- 25 Feb 2009 16:33
#1814707
What the heck are you babbling? The dictionary speaks of now. Both worship is translated now as reverence, and reverence as worship.
You are arguing semantics. You are denying worshiping saints, when Christianity does so by canon Law, you are trying to draw an artificial line between sacrifical worship and plain worship to deny the Saints of being worshiped. As I said God does take precedence in Christianity,. but that does not negate the worship paid to saints. You are aware that Christians officially venerate Saints, and you are trying to transform veneration to non-worship, because God takes precedence, failing to understand that veneration is an act of worship, and it is not quantifiable. You either worship or you dont, you either speak or you are mute. It is an act. being laconic, does not equate to being mute, ie speaking less does not negate the act of speech.
This is bollocks, and you know it and that is why the apologist in this site does not provide a source for it. He jumps like you did from Aquinas who mentions Lords and Kings as douleia to refer to Saints. In the end, if you have a source for this claim, source it. If he actually did have a source for this claim, he would have sourced it. And since you brought the words of Aquinas, who are most probably the source for it, and who does not use douleia to refer to saints, then it might had been infered that you are just ignorant had you not brought it forward, but your apologetics is intentional negation.
What a pile of unsourced garbage. St Augustine and Aquinas refer to men, not Saints who are by canon Holy, when utilizing douleia.
The modern sense of the word, is explicit, you are the one who fails to qualify that "veneration" is not "worship" when the modern dictionary tells you that it is as it has always been, and that worship is veneration and that veneration is worship. Hide behind semantics all you like, it doesnt change anything. Christians officially venerate Saints and consider them "Divine" and Holy. Twist and turn, you are only ridiculing yourself by negating your religion and your Saints.
No, the ETYMOLOGY of the word is explicit. Venerate comes from "Reverence", but they are not the same as worship, at least not anymore.
What the heck are you babbling? The dictionary speaks of now. Both worship is translated now as reverence, and reverence as worship.
You are using "worship" in an outdated sense, the same way that a Brit would call a magistrate "Your worship". That's not SACRIFICIAL worship, which is what is generally referred to today when someone says "Worship". SACRIFICIAL worship is due to God alone, and therefore confusing the issue by suggesting that Catholics "worship" Saints is inappropriate, because it suggests that they pay that sacrificial worship / latria / adoration towards Saints, when obviously they do not. Regardless of the etymology of the word, it's inappropriate to draw that conclusion.
You are arguing semantics. You are denying worshiping saints, when Christianity does so by canon Law, you are trying to draw an artificial line between sacrifical worship and plain worship to deny the Saints of being worshiped. As I said God does take precedence in Christianity,. but that does not negate the worship paid to saints. You are aware that Christians officially venerate Saints, and you are trying to transform veneration to non-worship, because God takes precedence, failing to understand that veneration is an act of worship, and it is not quantifiable. You either worship or you dont, you either speak or you are mute. It is an act. being laconic, does not equate to being mute, ie speaking less does not negate the act of speech.
As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints.
This is bollocks, and you know it and that is why the apologist in this site does not provide a source for it. He jumps like you did from Aquinas who mentions Lords and Kings as douleia to refer to Saints. In the end, if you have a source for this claim, source it. If he actually did have a source for this claim, he would have sourced it. And since you brought the words of Aquinas, who are most probably the source for it, and who does not use douleia to refer to saints, then it might had been infered that you are just ignorant had you not brought it forward, but your apologetics is intentional negation.
All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.
What a pile of unsourced garbage. St Augustine and Aquinas refer to men, not Saints who are by canon Holy, when utilizing douleia.
If you want to say that Catholics respect and honor the Saints, you'll get no argument from me. Arguing that they "Worship" them, without qualification, is incorrect according to the modern sense of the word.
The modern sense of the word, is explicit, you are the one who fails to qualify that "veneration" is not "worship" when the modern dictionary tells you that it is as it has always been, and that worship is veneration and that veneration is worship. Hide behind semantics all you like, it doesnt change anything. Christians officially venerate Saints and consider them "Divine" and Holy. Twist and turn, you are only ridiculing yourself by negating your religion and your Saints.
Last edited by noemon on 25 Feb 2009 16:57, edited 1 time in total.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
- By ingliz