Thread: Purgatory: A problem with idols Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001014
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
This arises out of some of my thoughts on the ‘All things Mary' thread. It isn't meant as an attack on Orthodox or Catholic practices. I am completely satisfied with the explanations that Christians of those traditions give about their veneration of created things (whether prayers to departed saints or veneration of physical images) and I am not suggesting for a moment that these practices are idolatrous.
But I do have one misgiving. If it isn't idolatry to kiss an icon (because the veneration is not paid to wood and paper and paint, but ultimately to the true God by way of the person represented) and if it isn't idolatry to adore the Blessed Sacrament (because what is being worshipped is not bread and wine but the Real Presence of Christ) then what is actually forbidden in the Second Commandment?
Clearly it would be idolatry to worship an image knowing it to be merely wood or stone. To set up the work of men's hands as a god would be blasphemous folly, clearly against God's word. My problem is that I'm not convinced that in the whole history of the world, anyone has ever actually done this. I can't even imagine anyone being in the least tempted to do it. What would be the point?
If (to take the Bible's ‘leading case' on idolatry) we could interrogate one the Israelites who had worshipped the Golden Calf, I doubt he would have admitted to worshipping a figure of gold. Wouldn't he more likely have said "I know this Calf is a statue, I'm not an idiot, I just saw it being made, but I'm dancing before it because, in some way I don't fully understand, it really is the vessel of the God who has saved us out of Egypt. Hasn't Aaron, the priest of God, just said as much?"
And if we had asked Aaron what he was doing, and he had answered honestly (I do not believe his reported words in Scripture were honest), might he not have said "The Calf is indeed merely an image, but the people need images. I made it in the hope that their worship of the image might be accepted as worship of God"?
It seems to me that for an image to be worshipped at all, either the worshipper must believe that in some deeper sense the image he worships is in fact a god (or God), and not, insofar as it is the proper object of worship, an image at all, or he must believe that while the image is indeed just an image, the worship of it goes beyond the material form and can reach the real god (or God).
If the Catholics and Orthodox are (as I believe) on safe ground, what are idolaters doing differently that is wrong?
What is it that is forbidden in the commandment against idolatry that a sane man might conceivably be tempted to do?
(I am aware, of course, that there is a spiritual idolatry, whereby anything loved more than God can be said to be an idol. St Paul calls covetousness ‘idolatry' on what I take to be this basis. I'm not discussing this meaning of the commandment, but it's primary sense, the thing to which the deeper spiritual sense is analogous to.)
[ 14. February 2006, 03:46: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
(I am aware, of course, that there is a spiritual idolatry, whereby anything loved more than God can be said to be an idol. St Paul calls covetousness ‘idolatry' on what I take to be this basis. I'm not discussing this meaning of the commandment, but it's primary sense, the thing to which the deeper spiritual sense is analogous to.)
IMHO You just answered your own question in that aside - and then you dismiss it because you seem to prefer a stolid, literal interpretation. It's no coincidence, is it, that the 'no idolatry' commandment comes immediately after the 'no false gods' commandment? The deeper spiritual sense is the primary (the only?) sense.
Surely this is what 'the love of money is the root of all evil' means? I had an elderly friend, brought up in a very poor working-class community and she used to say of some (not all) rich neighbours, "Money is their god". The worship of material wealth, power and influence is the most obvious form of idolatry.
Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on
:
Chastmastr (for I think it was he) said something very interesting about this a while ago - in the ancient Near East, people believed that the gods divested some of their power into their idols. So when people were worshipping idols, they actually were worshipping the physical object, because they believed it was imbued with a supernatural power.
Apologies to Chastmastr if I've got this completely wrong.
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Clearly it would be idolatry to worship an image knowing it to be merely wood or stone. To set up the work of men's hands as a god would be blasphemous folly, clearly against God's word. My problem is that I'm not convinced that in the whole history of the world, anyone has ever actually done this. I can't even imagine anyone being in the least tempted to do it. What would be the point?
Really?
How many kids write to celebrities saying,
Dear_______
I just wanted to write to you to tell you how much I love you...........
How many prayers say the same thing to God.
How many songs sing about "how much I love you"? How many hymns do the same? (without wanting to get into the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' debate.)
Ever been to a football match? Or a pop concert? If that ain't worship, I don't know what is.
Ever heard people talk about money? How much time of our lives is dedicated to getting money, and how much time and effort is put into spending it.
Look at all the fashion nonsense. You have to have that right label, bought from the right shop in the right carrier bag.
Then there is the 'self worship'. You have to have the right shaped body, eat the right foods to loose weight, have the right sized tits and right shaped nose, with right shaped bum and flat tummy. Basically, the more people want to shag you the better. (The more people that do shag you, the worse if you are a girl, the better if you are a boy.)
Lets not even get on to mobile phones (must have the right features with the right ring tones) or cars (must have the right horse power with the right stereo and the right wheels,) or house. (Must have the right TV, stereo, must have Dolby surround sound etc.)
The list is endless of all the man-made shite people have instead of God. I remember someone saying (might have been on the ship - I can't remember) that loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength is the one commandment that everyone obeys. The problem is that too many people pick the wrong God.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
There are some who would argue that worshipping the icon/idol is exactly what was happening in the late catholic church. Emphatically not that this was the official doctrine or practice of the church, but that it was what was happening on the ground.
The evidence for this, as I understand it, is the wills in which - for example - women left their prayer beads to the statue. Not to the church, or the saint, but to a specific statue. Or the wearing of prayer girdles - strips of linen or paper sewn or painted with prayers and chants - around the waist during childbirth, to secure a safe delivery. Or the reciting of a certain number of prayers on a certain day to ensure one wouldn't die unshriven. All examples in which faith is placed in the object or the ritual, rather than in God.
This is discussed, iirc (and it's a while since I've read them) in Keith Thomas "Religion and the Decline of Magic" and - from a very different viewpoint - in Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars".
Scholarly belief would have attributed this just as you suggest as worship directed through the object to God, but would Muddy Meg the peasant have been able to articulate that? Somehow I doubt it.
Rather, I would argue that sort of totemism was and is extremely common. I know that I've clutched my rosary when the plane I'm in takes off (I'm slightly nervous about flying) and I'm really not convinced I'm praying through the virgin to God for a safe flight. Rather, I'm turning for a familiar object for comfort.
So that's one form of idol worship. It is, I would argue, a common but fairly harmless form. The real damage - to ones soul and to ones society - is, I believe, the form of idol worship that Qlib describes.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Posted by Eliab: quote:
My problem is that I'm not convinced that in the whole history of the world, anyone has ever actually done this. I can't even imagine anyone being in the least tempted to do it. What would be the point?
Fascinating OP, Eliab, but what I've quoted puts in a nutshell the problem I have with your idea. You see, this is exactly what happens in some traditional cultures. And in some not-so-traditional, too. I remember once sharing an office with a fellow researcher who was a Hindu, and his first day in our university was pretty much his first day outside India. He was impressed, he said, that I had a god on my desk. After I'd wiped down my computer screen (coffee gets everywhere) I realised he was referring to the icon I kept on my desk.
That was the start of some interesting conversations. This man had no concept of an icon, or even of a devotional picture. For him, a statue or picture was a god. He actually said, "For us, the god is in the statue. He comes and lives in the statue when the statue is made."
In some cultures, therefore, what seems to happen is that either the maker of the statue, or the priest, has the power to instill the divinity into the statue, and because of that the god-statue is actually worshipped, rather than merely adored or venerated. That, from the Christian perspective, is idolatry.
I think, in brief, that the problem I have with your OP is that you seem to underestimate the reality and the ubiquity of spirits and gods in some traditional cultures.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In some cultures, therefore, what seems to happen is that either the maker of the statue, or the priest, has the power to instill the divinity into the statue, and because of that the god-statue is actually worshipped, rather than merely adored or venerated. That, from the Christian perspective, is idolatry.
Point taken. I had tried to express the OP questions in as general a way as possible, but Hindu images were one of the things I had thought about. My category of belief that "that in some deeper sense the image he worships is in fact a god" was meant to include Hindu practice. A Hindu wouldn't say he was worshipping an idol (in the Christian sense), but really worshipping a god locally present in an image.
Which sounds, to me, very like what a catholic claims to be doing at Mass. He thinks that the priest has the authority to instill divinity into the bread. The catholic is not worshipping bread, he is adoring something which really is God.
Is there a difference? Or is it merely that within Christian circles we are prepared to accept the catholic claim as being (at least) plausible, while we think the Hindu is wholly mistaken?
I think that I, personally, would be inclined to say that neither is, by intention, an idolator. Both really want to worship the best idea they have of God. That the Hindu is (IMO) wrong and the catholic is (IMO) possibly right, doesn't seem to me to make a fundamental difference to what they are seeking to do. And that means that I can no longer see a content for the commandment. The Hindu isn't breaking it by intent, he just has the wrong god and the wrong symbol.
Qlib's and PhilA's answers don't satisfy me because this is largely 'invisible idolatry'. The people doing it may in truth be worshipping a created thing with the reverence due to God, but they don't think that is what they are doing. They wouldn't identify their acts as worship at all. If it did occur to them that their devotion was excessive, they would want to stop (excessive, by definition, being that quantity which is perceived as going too far).
I like Peronel's answer, because that is a form of devotion to objects which I can see might appear both wrong (irrational, obsessive, distracting, etc) and also be a plausible temptation. But I think I share her view that mild superstitious attachment to sacred and familiar objects is usually a fairly harmless one. If that were all that Moses meant, I can't see this commandment making the number two spot in the top ten of God's no-nos.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If it isn't idolatry to kiss an icon (because the veneration is not paid to wood and paper and paint, but ultimately to the true God by way of the person represented) and if it isn't idolatry to adore the Blessed Sacrament (because what is being worshipped is not bread and wine but the Real Presence of Christ) then what is actually forbidden in the Second Commandment?
As a footnote, my understanding is that the Catholics number the commandments differently. They wrap the second commandment (the one about graven images) up with the first. And then split the tenth (the one about coveting) into two.
But to address your main point, I read something somewhere which makes a lot of sense to me. It said that the graven images - the statues, the icons, the crucifix on the wall - are symbols, which can act as channels of grace, by helping to focus our visually-oriented minds on the spiritual.
And idolatry is mistaking the symbol for the reality, the channel of grace for the source of grace, the medium for the message.
Which ISTM is an easy error to fall into.
Russ
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
As a footnote, my understanding is that the Catholics number the commandments differently. They wrap the second commandment (the one about graven images) up with the first. And then split the tenth (the one about coveting) into two.
RC's, Lutherans and I thought Anglicans all number the 10 Commandments the same way, with "You shall have no other gods before Me" and "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" as the first two commandments, and the two "coveting" commandments at the end.
Anyway...
A theologian -- Paul Tillich, if memory serves -- once observed whatever is our ultimate concern is our "god." So idolatry would be making something other than the true God one's ultimate concern.
As far as "graven images," I think the previous post made the appropriate distinction -- mistaking the image itself for the reality it represents.
Personally I think the radical wing of the Reformation threw the Baby out with the bathwater in its iconoclastic frenzy. Banishing sacred images because they might lead ignorant people to practice idolatry is like banning shopping because merchandise on store shelves may lead people to steal.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
either the maker of the statue, or the priest, has the power to instill the divinity into the statue
[tangent] My understanding was that a Hindu image has to be quickened by a priest before the god is regarded as being present. I don't think I as a non-believer can simply carve a figure of Ganesh and expect Hindus to worship it, I think it requires some invocation from a person with property authority first.
I vaguely recall reports of a tax case some years back about the importation of a truckload of Hindu statues. You don't have to pay duty on imported gods, but you do on imported artwork (or it may be the other way round), so proving that a proper priest had (or, as the case may be, had not) correctly blessed each of the statues was necessary to save the importers a large sum of money. [/tangent]
Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on
:
On the other hand, I had a conversation with a Hindu who said that idols were merely visual representations of the god and not a god itself. So even within Hinduism there may not be a consensus, which wouldn't surprise me, given how big and complicated Hinduism is.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Eliab
quote:
He thinks that the priest has the authority to instill divinity into the bread.
... which of course, no Christian Church has ever taught.
The Not-Burnt-But-Burning Bush is an interesting case ... pre-Incarnation, Old Testament, Mosaic tradition, (also the bronze serpent). Things ain't what they seem. I think we need to separate the issue of idolatry from the uncontroversial aspects of theophany and immanentism (without falling into pantheism of course).
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
quote:
He thinks that the priest has the authority to instill divinity into the bread.
... which of course, no Christian Church has ever taught.
Pedant ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I was echoing back the words Adeodatus had used about the Hindu priest - I know that they aren't the theologically correct way to describe what a Christian (Catholic/Orthodox) priest claims to do.
The parallel, which I think is a valid one regardless of what language is used, and regardless of what precisely a theologian would say happens, is that before a Hindu priest quickens an idol, it's just wood, and before an Orthodox priest consecrates bread, it's just bread. After the priests do something (and both the God and the god are assumed to do something in connection to this) the statute is believed to be a real god, and the bread is believed to be really Christ's body. And then it is lawful, in the context of each religion, to venerate the material thing in a new way, that would not be appropriate to the thing in its natural state.
I suppose many non-catholic (you won't be offended to be lumped in as a small-c catholic, I hope) Christians have attacked the Mass as idolatrous because it seems to them to be the same sort of thing that the idolatrous pagan is doing. I'm trying to suggest the opposite. I'm quite sure the catholics aren't idolators, but as far as I am able to judge, the defence which they would use to beat that charge clears the Hindu, or any religion I know of or can plausibly imagine, just as completely. At least as far as guilt depends on intent.
I can see, in what a number of people have posted, that idolatry can be committed through an excess of devotion to the means of grace at the expense of devotion to the Giver. I don't think that can be all the second commandment was meant to ban. None of the other ten commandments can only be broken be inadvertent excess - all of them are capable of being deliberately disobeyed in a plausible manner. There must, surely, be a way of deliberately (not inadvertently or through excess of feeling, though I acknowledge those dangers) committing idolatry which might be a real temptation. What is it? And how, fundamentally, does it differ from what Christian tradition sanctions in the case of (c)(C)atholic and (o)(O)rthodox worship?
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
But Eliab it is not the priest who does this ... it is the Word of God (Christ) and the Holy Spirit. We have to "do" something in obedience to his command and the minister has a certain role in relation to God and the congregation ... but that's it. You have not answered my points about the Burning Bush, the bronze serpent, theophanies and immanentism. These, in my opinion, are the crucial issues here ... not forced and unworkable supposed parallels with Hinduism!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
But Eliab it is not the priest who does this ... it is the Word of God (Christ) and the Holy Spirit.
And it is not us, but Vesta who burns in this sacred flame, not us, but Ganesh who dwells in this statue, not us, but Thor who sanctifies these seat pillars.
It is, I agree, a real difference that you and I believe in the Holy Spirit, but not in Vesta, Ganesh and Thor. Is that the only difference?
quote:
You have not answered my points about the Burning Bush, the bronze serpent, theophanies and immanentism.
I didn't, because I'm not sure what any of these mean from an Orthodox viewpoint.
