Idoltry

[Dark Muse]

Considering how much Christianity has criticized other religions for having statues of their Gods, and considering how much ancient and sacred artwork they have in the past destroyed for this very reason, why is it than ok for them to have numberless imagers, sculptures, engravings, etc. of Christ, the Madonna, the Saints and various other Biblical subjects?

Is idolatry only considered a sin in their minds if enacted by another religion?

[jgweed]

I do not think that each and every Christian sect accepts idolatry as something sinful, or forbids icons, paintings and religious statues.

[patrickbeverley]

Most Christian denominations don't consider making sacred images idolatrous, provided it is God, not the images, actually being worshipped. Catholics push this doctrine to its limits with saint icons. The Puritans, like Muslims, believed that making the images was indeed idolatry and forbade it.

The destruction of other cultures' sacred art was an unfortunate consequence of wilful misunderstanding on the part of missionaries, for whom it was simply easier to assume that Africans etc. were worshipping carved pieces of wood than to try to engage with the actual substance of the religions they were encountering.

[Dark Muse]

Most Christian denominations don't consider making sacred images idolatrous, provided it is God, not the images, actually being worshipped.

That is the very thing I have a problem with. As far as I am concered, praying to the image of Christ engraved upon a Crucifix is no different than if I have a statue of a Pagan God upon my Altar that I pray to.

[Virgil]

Dark Muse, there is a long history of civil war within Christianity on the use of idols. It is complicated and has taken several turns. Perhaps you shopuld read up on it. But here are a couple of web sites that may have some of the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Christianity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism. Actually instead of being critical as a pagan (I think you said you were) you should feel honored that Christianity absorbed some of the pagan traditions. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

[Dark Muse]

The problem is they simply stole what they liked from the Pagans, and than had the nerve to turn around and condem Paganism. Hinduism has truely absorbed things from many different cultures, but they also respect other religions.

Christains, did what they did to try and make converting Pagans easier, and the things they do not like about Pagansim they say is vile and comes from Satan.

[Virgil]

The problem is they simply stole what they liked from the Pagans, and than had the nerve to turn around and condem Paganism. Hinduism has truely absorbed things from many different cultures, but they also respect other religions.

Christains, did what they did to try and make converting Pagans easier, and the things they do not like about Pagansim they say is vile and comes from Satan.

Not to get picky, but pagans did persecute Christians. ;) Are we really going to relive battles from two thousand years ago?

[Dark Muse]

Well the Christain attitude has not really changed they still want to tell everyone else how to live thier life and still hold old world views and ideas about Pagansim. I still meet people that tell me that I worship the devil, and Satan is just deciving me, and that the pentagram in a satanic symbol.

[Redzeppelin]

Well the Christain attitude has not really changed they still want to tell everyone else how to live thier life and still hold old world views and ideas about Pagansim. I still meet people that tell me that I worship the devil, and Satan is just deciving me, and that the pentagram in a satanic symbol.

Well, how is the Christian attitude towards you any different from yours toward them? Don't you think they'd be better off embracing your belief system?

Here's a thought: what if they're right?

I'm not sure why you're so offended by Christians telling you their take on what you believe - I'm sure you're not shy about sharing your take on what they believe.

Christians don't want to tell people "how to live" (not real ones, at least); real Christians want to share the truth about Jesus Christ and the freedom he has offered us. Remember: we think the Bible is true, that heaven and hell are real places, and we want as many people to make the right choice as possible. We share because we want people to know God because we think knowing Him is the greatest thing that a person could ever experience; all people want to share things that matter to them. I'm sorry if some have laid condemnation on you - we're all humans and capable of screwing things up.

[Dark Muse]

But I do not believe in trying to convert other people I might argue with Christians about things I find hypocritical in what they believe, but I truly do not think they are going to be tormented in the afterlife, or that their souls should be punished because they believe in something different. I do not tell them how they should believe just because I disagree with them. And my main points of disagreeing with them is in their lack of respect for what I believe in.

I really do not care if others belief in what I believe or not, because all that matters to me is what I believe in it, and I let others find their own path, but I think the Christian attitude of I am right and everyone else wrong is arrogant and insulting.

I am not saying my belief is the only right one, or that it is better than any other belief and that all other belief are evil. I follow the old Hindu philosophy that there are many paths up the same mountain top.

And the way I see it, if I choose to live my life in a way that Christians think is damming my soul, well it is my soul to do with what I want, I do not need someone else trying to "save" me because I find that to be patronizing.

My criticism of Christianity is not of the religion in itself, but the way a percentage of Christians tend to treat other people who think different than they do.

[aabbcc]

Most of what I am about to write now is going to be mere paraphrasing Fromm, from his, as he wrote himself, radical interpretation of OT, for I honestly cannot convey into words better the phenomenon of idolatry than he did, so please keep that in mind.

NB: By "concept", here I do not mean purely "idea", but rather the definition thereof from formal logic - the thought about the essential qualities of a phenomenon. The concept of a say, book, is made by abstracting from individual qualities of an individual book and focusing only on that which in essence separates the existing phenomenon of a book from any other non-book phenomenon, that is, only on the essential qualities of a book as a book.
Now, Fromm says, if a concept is alienated, separated from the experience it is connected with, then it loses reality and turns into an artefact of human mind. Then emerges the misconception that anyone who uses certain concept assumes a substract of experience which is found in its essence. Once when this takes place, and the process of alienation of concepts is more of a rule than of exception, the idea representing some experience transformates into ideology which takes the place of belonging reality inside of a human being.

