Idolatry - what is it ultimately?

[_Z_]

Idolatry -what is it ultimately?



I would like to take this notion to it’s furthest extreme - can Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha [etc.] and all the saints [& similars ] – basically any personification - be viewed as idols? Thence should not be worshiped – only an undefined & impersonal ‘god’ should be! Any forming into shape & meaning of god may perhaps also be viewed as idolatry in its furthest context!

I know monotheistic religions have there own definition of idolatry, but I have noticed that Muslims don’t adorn mosques with any kind of personified imagery [I could be wrong, I don’t know that much about Islam]! If we applied the same notion philosophically & perhaps theistically, does that lead us to an impersonal sexless god?



Ultimately in the future, will religion end up without gods and deities just the pure view - if you will?



Is there a pure view?



_Z_

 

[dauer]

Z,

I think that if a person considers a saint, or Jesus, or Buddha, to truly and uniquely be God, then that is idolatry. But to me, identifying God with an abstraction is also somewhat idolatrous if we say that God is truly that abstraction. I think that Jesus or Buddha or the abstraction or whatever you'd like to use are simply man-made interfaces that allow us to have some type of connection with something our minds cannot begin to grasp.

And I'm not sure many modern religions identify God with a gender. Certainly not the big three monotheistic religions in their current form, although they may at times use masculine and feminine God-language, and even flirt with the concept of cosmic gender.

So my stance would be that calling the archetypal fatherly language used to describe God idolatrous would be correct if it was believed that this really is God. But if I'm just accepting this on subjective merit and denying absolutism, then I don't see the harm.

For me, I also have a problem with elevating one aspect of the world over another. If I say that that chair over there is God, that chair alone, then everything else in the world is ungodly and one aspect of physicality is raised above all else. Reducing everything else by raising one thing up strikes me also as idolatrous.

Dauer

edit:

oh... on pure view. I don't know. I think that humans are very much creatures of imagination and we thrive on our interfaces, so I'm not sure if we'll ever get around them, or how much benefit it would be to get around them. I love being able to talk to God, to be held by Him, to suckle at Her breast when I need nourishment, to wrestle with Him when He makes me angry. I don't want to give all of that up just so I can feel intellectually honest. Pfhhhh.

 

[_Z_]

Dauer, hello.

Wow I never thought I would get such a good answer [imo]! I was under the impression that Christians did think Jesus was god in human form [if you like], and that Muslims thought Mohammed was the one true prophet. Indeed I thought all the big three considered god to be a ‘male creator god’!

Have I been taking things too literally? It’s just that all the Christians I have talked to believe the above to be so & most of them take the bible literally.

 

[dauer]

Z,

I can't really answer for Christian theology. It's been explained to me and I have read it expressed in different ways but (please call me on this Christian board members) what it seems is that even as Jesus is considered God or the son of God, God in the cosmic sense is genderless. I could be mistaken, or that could only be one way of approaching the issue.

In Judaism, my tradition, God is genderless. That has been the norm since Maimonides came with his Aristotelian brilliance and shattered the old paradigm. However, the God language is usually masculine. But, some of it is also feminine. El Shaddai, which may have originally mean God of the mountains, is also taken to mean God of breasts, or breasted God. The words for compassion in hebrew is rachamim which comes from rechem, the word for womb. Compassion is wombliness. The presence of God is also called the Shechinah, which is feminine, and that gets played up a lot in Jewish mysticism, among other things. The Torah is also feminine, as well as Shabbat, the Sabbath, not that either of those are deified. Going further into mysticism there's more feminine language used to describe some of the inner workings of God. The explicit is that God is gender neutral, although there have been some groups that may have explicitly believed the implicit, in fact originally what I call the implicit may in some way have been the explicit, and now I'm ranting off course. Shhhhhhhh mind.

Islam does not believe Muhammad is God, just a true prophet of God. As far as I know they were swept up in the same philosophical revolution that effected Judaism back in the Andalusian days. That's where Judaism was getting all of its greek texts. They were being translated into arabic at the time. We were actually getting greek texts along with the muslim philosophies building up around them.

Dauer

 

[_Z_]

Very interesting indeed & very similar to my worldveiw even if I am a druid, but my grandmother was Jewish so its in me somewhere & of course I study the tarot which has many of ‘tree of life’ aspects.

 

[seattlegal]

Idolatry -what is it ultimately?

Hello, Z. IMHO, idolatry is ultimately something connected with desire. JMHO.

 

[thipps]

and that Muslims thought Mohammed was the one true prophet. Indeed I thought all the big three considered god to be a ‘male creator god’!