As far as I can tell, the Burning Bush was, if not an appearance of God, at least a sign by him of his presence. But it wasn't the focus of worship. It caught Moses' attention, and made him attend to the Voice. Is that what you would say an icon ought to do? If so, what further, and unlawful, thing was the Golden Calf attempting to do?
The bronze serpent is a story I have never felt I really understood on its own terms. I can see it as a healing miracle with extra flannel, and I can see it as a foreshadowing of Christ. I don't claim that's all it was, I'm sure there's more meaning that it had at the time, and more that it has now, but I can't pass judgment on what I lack the ability to see. I'm not sure the serpent, as an image, was worshipped or even venerated. God certainly worked through it, but not everything God works through is for that reason to be adored. God has certainly worked through you, but I'm sure that you would be as horrified St Paul was to find people worshipping you as a god, though as a human being and a priest, you are of course an icon of God.
By theophanies I take you to mean the unpredictable and special appearances of God at particular times and places. For those privileged to witness one, and if the effect on their feeble sense leaves them with any real choice, the appropriate response is to worship God as he pleases to manifest himself. No general rule for worship can be drawn from that unless that is part of the revelation. If God once appeared as a column of flame, that is no reason to pay devotions to flame generally, but when God said "I AM" that was meant to affect how he would be worshipped.
By immanence, I take you to mean the constant and necessary presence of God in everything. The conclusion I draw from that is that God can and be worshipped at all times and in all places, not (which is what I take to be the pantheism that you reject) that everything is to be worshipped as God.
I'm sure my understanding of these points is deficient in many ways, but none of them answers my dilemma. I cannot think of a single thing, grave enough to be in the ten commandments, which is idolatry, and which could plausibly be done by someone as a deliberate act, EXCEPT for things which (on arguments similar to the ones I accept for catholic practice) do not appear to the actors to be idolatrous at all. On those arguments, I find I've defined idolatry out of any meaningful existence.
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on
:
I totally see where you're coming from Eliab - I have pondered this as it makes no sense to me either that anyone would seriously worship what they knew to be an object.
I wonder if the difference is partly historical - God wanted his chosen people to keep hold of their knowledge of his transcendental nature, and any idol worship would in that place and time inevitably have led to syncretism and polytheism.
Any image of God inevitably adds something to our picture of a non-corporeal being. The attributes of an image will influence how its worshipers see God, and through that how they feel and behave towards God and each other. Perhaps 99% of the time, all images of God somehow detract from a true perception God, they contain too much 'noise', and therefore inevitably lead people into error. The fact that this is near the top of the commandments list seems to indicate it's incredibly important what our images of God are and that we need to get it right for our own sake - that it's no good saying "oh well, it's all God to the person who worships it" - it matters, as it both expresses and effects their inner image of God.
It wasn't until after the Resurrection that people had an image of God that they felt wasn't any less than God himself - at which point the restrictions the Jews had on making an image of God wasn't relevant any longer.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
The trouble Eliab is one of imagination. You and I believe as Christians and think as Christians. I would maintain, however, no matter how ridiculous to our perception, that a material object can indeed be a "god" or at least be so infused by a deity as makes no difference to an idolater.
On the other question of Orthodoxy, we take a much more realistic view of theophanies. God manifests himself from time to time by his theophanic energies ... and these we take to be not created realities but the Uncreated Presence of God. So, the Light that shone from the Mount of the Transfiguration was indeed God not a creation of God.
[ 23. December 2005, 20:18: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The trouble Eliab is one of imagination. You and I believe as Christians and think as Christians. I would maintain, however, no matter how ridiculous to our perception, that a material object can indeed be a "god" or at least be so infused by a deity as makes no difference to an idolater.
You could be right. But, considered as internal sensation, does the pagan worshipping the ash tree of Wotan experience any radically different feeling from the catholic adoring the sacrament?
I would agree (and assert) that the pagan is mistaken, and the catholic is at least possibly right (I'm a protestant, I can't say he's definitely right), but I don't think idolatry, in its gravest and most literal sense, can be a matter of honest mistake of fact. I would like to see something that the pagan is trying to believe, and the catholic is not, that goes beyond the fact that they are worshipping different gods, in order to make a distinction.
quote:
On the other question of Orthodoxy, we take a much more realistic view of theophanies. God manifests himself from time to time by his theophanic energies ... and these we take to be not created realities but the Uncreated Presence of God. So, the Light that shone from the Mount of the Transfiguration was indeed God not a creation of God.
I can accept that, I think.
Is it your view that the presence of God in the sacrament is a theophany - comparable to the burning bush or the transfiguation? I'm not saying that's wrong, but it would seem to me that the assertion that this, although a regular and predictable event, is akin to the unique and unpredictable appearances in scripture, is a very powerful claim.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm sure my understanding of these points is deficient in many ways, but none of them answers my dilemma. I cannot think of a single thing, grave enough to be in the ten commandments, which is idolatry, and which could plausibly be done by someone as a deliberate act, EXCEPT for things which (on arguments similar to the ones I accept for catholic practice) do not appear to the actors to be idolatrous at all. On those arguments, I find I've defined idolatry out of any meaningful existence.
Eliab, I wonder if this chain of logic helps square the circle?
The pagan - for want of a better word - worships his God through his icon, in much the same way as the Catholic worships God through his.
The Christian - or, when the ten commandments were laid down, the pre-Christian Jew - sees this, and knows that the pagan is wrong. There are no other Gods but Yahweh.
So the pagan - at least in the eyes of the Christian - isn't worshipping his God. That God's a phoney. He is instead bowing down and worshipping the statue.
Ergo, the sin isn't worshipping other Gods. It's idolatory. The Christian can't label it as ancestor worship, or worship of <insert deity name here> because that implies that <deity X> is real and worshipable.
Which, in a monotheistic system, is of course nonsense.
Not sure if this makes any sense or not - it's that time in the morning when thought is happening, but discrimination isn't!
[ 24. December 2005, 06:01: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
(Apologies for the double-post. Different bits of the brain are kicking in as I wake up.)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
I would like to see something that the pagan is trying to believe, and the catholic is not, that goes beyond the fact that they are worshipping different gods, in order to make a distinction.
I think, actually, this is exactly the point.
Remember, you and I are living and thinking within a slightly fuzzy post-modern paradigm where all beliefs are viewed as being as good as each other, and where personal faith matters more than the object of that faith. It's that paradigm which allows Charles to declare that he will be "Defender of Faith" and not "Defender of the Faith"; its that that allows Adeodatus to share an office with a Hindu colleague and have interesting conversations about their respective faiths without - one assumes - either trying to convert or condemn the other; it's that that allows Muslim-Christian interfaith services in the wake of the London bombings; and its that which allows Christian prison or military chaplains to minister to Muslims, and vica versa.
All things which, imho, are very good indeed.
But, remember, for most of Judeo-christian history that would have been an utterly alien perspective.
For its early history, Jews (and subsequently Christians) were very much an oppressed minority, in very real danger of imminent extinction, either by persecution (Roman candles and so forth) or by conversion to the dominant religion in order to escape oppression.
And later on, when Christianity became the dominant faith in medieval Europe, it was considered a Christian duty to go and kill or convert the infidel, and let God sort out his soul later.
Neither of these world-views would have viewed the difference between what the Catholic was trying to believe and what the pagan was trying to believe as in any way trivial.
Rather, if the main threat to your people's survival is the temptation to convert to the acceptable, non-oppressed, dominant religion, then forbidding people from trying to believe what pagans believe is not only important, it is vital to your community's survival.
If you're functioning within a polytheistic worldview - where other Gods exist, but their worship is viewed as unacceptable - then you outlaw the worship of other Gods. If you're functioning within a monotheistic worldview - where your God is seen as the only true God - then what you outlaw is idol-worship. After all, that's exactly what bowing down to statues who portray non-real Gods is. To call it - and forbid it as - worship of other Gods dignifies those Gods with a reality that you do not believe they possess.
Peronel.
(As an aside, I made a fairly impressive typo in my first post on this thread, which I've just spotted.
quote:
There are some who would argue that worshipping the icon/idol is exactly what was happening in the late catholic church.
should read
quote:
There are some who would argue that worshipping the icon/idol is exactly what was happening in the late medieval catholic church.
SOrry!)
Posted by Progradior (# 10832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Clearly it would be idolatry to worship an image knowing it to be merely wood or stone. To set up the work of men's hands as a god would be blasphemous folly, clearly against God's word. My problem is that I'm not convinced that in the whole history of the world, anyone has ever actually done this. I can't even imagine anyone being in the least tempted to do it. What would be the point?
Is it idolatry to worship an image knowing it to be the work of men's minds ? "Graven" in neurons or on paper rather than in wood or stone, granted. Judaism goes a little way towards that with "the name" (haShem) replacing any god-name in normal usage, and no pronunciation of YHVH at all - though that's also for the practical reason that no-one now knows what the vowels should be.
My own provisional answer is, firstly, "yes", and secondly "but we all do it, with the exception of the most extreme apophatic theologians and some mystics".
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But I do have one misgiving. If it isn't idolatry to kiss an icon (because the veneration is not paid to wood and paper and paint, but ultimately to the true God by way of the person represented) and if it isn't idolatry to adore the Blessed Sacrament (because what is being worshipped is not bread and wine but the Real Presence of Christ) then what is actually forbidden in the Second Commandment?
This question is addressed at length by St. John of Damascus, in the treatise "On the Divine Images," which is well worth reading, and appears to be available for reading here (although I don't know how good the translation is).
St. John makes it clear that God forbade images in order to prevent idolatry. So, regarding the images of other Gods, I think Peronel is spot-on. There is no other god, so any image that claims to depict a god is false.
So the Jews were forbidden to make images of their neighbor's gods -- which we know from the Scriptures that they did from time to time, in spite of the prohibition. But they were also forbidden to make images of their God. I think the reason was that any attempt to make an image of him said something about him that was not true -- they suggested that the Godhead could be contained, limited, depicted, they suggested that God is made of the same sort of stuff that we are (or, perhaps more accurately, that we are made of the same sort of stuff that He is). God wanted to teach them that he wasn't that sort of God. Anything the images communicated about Him was likely to be false. To help His people understand the truth of his nature, he set this limit.
And then, once the Jews had learned what sort of God he is, he accepted our limits, chose to be circumscribed, took on flesh, and therefore, now, could be depicted truly. That wasn't the case before. But it is now.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Eliab
quote:
Is it your view that the presence of God in the sacrament is a theophany - comparable to the burning bush or the transfiguation? I'm not saying that's wrong, but it would seem to me that the assertion that this, although a regular and predictable event, is akin to the unique and unpredictable appearances in scripture, is a very powerful claim.
Yes, and it is a powerful claim. This is to be distinguished from the piety associated witb the icon. The icon is a representation seeking participation "beyond it." Holy Communion is a participation in the Reality which is Christ himself. With this in mind, Orthodox Christians should not venerate an icon immediately before receiving Holy Communion.
Posted by ozowen (# 8935) on
:
When I was practising to be a practising Buddhist the monk pointed to a statue of the Buddha and said ¨We don´t worship that. We look at it and it reminds us of peace.¨ (This was a Theravadim temple in Malaysia).
Yet, I have known Buddhists who worshipped both the Buddha and the statues. Hindus who did the same.
And
Catholics as well.
Also Protestants who worshipped their bible or their dogmas.
And Atheists who worshipped their universe or their sciences.
I think Idolatory can be dogma in some religeons, banned but present in others, and is something that we can all slip into.
We feel the urge to make the Ineffable - Effable.
The minute we do, I think we are guilty of attempting Godhood. And that, is a Mormon preoccupation.
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
(I am aware, of course, that there is a spiritual idolatry, whereby anything loved more than God can be said to be an idol. St Paul calls covetousness ‘idolatry' on what I take to be this basis. I'm not discussing this meaning of the commandment, but it's primary sense, the thing to which the deeper spiritual sense is analogous to.)
IMHO You just answered your own question in that aside - and then you dismiss it because you seem to prefer a stolid, literal interpretation. It's no coincidence, is it, that the 'no idolatry' commandment comes immediately after the 'no false gods' commandment? The deeper spiritual sense is the primary (the only?) sense.
Surely this is what 'the love of money is the root of all evil' means? I had an elderly friend, brought up in a very poor working-class community and she used to say of some (not all) rich neighbours, "Money is their god". The worship of material wealth, power and influence is the most obvious form of idolatry.
If that were the case, why is covetousness covered so well elsewhere in the commandments, it seems a bit superfluous and invites ambiguity?
I agree with Eliab here, no-one would intentionally worship an inanimate object, without some sort of rationalisation along the lines of those already used.
Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But I do have one misgiving. If it isn't idolatry to kiss an icon (because the veneration is not paid to wood and paper and paint, but ultimately to the true God by way of the person represented) and if it isn't idolatry to adore the Blessed Sacrament (because what is being worshipped is not bread and wine but the Real Presence of Christ) then what is actually forbidden in the Second Commandment?
I believe that the rejection of images by Israel stems from the belief that only humanity was deemed to function as God's only legitimate image. It is only humanity/Israel who truly embodies the divine presence - thereby functioning in a way analogous to the relationship between a pagan idol and its god. Thus giving veneration to other human beings is meet and right, because they are created in God's image (icons function as focus to facilitate our communion with the saints). Whereas actually venerating created things and objects made by human hands in themselves contitutes idolatry. This is what I think is behind Matthew 25:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
This polemic might also underlie Ezekiel's polemic against idols, in both chapter 16 and 36-37.
During the formal liturgy the saints are venerated, it is among other things meant to teach us the liturgy of life, to become a litugically formed person. Liturgy becomes an influence on our interactions in the polis, our interaction with other people.
Best,
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
ozowen's point is important and interesting. Indeed, it appears that "folk religion" always tends towards idolatry of one form or the other.
But I wanted to answer Eliab's question of what distinguishes the Eucharist with real presence from the quickening of a Hindu figurine by a Hindu priest. I do not think that Father Gregory has provided an answer to that. Not because his answer is wrong as such, but because it presupposes an acceptance of Christian beliefs and doctrines. It is not an "objective" answer from the outside of that belief system. The uninterpreted facts are that in both cases a "special person" - priest - does some "special things" - ritual - whereupon an "inanimate object" - bread and wine here, god figurine there - is said to "be" in some mysterious manner a "god" worthy of "worship".
Is there any difference we can point to that an unbiased observer could accept? I think there is. I think the crucial difference is this: the Hindu god figurine is supposed to "be" a god now, that is, a living spiritual entity. But as the OT critique goes, really there's nothing happening which would indicate that there is any life present. However, the Eucharist is a meal which is fed to the faithful. Although obviously bread and wine are not "alive" themselves (actually as organic objects they are alive with bacteria...), the Christian God is really present in the means for life. For not only is the Eucharist act, like any, an expression of life, the particular act of eating and drinking represents the nourishment of life.
Of course, my factual description above still stands. So I would say that in one sense indeed there is no difference. I would go as far as claiming the "quickening of a Hindu god figurine" as a confused type of the Christian Eucharist! But I think the Jewish critique of such object idolatry is transcended in the Christian Eucharist precisely since the object in question is the means of life, is nourishment. The bread and wine feed Christ's spiritual life to His faithful. In a biological sense the Christian God is consumed, His real presence becomes part of our bodies, and we are alive. That's why the Jewish critique loses its grip. Of course, there's some belief involved in accepting the significance of the difference. But that there is a difference in declaring consumables to be God, rather than a statue, can be seen without faith. And AFAIK it's highly original. Normally gods are said to consume food, they are not consumed as food.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Therein lies a significance difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy IngoB. You still operate with the idea that it is possible to substantiate faith matters "outside the frame of reference." It's the old issue concerning "reason."
