>>17769517
Imagine thinking anyone is going to sift through that desperate wall of text. Nobody should be wasting their time with that, and I think it's another case of a clueless tradcath relying on the cherrypicking of his propagandists. You guys don't read the church fathers, you don't study church history, your knowledge is generally derived from memes and CatholicAnswers articles. I read the first post in the spam wall, which consists of three citations.

The first two are completely irrelevant, since they do not even mention images. The third citation, from Tertullian, further reinforces the impression the spammer is regurgitating a cherrypicked list. He never makes any claims about Christians possessing or using images in religious worship, but the entire quotation is a defense of the brazen serpent and ark of the covenant as consistent with the 2nd commandment. Is the Romanist's impression that a Protestant would disagree with this? Nor does his defense imply their worship of images is accretion, but on the contrary defends them by asserting their purposes were healing and ornamentation, and not to be objects of worship. Surely he would have fiercely refused the modern images of the Romanists and Greeks the purpose of which is to be worshipped.
>>17769519
>My definition of worship is obviously not the same as yours
OK, I use God's definition. Isaiah 42:8
>I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.