|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Idolatry Eats Itself
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I have been thinking about taboos on the depiction of people and religious figures.
As I understand it, these taboos were intended to prevent two things: the worship of idols and the worship of human beings as gods.
Icons are justified by the idea that they are venerated as intercessors - rather than worshipped themselves as object gods.
Where does that leave veneration of the sacrament though ?
Also, if you are not meant to depict the prophet Mohammed in case you might worship him - is violent rage at an offensive depiction evidence of true idolatry ? In the sense that people have no fear you will worship the cartoon, rather they react as if depiction of the prophet is a blasphemy against a proxy god.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If the ban was meant to (1) prevent worship of idols and (2) prevent worship of human beings as gods, then it has clearly failed on all fronts.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Where does that leave veneration of the sacrament though?
You mean the consecrated host by "the sacrament" here?
If you believe in the real presence, then the consecrated host simply is God, or perhaps to be more precise is Jesus Christ (thus not God as God, but God as man, or here God as man as food....). Consequently, the consecrated host can be worshipped in the full sense of the word.
If you don't believe in the real presence, then the consecrated host is basically an "abstract icon" for Christ. So it should be venerated in exactly the same way as an icon, as a proxy (or perhaps better: as a gateway). Traditional icons are anyway not "realistic" images, so the move to an abstract representation should not be so hard.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, if you are not meant to depict the prophet Mohammed in case you might worship him - is violent rage at an offensive depiction evidence of true idolatry ? In the sense that people have no fear you will worship the cartoon, rather they react as if depiction of the prophet is a blasphemy against a proxy god.
I'm not so sure that this is the case. As I understand it the protests are not simply aimed at any depiction per se, but at disrespectful depiction. After all, there are plenty of depictions of Muhammed to be found in the Muslim world, in Muslim art, and also (respectful) depictions in the West that have not resulted in any particular outrage. One can probably say that the strong concerns about idolatry in Muslim culture have lowered the threshold of "respectful" significantly as compared to say what Christians think about depictions of Jesus. And I wouldn't be surprised if some Imam somewhere whipped his flock into a foaming rage over some depiction by playing on the idolatry theme. But as I understand it there just is no absolute prohibition against depictions of Muhammed, at least not in the sense that every Muslim would have to fight ferociously against every depiction out there.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But as I understand it there just is no absolute prohibition against depictions of Muhammed, at least not in the sense that every Muslim would have to fight ferociously against every depiction out there.
I think it's a matter of interpretation. Most modern conservative schools of Islamic thought argue that there is an absolute prohibition (although perhaps respectful historical depictions can be tolerated); whereas at other times depictions of Muhammed have been allowed, at least in private. I believe representative depictions have never formed a significant element of mosque decoration.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think it's a matter of interpretation. Most modern conservative schools of Islamic thought argue that there is an absolute prohibition (although perhaps respectful historical depictions can be tolerated); whereas at other times depictions of Muhammed have been allowed, at least in private. I believe representative depictions have never formed a significant element of mosque decoration.
That's true for modern Sunnis, perhaps, whereas modern Shia apparently don't mind at all... And even among Sunnis, a prohibition that tolerates historical depictions simply is not absolute. If the depiction was idolatry as such, then even a historical one would have to be destroyed. But the latter is not the case, so neither is the former. I assume it is more along the lines of "such depictions can lead to idolatry". To import a Christian (or at least Catholic) distinction, it looks to me like this prohibition is a discipline, not a dogma. This is important because it makes a difference to whether Western "respectful" depictions can be tolerated. If it is "dogma", then the answer is no, if it is "doctrine", then the answer can be yes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
... Icons are justified by the idea that they are venerated as intercessors - rather than worshipped themselves as object gods. ...
I'd query whether that's correct. Isn't the idea behind an icon that it represents the person of whom it is an icon? It isn't the ikon itself that is venerated. It's venerated because that is a way of venerating the person it represents.
Likewise, the icon doesn't intercede. The person praying is asking for the intercession of the person who is represented.