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
A style of worship can become a god too. I've heard it that you can only have worship with a pipe organ, you can only have worship with contemporary music and powerpoint, you can only have worship if it's traditional...
There are those who say that certain styles cannot be used for worship - what would that be then?
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
brass bands?
C
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Therein lies a significance difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy IngoB. You still operate with the idea that it is possible to substantiate faith matters "outside the frame of reference." It's the old issue concerning "reason."
No. In particular, re-read the first two sentences of the third paragraph above.
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
I've just looked the idolatory commandment up in my father's old Church of Ireland catechism (which just happened to be nearest, and these old tomes are usually pretty precise in their language); The commandment is listed second, and the wording is enlightening (my capitals for emphasis):
"Thou shalt not MAKE TO THYSELF any graven image nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not BOW DOWN TO THEM, NOR WORSHIP THEM; for I the Lord Thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love me and keep my commandments."
What leaps out to me is:
1. The occasion of sin is a MAN MADE image or likeness. This commandment doesn't include natural phenomena like burning bushes. I suppose meditation on nature as a manifestation of God is OK, as long as it doesn't run foul of commandment (1) ("Thou shall have no other gods but me"). Bread and wine are not images, they are themselves, so I guess they aren't covered either. The cross could be a problem though.
2. Taken strictly, this commandment clearly bans the creation of ANY image - graven OR nature-representative, including images of God incarnate, or any secular art. So where and why do you draw the line (in a clearly non-nature representative or graven way, of course)?
3. Bowing down is prohibited as firmly as worshipping. This worries me because I find meditation and prayer in front of icons helpful. I'm not worshipping the physical object itself, but I am clearly bowing down before it. How can we square physical reverence to icons or even the Cross with this commandment?
4. Finally, this and the first commandment acknowledge the existence of other gods, but make it clear that Jews (and Christians) must have nothing to do with them. Particularly if you believe in spiritual warfare, I don't think its helpful to simply dismiss the other gods as false and dismiss idols as inanimate objects; if they were so harmless, why do they form the subject of the first and second commandments?
The last half of the commandment could open a whole other thread .... possibly it just indicates that this commandment has been superseded by the grace of the New Testament. After all, Jesus picked out two commandments as the most important and this wasn't one of them.
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
I just noticed a typo in my post. Of course to a Christian dedicated to the One True God all other gods are false; but this theology does not exclude the ability of other spiritual beings to wield spiritual and temporal power if worshipped and treated as gods.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
The crazy thing, Primrose Path, is that just after telling them not to make any images of things of heaven, earth, or in the seas, God goes on to tell them to create golden cherubim, and pomegranates (sp?), and probably stuff from under the sea as well (I'm too lazy to look it up) to decorate the temple and/or ark and/or priest's robes.
Clearly either God has multiple personality syndrome, or the commandment isn't just about making images per se.
Posted by A Lurker (# 3377) on
:
It may be worth confusing this thread by mentioning the undercurrent of extreme monotheism in hinduism. It's impossible to generalise about hinduism, but it's a mainstream hindu belief that there is in fact only one god, and they make no images of that god. All the other gods are incarnations of the one true god (Brahman/Purusha), so even if Krishna appears in front of you, you should be looking through him to the ultimate reality that he represents.
Of course, the more extreme version of this belief (advita) would hold that there is only one god, and EVERYTHING else is an illusion. Anything else is a manifestation of that one god. So since an unquickened statue is also the manifestation of god, it works just as well as a quickened one. And the lump of rock would have worked just as well before it was carved into a statue.
Posted by A Lurker (# 3377) on
:
And another thing...
(Sorry for the double post.)
If we assume that at the time the 10 commandments were given, it was a fair comment on all 'idol-worshipping' religions, is it fair that we ignore the far more subtle theology that has evolved since that time.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Lurker:
....there is only one god, and EVERYTHING else is an illusion. Anything else is a manifestation of that one god....
I don't think that's an extreme form - I think that was pretty orthodox Hinduism.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
I've always interpreted the 2nd commandment as basically not putting anything in front of God.
i.e. - If you watch TV all the time so much that it stops you from having "God-Time" then you are making an idol of the TV.
A Statue of a saint or the blessed sacrament isn't really going to stop you from thinking abotu God is it?
-103
[ 27. December 2005, 09:12: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
That's fair comment IngoB ... but I look back at your comment on my contribution (which one? please quote), and I am still trying to make sense of your comment.
I suppose I am saying that it is at least very difficult (if not impossible) to lay aside one's Christianity in commenting on anything. I can play devil's advocate; I can empathise with the atheists ... but in both cases I am acting. I cannot authentically respond as they would no matter how hard I try and no matter how how skilled I am.
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
Perhaps rather than looking at Hinduism and Bhuddism - which due to the shared history of the Near and Far East have a lot of philosophical similarities with Christianity - we should be considering faiths such as shamanism and voodoo. These probably more closely reflect the religious environment in which the Jews were operating at the time the commandments were given.
In these traditions, adepts voluntarily allow themselves or physical objects to become posessed by itinerant spirits, which are then used to exercise beneficent or malignant temporal power. Human artwork was (and is) considered a powerful way of invoking and channelling these spirit forces. (Perhaps the television works in much the same way, it would make sense of Little Britain and Party Political Broadcasts).
Now, you can dismiss this (universal, apparently innate, and probably 30,000 year old human practice and belief) as superstitious nonsense, or consider whether the ban on graven images is to protect Jewish worshippers from inadvertently invoking false gods and to learn a new way of relating to the divine.
The apparent willingness of many of these shamanistic or voodoo forces to do harm makes it seem unlikely (to me anyway) that they are simply manifestations of the One True God. Islamic and Jewish theology anyway are very explicit on the existence of a hierarchy of clean and unclean spiritual beings with free will apart from God, from angels and cherubim to daemons and efreets, and their attraction to common religious paraphenalia such as dancing, mumming, blood and incense. Jesus himself had numerous encounters with "unclean spirits" - and presumably with "clean" ones too - but how's an ordinary human to know the difference? Satan after all is described as an angel of light, the most beautiful of all the angels.
Again, how do we know WHAT we are communicating with when we use a man-made image or artifact in our worship? It's all very worrying ...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
In the same way as the israelites worked it out for the cherubim in the temple, I guess. (As per MTs example above, in answer to your earlier post.)
You could be just as worried when accepting a religious text as inspired - who knows what the influence behind the text is? There are plenty of examples of malign influences in print.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
That's fair comment IngoB ... but I look back at your comment on my contribution (which one? please quote), and I am still trying to make sense of your comment.
What I was trying to get at is that via "objective" reasoning and independent of any faith one can show that the Christian Eucharist is in some sense "special" - in particular, different from the quickening of a Hindu statue. However, one cannot fully arrive at its meaning without faith. Nevertheless, I think in this day and age it is useful to lead people by the force of reasonable argument to the edge of faith. If one can convince them that there is actually something there at all they need to worry about, one has taken a giant step forward.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Call me brainless but I thought the point was to give love to "thy neighbour" not a statue....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And the Lord your God. (Heart, mind, soul, all of etc.)
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
The point then is to be loving, not get absorbed in some formalised pattern of worship
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Really? Might God not like formalised worship?
I know a lot of couples who like formalised marriages...
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
If it removes love from the relationship and replaces it with acting how you think loving people would act, what place has it in a religion of love?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
That's a big if, though. The formality may enhance love; marriage often seems to.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
How do you enhance what is perfect? Love is not subject to being enhanced or lessened; it either is, or it isnt.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think I love my wife more than before we were married.
Being imperfect, human, and so forth, I've no problem with that idea.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
How do you enhance what is perfect? Love is not subject to being enhanced or lessened; it either is, or it isnt.
Nonsense.
There are some people I love more than others. My love for them could be lessened or enhanced by comparison with the love I have for other people.
Hell, I even love the cat a little bit. But not like any human being I know.
Your binary model of love is demonstrably crap, I'm afraid.
Posted by Caleb Woodbridge (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
Of course to a Christian dedicated to the One True God all other gods are false; but this theology does not exclude the ability of other spiritual beings to wield spiritual and temporal power if worshipped and treated as gods.
Also, even though as a Christian I know that an idol is just an object with no power in and of itself, when people believe it to be a god, then it becomes a malign spiritual influence because of the way people treat it. Just because it's not real doesn't mean it can't harm you spiritually!
I understand idolatory as putting anything in the place of the true God. If you worship, say, Odin in precisely the same way as the Christian God, then even though there is no objective difference to the act of worship, one is idolatory because the object of the worship is false, and the other is true worship because the object of the worship is true. It's the object of our worship that's key, which is "what distinguishes the Eucharist with real presence from the quickening of a Hindu figurine by a Hindu priest". I also think there are objective reasons for believing in the Christian God, but that's a whole other subject.
quote:
Originally posted by A Lurker:
[QB]If we assume that at the time the 10 commandments were given, it was a fair comment on all 'idol-worshipping' religions, is it fair that we ignore the far more subtle theology that has evolved since that time.
No, because I think the 'idol-worshipping' religions of the time are just one specific manifestation of the evil of putting something before the real God. Objects made of wood, stone or metal and believed to be literal gods are a particular case of the general principle that you call the "far more subtle theology".
God is the one worthy of worship because of his character and being - the perfect, holy, loving, infinite one. So from a polytheistic point of view, the Christian God alone should be worshipped because he's the best God, while from a monotheistic perspective he alone should be worshipped because he's the only God. In the sense that there are many things that can be worshipped as "gods" and on the basis of the possibility that evil spiritual beings may pretend to be gods, there's an element of truth in the first perspective. In the sense that Odin and Zeus and Allah don't, in my opinion, exist (though they are to varying degrees garbled versions of the true God), the second perspective is also true.
This has just raised a question in my mind: how far can we be mistaken in our idea of God before we are worshipping an idol of our own imagining? When does our idea of God spot being the Christian God and become someone else entirely?
Caleb
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
How do you enhance what is perfect? Love is not subject to being enhanced or lessened; it either is, or it isnt.
Nonsense.
There are some people I love more than others. My love for them could be lessened or enhanced by comparison with the love I have for other people.
Hell, I even love the cat a little bit. But not like any human being I know.
Your binary model of love is demonstrably crap, I'm afraid.
How can you only love a bit? Is that love?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Easily. There are plenty of people I love more than others. By comparison, those I love least I only love a bit.
What is your definition of love, that it can only be binary?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Teapot, do you claim that the love Karl feels for his cat is identical to the love he feels for his wife?
(Sorry, Karl, don't have a cat - or I'd have used myself as an example)
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Easily. There are plenty of people I love more than others. By comparison, those I love least I only love a bit.
What is your definition of love, that it can only be binary?
Is love anything other than seeing, for yourself, that something is made by god and then realising its perfection because of what it is?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Easily. There are plenty of people I love more than others. By comparison, those I love least I only love a bit.
What is your definition of love, that it can only be binary?
Is love anything other than seeing, for yourself, that something is made by god and then realising its perfection because of what it is?
Erm - actually, that's not what I understand love to be at all. Else it would be impossible for atheists to love, and yet they do.
Moreover, there are plenty of things that are not perfect. Me, for example. Seeing me as perfect because of what I am would be a delusion, and I'm not sure I want only the deluded to love me.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
there are plenty of things that are not perfect. Me, for example. Seeing me as perfect because of what I am would be a delusion, and I'm not sure I want only the deluded to love me. [/QB]
Yes you are Everything is "perfect" Karl, there is no creature in the world not deserving of love, no creature that is deserving of scorn.
[ 28. December 2005, 12:43: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
If one observes my actions and behaviour, the behaviour of humans in the world around us... this seems a very obtuse definition of 'perfect'.
It would be easier to argue that I'm in fact a green teapot than that I'm perfect.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one observes my actions and behaviour, the behaviour of humans in the world around us... this seems a very obtuse definition of 'perfect'.
It would be easier to argue that I'm in fact a green teapot than that I'm perfect.
Why are you so keen to pick up a shovel and proceed to beat yourself with in? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
A thing is perfect if it is worthy of love and not scorn. You are such a thing Mdijon
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
No, I'm not perfect, in fact I'm a teapot. I have a spout, a lid, and can pour tea.
These characteristic define a teapot.
A spout is an appendage with fingers, nails, and several joints. Lids are worn on the head to keep the sun off.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You are working with a very bizarre definition of perfect. Something that is perfect is ineligible for improvement, and I am eligible for a great deal of improvement.
Methinks you are working with a fluffy-bunny definition of perfect that is all very nice and warming inside but actually devoid of any useful semantic space. By this I mean that if everything is perfect by virtue of having been created by God, then "perfect" has no significant meaning beyond "created".
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
You embrace scorn as if it could save you!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Only milk and two sugars will save us.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Er, no. I just have a useful definition of perfect.
Why on earth would something be deserving of scorn just because it's not perfect?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Er, no. I just have a useful definition of perfect.
Why on earth would something be deserving of scorn just because it's not perfect?
Why on earth would something not be perfect if it is made by god?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Only milk and two sugars will save us.
No sugar please, but I can at least supply the Tea
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Er, no. I just have a useful definition of perfect.
Why on earth would something be deserving of scorn just because it's not perfect?
Why on earth would something not be perfect if it is made by god?
I think someone told a story about a garden and a fruit tree to explain that one.
But most things, most people, are self-evidently not perfect. A perfect human being would be free of evil, but people are not. A perfect cat would not have a skin infection, but mine does. Nothing in this world is perfect; everything could be better.
We must deal with the world as it is, not as our philosophy says it should be.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Perfect does not mean "not dangerous", a perfect world still has thorns, but a perfect world deserves love DESPITE its thorns, not scorn because of them.
But we digress from the "Idols" bit
How is worshipping at or through an idol necessary to love?
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Er, no. I just have a useful definition of perfect.
Why on earth would something be deserving of scorn just because it's not perfect?
Why on earth would something not be perfect if it is made by god?
I think someone told a story about a garden and a fruit tree to explain that one.
But most things, most people, are self-evidently not perfect. A perfect human being would be free of evil, but people are not. A perfect cat would not have a skin infection, but mine does. Nothing in this world is perfect; everything could be better.
We must deal with the world as it is, not as our philosophy says it should be.
That depends what you mean by perfect. I have certainly seen some perfectly evil humans.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
But we digress from the "Idols" bit
How is worshipping at or through an idol necessary to love?
I'm tempted to say, by definition, it is not. "Idol" is (in Christian use at least) a highly derrogatory term. A Christian would not call a thing (whether a physical image, a devotional practice, or a secular attachment) an "idol" unless it were considered false and disapproved of.
My question was not whether "idolatry" can be defended, it was, given that what the catholics do is not idolatry, what is? What is idolatry in its primary meaning (not the spiritual, analogous extension of that meaning) if kissing a statue of a saint or bowing to a box of consecrated wafers is not idolatry?
