically designed to create doubt!
Anti-Christians, like Satan himself, constantly use trick questions and expoitation of seeming Bible "contradictions" in an attempt to systematically destroy an individual's Faith. This tactic is as old as the hills and one must always be alert for this kind of subversion. (I would suggest that you refamiliarize yourself with the dialog between Eve and the devil.) Realize their tactic invariably relies on taking things out of context, but mostly on anticipation that their target will not seek explanation from knowledgable Christian sources.
Anyway, this is why I would seek wisdom from the writings of the ancient Church Fathers, a Priest, or Monastic well-versed in theology. Never would I allow unsettling issues to fester and subvert my Faith.
Let me say finally that I am no authority or very learned at all on the Bible and theology, but I do know that when a Bible question arises, there is an answer - maybe not an answer that explains each and every detail to the satisfaction of every person, since God has only given us Revelation, not full knowledge and understanding of His mind. Above all, the last place I would go is to the enemies of Jesus Christ.
In an effort to help you in a concrete manner, I'll suggest that you could try posting your questions on this message board. There are some Orthodox Priests there who may help you. Also there are others who know theology much better than I.
The Euphrosynos Café Message Board Discussion Forum [url]http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/[/url]
In the meantime, I will pray that understanding will come to you.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-02 17:50 | User Profile
Hi TD and Wild Bill,
The only reason I keep linking to the "infidels" site is that I haven't yet come across many others like it (although I'm sure they're out there). In contrast, I've spent my entire life reading the Bible, going to Church, and -- as soon as I gained Internet access -- spending a lot of time at Catholic and other Christian web sites. I have a collection of hundreds of downloaded articles from various apologetics pages on my hard drive. The reason I have so many articles is that, whenever I've gotten one of these tough questions stuck in my head, I've searched for relevant articles, read them, and then saved them for later reference.
Your advice, and that of others here and elsewhere, is sincerely appreciated. Don't worry -- I'm not ready to give up on Christianity yet, although it probably sounds like I already have from the stuff I'm writing. But that sort of brings up the question again: Why, if the Bible and Christianity are true, should we be afraid to question them? If they're true, then they should be able to withstand the most rigorous, hair-splitting scrutiny anybody can dish out. Like I said, up to this point no one has come anywhere near giving a satisfactory answer to questions like, "If Adam and Eve were created without the stain of original sin, then why did they succumb to the Serpent's temptation? And why did God allow them to be tempted in the first place? Why didn't God just create everyone in heaven from the beginning, unable to sin?" If I find the answers I'm looking for, I will certainly share them with others who might be having difficulty. But if no one else has ever been able to answer these questions, then what chance do I have? Even learning quantum mechanics and partial differential equations was far easier than figuring out these religious questions. Nevertheless, I'm not the type to give up.
Once again, thanks for your concern.
2003-12-02 18:01 | User Profile
Angler/Gregz,
Here are some compendia I use regularly that may assist you in finding answers.....
[url=http://bible.crosswalk.com/]crosswalk.com's Bible Study Tools[/url] -- has a free, online Strong's Concordance as well as numerous Bible translations
[url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/]Bible Gateway[/url] -- another useful online Bible site
[url=http://www.wels.net/sab/qa.html]WELS Questions and Answers[/url] -- doctrinal topics from a confessional Lutheran perspective by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
[url=http://www.lcms.org/cic/faqs.html]Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod FAQs[/url] -- not as doctrinally conservative as WELS, but some useful information nonetheless
[url=http://www.lcrusa.org/]Lutheran Churches of the Reformation[/url] -- By far the most conservative and doctrinally orthodox confessing Lutheran church body in North America....for example, they use only the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible for English services or Luther Bibel 1545 for use in German. Essentially this is what the Missouri Synod was prior to 1932. This site fetures an online transcription of "The Kretzmann Project," a series of orthodox Lutheran commentary by theologian Paul E. Kretzmann.