No and bigger no.
Muslims believe in all the messengers(peace and blessings be upon them all) sent by God to humanity throughout time as well as the Books that God revealed. Some we know by name, some we dont. Regarding Mohammad(peace and blessings be upon him), we believe that he is the final messenger of God; The Seal of the Prophets.
As far as God is concerned, God has no gender.
Hope that helped.
And Allaah knows best.

 

[_Z_]

Seattlegal, hello! Yes I see your point and it is true in its own context, yet there is much more to idolatry e.g. the worship of gods and deities [weather false or not] as opposed to the worship of god only in an impersonal view. I remember reading something about a murder between Buddhist sect who both had different ideas about the ‘correct’ worship of their deity [sorry I have no link to substantiate], in fact much conflagration has occurred over the years surrounding gods – just look at the history books concerning this especially when different cultures met. I feel that the worship of multiple gods in paganism was idolatry & that is exactly why monotheism won over them! Thanx for reply.



Thipps, hello! I presume you are a Muslim – peace be to you – I have only read a little of my copy of the Koran so forgive my ignorance! Yes so Mohammad is the final prophet? I would be interested in your opinion on the universal Jesus thread concerning this, as I cannot imagine there ever being a last prophet as humanity may continue for millions of years & the teachings of the lord will need to be relative to the ways of the future. Please don’t think I am attacking your religion as I think it is wonderful – what I know of it – I am just a seeker of truth and understanding. So is your statement ‘god has no gender’ an accepted Islamic view? Earlier I said about mosques and there lack of personified imagery, could you clarify the philosophy on the point? Does Islam have a similar view on idolatry to mine?

One other thing: “Allah knows best”! Well I am sure he does; yet our interpretation of such a vast mind is comparatively minute! This is why I believe that we humans can only postulate religious philosophy leaving no room for dogmatism. This does not mean that we should not be strict in our approach and vigorous in our belief, rather we should be considerate of one another’s beliefs! Thanx for reply.

The truth is naked!





Z

 

[seattlegal]

Seattlegal, hello! Yes I see your point and it is true in its own context, yet there is much more to idolatry e.g. the worship of gods and deities [weather false or not] as opposed to the worship of god only in an impersonal view.

I agree, there is much more to idolatry than viewing God in a personal or impersonal view. We need to realize that understanding of God is limited, that we cannot fully understand God. Our desire to try to impose our own understanding onto God results in error--idolatry.

I remember reading something about a murder between Buddhist sect who both had different ideas about the ‘correct’ worship of their deity [sorry I have no link to substantiate], in fact much conflagration has occurred over the years surrounding gods – just look at the history books concerning this especially when different cultures met. I feel that the worship of multiple gods in paganism was idolatry & that is exactly why monotheism won over them! Thanx for reply.

No need for a link--I am aware of the sectarianism within Buddhism. IMHO, sectarianism is a result of the desire to impose our own limited view of God onto others, {although we don't acknowledge that our understanding is limited,} thereby forcing our own error onto others. It's a real lack of self-control over our own desires--idolatry again.

One other thing: “Allah knows best”! Well I am sure he does; yet our interpretation of such a vast mind is comparatively minute! This is why I believe that we humans can only postulate religious philosophy leaving no room for dogmatism. This does not mean that we should not be strict in our approach and vigorous in our belief, rather we should be considerate of one another’s beliefs! Thanx for reply.

Hmm, it seems that we are not too far apart in our thinking.

 

[_Z_]

Seattlegal: hmm… I fear I may have contradicted myself with the ‘what is god thread’ , I do feel that there are certain questions that should be asked i.e. there is that which can be ‘known’ about god & that which is unknowable – god himself, if humanity had never asked then we would never have any religious philosophy whatsoever. Some would say that god gave his wisdom to us via the prophets etc. because man was ‘making it up for himself’, but I believe there is a part of us & everything that is also a part of god, thus by understanding ourselves we may understand that part of god. Moreover & damn me for saying this but, I believe Moses and the prophets ‘obtained’ wisdom from god in much the same way as others – perhaps a higher philosophy though as mans learning is itself ascending! I feel we need to move towards the next level without idols even if this is itself a form of idolatry or sacrilege.

It’s a funny thing that; whenever one takes a given idea like e.g. ‘idolatry’ to its own extreme, it tends to go round upon itself & end up in contradiction! But this is because linguistic comprehension is a part of the dualistic and cyclic world, thus one needs to ‘perceive’ in terms of what I call ‘silent meaning’ and remember that ‘as soon as it is spoken it is lost’ thus we may only envelope truth with words.



Z

 

[smkolins]

I would clarify a couple details.

One is that idolatry is when we make something out to be God.

Another is that God apparently has caused some People to be revealed as His Presence among us. We didn't pick Them and would not have given a chance, but God did. I do not propose the Founders of the Religions are idols, They know different. I think They had formal ways of acknowledging that God is God, even though they reveal His words (minding the limitations of language, especially the English language.)