I'm making progress - I'm about a third of the way through "On the Divine Images" and can see from that the the theology of icon-veneration is very different to what the image-worshipping pagan is trying to do. I think, though, that I should have made more of a distinction in the OP between iconodulia and the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, because that is not about an 'image' but about worshipping a physical presence of God. My difficulty is that I can imagine a dialogue between Christian and Pagan going:
C: You are worshipping a false god. That statute of Odin is a work of man, an artifact. It has no power, no real existence as a god.
P: I disagree. Odin really does dwell in his image. But what are you talking about images for, anyway? I've seen you Christians worship, and you have statues and pictures too.
C: Yes, but we know that they are mere images. It isn't the statue or icon that we worship, but the God who made the saints which they depict.
P: Fine, but what about the bread and wine that becomes your god?
C: That's different. You see, we believe that the bread and wine really does become the body and blood of our God, so we can worship him in the bread and wine.
P: Just like I do with Odin's statue, you mean?
C: Not at all. There's an important difference.
P: Which is?
C: Well, we're right, and you're wrong.
I can't help finding that answer unsatisfying.
It might be that, given the incarnation and the whole Christian revelation, we can now be trusted with the use of images in worship that would be an error and a snare for any other people, but that doesn't help me to distinguish the claims of Catholicism as against paganism to actually behold God specially present in a physical thing. Does it just come down to the assertion that "we're right, and you're wrong"?
Posted by Caleb Woodbridge (# 4578) on
:
Why is that unsatisfying? I'd consider myself as a Christian obliged to substantiate my reasons for believing "I'm right and you're wrong" - God's self-revelation of himself in history, supremely in the historical event of his death and resurrection as Jesus Christ, and so on, just as I'd expect an Odin worshipper or whoever to have reasons for their beliefs. It isn't down to mere assertion, but down to reasonable discussion of the evidence we have available to us. We're not all going to agree, and simply have to live with the fact that many others think we are wrong and we think the same about them. That's what tolerance is all about.
God is only worth worshipping if he really is the true, most worthy being in the universe, and Odin is only an idol if he is really and actually inferior to this actual God.
What grounds would you find satisfying as a basis for whether something is an idol or not?
Edited to add: Incidentally, I don't believe that the bread and wine becomes Jesus' body and blood as such, which makes the debate with the pagan rather simpler for me. But still.
[ 28. December 2005, 15:05: Message edited by: Caleb Woodbridge ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Does it just come down to the assertion that "we're right, and you're wrong"?
Unfortunately, Eliab, I think that's exactly what it comes down to. Worship is acceptable or not based, not on what you do, but on who or what the worship is given to. Primarily, that is. Secondarily, what you do makes a difference -- God seems to have some opinions about where and how he should or should not be worshipped, but the means of worship is definitely secondary. The primary thing is who the worship is given to.
It seems to me that pagan worship has resonances in Christian worship because we have all of Creation doing its best to reveal God to us, and even more because we are made in the image of God. We have some knowledge of God built Creation and built into us. So when people who know nothing of the Judeo-Christian God look for the divine, they often end up with a large measure of truth in what they find and in what they do.
So the answer to the Odin-worshipper isn't "I'm right and you're wrong," but to explore the truth held in common, trusting the Holy Spirit to bring the Odin-worshipper to a fuller and more correct understanding of God.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Amen.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Idolatry at best focuses something as deserving of love (the idol) but the point is that everything is deserving of love
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Idolatry at best focuses something as deserving of love (the idol) but the point is that everything is deserving of love
Schistosoma mansoni
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Sorry, meant to add that the ventral gynecophoral canal on the male is adapted to allow life in copula... so perhaps they are more deserving of luurve than love.
See for yourself, Teapot.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Like I said:
Perfect does not mean "not dangerous", a perfect world still has thorns, but a perfect world deserves love DESPITE its thorns, not scorn because of them.
Do you say instead that all the world does not deserve love despite it being gods creation?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Do you say instead that all the world does not deserve love despite it being gods creation?
The Book of Needs includes a service for cursing the caterpillars and other little critters that are destroying a crop.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Do you say instead that all the world does not deserve love despite it being gods creation?
In other words, yes, we do say that.
Evidence shows otherwise. And it's a fallen creation to boot.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
Why is that unsatisfying?
[...]
Edited to add: Incidentally, I don't believe that the bread and wine becomes Jesus' body and blood as such, which makes the debate with the pagan rather simpler for me. But still.
I suppose, because I am agnostic about the catholic claim that the Sacrament really is God present in a form that can be worshipped. He might be, and I concede that the claim is plausible, but being outside the authority of the particular churches that teach this, I don't hold to that particular doctrine with the certainty of faith. It might, for all I know, be wrong.
I don't condemn the catholic for believing this, and I think that insofar as he acts in good faith, God is not offended. Which means that I don't call, and don't want to call, the worship of bread-as-God idolatry. And, I wouldn't want to call it idolatry even if it is factually wrong.
So I'd like to distinguish Odin-in-the-statue from God-in-the-Bread in a more fundamental way than that one happens to be right. Although both are plausible within their own faith traditions, but one of those traditions I think pretty certain to be wrong, and one I think is substantially right, but the specific claim that God is in the bread I am not sure is right, and I would like not to have to condemn it, even while I am still uncertain.
If the only defence for the practice is that it is definitely true - not that it is done with plausibility and in good faith - am I forced to the position where I have to say "I don't know if Catholics are idolators"? I'd like to say "I'm not sure if this particular aspect of Catholicism is really true, but I'm sure that whatever it is, it isn't idolatry". But can I rationally believe that? Can I avoid the conclusion that if the doctrine is false (and it might be, I just don't know) then the practice is idolatrous?
Is my only answer to say that the Odinite, if he acts in ignorant good faith, is not an idolator either, since he is approaching the divine in the best way he knows? I'd like to say that, but if I do, I find I've defined idolatry out of existence, because I must in charity believe that all so-called idolators are acting in good faith.
[ 28. December 2005, 16:33: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Caleb Woodbridge (# 4578) on
:
I don't think it necessarily follows . Even though I don't think that the bread and wine is Jesus' body and blood in the same sense as Catholic doctrine, since the Communion service is worshipping the Christian God, who does exist (I hope!), then it isn't idolatrous because the object of the worship is right, even though aspects of the worship are, in my opinion, mistaken (as I'm sure I'm mistaken in many areas too).
I am puzzled about where the line is between being mistaken in your ideas about God and worshipping a false God. How right do you have to be before you can truly worship the true God? How wrong do you have to be before you are committing idolatory? How useful is it to ask that question?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Is my only answer to say that the Odinite, if he acts in ignorant good faith, is not an idolator either, since he is approaching the divine in the best way he knows? I'd like to say that, but if I do, I find I've defined idolatry out of existence, because I must in charity believe that all so-called idolators are acting in good faith.
There is a wonderful poem by C.S. Lewis (whose book of poems I can't put my hands on at the moment, unfortunately), in which he makes the case that, whatever it is that we worship is what we imagine God to be, and not what He is. He is, in His essence, beyond anything we can think, beyond anything we can even begin to approach with our thoughts and feelings. So we are, in fact, all idolators, because we all worship what we think God is.
Except that God, in his magnetic mercy, draws our prayers and our worship to Himself.
In The Last Battle, Aslan said that he accepted anything done for the sake of goodness, because it was good, as done for himself. I think there is a large amount of truth in that.
So is the Odin-worshipper an idolator? I think that's up to God to decide.
ETA: You might consider what I was taught about heresy, in my catechumen class. If you believe a heretical doctrine because it was what you were taught, and you've never known anyone who believed differently, or if those who tried to teach you the truth were so awful that you couldn't see the truth because of their bad example, then you're not a heretic. You can only be a heretic if you know the difference between the true faith and the heresy, reject the truth, and choose the heresy.
I think idolatry is not so very different from heresy. Remember that the Ten Commandments were not given to the pagan tribes that surrounded the people of Israel. They were given to God's people. They are the ones who must not commit idolatry.
[ 29. December 2005, 00:10: Message edited by: josephine ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Teapot - feel free to love the blasted little worm whose sole purpose in love is to cause the disease Bilharzia.
I'll carry on loathing the little bastard.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
There is a wonderful poem by C.S. Lewis (whose book of poems I can't put my hands on at the moment, unfortunately), in which he makes the case that, whatever it is that we worship is what we imagine God to be, and not what He is. He is, in His essence, beyond anything we can think, beyond anything we can even begin to approach with our thoughts and feelings. So we are, in fact, all idolators, because we all worship what we think God is.
If that's the poem I'm thinking of ("All men are idolators, crying unheard ; to senseless idols if thou take them at their word" being the key lines) it appears in The Pilgrim's Regress at the point where John first realises that the pantheistic philosophical abstraction that he has accepted is, for all practical purposes, a personal God. It comes just at the end of his personal reasonings, and at the beginning of his faith.
I think it is describing a true experience, and probably a necessary one for many people, but I doubt it is what Lewis thought should be the usual Christian view of God. For him, at least, it seems to have been a pre-Christian experience.
quote:
I think idolatry is not so very different from heresy. Remember that the Ten Commandments were not given to the pagan tribes that surrounded the people of Israel. They were given to God's people. They are the ones who must not commit idolatry.
That's very helpful. The proper focus, from that, is whether I am commiting idolatry myself (worshipping a false god, or misrepresenting or limiting the true God) rather than how I categorise non-Christians.
But what if I consider becoming a catholic (of any sort)? In a church where it is expected that I will worship God in the physical sacrament, is this something I ought to do, or tolerate, if I am unsure if its right. So long as I'm thinking about other people, 'do not judge' must be an important principle, but as soon as it is a live issue for me, I must judge. The only defence to the practice I can see (from the logical mess I've tangled myself in by this thread) is that it is in fact really true. Either the Catholics and Orthodox are right (actually right, not just doing the best they know), or, if I joined them, I would be commiting idolatry.
Which means that, however much I might not want to say it, or consider it not to be my place to judge, I'm still at the conclusion that while I don't know whether the Catholics and Orthodox are right, I also can't know whether they are idolators or not. My feeling, and belief, is they are not idolators, even if they are wrong, but I'm not sure I can justify that belief.
Back-to-Front has posted on another thread about his dilemma (in churches without assured sacramental validity) in knowing whether treating the sacrament as valid would be idolatrous, or failing to do so would be rejecting God. That is, I think, my problem from another direction - I can only see a defense the practice if it is true - my thoughts about idolatry, at least as far as I, or 'God's people are concerned, can't support a defence of ignorant good faith if idolatry is to mean anything - and I don't know whether it is true.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Teapot - feel free to love the blasted little worm whose sole purpose in love is to cause the disease Bilharzia.
I'll carry on loathing the little bastard.
I'll carry on defending myself from it but I wonder if you skipped the "judge not, lest ye be judged" bit... Love and defence are not incompatible....
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Teapot, you've now made Shipmate status.
Which means the gloves are off.
Exactly what are you blithering about? Are you really telling me this loathsome little parasitical worm is somehow "perfect" (in a praiseworthy sense) and worthy of love?
Words really do fail me here. You've redefined "perfect" on this thread to basically mean "created", and now you redefine love to something that can include parasitic words. This sort of Humpty Dumpty use of words may suit a fluffy bunny "isn't everything lovely" world view, but not a realistic one.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Teapot, you've now made Shipmate status.
Which means the gloves are off.
Exactly what are you blithering about?
Lol, so after you've been here a while that is reason to get snappy?
quote:
Are you really telling me this loathsome little parasitical worm is somehow "perfect" (in a praiseworthy sense) and worthy of love?
Yes. Is it either a neighbour or an enemy?
quote:
Words really do fail me here. You've redefined "perfect" on this thread to basically mean "created", and now you redefine love to something that can include parasitic words. This sort of Humpty Dumpty use of words may suit a fluffy bunny "isn't everything lovely" world view, but not a realistic one.
I'm using perfect as meaning something created by a perfect creator. Love does not mean "willing to give yourself to for lunch".
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Teapot, you've now made Shipmate status.
Which means the gloves are off.
Exactly what are you blithering about?
Lol, so after you've been here a while that is reason to get snappy?
No. Just to start calling a spade a spade.
quote:
quote:
Are you really telling me this loathsome little parasitical worm is somehow "perfect" (in a praiseworthy sense) and worthy of love?
Yes. Is it either a neighbour or an enemy?
It's an enemy. Quite clearly a deadly enemy of millions of people around the world. This is exactly what I mean by the fluffy-bunniness of your position here. It seems to completely deny the reality of what this worm actually does and the effect it has on millions of people.
quote:
quote:
Words really do fail me here. You've redefined "perfect" on this thread to basically mean "created", and now you redefine love to something that can include parasitic words. This sort of Humpty Dumpty use of words may suit a fluffy bunny "isn't everything lovely" world view, but not a realistic one.
I'm using perfect as meaning something created by a perfect creator.
Can you justify that definition? Since the Creator is perfect, that means that by your definition of "perfect", everything is perfect. Do you not see that that robs the word "perfect" of any meaning? If everyone gets an A* on their Perfection GCSE, wouldn't that mean that getting that A* was meaningless, because there was no possibility of failing to do so? So your definition of "perfect" is also meaningless because it means nothing more than "exists", since by your philosophy everything that exists must be "perfect".
quote:
Love does not mean "willing to give yourself to for lunch".
Your definition of love you've already given. Since it involves recognising the "truth" of your "created by God = Perfect" philosophy, and I don't accept that philosophy, nor can I accept your definition of love.
It all seems very ultra-hippy panentheism with rose coloured glasses and a thin Christian veneer of language to me.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which means that, however much I might not want to say it, or consider it not to be my place to judge, I'm still at the conclusion that while I don't know whether the Catholics and Orthodox are right, I also can't know whether they are idolators or not. My feeling, and belief, is they are not idolators, even if they are wrong, but I'm not sure I can justify that belief.
Ah, I see where you are now. I've been there.
I was raised Presbyterian. My family was not particularly devout, but I certainly learned that only God was worthy of worship; that images used in worship are, if not idolatry, then at best signs of a rather superstitious approach to religion, and those who used them are to be, if not condemned, then pitied; that the dead are dead and are not to be prayed to.
At the church I attended during high school, the new cross we got for the church was enormously controversial. There were members who would rather not have a cross at all. This very large cross had symbols engraved in it for each of the Apostles. I can't begin to describe the flap that caused in the church.
At the same time, I was finding the austere and intellectual faith of the church I was raised in to be, well, not what I was looking for. When I was in college, I joined the Assemblies of God, where virulent anti-Catholicism is common. Saints and statues were not just signs of ignorance, but places of the activities of demons.
And I couldn't quite go there. I had a couple of close friends on campus who were Catholic, and who were clearly devout and pious, who loved God, who prayed the Rosary. I loved their church (I attended with them a few times, and they with me a few times), I loved their faith. But, still ....
And then, in one of my classes (I was an English major), I discovered George Herbert's poem, To All Angels and Saints. That perfectly summed up where I was, what I believed. I loved my Catholic friends, and wanted to believe that what they were doing at prayer and at worship was acceptable to God. But I couldn't know that it was. And I was quite certain that I could never be a Catholic, because of saints and images.