[url=http://www.watchman.org/watchman.htm]Watchman Fellowship[/url] -- Probably the best counter-cult resource in existence and on the Net. Massive database and profiles of nearly every fringe group out there.
2003-12-02 18:24 | User Profile
To follow up Centinel's excellent short list of resources, I would add the following:
[url=http://www.whitehorseinn.org]White Horse Inn[/url] - from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
[url=http://www.equip.org]Christian Research Institute[/url] - Anti-cult ministry started by the late Walter Martin and continued under Hank Henagraff, the 'Bible Answer Man'.
[url=http://www.tektonics.org]Tekton Apologetics Ministries[/url] - Apologetics ministry answering supposed biblical contradictions, skeptics, theological issues, etc.
2003-12-02 19:10 | User Profile
Thanks for the links, guys. I'll check them out.
2003-12-02 20:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Angler/Gregz,
Here are some compendia I use regularly that may assist you in finding answers.....
[url=http://www.watchman.org/watchman.htm]Watchman Fellowship[/url] -- Probably the best counter-cult resource in existence and on the Net. Massive database and profiles of nearly every fringe group out there.[/QUOTE]
This site contains a long list of groups, but I noticed that the owner of this site has Eastern Orthodox Christianity listed as a "cult." Strangely, I looked for the homo-loving Episcopalians, but no listing for them.
I wonder if this site is owned by another person who thinks the Holy Scriptures didn't exist until the King James version was published in 1611?
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-02 20:41 | User Profile
This site contains a long list of groups, but I noticed that the owner of this site has Eastern Orthodox Christianity listed as a "cult." Strangely, I looked for the homo-loving Episcopalians, but no listing for them.
Do you have a specific link to where Watchman lists Orthodoxy as such?
This is the only reference to Orthodoxy I found on the Watchman site:
[url]http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm[/url]
*Orthodox Christianity: Generically the term orthodox refers to traditional, conservative forms of Christianity, upholding the traditional Christian beliefs about God as a Trinity and about Jesus Christ as taught in the churchââ¬â¢s early creeds. In this sense orthodox Christianity includes conservative Roman Catholics, and Protestant, evangelical Christianity, and is opposed both to liberal Christianity within Christian denominations and to the teachings of the cults. More specifically, the term Orthodox (with a capital O; or, Eastern Orthodox) refers to the state churches of Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean who split with Roman Catholicism of the West largely over the issue of papal authority. *
I wouldn't call this branding Orthodoxy as a "cult"
2003-12-02 20:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Do you have a specific link to where Watchman lists Orthodoxy as such?
This is the only reference to Orthodoxy I found on the Watchman site:
[url]http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm[/url]
*Orthodox Christianity: Generically the term orthodox refers to traditional, conservative forms of Christianity, upholding the traditional Christian beliefs about God as a Trinity and about Jesus Christ as taught in the churchââ¬â¢s early creeds. In this sense orthodox Christianity includes conservative Roman Catholics, and Protestant, evangelical Christianity, and is opposed both to liberal Christianity within Christian denominations and to the teachings of the cults. More specifically, the term Orthodox (with a capital O; or, Eastern Orthodox) refers to the state churches of Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean who split with Roman Catholicism of the West largely over the issue of papal authority. *
I wouldn't call this branding Orthodoxy as a "cult"[/QUOTE]
Its certainly contained in the list entitled "Cult Index" located at the web address above, although their definition of Orthodoxy isn't necessarily derogatory or inaccurate.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-02 21:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Its certainly contained in the list entitled "Cult Index" located at the web address above, although their definition of Orthodoxy isn't necessarily derogatory or inaccurate.
Regards, Wild Bill[/QUOTE]
They have a disclaimer above clarifying their usage of the term "cult".
2003-12-02 21:50 | User Profile
I wonder if this site is owned by another person who thinks the Holy Scriptures didn't exist until the King James version was published in 1611?