In the context of that, idol, in religious sense, according to Fromm, is an alienated form of man's experience of himself. Man, transferring his passions and qualities on the idols, in the essence prays himself, but partially (to the "part" of intelligence, power, strength, you name it), and herein lies the rub. Man thus identifies only with one aspect of himself, and loses his totality as human being, becoming dependant on the idol in which he can find his shadow, but not his essence.
Idolatry, thus, creates a closed system, essentially ruled by man->fear relation, and man's relation to and love of death. Idol is not living, even less so living in continuum as in constantly expanding; idol is dead, idol is a thing. And the most important - to the nature of man, idol, as such alienated form of a man itself, is The Other. (I am actually not sure if Fromm states that last thing or if it is a logical consequence I came to.)

The whole issue Bible creates on the difference between idolatry and G-d's worship is the point that G-d is not the idol, G-d is not alienated artefact of man's experience of himself, from the perspective of Bible. G-d is a living god, of imperfective verbal nature, without a name (for only perfective things can be named - see my entry in a thread about Jesus/God about that thing with G-d's name), and as such represents an open system based on love of life rather than fear of the Self through the object of the Other. In a way, idolatry in Bible is represented almost as self-punishment, and G-d condemns idolatry seriously, partially because of these things.

Now - Fromm part ends here - the thing is that you can create an image, sound of representation only of something perfective, whose existence and being are not constantly being expanded, and Bible views G-d as unlimited, but also unlimited in time. As such, G-d cannot be conveyed (or, by more radical interpretations such as Fromm's, even named). True, on the level of functioning of a symbolic, sopra-organic reality, G-d can be "represented" by any given symbol (even the word G-d is a try of doing that), but if you do that, the above process of alienation of an idea of G-d takes place very seriously. That is why Judaism denies any kind of "representation" of G-d and takes it so drastically that Jews even write G-d instead of "God", never pronounce its supposed name, etc, anything, just in order for it to be the least "represented" possible so the substract of experience of G-d would not alienate and became idolatry, as Judaism itself was basically made on the oppositing of idolatry.

Christianity... is a completely different religion than Judaism, with completely different "logic" behind it, and no matter what they say to try to diminish that difference and present themselves as a sort of 'sequel' to Judaism, it just does not function as its "logic" is different. See, when you take Judaism, as a philosophical and religious orientation, it assumes a matrix of beliefs, practices, ideas and "logic" glueing them, and Christianity had failed, from the point of doctrine on, to be a sequel to that matrix or to fit it. That is why, essentially, Christianity is a completely different thing despite the fact they share half of their Scripture with us.
From the point of view of Judaism, Christianity is an idolatrous religion in the very deep and very harsh sense of that idea. I realise, of course, that there are numerous counter-arguments from Christian side on that, however they all are based on the logic of some of the matrices of Christianity they emerge from; but logic of the matrix of Judaism just does not accept Christianity as non-idolatrous.

I do not believe that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to idolatry as much as I simply think that they have different definition of idolatry, even though from my point of view (as non-observant Jew who simply takes intellectual pleasure in religious studies :D) it is all idolatry. You cannot, as the author of the thread pointed, pray to a mini-statue of a crucified guy and not consider that idolatry, even if you say you pray to concept rather than material representation thereof. Not to mention Orthodox Christianity and the usage of icons not only of Jesus, but also of saints, nor the tradition of kissing those icons (just as tradition of kissing the crucified mini-statue of Jesus in some Catholic churches), nor the phenomenon of Virgin Mary, ecc. By the logic of Judaism, that is idolatry. By the logic of Christianity, it is not, though I have not yet found a satisfying explanation on why it is not. I hope I will, as I would really love to figure out the "logic" of Christianity, and I somehow cannot seem to, despite having lived all my life in Christian countries (mainly Catholic, for lesser part in Orthodox). However, despite intellectual curiosity about it, I could honestly not care less, so maybe that is the reason why. :D

[patrickbeverley]

I still meet people that tell me that I worship the devil, and Satan is just deciving me, and that the pentagram in a satanic symbol.
I say that sometimes. I know it's inaccurate, but I just love pissing off pagans.

[Dark Muse]

Well I cannot complain about that, sense I love pissing Christians off *wink*

One of my faveorite things, is that I have this cross that I wear all the time, I have always loved crosses, and they do pre-date Christianity, but of course everyone now associates the cross with Christainity.

So often when people see it they will ask me if I am Catholic, and than they ask me if I am Christain, and finally they ask me what religon I do belong to.

And when I tell them I am a Pagan, the look on thier face is priceless.

Thier brows raise, and they get this forzen grin, why nodding and backing away slowly, and say "Oh...that is....interesting" in a half-frightend way.

[Guinivere]

So often when people see it they will ask me if I am Catholic, and than they ask me if I am Christain, and finally they ask me what religon I do belong to.

And when I tell them I am a Pagan, the look on thier face is priceless.

Thier brows raise, and they get this forzen grin, why nodding and backing away slowly, and say "Oh...that is....interesting" in a half-frightend way.

