Is This Idolatry

[wil]

So a real idol is the real thing? You make zero sense to me in this discussion

We know what a false idol is!
What does the real [supreme absolute Godhead's] Idol look like? [it wouldn't be subjective, would it?]

Godhead's real visage would have tobe absolute for it to be for real, correct? [and yet again it would be lost]

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It is simple.

There is such a thing as absolutes. All the famous False Idols especially the custom made=to-order False Idols are NOT absolute.

Jesus's Father in Heaven is an absolute.

If all you are exposed to teaches you God the Father in Heaven is NOT an absolute, then you are still "seeking".

Here is some money for you! Notice if it is absolute or not? Because you have already handled the real thing?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Atheists would say all religious beliefs are imaginary? Those Santa Muerte people believe the spirits they're addressing are real. And they may well be real. So the question still stands of who determines which religious beliefs are the false ones?

Guru, sadhu, sastra ---all 3 are known as the 3 checks to confirm if something is bonefide.

Those Santa Muerte invented something out of their subjective imagination prompted by petty desires.

There are 3 religious scriptures in the world, Bible, Koran, Vedas. All sub-branches expanded from them.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I do agree that 'American Idol' should be renamed 'American False Idol' lol.

It materially motivated goals that are sought after.

Once upon a time in place far away there was a culture in a far away place, for a temporal span of time that were visited by the celestials, sub-terrianian, advanced materialists and even demonic war lords ---all in their own time and place ---so too the Supreme Godhead has paid visits.

Our time span is fleeting but other realms have different clock spans to deal with.

 

[RJM]

Guru, sadhu, sastra ---all 3 are known as the 3 checks to confirm if something is bonefide.

Those Santa Muerte invented something out of their subjective imagination prompted by petty desires.

There are 3 religious scriptures in the world, Bible, Koran, Vedas. All sub-branches expanded from them.

There are demons and astral forces too? Not all imaginary. All sorts of real spirits and forces.

 

[juantoo3]

Yes. I've done it, with my emphasis on 'the Absolute' and Greek philosophical symbolism. God becomes an intellectual abstraction. Or psychological self-projection, the 'spiritual-but-not-religious', (egoism, anthropomorphism). New Agers did it in bucketloads (opened the gates to all sorts of Romanticism, Naturism and other Utopian Idealisms)... it's so so easy to do ... all sorts of pseudo-piety ...

So an object, a concept, and ideology ... all can become idolatry. Hollywood, the American Dream, Western consumer values is founded on it.

Likewise so can a wife, a child, a pet, money, infatuation with Royalty...etc, etc, etc

I would only take exception with the notion that Western "American" values are "founded" on it, I think John Locke would have a great deal to say to that regard. I can agree to a degree that western "first world" values have slipped in that direction, but it is also readily apparent that capitalism on the whole provides more for its people than any other form of governance. Where you are correct is that by the nature of the system it is also easily abused.

I would also draw a line of demarcation between ideology and patriotism

 

[juantoo3]

I'd say a symbol, the object becomes an idol when you lose touch with what it signifies ... ?

Symbolic thinking is a personal interest of mine. Our brains to this point have developed to use symbolic reasoning...every alphabet is full symbols. Symbols go back at least to the cave paintings, likely before that...we still don't fully grasp the significance of the Blombos shell beads or the ritual use of ochre, but these symbols date back 100 thousand years...long before Christianity or any other recognized religion - apart from, arguably, animism.

I think an object becomes an idol when the "practitioner" superstitiously imposes attributes onto the symbol, believing somehow that the item thereby possesses the attributes directly that it is supposed to represent symbolically. That is how we end up with talismans such as "lucky rabbit's foot" and praying to statues. People's minds make an unchallenged leap from symbol to superstition.

 

[juantoo3]

I have mentioned this before, but I think it relevant.

Some of the greatest mystical tracts were written in pre-reformation times (The Cloud of Unknowing). Talking to a theologian, I asked him what effect the 'stripping of the altars' — the removal of all art and symbolic regalia from churches by the Reformers — had on popular piety. His reply was the re-appearance of witchcraft. Not so much in witches and covens, but in 'pagan' symbols.

It's a fact that 'witchcraft' seems to spike, and was more vigorously pursued, in Reformation countries.

Simply, people need their symbols. They need their supports because most of us are not based entirely in the intellect and draw sufficient sustenance from intellectual abstractions.