I find it dishonest whenever any Protestant makes such a claim, though I think such hotheads are fewer and far between than Orthodox and Catholic folks like to caricature them as. Consider also that during the "dark ages" illiteracy was the norm and the printing press had yet to be invented as well.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a proponent of the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which the Authorized (King James) Version and the Luther Bibel 1545 are based upon, and I'm very grateful to the Orthodox Church for helping to preserve these Scripture texts over time.
D.A. Waite, a dispensationalist Baptist theologian who advocates the King James Bible and heads a Bible society known as the Dean Burgon Society for KJV advocacy, wrote this in his book [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568480121/qid=1070401044/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-8006692-8772158?v=glance&n=507846]Defending the King James Bible[/url]:
p.46...
c. Historical Evidence for the Received Text During the Byzantine Period (312--1453 A.D.)
[...]
(16) The Greek Orthodox Church used the Received Text. We don't agree with many of their doctrines, but that entire church for over 1,000 years has used the Received Text. Why? They know the Greek language. They're Greeks. Even though they are modern Greeks, they use the New Testament that is based upon the Received Text because it is the Word of God, and they know it.
(17) The present Greek Church still uses the Received Text. When Mrs. Waite and I were in Israel, we visited the church which is supposed to be on the place where Jesus was born, the Chruch of the Nativity. They have a big Church built on the site. It doesn't look anything like the original place, I am certain. I don't even think it is on the proper place. They have commercialized it. In Jerusalem, they have Christ born in various places, crucified in various places, and buried in several places. In the Church of the Nativity, Christ's supposed birth place, we met a Greek Orthodox priest. I said to him, "You're a member of the Greek Orthodox clergy, is that right?" He said "Yes," and then told us his name. I said, "You have a New Testament you use, don't you?" "Oh, yes," he said. I asked "Which text do you use? Are you familiar with the so-called Wescott-and Hort-type-text? " "Oh, yes," he said,
"We use the Received Text; we have no confidence at all in the Wescott and Hort text."
That was interesting. **The Greek Orthodox Church still goes back to the text that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE.[/B]
(italics and boldface are Waite's, not mine)
2003-12-02 21:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]They have a disclaimer above clarifying their usage of the term "cult".[/QUOTE]
They may have a disclaimer, but if accuracy was their intention, they could simply call the list something else besides "Cult Index."
In any case, its not a big deal.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-02 22:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]I find it dishonest whenever any Protestant makes such a claim, though I think such hotheads are fewer and far between than Orthodox and Catholic folks like to caricature them as. Consider also that during the "dark ages" illiteracy was the norm and the printing press had yet to be invented as well. [/QUOTE]
I am a little bit familiar with Rev. Waite from spending time at the Sermon Audio site, but I'm no expert on the Bible texts. I know that Orthodoxy has always favored the Greek Septuagint for Old Testament reading and considered anything based on the Masoretic to be suspect due to Jewish tinkering. Nonetheless, most people I know use either the King James or Revised Standard versions out of convenience. In case you don't know, Orthodoxy kept the Apocrypha books.
The mention of widespread illiteracy is interesting, since much is made by some people that the Rome suppressed the Bible to keep people ignorant. While I suspect there's doubtless some truth to that claim, the fact remains that few common people in those times could read, so even if every home had a Bible, it wouldn't have been much use. Incidently, this is one main reason why the early Church used Icons. These were used as educational aids for the largely-illiterate Church members.
Classic Icons [url]http://www.churchimports.com/prs_handpainted_icons.html[/url]
I think its unfortunate that many Protestants are convinced that Icons are "graven images" and therefore anti-biblical. The fact is these are part of our rich Christian history that not only reminds us of the early days of the Church when illiteracy was the norm, but in addition to constantly reminding us of Christ, the Icons also keep us from forgetting the great martyrs of the past. People should consider the difficulty the early theologians and clergy faced in trying to spread the teachings of Christ to folks who could not read.
Regards, Wild Bill