I know what you mean, only with me where I come from especially my generation nobody believes in Christ. So when I am asked why the hell I'm wearing a cross around my neck, they back off. T'is a strange world we live in, strange times I should say.

I sometimes ask myself why so many people think that being a christian is a cross to bear. I tolerate other religions I just don't think theiý are on the right path. But so does every true believer of his or her faith. Otherwise the whole concept of faith and religion would be wrong. If one doesn't think one's way so salvation or enlightment is right why persue it ?

[Dark Muse]

Well the way I view it, I belive my path is right for me, but that does not make it right for everyone else. I do not think that everyone would be better off beliving what I belive, becasue people are different. But I do belive that my faith is the only one for me. But that does not mean it is the only one for everyone.

[aabbcc]

Well I cannot complain about that, sense I love pissing Christians off *wink*
You would then enjoy prose of Fernando Pessoa / Ricardo Reis, particularly his blabbering on the nature of paganism versus what he calls 'christianism'. :rolleyes: Not that there are not some tremendous and laughable nonsense in those essays (alongside some rather valid points), but most of your opponents would not notice it anyway so you could use some arguments he points to if you discuss those issues with Christians. :D

[micheel george]

Harry potter is one of the famous book in the world. The author of this session is JK rowling.
The new edision has sold about 6.9 millions copies in first 24 hours. It was a sales record in US.

---------
micheel george
social media marketing (http://www.inspire-itsolutions.com)

[blazeofglory]

Considering how much Christianity has criticized other religions for having statues of their Gods, and considering how much ancient and sacred artwork they have in the past destroyed for this very reason, why is it than ok for them to have numberless imagers, sculptures, engravings, etc. of Christ, the Madonna, the Saints and various other Biblical subjects?

Is idolatry only considered a sin in their minds if enacted by another religion?

Yours is a very valid and pertinence question. In my part of the world, that is Nepal missionaries are occupied with teaching the innocnet and gullible poor that idolatry is un-sacred or profane works. They pay the poor and take advantage of their gullibility and convert them into Christianity.

Currently they are doing something commendable and praiseworthy as they set up missionary schools and do some charitable works. But this is a short term advantage but they disrupt the age old tradition that has passed the test of time.

[Dark Muse]

It just amazes me, how if Christians do something, than it is good, and right.

But if another religion does the exact same thing, it becomes evil and wrong, and the work of the devil.

Like in Catholicism, they think the alleged bones, clothes, hair, teeth, etc... can heal them. So they have these reliquaries in their churches that peope pray to.

Now if another religion did something like that, it would be viewed as primitive, superstitious, and vile.

[patrickbeverley]

Well I cannot complain about that, sense I love pissing Christians off *wink*
No-one loves pissing Discordians off, because our god is nuts. :eek:

[Dark Muse]

I think the Principia Discordia is hillarious

[patrickbeverley]

Me too. I have a framed picture of Emperor Norton on my wall

[Jozanny]

Like in Catholicism, they think the alleged bones, clothes, hair, teeth, etc... can heal them. So they have these reliquaries in their churches that peope pray to.

As I was raised Roman Catholic, the word is relics Dark, and you don't have it quite right. Saints become saints because they imitate the life of Christ nearly perfectly. They may have sinned in the past, converted, became martyrs, doesn't matter. They are considered true disciples, and because their faith is so pure, and steadfast, they may intercede with God on behalf of a lowly supplicant like myself.

An example: You get sent to the principal's office, but an honor roll student who is President of the chess club or debate team defends you, and the principal considers that because the honor student is a straight arrow. Sainthood, in Catholicism, follows the same principle.

Thus, relics from the saints were prized by the faithful, and con artists took advantage of this, and profited off a lot of sheep bones.

Doesn't happen so much today. Items usually consist of blessed metals and other approved items.

It helps to know something about what you're objecting to.:p
http://www.catholic.org/saints/

[Dark Muse]

I think you kind of missed the point of the argument.

Which to boil it down into simple terms.

If a Christain has a religious practice, whatever it might be, it is good

if another religion, preforms the same ritual it is bad.

In the eyes of a precentage of Christians

[Jozanny]

I think you kind of missed the point of the argument.

Which to boil it down into simple terms.

If a Christain has a religious practice, whatever it might be, it is good

if another religion, preforms the same ritual it is bad.

In the eyes of a precentage of Christians

Well, believing one doctrine over another is what religion is about Dark. Christianity holds that Jesus is God, at least the majority of denominations, so paganism is considered sacrilege. With other monotheistic faiths, like Judaism and Islam, things are a tad stickier, because the three groups claim the same God. And a lotta blood fed back into the earth over that, sometimes with more or less tolerance.

I have, however, expended my ontological bickering from yesterday into a kind of droll weariness.

Luck to ya.;)

[Dark Muse]

There is a difference between choosing one beleif over another, and saying all other beleifs are evil and wrong.

I can beleive differently from another person, without acutally thinking ill of them or of what they beleive in.

[Redzeppelin]

But I do not believe in trying to convert other people I might argue with Christians about things I find hypocritical in what they believe, but I truly do not think they are going to be tormented in the afterlife, or that their souls should be punished because they believe in something different. I do not tell them how they should believe just because I disagree with them. And my main points of disagreeing with them is in their lack of respect for what I believe in.