But there are comments in the scriptures when people have taken points of view about Them that needed correction....

 

[seattlegal]

Seattlegal: hmm… I fear I may have contradicted myself with the ‘what is god thread’ , I do feel that there are certain questions that should be asked i.e. there is that which can be ‘known’ about god & that which is unknowable – god himself, if humanity had never asked then we would never have any religious philosophy whatsoever. Some would say that god gave his wisdom to us via the prophets etc. because man was ‘making it up for himself’, but I believe there is a part of us & everything that is also a part of god, thus by understanding ourselves we may understand that part of god. Moreover & damn me for saying this but, I believe Moses and the prophets ‘obtained’ wisdom from god in much the same way as others – perhaps a higher philosophy though as mans learning is itself ascending! I feel we need to move towards the next level without idols even if this is itself a form of idolatry or sacrilege.

It’s a funny thing that; whenever one takes a given idea like e.g. ‘idolatry’ to its own extreme, it tends to go round upon itself & end up in contradiction! But this is because linguistic comprehension is a part of the dualistic and cyclic world, thus one needs to ‘perceive’ in terms of what I call ‘silent meaning’ and remember that ‘as soon as it is spoken it is lost’ thus we may only envelope truth with words.



Z

Consider the Eastern thought regarding Spiritual Materialism, where the ego tries to seize control of the spiritual for its own glory, and the resulting consequences-{sectarianism, etc.} Now consider the Western idea of idolatry in the most mundane sense: trying to represent spirituality through material symbols, and the resulting consequences-{sectarianism, etc.}

Does this really seem like a contradiction, or does it seems more like a set of complimentary viewpoints?

 

[_Z_]

Smkolins, hello.

Did god pick them – or did they pick themselves? Moreover others seam to pick them! Jesus said he was son of man, people said he was Son of God, people need to have a connection as they cannot perceive the presence of the lord within them and all things, at least not in a tangible way. I suppose there is not anything particularly wrong with this as it brings god apparently closer & lessens the need to try to understand what he is, the prophet says god is like so – thence one can except & believe. I just think one needs to be philosophical rather than dogmatic, yet if someone if considered to be a messenger of the lord, then this means that there word is the word of god and as we have many of them it causes conflagration, thus I state; one cannot speak the word of god, or else god would! The truth is naked.



Seattlegal. Good point about the resulting sectarianism of vanity – even if that vanity is imposed – exactly the point really.



Z

 

[smkolins]

Smkolins, hello.

Did god pick them – or did they pick themselves?

Hi!

Well I suppose to some extent it's splitting hairs. But normally the idea of picking themselves is a related to a sense of self-promotion which has only to do with base motives. I think the Prophets knew what They were getting into, and wouldn't have done it if God didn't ask them to - or this is as presented in the Baha'i Scriptures:

"The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” These Essences of Detachment, these resplendent Realities are the channels of God’s all-pervasive grace. Led by the light of unfailing guidance, and invested with supreme sovereignty, They are commissioned to use the inspiration of Their words, the effusions of Their infallible grace and the sanctifying breeze of Their Revelation for the cleansing of every longing heart and receptive spirit from the dross and dust of earthly cares and limitations. Then, and only then, will the Trust of God, latent in the reality of man, emerge, as resplendent as the rising Orb of Divine Revelation, from behind the veil of concealment, and implant the ensign of its revealed glory upon the summits of men’s hearts."

"God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call. Accuse Me not of having transgressed against God. Behold Me, not with your eyes but with Mine. Thus admonisheth you He Who is the Gracious, the All-Knowing. Think ye, O people, that I hold within My grasp the control of God’s ultimate Will and Purpose? Far be it from Me to advance such claim. To this I testify before God, the Almighty, the Exalted, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Had the ultimate destiny of God’s Faith been in Mine hands, I would have never consented, even though for one moment, to manifest Myself unto you, nor would I have allowed one word to fall from My lips. Of this God Himself is, verily, a witness."

Similar issues are to be found in the stories of or related to many Prophets. Even Jonah didn't want to speak out.

Moreover others seam to pick them!

That comes only later, when it is made popular by circumstance. The Prophets don't live to see that day, though they see it approaching.

 

[_Z_]

Smkolins: hi.

Is it wisdom to give unto a man the word of god, or better to give guidance unto mankind? I think a wise god would not make one man higher than the next – in any way especially by giving them his voice, surely an all-pervading god could simply speak to us all at once, yet he chooses not to! Is it for him to come to us or for we to approach him! Having said this, it is also true that some are nearer than others; thence it is for them to learn wisdom and for the lesser to hearken unto it. We may say that one is higher than another yet many have high wisdom – may we not learn from them all! ah but if the one is higher than the others then his words override the lesser wisdom. Yet still god remains silent! All in all, the highest of wisdom does not speak of itself, as it knows that once it is written it is lost [even in a concept or simplest of meanings].