A corollary to this is the idea that the illiterate peasant and non-latin speaking, non-Bible treading lay community was ignorant of their religion. It's not true, it's Protestant propaganda.

The simple faithful had the Mass with its readings through the Liturgical cycle. They had evensong and saints days, had Psalters, had mystery plays, mummers, processions, they had guilds and confraternities, they had songs and hymns for everyday life. They had icons, had architecture, had art and artefacts, Stations of the Cross, the Mysteries of the Rosary ... dare I say it, the illiterate peasant of the Middle ages often had a closer sense of his or her religion than his/her twenty-first century counterpart.

The Inquisition and the Dark Ages when the Church held unchallenged sway had no contribution to this whatsoever? I think the synopsis is one sided.

Next you will blame Protestants for all of the non-Christian imagery to be found in Catholic Cathedrals...from the Wild Man to Gargoyles. Let me pre-emptively state emphatically...NOT. Most of these pre-Christian images carved into the Cathedrals predate Luthur and Protestantism. I think you need to find another scapegoat for those...

 

[juantoo3]

So the question still stands of who determines which religious beliefs are the false ones?

"I am the Captain of my Fate, I am the Master of my Soul" -Invictus, William Henley

There are higher ranking Officers, and higher Masters...but in the end we answer for ourselves. So who determines which belief is right or wrong, true or false, is each individual person. It remains whether the determination is a good one or not, that will be between G!d and the person.

Again...what did you DO with what you know? If your religion is all about you, and how you can get more (power, money, status, etc)...then in my mind it is not a valid path for me. Nowhere in any of the major world faiths do I see a focus on *self.* The focus in all the major world faiths without exception is on others, and how the individual can assist and advance and promote and comfort and aid others - and by so doing help themselves.

 

[RJM]

"I am the Captain of my Fate, I am the Master of my Soul" -Invictus, William Henley

There are higher ranking Officers, and higher Masters...but in the end we answer for ourselves. So who determines which belief is right or wrong, true or false, is each individual person. It remains whether the determination is a good one or not, that will be between G!d and the person.

Again...what did you DO with what you know? If your religion is all about you, and how you can get more (power, money, status, etc)...then in my mind it is not a valid path for me. Nowhere in any of the major world faiths do I see a focus on *self.* The focus in all the major world faiths without exception is on others, and how the individual can assist and advance and promote and comfort and aid others - and by so doing help themselves.

But debateable. Perhaps it's more like: fix yourself first. I know this isn't your meaning. But the first-world secular society is not at all callous towards the elderly, blind, disabled, etc.

I am 100% for a secular state. Faith is individual and religious standards may only attempt to be imposed by the state in a state ruled by fear, imo. But in first-world secular states there is a constant focus on better wheelchair access and so on.

Secularist does not in any way mean callousness towards the weaker members of society. Not in the first-world. But it does mean the belief that material 'happiness' is the greatest good. Once achieved, job done? And perhaps this is where faith systems diverge away from the idea of simply doing good to others?

I think most religions are not just about 'love thy neighbour as thyself' but about detachment from mammon and desire, and above this, about the need first and always for God. It's the first commandment, probably in all faith systems. Kindness towards others should flow from this.

But there are monks and hermits and mystics who don't participate in actively helping others. Or not primarily. Instead they believe the highest good is the quest for constant personal union with the divine -- that benefit to the world will flow from this?

 

[wil]

Secularist does not in any way mean callousness towards the weaker members of society. Not in the first-world. But it does mean the belief that material 'happiness' is the greatest good. Once achieved, job done? And perhaps this is where faith systems diverge away from the idea of simply doing good to others?

Never ceases to amaze me how one group tells another group what they think or believe.

 

[RJM]

Never ceases to amaze me how one group tells another group what they think or believe.

I'm not getting you? Have I said something you don't like?

 

[wil]

You don't get me? Are you a secularist? I thought my response was clear...

Secularist...mean(s) the belief that material 'happiness' is the greatest good??

Does it? or is that your belief what it means? What about these rolls royce gurus, or for profit preachers trelling their donors that God wants them to have a new jet?

We've commented on the article that kids growing up without religion are on the same scale of morality as religionists...that in prison there are less athiests and agnostics...

The whole 'my religion' (or nonreligion) is better than your religion always gets me...and folks describing what other folks think.