The reason conversion is important to Christians is because we do not believe that life is a "static" thing; we believe there are two forces at war - those of God, and those of Satan - and that there is no "middle ground." As such, we believe that all people are either moving towards God, or away from Him. There are Christians in both categories, just as there are nonbelievers in both categories. Some people who go by the name of "Christian" are slowly moving away from God (though they may think otherwise); likewise, there are nonbelievers who are moving towards God (though they too may think otherwise). That's why it's important to us to share the Gospel - God has told us that we are to love our fellow human - and you love your fellow human by telling him/her the danger that lies in rejecting God.

Second, the issue is not "believing" in "something different," it is in believing something wrong. I understand that today's postmodern, relativistic culture that saying such is wildly unpopular, but logic speaks clearly: with so many belief systems out there (most of which are contradictory to each other while simultaneously maintaining possession of exclusive truth) we are faced with the reality that either one is right, or all of them are wrong. They can't all be right (and you yourself probably believe that Christianity is wrong - so how is that different from Christians telling you your belief system is wrong?


I really do not care if others belief in what I believe or not, because all that matters to me is what I believe in it, and I let others find their own path, but I think the Christian attitude of I am right and everyone else wrong is arrogant and insulting.

And this is what makes Christianity different from many other beliefs: rather than a "whatever - I'm not concerned about the lives of others" Christianity is based upon serving others and loving your fellow brother and sister.

Christians are not the only ones who believe they are right and all others are wrong; Islam and Judiasm does so as well - and please don't tell me that pagans think everybody else is right as well. Almost all belief systems are exclusive in that they claim to have the truth. The minute those truths disagree/contradict each other, one or both have to be wrong.


I am not saying my belief is the only right one, or that it is better than any other belief and that all other belief are evil. I follow the old Hindu philosophy that there are many paths up the same mountain top.

But, as I've said: the idea that "all roads lead to Rome" doesn't work when it comes to God because not all religions agree as to whom God is. Rome we can agree on; God, not. All roads lead to a different "version" of God. Not every version of "God" is correct.


And the way I see it, if I choose to live my life in a way that Christians think is damming my soul, well it is my soul to do with what I want, I do not need someone else trying to "save" me because I find that to be patronizing.

I don't get why nonbelievers are so offended by someone sharing a belief that they believe has changed their life for the better (unless the person sharing is more concerned with condemnation rather than showing the goodness of God). I get accosted by people with whom I do not theologically agree (Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Wiccans) and it doesn't ruffle my fur one bit for them to tell me that I'm wrong or my beliefs are mistaken.

Try to see it this way: ideally, the desire to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an act of love (remember, I said "ideally" - Christians are human and don't always succeed in being Christ-like) because it is the act of sharing with someone else what we believe to be the greatest gift that a human can be given: eternal life with the Creator of the Universe (with its obverse side that rejection of that Creator results in damnation). It is less a desire to impose our will as to share what we believe to be life-saving, life-changing information.


My criticism of Christianity is not of the religion in itself, but the way a percentage of Christians tend to treat other people who think different than they do.

Absolutely, totally fair criticism.


Well I cannot complain about that, sense I love pissing Christians off *wink*

I find this very sad; is this something to recommend paganism in terms of being a worthy belief system to follow/believe? Is this what makes you and your system of belief so superior to ours? To annoy someone with a different belief system - to goad them for believing as fervently in their world view as you do in your system? After all that ranting about being judged by Christians, this comment is supposed to place you on a higher, more enlightened plane?

Disappointing, to say the least. I suggest that you'd have a difficult time finding a Christian in these forums saying something similar: "I love aggravating the hell-bound pagans."

I find this disclosure pleasingly ironic.

[Dark Muse]

I find this very sad; is this something to recommend paganism in terms of being a worthy belief system to follow/believe? Is this what makes you and your system of belief so superior to ours? To annoy someone with a different belief system - to goad them for believing as fervently in their world view as you do in your system? After all that ranting about being judged by Christians, this comment is supposed to place you on a higher, more enlightened plane?

Disappointing, to say the least. I suggest that you'd have a difficult time finding a Christian in these forums saying something similar: "I love aggravating the hell-bound pagans."

I find this disclosure pleasingly ironic.

I just wanted to say to this real quick, if the wink was not a clue, the comment was made in jest as a direct response to what Peter I think his name was, said about pissing off Pagans. It was just a joke between the two of us. I tried to make that clear.

As for some of the other things you said regaurding sharing the word of God, what I will say to that, is that is what I have a problem with is the way some of them go about thier so called sharing.

Though it may be hard to beleive, I do not just automatically start accousting Christains, simply becasue they are Christains. If I am talking to someone and I find out someone I am talking to is Christain I do not instnatly start getting on thier case about thier religion. That only comes if they first begin to insult my beleifs.

And I do have a problem with the idea, that even if you do live your life as a good person, if you do not belive in the right thing or worship the right god in the right way than you are going to be eternally punnished in the afterlife.

And yet a Christain can do horrible things and still go to heaven as long as they ask for fogiveness.

I do not think that all Christains deserve to be punished in the afterlife, just becasue they are Christain.