A handful of years later, I encountered the Orthodox Church, and there were the saints and images again. And I didn't think I could be Orthodox, either, but my then-husband wanted to attend enquirer's classes, and how can it hurt to know more? So I agreed.
The class started, not with Orthodox practices and beliefs, but with how the Orthodox decide what to do and what to believe. We read and studied the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins, some of the other early saints, what the Scriptures and the fathers say about the Church, and why.
And by the end of that, I was ready to trust the Church. Well, not entirely ready. But I was willing to trust St. Vincent's famous test of what the CHurch taught -- antiquity, universality, consensus. Given that the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost to give us all truth, and that Truth doesn't change, we should prefer old teachings and practices over newer ones. Given that the Spirit was given to the entire Church, not to certain select people, we should prefer teachings and practices held by all, or nearly all, Christians of every place and time over those held by a small group anywhere (or anywhen). And if antiquity and universality don't get you to an answer, then given that people who are truly holy do know the mind of God better than those who, like me, are not, if there is a teaching or practice that is accepted by most of the people who were manifestly holy in their lives, until their death, then we should prefer the consensus of these holy people over the teachings of those less holy.
That worked for me. And by that, I could see that the use of images in worship was not just acceptable, that it was proper, it was right. It surprised me that, after that point, I never struggled with the issue at all. I was convinced that the Orthodox were right.
But I don't know how to persuade you that we are right. For those that are not Orthodox, and not interested in becoming so, I'm very happy if they will accept the notion that we are not necessarily idolators, that there is justification for our practices in Scripture and tradition, and trust God to sort it out with us in the end. As you say, that's plenty good enough when you're looking at someone else. It's not good enough when you're deciding for yourself.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's an enemy. Quite clearly a deadly enemy of millions of people around the world. This is exactly what I mean by the fluffy-bunniness of your position here. It seems to completely deny the reality of what this worm actually does and the effect it has on millions of people.
Love thine enemy….?
quote:
quote:
I'm using perfect as meaning something created by a perfect creator.
Can you justify that definition? Since the Creator is perfect, that means that by your definition of "perfect", everything is perfect. Do you not see that that robs the word "perfect" of any meaning?
Hence, Judge not, lest ye be judged…..
quote:
If everyone gets an A* on their Perfection GCSE, wouldn't that mean that getting that A* was meaningless, because there was no possibility of failing to do so? So your definition of "perfect" is also meaningless because it means nothing more than "exists", since by your philosophy everything that exists must be "perfect".
Perfect then must be something that caters to your ego? The whole point of the message of love is that we don’t judge (condemn/hate) because everything is perfect.
quote:
it involves recognising the "truth" of your "created by God = Perfect" philosophy, and I don't accept that philosophy, nor can I accept your definition of love.
It all seems very ultra-hippy panentheism with rose coloured glasses and a thin Christian veneer of language to me.
I wonder which of us is really the one with the veneer Karl.
[fixed quote code]
[ 29. December 2005, 23:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Perfect then must be something that caters to your ego? The whole point of the message of love is that we don’t judge (condemn/hate) because everything is perfect.
Whose message would that be, and where are you hearing it?
The message I'm familiar with is that God chose to die for us while we were still sinners -- that is, while we were not only not perfect, we weren't even good. If we had been perfect, he'd not have needed to die (although, being Orthodox, I think he'd have been incarnate anyway).
It is true that we are not to judge, condemn, or hate any person, but not because each person is already perfect. Perfection -- theosis -- is a long time coming for most of us. Rather, we don't judge, condemn, or hate any person because we know that we are also sinners, because we know that God loves each person, and because each person is an icon of God. Just as love and prayers pass through the icon to the Creator of all, so too would hate and condemnation. That's something we just can't do.
But all of that applies to human beings, and mostly to imperfect human beings. We are to treat all of Creation with respect and care, as priests and stewards, because it is the creation of our God whom we love. Perfection has nothing to do with it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Teapot - and I'm speaking as a superannuating hippy myself - this really is rose-coloured spectacled feel-good bullshit.
Nor does it really work with any form of Christianity I know of, and I mean within the whole spectrum from Pat Robertson to +Spong.
We are not perfect. Christianity is about us being loved by God despite our not being perfect, and being gradually and slowly perfected by God, a process that few, if any, complete on earth. Whatever flavour of Christianity you adhere to, that is in it. And that is why I refer to the Christian trappings on your argument here as being a thin Christian veneer. You're using the words, but you do not mean by them anything within the spectrum of meaning that Christians of any stripe have given them.
Your use of "Love thine enemy" in this context is possibly the most out of context thing I've seen since a fundamentalist nit on another board tried to use the proverb about a wise man not looking to the left to prove that God is a Republican. All this talk about love and hate in the Bible is about human relationships. And we are not enjoined to love our neighbour and our enemy because they are perfect, but because we are imperfect just like they are, and because God loves imperfect us and imperfect them despite our imperfection!. This is such basic theology that I wonder where you are getting yours from.
I have plenty of time and appreciation of New Agey philosophies. What I don't do is confuse them with Christianity.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Whose message would that be, and where are you hearing it?
The message I'm familiar with is that God chose to die for us while we were still sinners -- that is, while we were not only not perfect, we weren't even good. If we had been perfect, he'd not have needed to die (although, being Orthodox, I think he'd have been incarnate anyway).
Sin does not strip you of your perfection. Could god have made a faulty creation? Sin is punished but the sinner is loved.
quote:
It is true that we are not to judge, condemn, or hate any person, but not because each person is already perfect.
What else is the message of love if not that everything is perfect (ie: deserving of love even if being an agent of sin)? Love looks at another and says “they are not deserving of being condemned”. What, but perfection, is not deserving of being condemned?
quote:
Perfection -- theosis -- is a long time coming for most of us.
Theosis? It is not for us to become gods, that is the aim of the greedy who are driven by fear. Is not the path of Christ the path of modesty driven by love? Perfection is not about arrogance; it is not something that sets apart. That is superiority not perfection.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Oh, and what Josephine said, which I hadn't read when I posted almost exactly the same thing, except being the very imperfect being I am, I did it with less grace.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Teapot - and I'm speaking as a superannuating hippy myself - this really is rose-coloured spectacled feel-good bullshit.
Why do you give so much stock to cynicism? Is it better to have power in hell than relinquish such in heaven?
quote:
Your use of "Love thine enemy" is …..out of context. All this talk about love and hate in the Bible is about human relationships.
Really? When was a limit ever put on loving and on who or what qualifies as our enemy?
quote:
And we are not enjoined to love our neighbour and our enemy because they are perfect, but because we are imperfect just like they are, and because God loves imperfect us and imperfect them despite our imperfection!. This is such basic theology that I wonder where you are getting yours from.
If you look at yourself, or another, and say “you are imperfect” you have just judged you or them. When you do not see imperfection you love them as they are perfect. You remember that they are the creation of a perfect creator just like you are.
A perfect flu virus will still make you feel ill. Perfect does not mean harmless to your body, it means they are harmless to your soul. When you realise another is perfect, that your perception of any imperfection was a misapprehension, you love them.
When you love someone you see no fault with them. They may attack you and you may defend yourself, but you still love, not hate them, as they are a creation of a perfect god just as you are and thus there is nothing going to despair at.
The message of the bible is love, the means of love is forgiveness; that is, to find no fault with them.
It is not “feel good bullshit” it is what it means to forgive, to judge not, and to love.
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
Just moseying back a little from perfection and true love to "false gods"...
My rather patchy readings of the Old Testament never picked up anything which specifically excludes the existence of other gods - just a lot of stuff about Yaweh being a special Jewish god, and that any dalliance with the competition would break the special covenant between Yaweh and His Chosen People.
In this environment the prohibition doesn't seem intended to prevent abstractions like "placing an image between yourself and the One True God" but to deal with the more practical risk of the new Jewish form of worship of Yaweh being gradually polluted into worship of the existing pagan gods and spirits, in breach of the first commandment.
My main point in all of this is that "diverted worship" could result in the glorification and empowerment of a genuine spiritual being other than God - an independent entity which is not just an abstraction of the worshipper. So "graven images" have to be treated very circumspectly.
I expect the Orthodox and Catholic churches have grappled with this problem at some level in the development of their iconography. Their traditions also arose in competition with a vibrant pagan culture of shamanism and voodoo, in fact many of the early fathers were ex-pagans. I would really like some feedback on whether this is ever considered an issue and if so what sort of safeguards they historically use to deal with this risk.
I'll give two examples of the sort of thing I mean, one positive and one disturbing:
(1) Saint George, whose origins as a Neolithic pagan fertility god are extremely well documented, is now adopted as an honourable (and reputedly very active and effective) Christian saint. How was this done? How is his sainthood now regarded? Does it matter that he may actually be a spirit, even if presumably no longer a pagan one? (How do we know?)(He's also a Muslim saint known as "Khidir", or "The Green One", but that's by the by).
(2) The "Talking with your Angels" cult which has recently become so popular in the US. My mother, who was a Catholic (but also a would-be B'Hai)encouraged us to pray to our Guardian angels but also warned that some angels were from The Other Side or quite possibly weren't angels at all, and we shouldn't get too into it. Now many American Christians are encouraged to communicate freely with all sorts of angelic beings, without too much consideration of their provenance, and are giving these entities a lot more airtime than they have had for a long while. What do the Catholic and Orthodox churches think of all of this? How can you tell the good angel from the bad?
Anyone who has managed to escape the Hilton in the Far East or Africa (I grew up in the Far East) will have had experiences which suggest that alternative spiritual forces are alive and well and definitely non-Christian (even if not always bad). People who are experienced in calling up these forces agree that physical objects are extremely important, and once "activated" can affect even unbelievers. For this reason, I think just dismissing idols as lumps of wood - and displaying them for fun - is a bit like leaving a loaded gun lying around. Hence, I bet, the prohibition on idolatory.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I've spent a fair bit of my adult life in East Africa, and I've never had an experience that convinced me that an idol or object had any spiritual power.
Many convicted atheists live in Africa, by the way, and they are not all maintaining this belief only by keeping their eyes closed.
In any case, you still haven't responded to mousethief's point asking you to square the prohibitions on idolatory with the making of cherubim.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
(1) Saint George, whose origins as a Neolithic pagan fertility god are extremely well documented,
They are? By whom? Poor guy. I wonder if anybody told him he was a pagan fertility god when he was around?
"Dude, did you know you're a pagan fertility god?"
"Whoa, heavy. Just a sec, let me kill this dragon."
quote:
Does it matter that he may actually be a spirit, even if presumably no longer a pagan one? (How do we know?)
"May actually be" according to whom? I assume some of the cultus for this prehistoric fertility god got shifted to St George, but that doesn't make them the same entity.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Teapot - and I'm speaking as a superannuating hippy myself - this really is rose-coloured spectacled feel-good bullshit.
Why do you give so much stock to cynicism? Is it better to have power in hell than relinquish such in heaven?
You say cynicism, I say reality. And what's this Hell stuff? Are you starting to play the "You don't understand what being a Christian is so you're going to Hell" game? How does this square with your "judge not" stuff? Have you not just judged me as being a cynic? Hypocrisy does not look good.
quote:
quote:
Your use of "Love thine enemy" is …..out of context. All this talk about love and hate in the Bible is about human relationships.
Really? When was a limit ever put on loving and on who or what qualifies as our enemy?
Hmmm. Let me think. The conclusions of 99.999% of the church throughout space and time, or Teapot's opinion? That's a toughy.
quote:
quote:
And we are not enjoined to love our neighbour and our enemy because they are perfect, but because we are imperfect just like they are, and because God loves imperfect us and imperfect them despite our imperfection!. This is such basic theology that I wonder where you are getting yours from.
If you look at yourself, or another, and say “you are imperfect” you have just judged you or them. When you do not see imperfection you love them as they are perfect. You remember that they are the creation of a perfect creator just like you are.
And when you declare something is perfect, you also pass a judgement. There's no escaping it.
"Love them as they are perfect" worries me. It seems you think that love is due something because it deserves it. I hope not, since there are plenty of people in the world - some would argue all - who are totally dependent on God loving them despite the fact they don't deserve it. What credit is it to God if He loves us because He has to because we deserve it, rather than Him loving us because it is in His nature to do so?
quote:
A perfect flu virus will still make you feel ill. Perfect does not mean harmless to your body, it means they are harmless to your soul.
I defy you to find a single dictionary, thesaurus or philosophical movement that shares your definition of "perfect" here. I think you are in a minority of one.
quote:
When you realise another is perfect, that your perception of any imperfection was a misapprehension, you love them.
When you love someone you see no fault with them.
Then I love no-one, and nor, I suspect, do you.
quote:
They may attack you and you may defend yourself, but you still love, not hate them, as they are a creation of a perfect god just as you are and thus there is nothing going to despair at.
There is plenty to despair at, because you have made love unattainable.
quote:
The message of the bible is love, the means of love is forgiveness; that is, to find no fault with them.
It is not “feel good bullshit” it is what it means to forgive, to judge not, and to love.
No it is not. Forgiveness and love is not pretending that what is wrong is not wrong; it is rising above it. Did Jesus say to His crucifyers "You are perfect and what you are doing is not wrong at all"? No, He didn't. He prayed for their forgiveness. You cannot forgive without first acknowledging that someone has done a wrong.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
You say cynicism, I say reality. ….. There is plenty to despair at, because you have made love unattainable.
You have embraced darkness and blinds you Karl. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
When you remember that all is the perfect creation of a perfect god there is no other option but to forgive and to love.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Have you not just judged Karl?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Have you not just judged Karl?
Nope. I have not condemned him, he is a perfect creation of a perfect creator. Judging is not perceiveing a state, it is allocating a value to that state that denies our nature as a perfect creation of a perfect creator
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Teapot said
quote:
When you love someone you see no fault with them.
Not at all. When you love someoneyou love them despite their faults. And have you never heard of tough love?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Teapot said
quote:
When you love someone you see no fault with them.
Not at all. When you love someoneyou love them despite their faults. And have you never heard of tough love?
Tough love is when you give someone what they need, forgiveness, not what they demand. Tough love is when you dont buy into the darkness someone may be selling.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
So;
quote:
Karl posted:
Teapot - feel free to love the blasted little worm whose sole purpose in love is to cause the disease Bilharzia.
I'll carry on loathing the little bastard.
is judging but
quote:
But when Karl posted:
You have embraced darkness and blinds you Karl.
isn't.
Fine.
Perhaps you can tell me the source of your definitions for judge, love, and perfect.
Perhaps you can also point out what the other purpose schistosomes have is.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Tough love is when you dont buy into the darkness someone may be selling.
But you have to see what the darkness is before you don't buy into it. i.e. their faults.
If A marries B, an alcoholic, love is not to keep forgiving them, letting them carry on as they did, ignoring the hidden empty bottles, the deceptions, the promises etc. etc. Tough love is letting them go right down until they themselves can see the need for help. This may be the gutter, or it may just be separation. A may still love B, but he/she can see their faults very, very clearly. They have to, or they cannot help.
And the same could apply to all sorts of abuse. Real love is not blind.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So;
quote:
Karl posted:
Teapot - feel free to love the blasted little worm whose sole purpose in love is to cause the disease Bilharzia.