Of course I get accused of the same...But Thomas has taught me those left in religion over in the UK and Europe differ from those here..

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Never ceases to amaze me how one group tells another group what they think or believe.

Bit harsh there mate, don't you think? Seems to me RJM is just offering it up for discussion and asking 123's opinion. Notice the question marks at the end of his statements?

Secularist does not in any way mean callousness towards the weaker members of society. Not in the first-world. But it does mean the belief that material 'happiness' is the greatest good. Once achieved, job done (?) And perhaps this is where faith systems diverge away from the idea of simply doing good to others (?)

 

[juantoo3]

But debateable. Perhaps it's more like: fix yourself first. I know this isn't your meaning. But the first-world secular society is not at all callous towards the elderly, blind, disabled, etc.

There is such a broad spectrum...I will give my opinion, with the caveat that there is / are *plenty* of exceptions, so it is really difficult to make a one-size-fits-all answer.

Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head with "fix yourself first." I don't have the answers for all of the problems of the world, it is enough for me to focus on my own problems. When and where I can assist others in doing the same for themselves...I'm all for it.

When it comes to the charity state, and folks living off of handouts...I tend to draw some lines. I am handicapped, recognized by the nation and the state I live in...and I choose to work. Been here 17 years the end of July. I can't work with my body like I used to, so now I work with my mind. I want to contribute to society, not be a taker.

I see young men in better shape than me come through the office regularly trying to convince anyone and everyone that they should get a free ride. I don't have much sympathy for them. The guys I don't mind helping are the ones that have put off asking the nation for anything, until they really have no choice...and since they did earn the benefits by serving the nation, those are the guys I bend over backwards to assist any way I can.

It's a generational perspective, guys that want to make their own way vs guys who think the world owes them a living.

I am 100% for a secular state. Faith is individual and religious standards may only attempt to be imposed by the state in a state ruled by fear, imo. But in first-world secular states there is a constant focus on better wheelchair access and so on.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "secular." To me it means "non-religious," "anti-religious," "atheist." I am hoping that is not what you mean, and it is entirely possible I am attaching unintended meaning...but that is how I've long viewed the term.

I fully agree with separation of Church and State.

I think religion has a purpose, it is a means of teaching morality and fair play. I think that institutional resource often gets carried away with its mission, less so today (because "secular science" provides a counter balance) but as Lord Acton told us - "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The problem as I see it, (I can already hear the boos and hisses) is that science fundamentally, within the brain, is essentially the same as a religion. I've said this for years, and continue to see evidence all around me to support my claim. So we really have two or mere competing religions vying for our attention, two competing memes trying to overwrite each other. Check and balance...at the same time a source of great confusion as science and Christianity specifically fundamentally address very different questions.

Secularist does not in any way mean callousness towards the weaker members of society. Not in the first-world. But it does mean the belief that material 'happiness' is the greatest good. Once achieved, job done? And perhaps this is where faith systems diverge away from the idea of simply doing good to others?

OK, but there's no such thing as a free lunch...someone somewhere sometime has to pay for it. You can bet there are strings attached if a secular organization is involved in charity...tax write off, advertising, public relations, or some such. I'm not saying an atheist cannot be charitable, but it isn't the first reaction generally noted.

Not to say religion has the charity market cornered either, history is full of religion using charity for political purposes...really no different than some nations still do today.

I think most religions are not just about 'love thy neighbour as thyself' but about detachment from mammon and desire, and above this, about the need first and always for God. It's the first commandment, probably in all faith systems. Kindness towards others should flow from this.

We actually did an informal study not long after I started here, don't even know if the thread still exists...I noticed some have gone missing. Turns out there is some equivalent of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in EVERY major world faith and a good many of the minor ones we were able to survey. That is significant to me, that is the one consistent morality taught "universally" around the world. Obviously the teaching was couched in terms familiar to each faith, but the message came across loud and clear and consistent.

But there are monks and hermits and mystics who don't participate in actively helping others. Or not primarily. Instead they believe the highest good is the quest for constant personal union with the divine -- that benefit to the world will flow from this?