[curlyqlink]

You would then enjoy prose of Fernando Pessoa / Ricardo Reis

I keep encountering this name, Ricardo Reis. Who is he? Can you point me to some of his writings?

As to idolatry: it seems to me an "idol" is just a god you happen not to believe in...

[Dark Muse]

That is a good way to put it Curly.

[Jozanny]

As to idolatry: it seems to me an "idol" is just a god you happen not to believe in...

Oh, I dunno curly;) . I may regret wading back in on this once again, but I think, purely in terms of a rational system, that Semitic Theism is a mature moral advance over natural animism. However, if I do not believe in a God as Personhood, I have less sympathy for belief in water spirits, supernatural abilities of totems, god-birds, and the like.

But I do think DarkMuse is confusing, perhaps, desire to belong with minority belief.

I do not get upset that Christians may pity me because death will bring with it separation from God.

I think it takes courage to be an Atheist, to assert that life is a process, with a beginning and an end, and that is it, that moral values develop independently of religions, their systems, and faith in it.

I may observe the other side, may read thinkers on it, even read theology, but I do not miss the trade off of not engaging in the social rituals of worship as opposed to my independence from it.

Now, some things I'd love to scuttle: my disability, emotional pain, loss, to some extent my cynicism, but as Powell has been known to say, "once you break it, you own it."

And I've broken it in too many places to go back again that way. It seems cruel to me that a deity would condemn its children for not accepting one creed over another. I cannot balance the moral scales there, that pre-Christians are forced into separation from God simply because the Man Jesus wasn't around for them, or that a Hindi goes to hell because gods have a scaled rank and different natures, similar, in fact, to the Catholic flirtation with polytheism, which is nearly what the sainthood coda is.

By my mid-30's, I had closed the book on it, and I doubt I'll open it again even for study of eastern mysticism.

My journey, my needs, my healing, will lie on other roads. But I embrace the positive aspects of conclusions I've reached thus far.

[Dark Muse]

But I do think DarkMuse is confusing, perhaps, desire to belong with minority belief.

Not at all, I just enjoy a bit of theological debate. I tend to be naturally argumentative and often find myself in the role of Devil's Advocate, no pun intended.

Though when I first posted this, it did start out with my genuine curiosity to see how other's would respond to the initial question, sense it took off in so many different directions I am just having fun with it.

[Jozanny]

Not at all, I just enjoy a bit of theological debate. I tend to be naturally argumentative and often find myself in the role of Devil's Advocate, no pun intended.

Though when I first posted this, it did start out with my genuine curiosity to see how other's would respond to the initial question, sense it took off in so many different directions I am just having fun with it.

Cool!:thumbs_up

[aabbcc]

I keep encountering this name, Ricardo Reis. Who is he? Can you point me to some of his writings?
Ricardo Reis is one of Fernando Pessoa's heteronyms.
You can read more about Fernando Pessoa, his heteronyms and work on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Pessoa).

So specifically, I was referring to a set of essays Fernando Pessoa wrote as Ricardo Reis, in which he deals with the nature of paganism as opposed to the nature of 'christianism', why not every polytheism is paganism, what are the constructive elements of 'christianism' and why is 'christianism' itself decadent, etc.

[curlyqlink]

I think, purely in terms of a rational system, that Semitic Theism is a mature moral advance over natural animism

I think it is a conceptual advance, but I can't agree that it is a moral advance. In some ways I think it may even be a moral reversal; because of its absolutism, monotheism is arguably far less tolerant than polytheistic religions, and for the same reason has proven itself a fertile breeding ground of fanaticism.


I have less sympathy for belief in water spirits, supernatural abilities of totems, god-birds, and the like.
For my part, I wonder how literally the ancients "believed" in their gods. Did they think Jove was literally up there in the clouds, hurling thunderbolts and despoiling the occasional virgin? Or did they simply see them as useful and somewhat whimsical metaphors? Or something in between? As I read Ovid's Metamorphoses, I find myself more and more convinced that nobody could have taken these stories as the literal truth... and yet I remind myself that right now in the year 2008 educated people who have been given a decent education in the sciences continue to believe in miracles, angels, and virgin birth. Go figure.


the Catholic flirtation with polytheism, which is nearly what the sainthood coda is.
This brings me back to my point that an idol is a god you don't happen to believe in. Catholics have all sorts of saintly icons, which is either on the one hand idolatry and a kind of polytheism, or on the other hand is a rich addition to the Western artistic canon, depending on your point of view. Protestants tend to focus on Jesus and the crucifix. Interestingly, God the father seems to get little press in either church; I think this is because it is psychologically necessary to make gods accessible. Hence, the seemingly strange practice of praying to Mary or praying with eyes fixed on a crucifix among practitioners of a religion that specifically warns against graven images and false gods. Interestingly, the practice of worshiping secondary gods preferentially was also seen among the Norse, for whom Thor was much more popular than Odin. Perhaps Odin and God the Father are just too distant, abstract, and scary to offer much psychological comfort.

[Redzeppelin]

I just wanted to say to this real quick, if the wink was not a clue, the comment was made in jest as a direct response to what Peter I think his name was, said about pissing off Pagans. It was just a joke between the two of us. I tried to make that clear.

My error. Excuse my jumping to conclusions.