Also, as I understand it, an icon can represent Jesus because he is incarnate. If cameras had existed in the C1, one could have taken a photograph of him. For the same reason, I'm under the impression that, although there are many examples that do, one is not really supposed to represent the Father visually.
As I understand it also, the three angels at Mamre are an ikon of the three angels, and represent the angels, but by tradition, those angels in their turn represent the Trinity.
However, I'm sure there are other Shipmates who know more about this than I do.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
There's an idea that "you don't look at an icon--you see *through* it". (Source unknown.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's venerated because that is a way of venerating the person it represents.
Yes.
quote:
Likewise, the icon doesn't intercede. The person praying is asking for the intercession of the person who is represented.
Yes.
quote:
Also, as I understand it, an icon can represent Jesus because he is incarnate. If cameras had existed in the C1, one could have taken a photograph of him. For the same reason, I'm under the impression that, although there are many examples that do, one is not really supposed to represent the Father visually.
Yes. Although the Father is sometimes pictured metaphorically, as in the icon of the Holy Trinity, which is really called "The Hospitality of Abraham" -- where he was visited by two angels and the LORD, however you parse that out.
quote:
As I understand it also, the three angels at Mamre are an ikon of the three angels, and represent the angels, but by tradition, those angels in their turn represent the Trinity.
Ah, you got there already. Except they're not three angels because although two of them go down into the city, the third stays talking with Abraham and is referred to as the LORD.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
There's an idea that "you don't look at an icon--you see *through* it". (Source unknown.)
Yes. They are called "windows to heaven" -- they are definitely thought of as windows rather than walls. They are conduits and not ends in themselves. Icons are wormholes in spiritual space through which our prayers pass into heaven.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
I have often wondered about this in Christianity. The idea that "you shall not make a graven image or likeness" can be read as a stand alone third Commandment saying that it is wrong even to make images without the added condition about not bowing down and worshiping them as well.
So pictures of notable people on money? Statues of Moses and the Tablets? TV? Movies? Stained glass windows?
I think we are wise just ignoring that one.
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
crunt--
Maybe the basic idea is "let everyone and everything be what they are--don't try to make them into something else"?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
I have often wondered about this in Christianity. The idea that "you shall not make a graven image or likeness" can be read as a stand alone third Commandment saying that it is wrong even to make images without the added condition about not bowing down and worshiping them as well.
So pictures of notable people on money? Statues of Moses and the Tablets? TV? Movies? Stained glass windows?
I think we are wise just ignoring that one.
It makes me think about arguments over the Second Amendment.
quote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Should the phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stand alone or be considered with the whole? The US Supreme Court evidently thinks the phrase should stand alone.
And should quote:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
be considered as a whole or may the sentence "...You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." stand alone and thus disallow any but entirely abstract art for any purpose? Nobody seems to think that since even Orthodox Jewish synagogues often have images of the Decalogue Tablets themselves.
Taking such bits out of their contexts renders undesirable extremes, IMO.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
crunt--
Maybe the basic idea is "let everyone and everything be what they are--don't try to make them into something else"?
The basic idea of the Commandment, you mean?
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Taking such bits out of their contexts renders undesirable extremes, IMO.
You're not wrong about the undesirability of extremes!
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
crunt--
Maybe the basic idea is "let everyone and everything be what they are--don't try to make them into something else"?
The basic idea of the Commandment, you mean?
Yes. Otherwise, you create in imbalance--inwardly, and possibly outwardly. Kind of like what Granny Weatherwax said in Terry Pratchett's "Carpe Jugulum"--sin starts with treating people like things.
Sometimes, though, it can be hard to tell what a seemingly idolatrous focus means. George MacDonald, who wrote the most amazing fairy stories, created a great one called "The Day Boy and The Night Girl" (text). The girl has been raised in a cave, totally dark except for a faint lamp. She finally manages to get out, and sees the moon for the first time.
quote:
``It is my lamp,'' she said, and stood dumb with parted lips. She looked and felt as if she had been standing there in silent ecstasy from the beginning.
``No, it is not my lamp,'' she said after a while; ``it is the mother of all the lamps.''