And adepts, and yogis, and gurus... Because we can, doesn't mean we should. Because we should, doesn't mean we do. I know people who shun others for various reasons, most we would consider mental illness, but a lot of that is probably because as social animals we expect that people like the company of other people. I'm not a people person, I very much dislike crowds of strangers, I am never comfortable and prefer solitude or a select small group of close associates. I can function here because of a degree of anonymity, and at work I make myself do what I must...but left to my own devices I will gravitate away from others. Where I find the peace and solace to reach out to the Divine spark is when I am alone, there is too much mental clutter in the company of others. But that's just me.

Again, these are my opinions, subject to change at the drop of a hat. Your mileage may vary.

 

[RJM]

You don't get me? Are you a secularist? I thought my response was clear...

Secularist...mean(s) the belief that material 'happiness' is the greatest good??

Does it? or is that your belief what it means? What about these rolls royce gurus, or for profit preachers trelling their donors that God wants them to have a new jet?

We've commented on the article that kids growing up without religion are on the same scale of morality as religionists...that in prison there are less athiests and agnostics...

The whole 'my religion' (or nonreligion) is better than your religion always gets me...and folks describing what other folks think.

Of course I get accused of the same...But Thomas has taught me those left in religion over in the UK and Europe differ from those here..

I really meant material happiness in the sense of the state providing weaker members with reasonable accommodation, health care and transport and so on. Not wealth.

In fact it's interesting that a large section of support for the obscenely materialist POTUS -- with his gold taps and doors -- are a supposedly 'spiritual' constituency demanding the end of health care benefits, etc.

I don't think I was arguing 'my religion' -- I was speaking up for the moral goodness of most secularist individuals and first-world states towards weaker members of society.

 

[RJM]

It seems that science has largely moved from Newton and Einstein 'unravelling the mind of God' to the aggressive atheism of people like Richard Dawkins. This is probably in reaction to people using scripture as proof of the age of the earth, etc.

Of course there are the 'flat earthers' (certainly not yourself) dismissing science on internet forums using smartphones, lol.

Lots of scientists do believe there is a divine hand out there, but they refuse to be instructed by scripture what questions they're allowed to ask?

There is such a broad spectrum...I will give my opinion, with the caveat that there is / are *plenty* of exceptions, so it is really difficult to make a one-size-fits-all answer.

Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head with "fix yourself first." I don't have the answers for all of the problems of the world, it is enough for me to focus on my own problems. When and where I can assist others in doing the same for themselves...I'm all for it.

When it comes to the charity state, and folks living off of handouts...I tend to draw some lines. I am handicapped, recognized by the nation and the state I live in...and I choose to work. Been here 17 years the end of July. I can't work with my body like I used to, so now I work with my mind. I want to contribute to society, not be a taker.

I see young men in better shape than me come through the office regularly trying to convince anyone and everyone that they should get a free ride. I don't have much sympathy for them. The guys I don't mind helping are the ones that have put off asking the nation for anything, until they really have no choice...and since they did earn the benefits by serving the nation, those are the guys I bend over backwards to assist any way I can.

It's a generational perspective, guys that want to make their own way vs guys who think the world owes them a living.



Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "secular." To me it means "non-religious," "anti-religious," "atheist." I am hoping that is not what you mean, and it is entirely possible I am attaching unintended meaning...but that is how I've long viewed the term.

I fully agree with separation of Church and State.

I think religion has a purpose, it is a means of teaching morality and fair play. I think that institutional resource often gets carried away with its mission, less so today (because "secular science" provides a counter balance) but as Lord Acton told us - "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The problem as I see it, (I can already hear the boos and hisses) is that science fundamentally, within the brain, is essentially the same as a religion. I've said this for years, and continue to see evidence all around me to support my claim. So we really have two or mere competing religions vying for our attention, two competing memes trying to overwrite each other. Check and balance...at the same time a source of great confusion as science and Christianity specifically fundamentally address very different questions.


OK, but there's no such thing as a free lunch...someone somewhere sometime has to pay for it. You can bet there are strings attached if a secular organization is involved in charity...tax write off, advertising, public relations, or some such. I'm not saying an atheist cannot be charitable, but it isn't the first reaction generally noted.

Not to say religion has the charity market cornered either, history is full of religion using charity for political purposes...really no different than some nations still do today.


We actually did an informal study not long after I started here, don't even know if the thread still exists...I noticed some have gone missing. Turns out there is some equivalent of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in EVERY major world faith and a good many of the minor ones we were able to survey. That is significant to me, that is the one consistent morality taught "universally" around the world. Obviously the teaching was couched in terms familiar to each faith, but the message came across loud and clear and consistent.