As for some of the other things you said regaurding sharing the word of God, what I will say to that, is that is what I have a problem with is the way some of them go about thier so called sharing.

No disagreement there. I will simply add that Christians are not in an exclusive club when it comes to their beliefs; all systems of thought contain offensive zealots (even Pagans).


And I do have a problem with the idea, that even if you do live your life as a good person, if you do not belive in the right thing or worship the right god in the right way than you are going to be eternally punnished in the afterlife.

And yet a Christain can do horrible things and still go to heaven as long as they ask for fogiveness.

I do not think that all Christains deserve to be punished in the afterlife, just becasue they are Christain.

The problem is this: for a Christian, there is only one "right" God - because there are no other contenders. God created all that is and all that is not of Him, all that is in opposition to Him and His character is death. God doesn't "eternally punish" you for not choosing Him; He honors your choice to be your own master. If you refuse to eat food or drink water, you will die - period. Our bodies must have those things. The Christian believes (based on the Bible) that God is the source of all life in the universe. You live and breathe because God sustains you. You may reject Him in this life, but He will continue to try and call you back to Him because He loves you and doesn't want you to make the choice that results in the loss of Him - because to fully, completely, and finally reject God, is to reject Life itself. God puts nobody in Hell - they choose that destination because they believed that it was better to rule their own lives than to surrender them to He who loves us perfectly and completely. Our eternal destination is our choice, not God's - He simply honors our choice. That's called "love."

[Dark Muse]

If Hell was not a puishment, than why do Christains use is as a threat to get people to think like they do?

If Hell really was about "love" and honoring ones choice, than it would not be a place of torture and suffering, it would be a meadow somewhere outside of heaven.

To me, that would be if someone tried to say. "Well prison is not really a punsiment, but we lock prisoners up and take away thier rights, becasue we love them, and want to honor thier choice not to participate properly in scoiety"

[Redzeppelin]

If Hell was not a puishment, than why do Christains use is as a threat to get people to think like they do?

If Hell really was about "love" and honoring ones choice, than it would not be a place of torture and suffering, it would be a meadow somewhere outside of heaven.

To me, that would be if someone tried to say. "Well prison is not really a punsiment, but we lock prisoners up and take away thier rights, becasue we love them, and want to honor thier choice not to participate properly in scoiety"

1. Christians use hell like doctors use cancer to wake up smokers to the reality of their choices. Rejecting God leads to hell - because God will not force anybody to live eternally with Himself. Surprisingly, a good many people will choose to reject God's ownership of them and be their own masters. The problem with this is that God = Life.

2. Hell is about respect (which is a focal component of love). God will not force anybody to serve Him, love Him, accept Him. Hell is His honoring of their choice; but remember: God did not decide what the consequences of rejecting Him are: they just are. All that is opposed to God, all that is not of God, is death. God cannot make that which is not Him, Him. To do so would require the overriding of free will, and He won't do that.

3. Most people's problem with God and Hell is that they assume that God sets all the rules arbitrarily. God cannot do that which is illogical or goes against His own character. As a just, loving God, God will allow His creatures to serve something else but Him, but since He created us, the only way to live is to turn to the source of Life itself. We're free to choose death, but we don't get to complain that choosing death kills us. Just like a smoker who refuses to quit: he doesn't get to complain about his suffering - he chose it.

[aabbcc]

:thumbs_up Great post.

2. Hell is about respect (which is a focal component of love). God will not force anybody to serve Him, love Him, accept Him. Hell is His honoring of their choice; but remember: God did not decide what the consequences of rejecting Him are: they just are. All that is opposed to God, all that is not of God, is death. God cannot make that which is not Him, Him. To do so would require the overriding of free will, and He won't do that.
This reminds me of an interesting thing - theologically, sin is considered a deviation from G-d's will, and consequently, from His essence.

If you put things this way, you realize that the relation between deviation from G-d and hell is not the simple relation between "crime" and "punishment". Hell indeed is not a classical punishment G-d will subject you to - it is a logical consequence of your choice rather than somebody's decision from spite and cannot be avoided.
The consequence of declining from the nature of something are stepping into the Other to that something. Therefore, the consequence of the deviation from G-d is necessarily stepping into the realm of that which G-d is not, so hell is portrayed the way it is portrayed in order to emphasise the difference between G-d and Other. For, the difference is bound to be drastic - remember that the attributes of G-d are absolute in classical theology.


3. Most people's problem with God and Hell is that they assume that God sets all the rules arbitrarily. God cannot do that which is illogical or goes against His own character.
Excellent, somebody finally brought up this issue. :)

There is indeed a theory that the G-d's arbitrary decision is the only thing which caused our logic and ethics. That theory, however, has a potential problem - if you put things this way, G-d 'removes' from His own universe, there is no way for that decision to be understood by the means of G-d's nature (as it is arbitrary), and He splits. You split Him into "His will" and "His essence", and you say there is no necessary relation between those. Theologically, that is kind of problematic.

But, if His will is His essence, G-d does not 'make' rules in the typical sense of that verb. Those rules are a part of Him - and as a consequence, G-d has no alternatives in a way people do - His decisions are necessary consequences of His essence.