I'll carry on loathing the little bastard.
is judging but
quote:
But when Karl posted:
You have embraced darkness and blinds you Karl.
isn't.
Loathing is condemning, recognising is not. “Judging” is not about “seeing”, it is about “condemning”. I do not condemn Karl for embracing darkness although I do recognise that he has.
quote:
Fine.
Perhaps you can tell me the source of your definitions for judge, love, and perfect.
Having eyes and ears to see and hear.
quote:
Perhaps you can also point out what the other purpose schistosomes have is.
Other purpose?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
Tough love is when you dont buy into the darkness someone may be selling.
But you have to see what the darkness is before you don't buy into it. i.e. their faults.
If A marries B, an alcoholic, love is not to keep forgiving them, letting them carry on as they did, ignoring the hidden empty bottles, the deceptions, the promises etc. etc. Tough love is letting them go right down until they themselves can see the need for help. This may be the gutter, or it may just be separation. A may still love B, but he/she can see their faults very, very clearly. They have to, or they cannot help.
And the same could apply to all sorts of abuse. Real love is not blind.
The only problem is the darkness itself; all else is a symptom of that. That they buy into the darkness themself is the cause of the alcoholism. A good physician does not address the symptom but the cause.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
So far, Teapot, a list of words you use with idiosyncratic, unique definitions are;
Love
Judge
Loath
Condemn
Perfect
Perhaps you could tell me where these definitions come from? "Eyes and ears" isn't an answer. Eyes and ears used where, to see what, in what way?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So far, Teapot, a list of words you use with idiosyncratic, unique definitions are;
Love
Judge
Loath
Condemn
Perfect
Perhaps you could tell me where these definitions come from? "Eyes and ears" isn't an answer. Eyes and ears used where, to see what, in what way?
If you deny that we are perfect creations of a perfect creator, that we forgive and love when we recognise this and that we judge/condemn/loath when we do not, then there is no source I could give you that you would accept as you invest so much in darkness that your eyes are dark and your ears full of cotton.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Teapot:
quote:
The only problem is the darkness itself; all else is a symptom of that. That they buy into the darkness themself is the cause of the alcoholism. A good physician does not address the symptom but the cause.
Delightfully vague! So how do you love an alcoholic? And don't just say "remove them from the darkness". They have to do it themselves. No one can do it for them. And until then? What does love do?
From your definition it seems that those who live with an alcoholic have to just keep on forgiving and do nothing else. Or even just see their partners as perfect.
Fat lot of good that will do!
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Teapot:
quote:
The only problem is the darkness itself; all else is a symptom of that. That they buy into the darkness themself is the cause of the alcoholism. A good physician does not address the symptom but the cause.
Delightfully vague! So how do you love an alcoholic? And don't just say "remove them from the darkness". They have to do it themselves. No one can do it for them. And until then? What does love do?
From your definition it seems that those who live with an alcoholic have to just keep on forgiving and do nothing else. Or even just see their partners as perfect.
Fat lot of good that will do!
They are in darkness because they forget that they and everyone else is a perfect creation of a perfect creator, so they run and hide in a bottle. The solution is not to treat the symptom, the alcohol, but the problem, that they forget…..
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Oh, right! So we tell everyone they are perfect, and lo! and behold, they are!
I don't think I am on the same wavelength or even the same planet as you.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Oh, right! So we tell everyone they are perfect, and lo! and behold, they are!
I don't think I am on the same wavelength or even the same planet as you.
Telling them rarely is enough for them to learn. They must be shown it by being treated as such by someone who knows it themselves
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Just some thoughts, Teapot, which I'd be interested to know your answers to.
Some people are, for example, mentally ill. It's not a question of them "forgetting" that they're "perfect". Do you think, as some do, that there is an element of volition about mental illness? I've heard it said that it's a choice and is just weakness of character.
Some mentally ill people may think that they are perfect. Are they?
Would a truly good and perfect God create mental illness? If so, why?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
Josephine,
Thank you for your response. I'm going to think some more before returning to that theme (if I do at all, I'm still at something of a mental dead end).
Teapot,
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
If you deny that we are perfect creations of a perfect creator, that we forgive and love when we recognise this and that we judge/condemn/loath when we do not, then there is no source I could give you that you would accept as you invest so much in darkness that your eyes are dark and your ears full of cotton.
I think I have some sympathy with what you are trying to say. Thinking back on my own experiences, there have been some which seemed horrible at the time (and do still) but which have had consequences I would not be without. The more I see what God has brought out of the bad parts of life, the less sure I am that (if it were possible) I would go back and change them. I am nowhere near the conclusion that all is perfect, but I can agree to some extent with the view that it is not given to us to critique the world which God made. We just don't know enough about how he is saving us to pass a final judgment on creation.
I think you are trying to formalise that idea into a philosophical system, and not (IMHO) succeeding. The inference that because we cannot criticise a thing it is therefore 'perfect' is a bad one. The further inference that a failure to see it as perfect is a choice of darkness rather than light is also a bad one. It would be more correct to say that we can see the evil in a thing (a deadly parasite, say) clearly, but cannot say for certain whether or how God is using that evil.
Relating this to the issue of idolatry, I think there are dangers in your approach (I do not say you have succumbed to them) in that seeing the world as 'perfect' and trying to love it, assigns the feeling which we owe to God's completed work to the curtain behind which he is working.
[ 30. December 2005, 10:58: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
Forgot to add:
Another flaw in your system seems to me to be that if it were established that the world as a whole is 'perfect' - that is, the best possible environment for the salvation of souls, it does not follow that every single local feature of it is best for that purpose. Death and disease may (for all I know) be necessary to arrest the consequences of evil, but it does not follow that they are good in themselves. They may be thoroughly evil in themselves, worthy of our hatred, and yet still necessary to a particular task.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Some mentally ill people may think that they are perfect. Are they?
If by perfect you mean perfect creation of a perfect creator and thus to be loved not condemned, then yes. If you mean perfect as in a delusion that they have achieved apotheosis and cannot ever be fooled, no. To be human is to be perfect but to be perfect is not to be invulnerable.
quote:
Do you think, as some do, that there is an element of volition about mental illness? I've heard it said that it's a choice and is just weakness of character.
Weakness of character is an misapprehension that denies forgiveness; its very attitude is “you pathetic thing!”. People can be fooled, we are not infallible, and mental illness comes from being fooled (unless it is based upon physical lesion but that is a whole other matter).
quote:
Would a truly good and perfect God create mental illness? If so, why?
Something to do with the weakness of words and Matthew 4:7 springs to mind here…..
What is, is. And what is, was created by a perfect creator. Now if you don’t believe that, such is your choice….but it don’t change the fact
If you pull apart an insect, it no longer looks like an insect, and if you pull it apart enough it can look like anything you want it to.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It would be more correct to say that we can see the evil in a thing (a deadly parasite, say) clearly, but cannot say for certain whether or how God is using that evil.
Evil is no more than that force which may deceive us, by god’s allowance, into believing in darkness, into forgetting that we are the perfect creation etc.
Why it is, I don’t presume to judge.
quote:
Another flaw in your system seems to me to be that if it were established that the world as a whole is 'perfect' - that is, the best possible environment for the salvation of souls, it does not follow that every single local feature of it is best for that purpose. Death and disease may (for all I know) be necessary to arrest the consequences of evil, but it does not follow that they are good in themselves. They may be thoroughly evil in themselves, worthy of our hatred, and yet still necessary to a particular task.
All I can say is I have been brought to see that the world is a perfect creation of a perfect creator, that this cuts away the condemning (although, like I said, we aint invulnerable to being deceived and I do still slip into such…although I try to remind myself why not to ), is the essence of the message of forgiveness/don’t judge and is the pre-requisite for love.
Regarding Idolatry: My apologies to those who tuned in expecting their usual programmes and that this thread has been derailed instead folks, sorry
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Evil is no more than that force which may deceive us, by god’s allowance, into believing in darkness [...]
Is 'believing in darkness' an evil? Is it an imperfection?
If it is not, then why should we want to avoid it?
If it is either, then I think your system fails - you can put the question of discrimination back or up to a metaphysical level if you like, rather than locating it in the physical creation, but you have still let in something which is undesireable in itself, and thus something that it would (in principle) be right to condemn.
I see, and largely approve, the feeling of extreme reluctance to judge anything, but formalising this into a universal positive judgment looks like an error to me.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Is 'believing in darkness' an evil? Is it an imperfection?
If it is not, then why should we want to avoid it?
Believing in darkness is a sin but it does not deny our deservingness of forgiveness. It does not really deny that we are the perfect creation of a perfect creator (there has got to be a shorthand for that! PCOAPC? ) it offers a lie that says we are not the PCOAPC.
Love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemy, judge not lest you be judged, forgive those who trespass against us, to borrow a few words.
These are words that speak of a creation that deserves not our condemnation, but instead speak of a creation that there can be no legitimate barrier to loving. Neither distance (neighbour), proximity (self) nor relationship (enemy, trespass).
Is this so hard to embrace?
[ 30. December 2005, 11:58: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Thank you for your reply, Teapot. There are a couple of points I'd like you to clarify, if you don't mind, as I'm not sure I understand.
quote:
People can be fooled, we are not infallible, and mental illness comes from being fooled (unless it is based upon physical lesion but that is a whole other matter).
Can you explain that please? How is one "fooled" into becoming mentally ill? Is this something that one human being can do to another?
quote:
(From me) Would a truly good and perfect God create mental illness? If so, why?
quote:
(From Teapot) Something to do with the weakness of words and Matthew 4:7 springs to mind here…..
What is, is. And what is, was created by a perfect creator. Now if you don’t believe that, such is your choice….but it don’t change the fact
Ah, but you see I don't regard that as a fact, just your perspective. Can I conclude from what you've said, though, that God is responsible for having created mental illness?
If so, you've said in the previous paragraph that mental illness comes from being fooled. So the logical conclusion of that is that God must have fooled people. Why would he do that?
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
OK, let's get Mousethief's point about the cherubim etc out of the way first:
I only found two directions in Exodus for the making of graven images out of probably hundreds for the decoration of the temple and vestments for the priests: two golden cherubim for the Ark of the Covenant and a floral lampstand. They are described specifically and in detail, so presumably they are important. Pre-Christian reasoning would conclude that God had sanctioned the invocation of cherubic beings around the Ark by the use of these images. I have no clue about the significance of the lampstand or what it might invoke, except that it sounds very like the Tree of Life. I've never been able to see much harm in invoking plant life, even muslim artwork often allows tendrils and other plant motifs. And in any case, because these objects were being made at the specific direction of God, as set out in Exodus, they wouldn't count as making UNTO THYSELF a graven image.
I love the idea of a convicted athiest. Do you mean a convinced atheist?
It seems to me that the existence or not of spiritual warfare is not something we can ascertain by debate - we'll just end up with Eliab's debate between the Christian and the Odin-worshipper (great stuff Eliab!) There's always a rational explanation for miracles etc ("the fact that I fell downstairs and broke my pelvis shortly after I fired the Chinese maid is pure coincidence and a dodgy top tread.") You either believe she hexed you or you don't. Much like the healing power of prayer.
If no-one is interested in the possibility of Christians being inadvertently drawn into the worship of other spiritual beings through the use of Church artifacts, I guess I may as well stop posting here. I will add before I go, though, that it's something that worries me when visiting some CofE churches and schools, to see hindu or bhuddist idols displayed in places of honour in the rather mixed assumption that it is multiculturally respectful and also non-harmful because they are just "lumps of wood". This would have been unthinkable in the in the Jewish Temple, or even in a Catholic or Orthodox school or church - so I assume there are Catholic and Orthodox rules about this sort of thing which would be interesting to debate.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
How is one "fooled" into becoming mentally ill? Is this something that one human being can do to another?
You can be tricked, but it is not the person doing the tricking but the unholy spirit wearing the person (who has themselves been tricked) like a mask/puppet.
quote:
Ah, but you see I don't regard that as a fact, just your perspective. Can I conclude from what you've said, though, that God is responsible for having created mental illness?
We were created with the ability to be mentally ill, just we are created with bones that break if enough force is applied.
There is however a force of evil at work in the world, not just a force of love.
quote:
If so, you've said in the previous paragraph that mental illness comes from being fooled. So the logical conclusion of that is that God must have fooled people. Why would he do that?
Lol devious attempt at word trickery Ariel you should have auditioned for Saruman
I do not presume to know why the unholy spirit is allowed to do what it does. Perhaps it exists because some parts of the world are hostile to us (underwater, the poles etc) and so is the spirit of that condition? I don’t know – we could probably sit here all day hazarding reasons
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
There is however a force of evil at work in the world, not just a force of love.
Is this force of evil also a perfect creation of the perfect god? Is it perfect? Is it good? For that matter, are perfect things good? Or does good mean something else?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
There is however a force of evil at work in the world, not just a force of love.
Is this force of evil also a perfect creation of the perfect god? Is it perfect? Is it good? For that matter, are perfect things good? Or does good mean something else?
Indeed this spirit is also a perfect creation of a perfect creator - even "you know who" deserves love, there is NOTHING that does not. No part of creation deserves condemnation. Sure some things need defending against (flu, lions, auditers ) but that is a physical matter not a spiritual one. They are still all deserving of love.
Probably the word "evil" is not the right one to use but I dont have the words to describe it without resorting to cliche
So 'scratch' "evil" and replace with "the accuser". Speaking Aloud The Accuser’s Name should not be necessary on here
[ 30. December 2005, 15:33: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
it's something that worries me when visiting some CofE churches and schools, to see hindu or bhuddist idols displayed in places of honour in the rather mixed assumption that it is multiculturally respectful and also non-harmful because they are just "lumps of wood". This would have been unthinkable in the in the Jewish Temple, or even in a Catholic or Orthodox school or church - so I assume there are Catholic and Orthodox rules about this sort of thing which would be interesting to debate.
Someone has said, earlier in this thread, that they are NOT idols but vidual aids just like crucifixes. I have temporarily used a statue of Lord buddha to great effect in an Anglican service.
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
Bishop Kallistos Ware has a beautiful paragraph about the nature of evil:
"What, then are we to say about evil? Since all created things are intrinsically good ["God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was exeedingly good" Gen 1:31], sin or evil as such is not a "thing", not an existent being or substance. "I did not see sin", says Julian of Norwich in her Revelations, "for I believe that it has no kind of substance, no share in being; nor can it be recognised except by the pain caused by it"...And St Gregory of Nyssa states, "Sin does not exist in nature apart from free will; it is not a substance in its own right". "Not even the demons are evil by nature" says Maximus the Confessor, "but they become such through the misuse of their natural powers." Evil is always parasitic. It is the twisting and misappropriation of what it in itself good. Evil resides not in the thing itself but in our attitude towards the thing - that is to say, in our will [my italics].
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
Leo, I despair. It WAS actually in Bristol that I saw this abomination. Please can you explain what place Lord Bhudda could possibly have in Christian worship? Or is Jesus just another prophet? ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Primrose Path's mantra of "All is perfect" reminds me a great deal of Master Pangloss of Candide whose own mantra was that we live in "the best of all possible worlds". This the poor, old guy affirmed even as he was dying of syphilus -caught in the "cause of love".