And with that she fell on her knees and spread out her hands to the moon. She could not in the least have told what was in her mind, but the action was in reality just a begging of the moon to be what she was -- that precise incredible splendor hung in the far-off roof, that very glory essential to the being of poor girls born and bred in caverns. It was a resurrection -- nay, a birth itself, to Nycteris. What the vast blue sky, studded with tiny sparks like the heads of diamond nails, could be; what the moon, looking so absolutely content with light -- why, she knew less about them than you and I! but the greatest of astronomers might envy the rapture of such a first impression at the age of sixteen. Immeasurably imperfect it was, but false the impression could not be, for she saw with the eyes made for seeing, and saw indeed what many men are too wise to see.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
I have often wondered about this in Christianity. The idea that "you shall not make a graven image or likeness" can be read as a stand alone third Commandment saying that it is wrong even to make images without the added condition about not bowing down and worshiping them as well.
So pictures of notable people on money? Statues of Moses and the Tablets? TV? Movies? Stained glass windows?
I think we are wise just ignoring that one.
It makes me think about arguments over the Second Amendment.
quote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Should the phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stand alone or be considered with the whole? The US Supreme Court evidently thinks the phrase should stand alone.
And should quote:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
be considered as a whole or may the sentence "...You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." stand alone and thus disallow any but entirely abstract art for any purpose? Nobody seems to think that since even Orthodox Jewish synagogues often have images of the Decalogue Tablets themselves.
Taking such bits out of their contexts renders undesirable extremes, IMO.
I think this is all covered by the Second Council of Nicea.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Most likely. Too bad they couldn't have a shot at the 2nd Amendment. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted bu IngoB:
quote:
If you believe in the real presence, then the consecrated host simply is God, or perhaps to be more precise is Jesus Christ (thus not God as God, but God as man, or here God as man as food....).
Is that - strictly speaking - Catholic thought? I could well be wrong, but it wouldn't have been my reading of where it's at now, although it certainly was part of the thinking of the Medieval Church. As I understand it the sacrament is given special veneration because it is the special way in which the presence of God is given to us. I understood also that the 'presence' of the sacrament is important as it is from this action that all prayer and life in faith flows/stems, so quite naturally the sacrament came to be venerated within those contexts. However to say that the sacrament 'is' God seems a step further.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've certainly heard it explained along the lines that IngoB has expressed it here - that the consecrated host IS God.
In fact, it says as much on the visitor information signs at the Basilica de Sacre Coeur in Montmartre where the Sacred Host is on display for veneration 24/7 as I understand it.
I can't remember the wording, but the way the sign was written it was like a tourist-speak invitation to 'come and look at God, we've got him in here ... look, there he is ...'
This perplexed and offended the very low-church Mrs Gamaliel and amused the uncommitted Gamaliettes when we visited the Basilica about four or five years ago now.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But, to someone who worships an idol, the idol is God. Is the sacrament different because it is not the entirety of God ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Good question.
I don't know about the RCs but the Orthodox make a distinction between 'veneration' - which can be given to persons and objects - and worship which can only be directed to God.
I can't remember the Greek terms they use in order to make this distinction but there are enough people around who know about this sort of thing who can enlighten us.
It all comes down to what we mean and understand by these things, of course.
IngoB believes that the consecrated wafer 'is' - or becomes - God but makes some qualifications ... it 'is' God the Son - the Word made flesh, the Word made food as it were ...
I don't know if the Orthodox distinction between the divine 'essence' and the divine 'energies' helps here at all ...
I find myself in a cleft stick with a lot of this sort of thing - which is why I started a thread on the similarities (or otherwise) between the way the sacraments 'work' and how magic operates - if indeed it does ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Doublethink: 'Also, if you are not meant to depict the prophet Mohammed in case you might worship him' where does this come from? That's not the risk with Charlie Hebdo or Jyllands-Posten.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Islamic proscriptions against the depiction of people, and rapid burial, were originally to prevent the worship of humans - especially ancestors. They weren't universal prohibitions, but it seems that they have to a certain extent created the idolatry they attempted to prevent.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In what sense, Doublethink?