G-d is not free in the sense human beings are free - one cannot say that He could have done or decided something He did not do or decide, as He already is everything He could possibly be (absolute of His attributes!). :)

[Dark Muse]

Upon this issue we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree, I understand what you are saying, just obviously I do not share your point of view upon the issue.

It will be silly to keep going in circles when you are not going to change my persepective and I am not going to change yours.

[Jozanny]

logical consequence[/I] of your choice rather than somebody's decision from spite and cannot be avoided.


How is this making sense? If hell is a logical consequence of choice, it still isn't a punishment, merely a new condition from the one which preceded it.

*To punish* is the infinitive. I punished Joe for killing Mary by putting him in prison. Punishing is an act, and cannot continue indefinitely, because if it did it's simply a different way to exist, which, even though prison is a finite condition, is exactly what occurs. Prisoners make whole careers out of confinement. There are codes for sexual conduct, interesting methodologies for exchanging resources and making those resources function in a cell, and so on.

It just becomes another way of life, so I fail to see the distinction, and I do not think heaven or hell have any spatial relevance in the universe. They simply represent the contrasts which Levi-Strauss details in The Raw and The Cooked. The human mind functions by defining opposites. Good/Bad. Happy/Sad. Heaven/Hell.

[aabbcc]

How is this making sense? If hell is a logical consequence of choice, it still isn't a punishment, merely a new condition from the one which preceded it.
Read my post carefully.
You will notice that I was not in disagreement with Redzeppelin, but that I merely broadened his points a bit - my entire post was, basically, why hell cannot be seen as punishment. ;)

[aabbcc]

Upon this issue we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree, I understand what you are saying, just obviously I do not share your point of view upon the issue.
I am all on agreeing to disagree.
I have one problem, though - you never argumentated your position.

It will be silly to keep going in circles when you are not going to change my persepective and I am not going to change yours.
It is not about changing somebody's perspective. It is about exchange of those perspectives and discussion.
Perhaps we would not be moving in circles if you answered our points, pointing precisely what you disagree with, if you backed that up a bit... You know, that is how discussing is done. ;)

[togre]

The human mind functions by defining opposites. Good/Bad. Happy/Sad. Heaven/Hell.

Just because we see things one way isn't proof that they aren't that way. Is it possible we see things as opposites because there are opposites? Because there are Good and Bad, Happiness and Sadness, Heaven and Hell? Positive/Negative charges are an opposite pair, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[curlyqlink]

my entire post was, basically, why hell cannot be seen as punishment.

I must've misread Dante's Inferno then! <g>

I get the idea that God consigns souls to Hell from love. The Inquisition invoked the same argument as it tortured confessions from "heretics". I understand the idea, I just find it unconvincing. It seems to me that theologians, after creating a God who tossed sinners into the pit to suffer unspeakable agonies for eternity, then needed a way to absolve God from responsibility.

And if it isn't God who decides who goes to Hell, who exactly is the judge on Judgment day?



Rejecting God leads to hell
This is yet another reason why I find Pagan theology on the whole to be kinder and gentler than Christianity. Hades is a place shades go to slowly fade away. It is a mournful place to be sure, but is free of the whips and chains, of the lake of burning fire, free of the infinite varieties of ecstatic masochism the Christian writers have come up with to spice up the afterlives of sinners.

In Norse theology, the sheep were separated from the goats on the basis of whether or not one died nobly, in battle. When an old Viking lay dying in his bed, he would be nicked with a sword to ensure him a place in Valhalla (I wonder if, nowadays, IV needles count?)

[Jozanny]

Just because we see things one way isn't proof that they aren't that way. Is it possible we see things as opposites because there are opposites? Because there are Good and Bad, Happiness and Sadness, Heaven and Hell? Positive/Negative charges are an opposite pair, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Again, for the sake of argument, if hell does exist, whatever anguish a soul experiences there, it is not an indefinite anguish, because an infinite state simply becomes another condition.

I was born with cerebral palsy, now aside from your loving God's indifference to physical suffering of innocent children and people, I once was very well matriculated in ableist society. Now I am not, and my way of life is maybe a few notches up from an intelligent pig nearly ready to be moved from cage to slaughter house. My bowel and bladder muscles are weak, control drugs do not improve that problem. I have accidents nearly every day and suffer emotional trauma when my power chair breaks, and have been emotionally abused by attendants the state pays for, so I've gone without almost a year.

This is not a pleasant life, some might even consider it hell on earth. Yet I endure it.

It is a change in condition from being a college educated minority who once had a career and hoped to have a good repute as a writer by now, and every so often I find online communities like these in which to distract myself.

Like curly, I get the concept, but the theology as a logical premise is flawed.

[aabbcc]

Like curly, I get the concept, but the theology as a logical premise is flawed.
Arguments, please. ;)

I am going to Israel tomorrow so I might not be able to respond for the following two weeks, but I would appreciate greatly if you elaborated to me and presented what is logically incorrect in that argument.

Be careful, I repeat: logically incorrect. I will assume you to be familiar with formal logic because of the claim you made. Write to me premises and the conclusions, explain what and why is precisely a logical fallacy in the argument about hell and G-d's nature Redzeppelin and I wrote about.

[aabbcc]

Curly...