And adepts, and yogis, and gurus... Because we can, doesn't mean we should. Because we should, doesn't mean we do. I know people who shun others for various reasons, most we would consider mental illness, but a lot of that is probably because as social animals we expect that people like the company of other people. I'm not a people person, I very much dislike crowds of strangers, I am never comfortable and prefer solitude or a select small group of close associates. I can function here because of a degree of anonymity, and at work I make myself do what I must...but left to my own devices I will gravitate away from others. Where I find the peace and solace to reach out to the Divine spark is when I am alone, there is too much mental clutter in the company of others. But that's just me.

Again, these are my opinions, subject to change at the drop of a hat. Your mileage may vary.

There are angry extremists on both sides, getting the headlines, imo.

 

[Thomas]

Likewise so can a wife, a child, a pet, money, infatuation with Royalty...etc, etc, etc

Yes indeed. Except my grandkids, they actually are divine!

I would only take exception with the notion that Western "American" values are "founded" on it...

And you'd be right to do so, 'cos' you're right, it's stereotyping.

Where you are correct is that by the nature of the system it is also easily abused.

Find a system, you'll find someone to abuse it ... it's the nature of the beat, I think?

I would also draw a line of demarcation between ideology and patriotism

Yes, but I say that quietly... a survey in the UK found an increasing percentage of younger people would rather not be thought of as 'English'.

Understandable, as for decades now we've weathered a low-level media campaign to align everything that's English with right wing nationalism, so the Flag of St George (red cross white field) is now a 'negative' symbol. Also our dubious history of empire, of course, but should we turn our backs on everything?

We also sneer at the number of flags the US flies ... and I think it's a shame, its 'fashionable' to be unpatriotic, one wonders why, if England is so crappy, why so many people want to come here.

I remember being told as a kid, at school, if ever hitch-hiking (this was in the day when no-one assumed anyone hitch-hiking would inevitably be kidnapped, raped and murdered, or eaten, or whatever), stick a Union flag (our union, not yours ) on your rucksack and you'll always get a lift.

As you say, ideology is one thing, but patriotism ... I'm afraid I'm a teary-eyed 'rally round the flag' type ...

 

[Thomas]

I think an object becomes an idol when the "practitioner" superstitiously imposes attributes onto the symbol, believing somehow that the item thereby possesses the attributes directly that it is supposed to represent symbolically.

That makes sense.

That is how we end up with talismans such as "lucky rabbit's foot" and praying to statues. People's minds make an unchallenged leap from symbol to superstition.

Yup.

One wonders why whoever never thought that if the rabbit's foot was lucky, then it wouldn't be hanging on a cord round your neck, that the rabit would have evaded the sights/snare/dogs, etc ...

 

[Thomas]

The Inquisition and the Dark Ages when the Church held unchallenged sway had no contribution to this whatsoever? I think the synopsis is one sided.

I think new materials coming forward is shedding light on the Inquisition and illuminating the Dark Ages (so called precisely because of the lack of knowledge about the era), so I will always tend to try and balance out the assumptions.

Specifically, with-hunting seems to occur most where the existing social order suffered sudden change, so in the Reformation Protestant States, the instances of 'witchcraft' emerged suddenly and without precedent, whereas in the established Catholic States, instances were a lot fewer, and the percentage of trials that led to execution were again, significantly fewer.

To say this is all down to symbols or the lack thereof is to make light of a very complex situation. I could easily say that a significant contribution came from publishing the Bible in vernacular language, in which 'witch' was indeterminate in gender, but invariably got translated into the feminine in the vernacular ... but things like this have to be balanced against the sociological effects of war, disease, famine, poverty, mini ice age and the breakdown of social cohesion, social uncertainty, and then elements like avarice, contempt, revenge ... far too many elements and aspects to say there is any one single cause.

Next you will blame Protestants for all of the non-Christian imagery to be found in Catholic Cathedrals... from the Wild Man to Gargoyles... I think you need to find another scapegoat for those...

But there's no need for scapegoats really, is there? That all fits within a Christian world view that saw pagan symbols were 'reaching' towards something which was seen in a new light in Christianity. Of course old symbols and images will be incorporated because people can see what the symbols signify, and that didn't evaporate because Christianity came along.

I hold accountable Protestantism for its poverty of symbol.