Are concepts of deity the making of an image/idol?

[Gnostic Seeker]

If taking something of human existence or attributes and portraying God in that form: arms, legs, face, etc. is idolatry- wouldn't any humanistic associations: God is wrath, love, and so on also be idolatry?

What if the entire notion of gods is making an image? I would argue that this happens when people do not want to accept life and its vastness for what it is, mysteries and all, they fashion an image so to speak of existence- and call them gods.

Would anyone care to debate this?

 

[EtuMalku]

How would you define the word "God" ?
Don't most religions portray 'Us' created in the god's image not the other way around?

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

How would you define the word "God" ?
Don't most religions portray 'Us' created in the god's image not the other way around?

Most do, but that isn't really relative to what I'm asking

 

[Ouroboros]

Would anyone care to debate this?

Yeah. That's an interesting point.

I wonder though, why is it such a fear of making an idol of God? The Bible and the Quran demands it, but there's no explanation to why. Except perhaps that's how the older pagan religions did it, and the new religion had to be different.

The cross is an idol of Jesus because many churches puts it up, in the front, and sing and talk about the "power of the cross" like it's its own thing. But most Christians know that it's not the cross they really think of but Jesus. The cross is a reference, something pointing to what they feel is the real thing--Jesus in their case. But it an be said to be the same for pagan idols as well. They didn't necessarily think that the statue was the god they prayed to but just a symbol of the god, a reference point in space and time. God as a non-temporal, beyond world being, had to make a physical contact through a mosque, church, statue, icon, idol, whatever. It's what it represents, not what it physically is in itself as a thing.

 

[Jainarayan]

It depends on the religion. Asatru sees the gods and goddesses as our elder, wiser, greater and more experienced kin and friends. Odin and Frigga are truly our All-Father and All-Mother. They are not concepts, they are real beings. We don't bow down to them or grovel, we show them the respect they deserve as elders. We stand in front of them, arms open. That's a radical departure from the concept of God in other religions. The point of all that is that it's entirely subjective and relative to the religion.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think 'idol' needs to be clearly defined for this argument.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If taking something of human existence or attributes and portraying God in that form: arms, legs, face, etc. is idolatry- wouldn't any humanistic associations: God is wrath, love, and so on also be idolatry?

What if the entire notion of gods is making an image? I would argue that this happens when people do not want to accept life and its vastness for what it is, mysteries and all, they fashion an image so to speak of existence- and call them gods.

Would anyone care to debate this?

Certianly.
It is an interesting point.
My take is this, within the logos, the higher consciousness, consciousness itself evolves. This consciousness is us, and what it develops into is a higher form and that is what we think of as God. The first One (Source) is the One that emanates from it Image. So Image is just that.... brought about through the developing mind of the divine, IOW, the developing mind of the higher consciousness.

So there is a higher God and from that reflect other Gods, who are one of the same.
Within the lower realm of consciousness, you find us, and our God. That God is a God of flesh, and is why it is anthropomorphised

Does that make any sense... probably not, haha

 

[Orbit]

If taking something of human existence or attributes and portraying God in that form: arms, legs, face, etc. is idolatry- wouldn't any humanistic associations: God is wrath, love, and so on also be idolatry?

What if the entire notion of gods is making an image? I would argue that this happens when people do not want to accept life and its vastness for what it is, mysteries and all, they fashion an image so to speak of existence- and call them gods.

Would anyone care to debate this?

Well, to use conventional definitions of God and idol, it is not necessarily true that every image that is is "worshipped" is an idol in the sense that the worshipper has a belief that the physical object itself has power. That would be true of the most primitive type of belief system only.

In Hinduism and Buddhism, images are meant to be taken as symbols, and are in fact highly symbolic. That should give us a clue that they are not meant to be taken literally (look, four arms!)

To me, "idolatry" is any practice that mistakes the symbol for the signified. The non-idolatrous use of an image, figure, or concept is one that does not obscure the complex meaning of the religious or meditative practice behind it. Only when one takes an idol literally is it "idolatrous".

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yeah. That's an interesting point.

I though so to. Hello again

I wonder though, why is it such a fear of making an idol of God? The Bible and the Quran demands it, but there's no explanation to why. Except perhaps that's how the older pagan religions did it, and the new religion had to be different.

It is because from the original Source we have Image. That is like saying we have a copy of an original painting.... not good.

The cross is an idol of Jesus because many churches puts it up, in the front, and sing and talk about the "power of the cross" like it's its own thing. But most Christians know that it's not the cross they really think of but Jesus. The cross is a reference, something pointing to what they feel is the real thing--Jesus in their case. But it an be said to be the same for pagan idols as well. They didn't necessarily think that the statue was the god they prayed to but just a symbol of the god, a reference point in space and time. God as a non-temporal, beyond world being, had to make a physical contact through a mosque, church, statue, icon, idol, whatever. It's what it represents, not what it physically is in itself as a thing.

Yet it is within the First Image that all things come about. She is the Mother.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If taking something of human existence or attributes and portraying God in that form: arms, legs, face, etc. is idolatry- wouldn't any humanistic associations: God is wrath, love, and so on also be idolatry?

What if the entire notion of gods is making an image? I would argue that this happens when people do not want to accept life and its vastness for what it is, mysteries and all, they fashion an image so to speak of existence- and call them gods.

