Thursday, October 4, 2007

She has a point,

new reader and frequent commenter Annie C made a good point on another thread. When I read it the words jumped off of the screen and I had an epiphany moment. I think Annie has hit the nail on the proverbial head. I don't think this holds true for all non-Catholic Christians but I think in this particular part of the blogosphere this might be true.

I have finally figured that the missals don't count. It only counts as "worship" if you are holding and actual, physical, approved bible in your hands. It's only worship if you're holding the bible, reading from the bible, following the bible letter by letter...

I'm actually at the point where I figure they are just worshiping the bible itself. The new golden calf has gilt edges and leather covers. They would walk right past Jesus on the street if he refused to look in one of their bibles.

After all, didn't he say "what you do for the least of these, you do for me?" But that's WORKS, you see, takes away from bible reading time.

I may have that quote wrong, I only read about a chapter a day from my bible, and don't bother memorizing it. I'd rather spent my time making baby layettes for the local Catholic charity maternity ward. All the WORKS we put in there goes a long way towards helping to lower the abortion rate. And yes, I do think God approves. ;)


Blondie said...

I totally agree with Annie - good point!

BTW WHAT is the deal with the 1611 KJV?? Why do Candy and so many fundies believe it is the "only" approved text?

Annie C said...

That version is the one approved by King James in 1611. So it had "approved" stamped on the cover. Since the Bible=God, God had spoken, this is the one he approved of.

That's the best I can make of it.

Kelly said...

I've seen this point made before, that many Bible-only Christians are worshiping the Bible. I believe it was Randall Balmer's Mine Eye's Have Seen The Glory, which was made into a PBS series.

Annie C said...

Never saw it Kelly. I can safely say I thought I was making an original obsrvation. ;)

I just find it telling that no one has taken me up on my challenge yet. If, as Jack Chick seems to at least imply if not outright say, it's a death sentance for a Catholic to even touch a bible, I'm suprised they're ignoring one willing to take the chance and spend a week cuddled up with the KJV. A week without their idols must me more than they can handle.

motherofmany said...

King James did not approve the 1611 version of the Bible. And it has been proved to be the most accurate translation, even after the unearthng of the dead sea scrolls. Other versions since have been made 'official' or 'approved' by many denominations and yet they are rejected because they have been altered. The other versions have many things taken out or translated incorrectly, which leads to false doctrines.

And no one is going to take your challenge seriosuly because you have already decided the outcome in your own mind.

It us not a matter of worshipping the Bible, but the one who inspired it. It is his letter to us, and it is therefore our line of communication in understanding the history of God's plan.

I have never prayed to my Bible, but if you search the dictionary for the definition of the word 'prayer', it means

"1. to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc., to (God or an object of worship)."

So if you want to accuse me of worshipping the Bible on those grounds, you are wrong, but I could say you do worship Mary and the apostles, and by this definition I am right.

Annie C said...

Well, no, Amy, I do not "offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc." to Mary or the Saints. I offer those to the Lord. But then unless you were sitting next to me when I was praying or happen to be telepathic you wouldn't know that.

On the other hand, while I believe in reading the Bible to better understand how the Lord expects us to act, I don't need it to pray. I can offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc. to the Lord all on my own, thanks, I have no need to use a Bible to do so.

I don't know if you feel this way, but Candy sure puts a big store on a church that uses the KJV and *only* the KJV to worship. I remember, was it last year that she was church shopping, and that was a huge criteria for her? And there was another poster on her blog who answered me and said that yes, it was only worship if you were holding and reading from a Bible. I submit that that makes the focus of the worship the Bible, and not the Lord. Otherwise you could worship without it just fine.

Now, my offer is sincere, I'm willing to go about the work with an open mind and give it an honest attempt. You have decided not to pick it up, fine. Maybe someone else will.

motherofmany said...

"But then unless you were sitting next to me when I was praying or happen to be telepathic you wouldn't know that"

Then how can you make the assumption that Fundamentalists worship the Bible?

Elena said...

1. to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc., to (God or an object of worship).
2. to offer (a prayer).
3. to bring, put, etc., by praying: to pray a soul into heaven.
4. to make earnest petition to (a person).
5. to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness.
6. to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc., to God or to an object of worship.
7. to enter into spiritual communion with God or an object of worship through prayer.
–verb (used without object)
8. to make entreaty or supplication, as to a person or for a thing.

Elena said...

I think Annie's point is getting lost in the discussion. Candy et al seem to believe that the only type of worship that counts for anything is the type that they practice, with bible in hand. They use the bible as a text book and the rule book. They seem to be totally lost without the printed word in bound form. It never occurs to them that for 1500 years Christians didn't have that luxury. It does indeed seem as though for them, the most important part of being a Christian is having and reading the bound, printed word.