Art is one thing, personal views of the matter are another thing, and formal theology is a third thing. Dante and what do you personally believe to be "kinder" and "gentler" are irrelevant in the context of theological discussion. If you find the idea to be unconvincing and illogical, point to me a logical fallacy (who knows, maybe there is one and I do not see it? I would certainly appreciate if somebody pointed it). The pictoresque image you have of hell is not what theological definition claims hell to be but, rather, its 'common' view.

You cannot 'attack' an idea based on its "common treatment".


And if it isn't God who decides who goes to Hell, who exactly is the judge on Judgment day?
Do read Redzeppelin's and my post. But I mean read them, other than skimming it and thinking you got it at first. Then you will figure that the answer to this question is implied there already, and why that question, if posed this way, makes no sense. ;)

[Jozanny]

Arguments, please. ;)

I am going to Israel tomorrow so I might not be able to respond for the following two weeks, but I would appreciate greatly if you elaborated to me and presented what is logically incorrect in that argument.

Be careful, I repeat: logically incorrect. I will assume you to be familiar with formal logic because of the claim you made. Write to me premises and the conclusions, explain what and why is precisely a logical fallacy in the argument about hell and G-d's nature Redzeppelin and I wrote about.

Do enjoy your trip. I'll weigh your request but think I answered it several times since I tried to show the fallacy of eternal damnation to DarkMuse.

[aabbcc]

Do enjoy your trip. I'll weigh your request but think I answered it several times since I tried to show the fallacy of eternal damnation to DarkMuse.
I wrote that I was interested in logical fallacies in posts 38/39, but we seem to agree that whatever hell is (under assumption of its existence, for the purpose of the thread), cannot be seen as punishment in classical sense, and I seem to have mixed up two things while writing (apologies :blush: that is what not sleeping for 50 hours does to people...).

What I should have written to make sense was why do you consider theology as a premise (and what do you precisely mean by that) to be logically flawed?

[Jozanny]

What I should have written to make sense was why do you consider theology as a premise (and what do you precisely mean by that) to be logically flawed?

I see:idea:

Discussing these things aren't easy Anastasija, as you know. All types of individuals get bruised feelings, including myself, and I felt like the elephant in the room when I posted in the biblical thread--though it was, in all honesty, due to enthusiasm for a new insight. I could have, however, attempted a more graceful entrance, but we shall see.

Perhaps when you return the issue deserves a fresh topic. I am not quite sure what Dark was after in relation to idols as older representations of divine, but we've strayed a bit.

[aabbcc]

Perhaps when you return the issue deserves a fresh topic. I am not quite sure what Dark was after in relation to idols as older representations of divine, but we've strayed a bit.
I agree. :)
We totally went off-topic.

[blazeofglory]

I agree. :)
We totally went off-topic.

Let us start again. Idolatry is a universal phenoimenon as many religions taught its importance, For our first identification of it is with an image of God.

[Dark Muse]

Perhaps when you return the issue deserves a fresh topic. I am not quite sure what Dark was after in relation to idols as older representations of divine, but we've strayed a bit.

I orginally started this thread questioning what I see as the hyprocrossiy of the cliam of Christianity that idoltry is a sin, when I see no difference between thier images of Christ, the Saints, Mary..etc.. and the images of old Pagan gods, of which the Chruch had destroyed many, only to turn around and to the exzact same thing they claimed they were against.

[aabbcc]

I orginally started this thread questioning what I see as the hyprocrossiy of the cliam of Christianity that idoltry is a sin, when I see no difference between thier images of Chrsit, the Saints, Mart..etc.. and the images of old Pagan gods, of which the Chruch had destroyed many, only to turn around and to the exzact same thing they claimed they were against.
And, as some of us pointed before we went off-topic, you are right.
Christianity is, at least in its two forms known to me, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, from the position of the religion whose sequel it pretends to be, idolatry because it directly goes against what is prescribed in the Scripture considered holy by them.
Unfortunately, not all realise that, and there are tons of pseudo-arguments from the side of Orthodox Churches on why, for example, icons are not idolatry (most of them use the logic "but we worship what is represented, not representation itself" whilst neglecting the commandment that there should be no representations in the first place).

The question of Mary and Saints, whilst connected to the issue of idolatry, is a question of one more thing - question of the fundamental position of monotheism, Adonai echad ("G-d is one"), which does not allow prayers to anyone other than G-d, worship of anything other than G-d, because that is not only idolatry, but also subtle form of polytheism.

[Redzeppelin]

I orginally started this thread questioning what I see as the hyprocrossiy of the cliam of Christianity that idoltry is a sin, when I see no difference between thier images of Christ, the Saints, Mary..etc.. and the images of old Pagan gods, of which the Chruch had destroyed many, only to turn around and to the exzact same thing they claimed they were against.


There is no doubt that the Christian use of crucifixes and such may indeed lean towards "idolatry." There is, also, the possibility that many people benefit by having something to visualize while they worship - that an image helps focus their thoughts - which is a bit different than worshipping the actual object.

[blazeofglory]

There is no doubt that the Christian use of crucifixes and such may indeed lean towards "idolatry." There is, also, the possibility that many people benefit by having something to visualize while they worship - that an image helps focus their thoughts - which is a bit different than worshipping the actual object.

Your idea is what we believe in Hinduism, and that is it has so many temples, but in Buddhism and Christianity there are not such things and Jesus and the Buddha were a bit against harlotry.