Personally I believe in a universal approach, I’ll listen to any man/woman but no one is always right thus should we not question them? It is humility and wisdom to admit that we are all sometimes wrong – even if we were the Son of god! Even Jesus cannot speak gods truth in absolutes, even if he could then he would by necessity speak in the terms of the day! Thus new prophets and men of wisdom shall always be needed & always are, that is to say that one every 500/1000 years is not enough, it is better [if I may] to always have sons of man in the world!?


thank you for reply!

Z

 

[smkolins]

Smkolins: hi.

Is it wisdom to give unto a man the word of god, or better to give guidance unto mankind?

I would say He chooses to do both.

Yet still god remains silent!

Or are we just hard of hearing? How often has He in fact answered our prayers before we knew enough to ask?

"The accumulations of vain fancy have obstructed men’s ears and stopped them from hearing the Voice of God, and the veils of human learning and false imaginings have prevented their eyes from beholding the splendour of the light of His countenance."

Personally I believe in a universal approach, I’ll listen to any man/woman but no one is always right thus should we not question them? It is humility and wisdom to admit that we are all sometimes wrong – even if we were the Son of god! Even Jesus cannot speak gods truth in absolutes, even if he could then he would by necessity speak in the terms of the day! Thus new prophets and men of wisdom shall always be needed & always are, that is to say that one every 500/1000 years is not enough, it is better [if I may] to always have sons of man in the world!?

Perhaps a day that shall not be followed by night?

thank you for reply!

"Gird up the loins of your endeavor, O people of Bahá, that haply the tumult of religious dissension and strife that agitateth the peoples of the earth may be stilled, that every trace of it may be completely obliterated. For the love of God, and them that serve Him, arise to aid this most sublime and momentous Revelation. Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world-devouring fire, whose violence none can quench. The Hand of Divine power can, alone, deliver mankind from this desolating affliction….
The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words...."

"...the principles of the Divine religions can hardly be evaluated by the acts of those who only claim to follow them. For every excellent thing, peerless though it may be, can still be diverted to the wrong ends. A lighted lamp in the hands of an ignorant child or of the blind will not dispel the surrounding darkness nor light up the house--it will set both the bearer and the house on fire. Can we, in such an instance, blame the lamp? No, by the Lord God! To the seeing, a lamp is a guide and will show him his path; but it is a disaster to the blind."

 

[_Z_]

Smkolins:

“I would say He chooses to do both” & “Or are we just hard of hearing?”

I don’t think I am hard or hearing, nor many of us. Yes he does answer our prayers and is with is in our meditations, but not linguistically! What do we mean exactly by ‘word of god’? I would say, he does not speak yet delivers wisdoms to our mind directly; in my experience the spirit world is like this generally. Souls have the capacity of ‘direct perception’ which is not really a perception at all, it is a oneness – where minds link directly, thus our thoughts [as directed towards another, similarly to speech] are understood immediately & with no confusion of meaning, we understand by the way another understands his words! On this earth and whilst in human form, one has to understand through the ‘filter’ of the mind [brain], thus we may not receive or transmit directly, thence gods word would immediately loose its meaning hence he would enter meanings for guidance and interpretation that we may debate and advance via his and each others guidance as a father would to a child.



Of course I am a philosopher seer [druid] so this is how I see things, perhaps I am wrong, but I like to believe that understanding remains always open & I hope there will never be a ‘truth exact’ if indeed this is possible even for god – such is the wonder of the world that it cannot be put in a box. One can be right & wrong at the same time in the multiple contexts of the paradox, and beyond this [parody in the dualistic mind] there is no right & wrong just transparency – in meaning and actuality/reality.



Ps. From what I have read so far, the Baha’i religion sounds very interesting, the way it is written [kind of biblical] is however somewhat inaccessible to the modern thinker, it would be nice if someone could translate the translation , but I am sure I’ll get an understanding of it through the people here.

thanx

Z

 

[smkolins]

Smkolins:



I don’t think I am hard or hearing, nor many of us.

Then see through a glass darkly?

Ps. From what I have read so far, the Baha’i religion sounds very interesting, the way it is written [kind of biblical] is however somewhat inaccessible to the modern thinker, it would be nice if someone could translate the translation , but I am sure I’ll get an understanding of it through the people here.

It can indeed be dwelt on and cross referenced among the sources I spoke of earlier and sometimes while one avenue seems closed, the others can lead the way.

However I would encourage you to not give up, but seek to perceive what is meant. Nothing is better put than the original, if the hearer/seer can get there. Translations can loose something of the original - we have limits in light of this. We are ussually carefull about what is authorized translation/application and what is our best faith effort to understand and do.