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
quote:
Primrose Path's mantra of "All is perfect" reminds me a great deal of Master Pangloss of Candide whose own mantra was that we live in "the best of all possible worlds". This the poor, old guy affirmed even as he was dying of syphilus -caught in the "cause of love".
Syphilis, Guinea worms, parasitic wasps (which lay their eggs on a paralysed, but still feeling, caterpillar so that their grubs can consume it alive) are unpleasant, but are they evil? Tsunamis and floods are devastating, but are they evil? Bishop Ware's analysis concludes that evil is the result of choice; these creatures cannot choose they way they live and reproduce, and forces of nature have no free will.
We cannot live in the best of all possible worlds until all beings of free will consistently make the best of all possible choices. Which brings us neatly back to the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, and such other reliable guidance as we have from scripture and grace.
Would the best of all possible worlds exclude parasitic worms and floods? Probably not - because these are as much a part of a functioning world as your immune system, which kills millions of innocent bacteria every hour. What may seem imperfect to our species may not be imperfect in God's eyes.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Teapot, your use of the English language reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Teapot --
It's several psts and hours back, so I'm not going to come the heavy host, but your comment to Karl, that "You have embraced darkness and blinds you" is not only missing at least one word, but is precious close to the kind of personal attack that we frown on on the Ship. As Karl has (in if I may say so, a very "christian" way) not called on you to retract, I won't make more of it that he did. But no more, please.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
OK, let's get Mousethief's point about the cherubim etc out of the way first:
I'm not sure that quite get's it 'out of the way'. You've started to look at the small print of the ten commandments for 'get out clauses'. I'd imagine there are various 'get out clauses' - such as the images used in orthodox worship not being "unto thyself" or worshipped directly etc.
So the point is, the second commandment doesn't prohibit all manner of graven images. Which was the point in the first place.
That's got it 'out of the way', then.
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
I love the idea of a convicted athiest. Do you mean a convinced atheist?
It's not an unusual turn of phrase. It implies that someone is an atheist in an involuntary, force of conviction sort of way.
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
It seems to me that the existence or not of spiritual warfare is not something we can ascertain by debate....You either believe she hexed you or you don't. Much like the healing power of prayer.
That may be so - but it's quite different from stating that anyone who's lived in Africa or the East will have had experiences that suggest spiritual forces in objects.
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
If no-one is interested in the possibility of Christians being inadvertently drawn into the worship of other spiritual beings through the use of Church artifacts, I guess I may as well stop posting here.
An odd end to your posting career; I'd have thought the fact I was arguing about it demonstrated interest - I may disagree, but that's hardly the same as lack of interest.
I'll note you haven't provided any evidence regarding the well documented identity of St. George as a pagan fertility God. Is this due to lack of interest?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So far, Teapot, a list of words you use with idiosyncratic, unique definitions are;
Love
Judge
Loath
Condemn
Perfect
Perhaps you could tell me where these definitions come from? "Eyes and ears" isn't an answer. Eyes and ears used where, to see what, in what way?
If you deny that we are perfect creations of a perfect creator, that we forgive and love when we recognise this and that we judge/condemn/loath when we do not, then there is no source I could give you that you would accept as you invest so much in darkness that your eyes are dark and your ears full of cotton.
In other words, "I use these words in the way I want. I have no basis that I can communicate for doing this. If you don't agree you invest in darkness".
Given that the majority of people using the English language don't use these words in the same way as you, and that the generally accepted translations in other languages are also not used with the definitions you give, it's a pretty bleak day for humankind. All shrouded in darkness .... except one solitary bright morning star on the horizion that alone sees the truth .... Teapot!
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Teapot contra mundum.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'll note you haven't provided any evidence regarding the well documented identity of St. George as a pagan fertility God. Is this due to lack of interest?
While you wait for Primrose to answer, you might find this article interesting.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Given that the majority of people using the English language don't use these words in the same way as you
Love – Shared peace and bliss that comes from not condemning but instead recognising we are the PCOAPC.
Forgive – To see as the PCOAPC and thus deserving no condemnation. The path to love.
Perfect – Faultless, deserving no condemnation.
Judge – To deny something as the PCOAPC, to deny forgiveness to, to pass sentence on. The opposite of forgive. That which cuts off from love.
Loath – [see Judge]
Condemn – [see Judge]
Matthew 7:1-2 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
Matthew 5:43-48 “"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”.
But words are self-referencing so we could chase around definitions forever. They will always be interpreted according to the heart of the interpreter and you make plain your heart in how you interpret them.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Teapot contra mundum.
Mousethief contra amore
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
No part of creation deserves condemnation. Sure some things need defending against (flu, lions, auditers ) but that is a physical matter not a spiritual one.
I can think of one part of creation that is a spiritual danger. Me. I am, at my best, inclined to be apathetic, callous and insensitive. At my worst, I am extremely spiteful and vindictive. Those people whom I injure through sin are forced, against their will, into a situation which will surely stain their soul forever (or until they are able to forgive me) with resentment, bitterness and anger.
You may be quite right that you yourself are not be able to condemn me for being spiritual poison - because you lack the knowledge and the moral standing to do so. God lacks neither. He sees clearly what I am, and how far it falls short of what I could be. Of course, I believe that I will be saved, that he will not condemn me either, but that's not because I am perfect, it's because he is.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Eliab,
quote:
I can think of one part of creation that is a spiritual danger. Me. I am, at my best, inclined to be apathetic, callous and insensitive. At my worst, I am extremely spiteful and vindictive. Those people whom I injure through sin are forced, against their will, into a situation which will surely stain their soul forever (or until they are able to forgive me) with resentment, bitterness and anger.
Only so far as you listen to the spirit of the Accuser rather than the spirit of Love There’s hope even for a miserable old git like you
quote:
You may be quite right that you yourself are not be able to condemn me for being spiritual poison - because you lack the knowledge and the moral standing to do so. God lacks neither. He sees clearly what I am, and how far it falls short of what I could be. Of course, I believe that I will be saved, that he will not condemn me either, but that's not because I am perfect, it's because he is.
It is you who condemns yourself Eliab. How clear does it need to be? “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged”. Forgive, realise that there is no fault, that any condemning is simply how you condemn others reflected on you. There-in, is your hope Eliab.
If you condemn, then you condemn yourself. Cast aside the spirit of the accuser and his lies on the need to condemn (hence “accuser”), embrace instead the spirit of love.
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on
:
quote:
Anyone who has managed to escape the Hilton in the Far East or Africa (I grew up in the Far East) will have had experiences which suggest that alternative spiritual forces are alive and well and definitely non-Christian (even if not always bad). People who are experienced in calling up these forces agree that physical objects are extremely important, and once "activated" can affect even unbelievers. For this reason, I think just dismissing idols as lumps of wood - and displaying them for fun - is a bit like leaving a loaded gun lying around. Hence, I bet, the prohibition on idolatory.
It seems to me that we have a discussion about three different things:
1) - consecrated objects, things with a changed spiritual nature: eucharist, consecrated places, spirit-indwelled statues, magical paraphinalia etc.
It seems to me if you don't believe in non-Christian spiritual forces, then a ban on this sort of thing outside the special cases decreed by God to be proper and for His own use makes little sense, and if you do, it makes total sense. I'd always assumed that either an idol was a useful visual aid, or it was nothing, but that they can undergo a spiritual change makes perfect sense to me. That said - the bible doesn't take this view - it seems to consistently say that idols are nothing but worthless wood.
2) - visual aids to worship, things not being divine in themselves but used as pointers to the divine: christian icons, buddha statues
Potentially harmful in that it could propogate wrong ideas about God, leading to spiritual harm or superstitious or occult practices, perhaps. It is very interesting that the purely monotheistic religions seem to ban images much more virulently than those that believe God has taken physical form (Christianity and Hinduism, AFIAK).
3) - religious decoration; i.e. stuff that's not meant to be worshiped or used as a worship aid.
More likely to be harmless I would have thought, except where you are depicting divinity, in which case its also a case of (2) or you are depicting other beings and its a case of (1). I think the cherubim fall into this category. What about gargoyles?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
We can chase definitions; I'll leave love aside, since reasonable people would disagree on the definition.
On the other hand... fault.
How would you define a fault Teapot?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
In this context, something that deserves condemnation not love.
[ 31. December 2005, 13:25: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Dijon,
Why do you so vehemently disagree with what I am saying? Dont you want to forgive and be forgiven?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
Leo, I despair. It WAS actually in Bristol that I saw this abomination. Please can you explain what place Lord Bhudda could possibly have in Christian worship? Or is Jesus just another prophet?
I was preaching on Acts where Paul goes in Athens - the altar of the unknown god. I spoke of engaging with other faiths and of my own experience of reading theology at university and realising that people of other faiths were gripped by the same Reality (which we call God). I was haunted by a Buddha statue in a shop window when I was a child - I believed that it was evil. Now I was reclaiming it as part of the way in which our faith can be enriched.
Jesus is not 'another prophet'; he is the second person of the Trinity - but that does not mean that God is not bigger than we can see and that other faiths have nothing to teach us (the 2nd Vatican Council said as much).
Bristol has a thriving inter-faith group which is well ahead of some similar groups in other cities, which might explain the coincidence of your seeing something similar.
Posted by Primrose Path (# 9137) on
:
quote:
Mr Dijon wrote:
You've started to look at the small print of the ten commandments for 'get out clauses'. I'd imagine there are various 'get out clauses' - such as the images used in orthodox worship not being "unto thyself" or worshipped directly etc.
So the point is, the second commandment doesn't prohibit all manner of graven images. Which was the point in the first place.
In fact, my original post never tried to argue that all graven images were prohibited; I use ikons in worship myself. The concern which forms the basis for my postings here - apart from the delight of discourse - is HOW do we DISTINGUISH between what is permitted/safe and what is not? Perky Ears at least has addressed this point; but is it really just a matter of personal opinion? If so, what's to stop Leo putting a Bhudda on the altar of every Anglican church in Bristol as a "visual aid"? (Why stop at Bhudda, we could have a whole pantheon of non-Christian images to titillate every taste during the sermon?)
I worshipped in various Anglican churches in London and Bristol for twenty years. The older worshippers are pretty clued up but a depressingly high number of the younger CofE worshippers have a shaky understanding, at best, of the basics of Christian faith. They have high ideals gleaned from popular culture, but very little religious knowledge. The Sunday schools - actually, they call them something more funky but I forget what - are paralysed by political correctness and teach very little, mostly from the New Testament and deliberately avoiding anything too challenging lest their charges get scared away. These worshippers are probably as ignorant in many ways as the peasants who used to steal Hosts for chicken feed (to enhance laying - apparently this is why the Catholics place it right on the tongue and watch it go down). So putting a Bhudda in front of someone like that and saying it is "OK" is very, very dangerous. O Shepherds, feed your sheep!
Interfaith worship is nothing new; the wall paintings in the catacombs in Alexandria show images of Egyptian gods in Roman uniforms covered with Christian symbols. You have to wonder whether, if we met some of the interees, we would consider them Christian in our terms. I think we probably would, because they must have beleived that they were saved by the body and blood of Christ; but they obviously also clung on to their old habits as well. Does God mind if we worship him but also light a candle in front of the image of a Christianised pagan saint in the hope of conceiving a baby? The Ten Commandments indicate he does.
So does the New Testament (if not the Gospels, which I have always taken as more divinely inspired that St Paul's rather unloving polemics). Some of Saint Paul's nastier and misogynistic Corinthian writings are aimed at stamping out this tendency to cling onto pagan forms of worship, which he reckoned women were more likely to do (probably correctly, the powerless and downtrodden are most likely to resort to magic and the occult). Much as I dislike the man, he had the support of most of the Apostles in this. How seriously should we take all of this?
BTW, I am always impressed at the Catholic church's ability to reach out to people of all backgrounds (financial and ethnic) without compromising its theology. I just can't get over that Pope problem.
quote:
Mr. Dijon wrote:
I'll note you haven't provided any evidence regarding the well documented identity of St. George as a pagan fertility God. Is this due to lack of interest?
Ariel has already done far better than I could hope for with my limited PC skills - thank you. I though perhaps I'd gone a bit far in saying that St George's pagan origins were "well documented back to Neolithic times" but actually, I'm not. Follow this link (if you can, I'm a bit crap at this):
http://www.spellintime.fsnet.co.uk/Breathing%20the%20Dawn.htm Sorry about the breathless prose and soulful photos.
Posted by Progradior (# 10832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Have you not just judged Karl?
Nope. I have not condemned him, he is a perfect creation of a perfect creator. Judging is not perceiveing a state, it is allocating a value to that state that denies our nature as a perfect creation of a perfect creator
I notice you seem to be a panentheist. Speaking as another panentheist, how do you see something incomplete as being perfect? Are we not perfected only in God?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Hi Progradior
quote:
I notice you seem to be a panentheist. Speaking as another panentheist, how do you see something incomplete as being perfect? Are we not perfected only in God?
I would not class myself as panentheist as I make a distinction between “creator” and “created”; the world (and we, as part of the world) is not divine, everything in it is perfect (deserves love not condemnation), but we are not divine.
Perfect means deserves love and not any condemnation. Nothing more, nothing less. God is perfect (deserves love and not any condemnation) and invulnerable. We, as a PCOAPC, are perfect (deserves love and not any condemnation) but not invulnerable (we can be tricked, wounded, poisoned, infected etc).
Perfect is purely a matter of whether we deserve condemnation or not. We dont, which is why we are commanded to "love", "forgive" and "judge not". We are not deserving by something we do, as the egotists suggest (or as some egotists may say I am suggesting ), but by nature of what we are; a perfect creation of a perfect creator. Our innocence is a gift of grace that we can refuse to accept (if we accept the lies of the false slanderer) but which we retain anyway. Forgiveness comes from remembering this.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Our innocence is a gift of grace that we can refuse to accept (if we accept the lies of the false slanderer) but which we retain anyway. Forgiveness comes from remembering this.
Teapot, what do you mean by innocence??
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
Our innocence is a gift of grace that we can refuse to accept (if we accept the lies of the false slanderer) but which we retain anyway. Forgiveness comes from remembering this.
Teapot, what do you mean by innocence??
Not deserving condemnation; ok probably not a good word as linked with sin, but after chocolate cake and beer my thoughts get a bit clogged
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Not deserving condemnation; ok probably not a good word as linked with sin, but after chocolate cake and beer my thoughts get a bit clogged
Only then? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
Teapot, I know you mean well but my eyes and ears are telling me that you are blinded, deceived, and seduced by lies of he-who-must-not-be-named.
Our scriptures tell us that, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 john 1:8). So all claims of perfection are simply deceitful illusions. Here's a ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for your journey and transformation to the light. blessings.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Teapot, I know you mean well but my eyes and ears are telling me that you are blinded, deceived, and seduced by lies of he-who-must-not-be-named.
Our scriptures tell us that, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 john 1:8). So all claims of perfection are simply deceitful illusions. Here's a for your journey and transformation to the light. blessings.
Never said we dont sin, Joyful, only that we deserve no condemnation for it as it doesnt stop us being a PCOAPC
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
dear Teapot, I'm afraid you deceive yourself and the truth is not within you. There was only one perfect being and you are not Him.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Dijon,
Why do you so vehemently disagree with what I am saying? Dont you want to forgive and be forgiven?
