|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A problem with idols
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
(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!)
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Progradior
Apprentice
# 10832
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Progradior
"Nothing burns in Hell save self-will" (Theologia Germanica)
Posts: 11 | From: near York, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ozowen
Shipmate
# 8935
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Without stupid people we would have no one to laugh at, so take time to thank a creationist for their contribution.
Posts: 2933 | From: The Never Never, Australia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
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,
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Primrose Path
Shipmate
# 9137
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The glory to which man is called is that he should grow more godlike by growing ever more human" (Fr Dumitru Staniloae)
Posts: 72 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Primrose Path
Shipmate
# 9137
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The glory to which man is called is that he should grow more godlike by growing ever more human" (Fr Dumitru Staniloae)
Posts: 72 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
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) ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Primrose Path
Shipmate
# 9137
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
"The glory to which man is called is that he should grow more godlike by growing ever more human" (Fr Dumitru Staniloae)
Posts: 72 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
Call me brainless but I thought the point was to give love to "thy neighbour" not a statue....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And the Lord your God. (Heart, mind, soul, all of etc.)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
The point then is to be loving, not get absorbed in some formalised pattern of worship
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Really? Might God not like formalised worship?
I know a lot of couples who like formalised marriages...
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That's a big if, though. The formality may enhance love; marriage often seems to.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
How do you enhance what is perfect? Love is not subject to being enhanced or lessened; it either is, or it isnt.
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
