So Endurace, you believe that if a apostle spoke of Jesus to a third party and how he looked like was commiting idolatry? because he gave food for imagination to a third party person how he looks like?
i know from the bible that Jesus was a male, that Jesus was a jew and that jesus was in his thirties and that jesus had hair, am i doing idolatry for imaging a jewish mid thirties person with hair when i read it?
am i commiting idolatry for perceiving what is - the word you love using - truth ?
and am i doing wrong by painting what everyone thinks anyway? i mean it all happend, it all is truth... what is being dispicted in christian artwork aren't lies, it resemblances a man who once lived... if we see such truth as a graven image, then you are agreeing with the muslims who say that God had made a craven image by 'creating' a body.
Catholics have firmly defensive arguments for all their stances, wich is all based upon early christian tradition... it's doctrine is based upon a far larger christian context then a bible taken literal... The pure literal translation wich certain fundamental protestant groups (southern baptists, calvinists, etc... -- not that i have anything against them) uphold leads to missunderstandings and conflicting theologies wich result in discriminating others. You my friend are doing nothing short of that...
you agree that catholics are christians but secondly you believe they all are doomed... make up your mind
either their not christians and they are all doomed
or they are christians and they are saved
if it's the first then you have some issues, if it's the latter then what's the problem?