These aren't exclusive - I can disagree with you, forgive and be forgiven. Neat trick hey?
You define fault as something needing condemnation. Are there any such things?
[ 02. January 2006, 06:25: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
When I said "which was the point in the first place, I was referring to;
quote:
Mousethief followed up with:
.....God goes on to tell them to create golden cherubim, and pomegranates (sp?), and probably stuff from under the sea as well (I'm too lazy to look it up) to decorate the temple and/or ark and/or priest's robes....Clearly either God has multiple personality syndrome, or the commandment isn't just about making images per se.
Now....
quote:
Originally posted by Primrose Path:
Sorry about the breathless prose and soulful photos.
Yes.Not that I know anything about this area, but it strikes me more as an 'other people also think so'-sort-of-link, rather than a "well documented"-sort-of-link.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Dijon,
Why do you so vehemently disagree with what I am saying? Dont you want to forgive and be forgiven?
These aren't exclusive - I can disagree with you, forgive and be forgiven. Neat trick hey?
You define fault as something needing condemnation. Are there any such things?
I wonder Dijon, if you would be willing to accept forgiveness, or if instead to are bound up with the false accusers accusations....and insist on being condemned...?
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
I wonder Dijon, if you would be willing to accept forgiveness, or if instead to are bound up with the false accusers accusations....and insist on being condemned...?
mdijon might understand that, but perhaps you could elucidate for those of us with lesser brains, teapot? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
There seems to be a step left out somewhere. If I have sinned, either against God or against someone else, in feeling guilt, am I therefore accepting the false accuser's accusations, or am I just insisting on being guilty despite being a perfect creation (in which case, how come I sinned?)
If I have done something really heinous, even if the injured person forgives me, it can take a long time to accept forgiveness. Or is that the accuser getting up to his tricks?
Have you ever studied psychology? You seem to have a rather airy-fairy idea of the intricacies of the mind.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Wonder no longer, Teapot, I'm always happy to accept forgiveness.
The other thing I'm currently eager to accept is your defintion of a fault.... any examples?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Fault, quite cleary, is being used to mean "that which deserves condemnation". Are you going to try pulling up each word, saying it has several meanings, and ignoring that such meanings are given by the context they appear in Dijon?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Actually, examples of things provide the best context to understand use of a word. I'm wondering if you can give an example of a fault? That would be the best context, to work out how you are using the word.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
could elucidate ... teapot?
There seems to be a step left out somewhere. If I have sinned, either against God or against someone else, in feeling guilt, am I therefore accepting the false accuser's accusations, or am I just insisting on being guilty despite being a perfect creation (in which case, how come I sinned?)
If I have done something really heinous, even if the injured person forgives me, it can take a long time to accept forgiveness. Or is that the accuser getting up to his tricks?
Have you ever studied psychology? You seem to have a rather airy-fairy idea of the intricacies of the mind.
We can sin, but our sin never means we deserve condemnation. Sin indeed is all about the belief that we DO deserve condemnation, that we are somehow *NOT* the PCOAPC; this the lie told by the False Accuser (Grk: Diabolos). The sin is in believing according to the Accuser rather than the spirit of the Holy.
Hence:
Matthew 7:1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"
Matthew 18:21-22 "Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times""
Condmenation is the false gift of the Accuser who deceived Eve and Adam into eating of the Tree of Judgement.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Is a sin a fault perhaps?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Actually, examples of things provide the best context to understand use of a word. I'm wondering if you can give an example of a fault? That would be the best context, to work out how you are using the word.
The example is in what I have written. That is what provides the context Dijon.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is a sin a fault perhaps?
As I have said Dijon, we can sin, but do not deserve condemnation for that sin as condemnation itself is born of sin.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
This seems evasive. Is your position actually that fault does not exist? That there is no such thing?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
We are perfect (deserve no condemnation) but we sin (believe otherwise). You can use the world fault to represent imperfection (deserving condemnation) or to represent being sinful. What is not obvious about how I am using the word fault in this matter Mdijon?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
*"word fault", not "world fault"
Typo Correction for above
[ 02. January 2006, 10:36: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What is not obvious is that if fault represents sin, then things that sin aren't perfect - yet you maintain we are.
So I'm back to my question; what is a fault? Can you give an example of a fault? Or does no such thing exist?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Fault, if used to mean anything that deserves condemnation, does not exist.
Fault, if used to mean sin, which is falling for the deceivers lies that we *do* actually deserve condemnation, does exist.
Clearly, when I said "Perfect – Faultless, deserving no condemnation" I am using it in the first way not the second Mdijon.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
dear Teapot, I'm afraid you deceive yourself and the truth is not within you. There was only one perfect being and you are not Him.
Joyful, that we are not the perfect creation of a perfect creator is the lie peddled by the False Slanderer that keeps folks from accepting (and giving) forgiveness, and thus keeps them from knowing the love of the holy spirit.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
So is it reasonable for me to also use 'fault' to describe the tendancy of Schistosoma mansoni to cause suffering and death in the humans it infects?
[ 02. January 2006, 11:14: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So is it reasonable for me to also use 'fault' to describe the tendancy of Schistosoma mansoni to cause suffering and death in the humans it infects?
Why would that be a 'fault' Mdijon?
[ 02. January 2006, 11:20: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
1. What else would you call it? It's hardly a plus point.
2. The dictionary definition (which I will use) is "responsibility for a bad situation or event"
3. that's the context. Work it out. Or are your ears full of cotten and your eye's dark?
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
1. What else would you call it? It's hardly a plus point.
2. The dictionary definition (which I will use) is "responsibility for a bad situation or event"
3. that's the context. Work it out. Or are your ears full of cotten and your eye's dark?
You have not given a context Mdijon. What do you mean by "bad"?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The context was "the tendancy of Schistosoma mansoni to cause suffering and death in the humans it infects."
Bad;
Main Entry: 1bad
Pronunciation: 'bad
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): worse /'w&rs/; worst /'w&rst/
Etymology: Middle English
1 a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : POOR b : UNFAVORABLE <make a bad impression> c : not fresh : SPOILED <bad fish> d : not sound : DILAPIDATED <the house was in bad condition>
2 a : morally objectionable b : MISCHIEVOUS, DISOBEDIENT
3 : inadequate or unsuited to a purpose <a bad plan> <bad lighting>
4 : DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT <bad news>
5 a : INJURIOUS, HARMFUL b : SERIOUS, SEVERE <in bad trouble> <a bad cough>
6 : INCORRECT, FAULTY <bad grammar>
7 a : suffering pain or distress <felt generally bad> b : UNHEALTHY, DISEASED <bad teeth>
8 : SORROWFUL, SORRY
9 : INVALID, VOID <a bad check>
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
So which one is it, or if more than one, which ones?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
1a, 4, 5 and 7, I think.
These are all standard definitions, of course. Look it up.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Well....as I said earlier...
A perfect flu virus will still make you feel ill. Perfect does not mean harmless to your body, it means they are harmless to your soul. When you realise another is perfect, that your perception of any imperfection was a misapprehension, you love them.
When you love someone you see no fault with them. They may attack you and you may defend yourself, but you still love, not hate them, as they are a creation of a perfect god just as you are and thus there is nothing going to despair at.
So we use the word in different ways
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
When you love someone you see no fault with them. They may attack you and you may defend yourself, but you still love, not hate them, as they are a creation of a perfect god just as you are and thus there is nothing going to despair at.
So loving someone or something e.g. loving your flu virus doesn't have to mean that you feel any warmth, caring or protectiveness towards it then. It just means you acknowledge that it's a creation on equal terms with yourself - so it may be making you ill but that's all right as it's only doing what it's meant to do?
An odd definition of love.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Well....as I said earlier...
A perfect flu virus will still make you feel ill. Perfect does not mean harmless to your body, it means they are harmless to your soul. When you realise another is perfect, that your perception of any imperfection was a misapprehension, you love them.
When you love someone you see no fault with them. They may attack you and you may defend yourself, but you still love, not hate them, as they are a creation of a perfect god just as you are and thus there is nothing going to despair at.
So we use the word in different ways
And as I said earlier, my definition is backed up by dictionaries, common use, and is consistent with the universe we see around us.
Yours is used only by you, and contradicts the evidence of the world around us.
I might as well call people teapots. Then insist that you must have a spout - you may not be able to see it, but it must be there, since you are a teapot.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
Originally posted my Mdijon:
Yours … contradicts the evidence of the world around us.
You try to counter that we are the PCOAPC, deserving forgiveness (and through that love) rather than condemnation (and though that lose love) because of this, with semantics? Saruman would be proud of you.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So loving someone or something e.g. loving your flu virus doesn't have to mean that you feel any warmth, caring or protectiveness towards it then. It just means you acknowledge that it's a creation on equal terms with yourself - so it may be making you ill but that's all right as it's only doing what it's meant to do?
An odd definition of love.
Indeed, if that is what I had said.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
No, Teapot, the semantic problem is yours.
We mostly agree the creator to be perfect.
However, most people, on observing the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust - or opening the morning paper, would conclude that people are not perfect, and that these events would be faults.
Similarly, most people would associate the ideas of sin and fault - although not all faults are sin, it seems most sin includes an element of fault. And sin is clearly a part of the bible's teaching.
However, you've decided that we're all perfect. So you define perfection as "deserving no condemnation" - and we as deserving no condemnation despite our many faults and sins....
And so we are left with a universe in which fault does not exist, sins are not faults, and we are all perfect, including influenza viruses and schistosomes.
Which is clearly nonsense.
[ 02. January 2006, 14:07: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
quote:
However, you've decided that we're all perfect. So you define perfection as "deserving no condemnation" - and we as deserving no condemnation despite our many faults and sins....
Realised, not “decided” Mdijon. Like the book says "Judge not, that ye be not judged".
quote:
And so we are left with a universe in which fault does not exist, sins are not faults, and we are all perfect, including influenza viruses and schistosomes.
Which is clearly nonsense.
So it seems, from the perspective offered by the Accuser. But that is a lie he weaves Mdijon.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It seems the accuser also wrote most of the dictionaries available to humankind, the bible;
quote:
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
and has perverted the minds of all and sundry.
I've quoted the bible, dictionaries, and described the evidence of my eyes.
All you have is your own say so for your use of words.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
You will *know*, when you are in the presence of the holy spirit Mdijon, if what I say is true or not.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It's funny, I asked yesterday and she disagreed with you... anyone else asked and got a different answer lately?
Posted by LatePaul (# 37) on
:
Teapot,
A couple of questions if I may:
1) How many people do you encounter who define words like 'perfect', 'fault' and 'love' in the same way that you do?
The evidence of this thread (which clearly is not a representative sample but still) is very few, if any.
2) Can you see the value in using words in the way that they are commonly used by others in order to better communicate?
It's obviously possible to express the idea that no created being deserves condemnation without ascribing a meaning to 'perfect' that no person I've ever met (save you) and no dictionary I've ever read, would. Wouldn't it be better to do so? I'm not questioning what you believe but why you choose to express it in such non-standard terms. Or perhaps you don't think that they're non-standard?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether you're aware that you're actually not getting your message across. You're trying to say one thing and because you using non-standard definitions people misunderstand and then when they do understand they spend more time on those definitions than on what you actually meant. If you're doing so deliberately for some reason then fair enough, if not then you should know that you're sabotaging your own ability to communicate clearly.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:
How many people do you encounter who define words like 'perfect', 'fault' and 'love' in the same way that you do?
The Holy Spirit does.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
To forgive is to find no reason to condemn, to find no fault with, to find as “perfect”. To judge is to condemn, to find fault with, to find as “not perfect”. We are told to forgive “not seven, but seventy times seven times”, we are told to “not judge, that we will not be judged”, we are told to “love your enemy”. We are told to find no fault with.
The lie that condemns is the lie of the False Slanderer, Diabolos, The Devil, The Accuser who tempts us to judge and to not forgive.
If words cannot carry this to you, and it is rare that they can, that is your choice, but that does not change the matter of what is or is nor, nor of what we are told to do and do not.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well it does change it, actually. If you think love means something along the lines of believing someone is perfect... and I think it means believing they have wronged you and yet not holding it against them... we will try and do different things, because we read the words differently.
Of course, it wasn't written in English - but I don't think you'll have any joy with the Greek words backing up your definitions....
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Nighty nite Mdijon. I've dont enough word chasing on this matter.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Errate note -
Note: Before someone thinks the following is me saying Mdijon is thick, it isnt. Its a comment on the ability of words to carry the numinous not of Mdijon's ability to understand!
"If words cannot carry this to you, and it is rare that they can, "
[ 02. January 2006, 15:18: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on
:
dear Teapot, you are greatly beloved and dearly cherished but you are not perfect. Being self-deceived about possessing perfection will hinder experiencing truth and healing. Blessings.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
Teapot,
Our Lord who said "judge not" also said, "judge for yourselves what is right" (Luke 12:57), and the holy apostles Peter and John said, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God" (Acts 4:19). And the glorious apostle Paul told the members of the Corinthian Church, "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?" And he commanded them, as sensible people, to judge what he had to say, and to judge whether it was right for a woman to pray with her head uncovered.
So it seems that there is judgment which is forbidden, and judgment which is commanded, and judgment which is commended as sensible and prudent.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
The lie that condemns is the lie of the False Slanderer, Diabolos, The Devil, The Accuser who tempts us to judge and to not forgive.
And here you demonstrate judgment by saying that what The Devil says is a lie; you cannot say this without judging what The Devil has said.
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Judge has two meanings Jo; "understand" and "condemn".
Given the position of forgiveness in the bible, dont you think "judge not that ye be not judged" is availing itself of the latter meaning rather than the former?
[ 03. January 2006, 18:19: Message edited by: Teapot ]
Posted by LatePaul (# 37) on
:
Teapot,
I had thought you were done with this thread, but I now realise that you were just done with talking to Mdijon. That being the case, do you care to answer my questions.
Ta muchly.
Paul
Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on
:
Late Paul,
I have given my answers and definitions and my comments to Mdijon still stand.
I answered Jo as a matter of simply addressing a possible clarification
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well it seems that all the arguments came down to you claiming divine authority on the matter.
There was no reasoning, no description, no other source that you could use.... and we came down to you claiming the Holy Spirit would support your definitions and philosophy.
The world is full of people claiming this for their private philosophies.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can see, in what a number of people have posted, that idolatry can be committed through an excess of devotion to the means of grace at the expense of devotion to the Giver. I don't think that can be all the second commandment was meant to ban. None of the other ten commandments can only be broken be inadvertent excess - all of them are capable of being deliberately disobeyed in a plausible manner. There must, surely, be a way of deliberately (not inadvertently or through excess of feeling, though I acknowledge those dangers) committing idolatry which might be a real temptation.
I know what you mean - mistaking the means of grace for the Giver seems like a mistake, a philosophical error, not a freely-chosen act of evil.
Which is much the same thing as saying that the Jewish prohibition on images of God seems to us a harmless peculiarity of their culture rather than any sort of moral imperative.
If you see someone performing acts of worship (whether gestures or extravagant praises) to someone or something that is clearly less than God, does that make you feel uncomfortable ? Does that discomfort (which I admit to) mean anything ?
Dunno.
Russ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0