Would anyone care to debate this?

by the way, I would say that not accepting God is because we are blinded by the world and accept things which are complicated because it suits us. The mystery you see is what you don't believe in, though in a different form

 

[EtuMalku]

Most do, but that isn't really relative to what I'm asking

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking then.
IMO gods, devils, angels, demons, etc. are all archetypal constructs embedded deeply within our unconsciousness, they are all memetic thought-forms that we have attached meaning to. It only makes sense for us to define them objectively as we are.

In that light everything attached to divinity is nothing more than idolatry.

 

[Desert Snake]

If taking something of human existence or attributes and portraying God in that form: arms, legs, face, etc. is idolatry- wouldn't any humanistic associations: God is wrath, love, and so on also be idolatry?

What if the entire notion of gods is making an image? I would argue that this happens when people do not want to accept life and its vastness for what it is, mysteries and all, they fashion an image so to speak of existence- and call them gods.

Would anyone care to debate this?

I would say, thinking of Jesus as G-d is no more 'idolatrous' than a formless being. So we seem to agree.

 

[Ingledsva]

by the way, I would say that not accepting God is because we are blinded by the world and accept things which are complicated because it suits us. The mystery you see is what you don't believe in, though in a different form

I don't agree with this.

There is no proof of any God, - so why would people that don't believe in them, be "blinded?"

If there is no proof, - it is logical to not believe in Gods, fairies, gnomes, etc.


*

 

[Vinayaka]

In Hinduism and Buddhism, images are meant to be taken as symbols, and are in fact highly symbolic. That should give us a clue that they are not meant to be taken literally (look, four arms!)

That's only one way to look at it, and frankly, not the most common. The other way is that the statue is a channel for the energy, and it's not symbolic at all, just as copper is the channel for electricity. One couldn't say that copper symbolises electricity.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is because from the original Source we have Image. That is like saying we have a copy of an original painting.... not good.

I don't think it's bad. Of course is not identical to what it directs to, but it's still not bad.

Think of art. A painting is not the 100% accurate description of the scene, but it conveys ideas and emotions relating to it. Especially impressionists do this. Or take the concept of cartoons, they don't reflect photo realism, yet they tell a story. Many times we need something to look at while we meditate or think about what's being said. In other words, images of the real thing isn't a bad thing, as long as we know it's just a tool to help us understand.

And that's how I consider myths as well. They convey ideas and thoughts, without having to be true historical events, they still describe ideas that we can ponder.

 

[Disposable member]

If taking something of human existence or attributes and portraying God in that form: arms, legs, face, etc. is idolatry- wouldn't any humanistic associations: God is wrath, love, and so on also be idolatry?

What if the entire notion of gods is making an image? I would argue that this happens when people do not want to accept life and its vastness for what it is, mysteries and all, they fashion an image so to speak of existence- and call them gods.

Would anyone care to debate this?

Why should we worship a god that is so entirely abstract that we can't relate to it or understand it at all? Of course, as an animist and a polytheist, I'm quite positive my Gods exist since They manifest Themselves in our realm as the various facets of Nature and life. For example, the Sun is the manifestation of the Goddess, Sunna, the moon is the manifestation of the God, Mani, thunder and lightning are the manifestations of the God, Thor, etc.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

^^^ That's my point about a transcendent god- how can we know anything about it, and why worship it?

Now on the subject of the polytheistic gods- in ways they at least seem a little more likely than a one transcendent god, but in others (I'm truly not trying to be offensive) just as human created. Polytheistic mythologies depict the gods as extremely human, even to the point of eating and getting drunk.

 

[Disposable member]

^^^ That's my point about a transcendent god- how can we know anything about it, and why worship it?

Now on the subject of the polytheistic gods- in ways they at least seem a little more likely than a one transcendent god, but in others (I'm truly not trying to be offensive) just as human created. Polytheistic mythologies depict the gods as extremely human, even to the point of eating and getting drunk.

The Lore of the Gods grew out of oral storytelling that was meant to pass down the history, hopes, dreams, customs, fears and morals of the people. They were meant to get a point across, to deliver a message. They weren't meant to be taken literally and have various layers of meaning.

Besides, I'd rather believe in deities that drink, smoke, eat, have sex, laugh, get angry, fight, etc. than some abstract concept that has nothing to do with my life as I live it. Besides, some of the Gods are actually deified human beings. The real point of it is that all those facets of life are sacred and the Divine pervades every aspect of life, Nature and the Cosmos.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

The Lore of the Gods grew out of oral storytelling that was meant to pass down the history, hopes, dreams, customs, fears and morals of the people. They were meant to get a point across, to deliver a message. They weren't meant to be taken literally and have various layers of meaning.

Besides, I'd rather believe in deities that drink, smoke, eat, have sex, laugh, get angry, fight, etc. than some abstract concept that has nothing to do with my life as I live it. Besides, some of the Gods are actually deified human beings. The real point of it is that all those facets of life are sacred and the Divine pervades every aspect of life, Nature and the Cosmos.

I can appreciate your perspective, even if I don't hold it

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't agree with this.

There is no proof of any God, - so why would people that don't believe in them, be "blinded?"

If there is no proof, - it is logical to not believe in Gods, fairies, gnomes, etc.


*

The proof is within not without... the evidence is without. If there were proof without, how could it be hidden??