In one sense, one could argue that the Taliban dynamiting statues of Buddha in Afghanistan is 'idolatrous' because to do such a thing on the assumption that the statues were intrinsically dangerous in themselves is to imbue them with more power and significance than they probably possessed in the eyes of contemporary Buddhists ... not that there would be likely to be many in Afghanistan at the time of the explosions.
Their value to Westerners was based on their archaeological significance.
It's a matter of historical record that the Iconoclasm controversy that lasted over a century in the Eastern Churches was partly provoked by the fact that the Muslims were winning all the battles ... and the Iconoclasts concluded that this was because, unlike the Christians, they hadn't broken the 2nd Commandment ...
Whatever the case, are you saying that the Orthodox practice of venerating icons or the RC practice of venerating the Host are examples of idolatry?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Re: Islamic prohibitions (sometimes more universal and absolute than others, depending on who is doing the interpreting) on depicting human and animal forms in art: it was considered immoral to depict any animate being in art not only because of the possibility of idolatry but also because what God was deemed to have created in an animate being was so "perfect" that it would be considered an affront against God to try to reproduce it even in art.
A lot of the recent insistence on "Puritanism" and "Iconoclasm" within the Muslim world has to do with the Saudi government's spending of billions and billions of dollars to export its brand of Wahhabist (or at least Salafist) Islam, which in Saudi Arabia has seen the destruction of the tombs of the Prophet Muhammad's family (did the government try to destroy the tomb of the Prophet himself in Medina? I'm not sure). Of course it is more complex than this (the Saudi government HATES the Muslim Brotherhood and any Islamist movement opposed to authoritarian Arab monarchies)...and there is the whole "Clash of Civilizations"propaganda that Islamists and other political actors benefit from spreading that makes Western depictions of the Prophet particularly explosive...but it helps explain why there is such widespread anger at depictions of the Prophet in the Muslim world even though there are several examples of his depiction (in different forms) in Islamic art through the ages, and many more examples of the depictions of other religious figures and of human beings in general.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is that - strictly speaking - Catholic thought?
That is indeed - strictly speaking - Catholic thought, of antiquity, the middle ages, modernity, till the Second Coming...
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."
Note that "adoration" is the English term for "latria", the worship only due to God, whereas "veneration" would be used to indicate "dulia", the kind of worship that is appropriate for the saints etc. So the consecrated host is given the cult of adoration (worship due only to God) because Christ is considered to be really present under its species.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
However to say that the sacrament 'is' God seems a step further.
The sacrament of the Eucharist is God in the sense that it really is the body and blood of Christ, so it is God as man (as appearing as bread and wine), it is not God as God.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But, to someone who worships an idol, the idol is God. Is the sacrament different because it is not the entirety of God ?
No. The sacrament of the Eucharist is different because it in fact is God, whereas the idol of the idolator is not. In the end, the general definition of idolatry is simply to give the worship due to God alone to someone or something else than God.
The belief of the idolator, that his idol is god, does not change that it isn't. Thus he objectively remains an idolator. However, if he genuinely believes this, then he is not culpable for this idolatry, and while idolatry is the gravest of sins objectively, subjectively he will not sin.
Obviously, since I give no principle distinction between the adoration given to a golden calf, and the adoration given to a consecrated piece of bread - other than that one is God and the other isn't, according to my faith - my faith can be attacked easily as idolatry by those who believe otherwise. And that is proper and just. Likewise, those who do not believe that Christ was God at all, including Jews and Muslims, must consider all Christians as idolators (in the general sense of idolatry given above).
We can perhaps see the Christian genius in declaring food and drink to be God, as opposed to say the golden statue of a calf. One one hand this allows an intimate contact, indeed a literal becoming one with God, since one can consume this God. Nothing like that is possible with a statue. On the other hand, food has an expiration date, it will decay and it will do so within typical human time scales. Whereas a golden calf can remain basically unchanged for millennia. Thus it is impossible to make this "bread and wine" God a permanent entity of the world on which the believer could fixate, it is by design a mere transient appearance.
