In Christianity, the Use of the Crucifux is Idolatry

Introduction My opponent has conceded that not all graven images are idols which he implied via definition of “idol” and the use of the Scripture he presented in round 1. He also conceded that the use of the Crucifux is not idolatry in that the Crucifux itself is not worshipped. All I must argue is that creating a graven image of God is not idolatry. Remember, Wylted has the BOP so if he cannot argue beyond doubt that a graven image of God is in fact idolatry, I win this debate. The Point of my Examples Pro has dismissed my examples as essentially irrelevant, but I beg to differ. I provided the Scripture I provided to show, contrary to what my opponent implied, that the making of graven images is not idolatry as long as they are used to worship God. I then followed this by provided Scripture and reason to conclude that a graven image of God is not idolatry in accordance to the New Covenant in which God revealed himself. My opponent failed to respond to this, but I will provide rebuttals to my opponent’s arguments. Review of my Arguments In the previous round, I argued that the reason making graven images of God in the Old Testament could have been considered idolatry was because God had not yet revealed himself to the Jewish people. Because of this, if the Jews were to make a graven image of God they were often influenced by Paganism and depicted their own image of God, not how God was or chose to reveal himself. However, under the new Covenant God revealed himself as Jesus Christ (In addition to other representations), which allowed for the creation of graven images of God since God revealed himself to humanity. Again, Scripture supports this: Deuteronomy 4:15-18 – “You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.” I also used the story of the Magi visiting Jesus to show that Jesus is indeed God and is being worshipped, therefore he is the correct representation of God (unlike the golden calf the Jews used). When we combine all of this together we know: God did not forbid the creation of religious images if used to worship God. God did forbid the creation of graven images of himself because he had not yet revealed himself. God revealed himself through Jesus Christ. Therefore we can now create graven images of God in order to better worship God. “Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them. “ [1] Eternality of God’s Word My opponent attempts to argue that God’s word is final, and therefore the creation of a graven image of God is, and always will be idolatry. Pro states, “God ruled that any image representative of him is an idol.” However, this is utterly false. God specifically mentions in Deuteronomy 4 why he had forbidden graven images of Himself, and that was because he had not yet revealed himself to the Jews and the the Jews could easily fall to Pagan Culture. However, there is certainly no finality in this. This is because God offered a circumstance (that is if God did reveal himself), in which his rule would no longer apply because then the Jews would not be victims to Pagan Culture but rather be able to create a proper graven image of God. The Crucifux and Pagan Culture? Pro starts stumbling into non-topicality at this point by equating the Crucifux and depictions of Jesus with Pagan gods in order to desperately prove the use of the Crucifux to be an act of idolatry. It is overall irrelevant how the crucifix has been influenced. It is irrelevant what Jesus looked like and whether or not he was actually crucified on a cross. What is relevant is that God revealed himself through Jesus Christ, and as long as we depict Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ regardless of how this depiction has been influenced, then no sin of idolatry has been committed. In other words, God revealed himself as Jesus Christ, and it is therefore okay to create a graven image of Jesus Christ (regardless of how this image has been influenced culturally) in order to better worship God. In fact, Pro’s entire argument is a slippery slope. How far does it go? If Jesus shares the same facial features as some roman gods then so what? If Jesus is not that roman god nor is he worshipped as so nor are they connected in anyway then it is just completely irrelevant. It is irrelevant how Jesus was influenced, because if we create the depiction of the man Jesus, the Son of God, to be used to worship God as God intended, then no offense has been given. Also, Wylted’s statement that Christians are “depicting Pagan Gods and putting them around their necks” is complete balderdash. How Jesus looked may have been influenced by Pagan culture, but this does not change who Jesus was and what he did nor does it change what the Crucifux represents, nor is the statement even accurate. Cultures all around the world have influenced how Jesus looks. Pro’s own source states that Jesus has been depicted all sorts of ways and has been influenced by every sort of culture. Pro is going to extremes to go as far to claim that Christians are actually worshipping the god Osiris, which is blatantly false. I can’t stress it enough, that being influenced by does not equate to being. Nor is the image of Christ being influenced by culture a form of idolatry at all. Conclusion Pro has dropped everything and has chosen to exclusively argue that depiction of God are idolatry, but seems to ignore or not understand the point I had made in the previous round. I was forced to reiterate myself in addition to providing new rebuttals. In addition to this argument my opponent desperately attempts to argue that since the crucifix was influenced by culture it is therefore idolatrous. He even goes as far as to equate the depicted Jesus to Pagan gods. I argued that influence is overall irrelevant to the topic at hand is not idolatry. Over to you. [1] http://www.catholic.com...