Perhaps we can see this as a general pattern. For example, Moses chatted to a burning bush as his God. Agains we see a direct interaction, and again we see transience. One can probably build a case that there is a kind of obvious idolatry, where a human clearly tries to confine God's presence into a created thing, like a statue. And then there's a kind of sophisticated idolatry, which doesn't really do that, but is more about a transient meeting with God if through created things. Now, the former kind of obvious idolatry is what gets attacked by the bible outright. Whereas the latter kind of sophisticated idolatry seems more like a possible medium where God might indeed appear, thus turning the idolatry into an opportunity for extraordinary worship.
But this is not something I think I can defend against all possible critique. It's more an "aesthetic" comment, really. In the end, just like heresy idolatry is in the eye of the believer.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Islamic proscriptions against the depiction of people, and rapid burial, were originally to prevent the worship of humans - especially ancestors. They weren't universal prohibitions, but it seems that they have to a certain extent created the idolatry they attempted to prevent.
Hmmmm. I always figured the rapid burial was because Islam has its roots in a place with a hot climate and a nomadic tradition.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I would think that the intent is about creating images to worship them like golden calves, but it's hard to separate worship from veneration. Are you worshipping the object as embodying a deity or representing them? My impression is that figurative representation was a permitted Persian/Central Asian Islamic tradition.
Jewish FIgurative Art goes from being discouraged at the time of the Second Temple to flourishing in what seems to be an early example of copying neighboring traditions.
It's easy to see Leviticus prohibitions on images being a response to neighboring religions making statues of gods. Non figurative sacred objects are often not treated the same way; for example, The Black Stone of Mecca is a part of the core religious worship. Note the illustration of it being installed in the cited article.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would think that the intent is about creating images to worship them like golden calves, but it's hard to separate worship from veneration.
Is it? What, to you, is the difference between the two?
quote:
Are you worshipping the object as embodying a deity or representing them?
Neither; I'm not worshiping the object at all. You're right, you have a hard time separating worship from veneration.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmmm. I always figured the rapid burial was because Islam has its roots in a place with a hot climate and a nomadic tradition.
I think the climate is definitely a part of it; the requirement for rapid burial occurs in Judaism as well. There is another aspect of Islamic burial practice that also points to an attempt to prevent worship or veneration of dead humans. It's by no mean a universal across the whole of Islam, and I don't know if the taboo exists in Judaism, but there is a prohibition on elaborate tombs within strands of Islamic teaching.
The Taj Mahal is an obvious contradiction to this prohibition, and I'm sure there are many others. Recently I was walking around Melaka at night, and there was what was obviously a tomb with a room on the roadside. I asked my friend (a Syrian) if mausoleum style tombs were normal in Islam and he just sniffed something about Indian Muslims, but I have also heard this idea of tombs not being suitable for Muslims from a Malay colleague.
I think the rapid burial and lack of tomb-age together reinforce the idea that mortal remains are not to be kept for idolatrous purposes.
[code]
[ 18. January 2015, 15:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I find it helpful to think of 'worship' as 'the act of deriving / ascribing ultimate meaning, truth, value' from or to something or someone, and 'idolatry' to be the worship (in that strict sense) of something within the created order, as opposed to God, who transcends it.
In this way it is not too hard to see how folks regularly idolise raw 'stuff' (materialists have I guess, just atoms and a big bang from which to derive Everything); idolise society (as in - morality is 'just' an emergent property of groups of people interacting with each other); even idolise the Law.
There are lots of Aspects of creation which we can mistake for God, and try to make our first cause for the meaning in everything. But I wonder how many centuries it has been since anyone _really_ worshipped - in the sense I use above - a picture or a statue?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
how many centuries it has been since anyone _really_ worshipped - in the sense I use above - a picture or a statue?
You're right. To me - as I suspect to many modern-minded people - the idea of worshipping a statue strikes one initially as unbelievably stupid.
But it makes sense as the confusion of a symbol with what that symbol represents.
To a semi-nomadic people whose wealth is in their flocks and herds, what better symbol of the gifts of God, of worth and value, than a golden calf ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
