graven images

[NobodyYouKnow]

Graven images are usually shunned because they direct the attention of the seeker away from the 'higher purpose'.

In Hinduism, we have a lot of 'graven images' and people misunderstand. They think we worship them as being clay, marble, metal...or whatever the image is constructed from.

What we are doing, is worshiping the whole idea or concept behind them...yes, one can easily do this with natural artifacts, like a tree, a river or a rock..

In fact, that's why we have Shiva Lingam (a rock) to remind us of this fact.

In the Agama school of Hinduism, there are no 'graven images' because people will get 'stuck' on that...ignoring what those images ultimately represent.

It's like that 'finger pointing to the moon' thing again...graven images (murthis) are the finger...not the moon.

 

[Sees]

Graven images are usually shunned because they direct the attention of the seeker away from the 'higher purpose'.

In Hinduism, we have a lot of 'graven images' and people misunderstand. They think we worship them as being clay, marble, metal...or whatever the image is constructed from.

What we are doing, is worshiping the whole idea or concept behind them...yes, one can easily do this with natural artifacts, like a tree, a river or a rock..

In fact, that's why we have Shiva Lingam (a rock) to remind us of this fact.

In the Agama school of Hinduism, there are no 'graven images' because people will get 'stuck' on that...ignoring what those images ultimately represent.

It's like that 'finger pointing to the moon' thing again...graven images (murthis) are the finger...not the moon.

Certain religions have distorted it for a long time and continue. Outsiders confuse a tradition's vehicles of truth for the truth itself and call it a false-truth, when the practitioners never had such confusion.

Idolatry and mythology are much the same when it comes to this.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yeah the golden calf thing is pretty odd as well as the rest of the descriptions of "pagan" practices in the Bible.

You mean, in that the idols are described as the things being worshipped?

I don't think your average Christian would ever disrespect a cross or a copy of the Bible because of the fact that they really do represent God/Jesus to most. They are not just another symbol or book but special holy ones. This is the heart of idolatry. I'll give you these though as not counting...

They're respected/not disrespected for the same reason that (most reasonable) Americans respect/don't disrespect the American flag.

What about the thousands of images of Jesus in churches and homes throughout Christendom though? Is it not blatant idolatry by most definitions?

No, because these are not worshipped. The Biblical definition of idolatry would be to literally worship an idol--which is precisely what "idolatry" means in the first place: latreia in Greek means "to worship" or "to serve." So eidololatreia literally means "to worship or serve an idol."

Making pictures or icons does not constitute idolatry. Making idols (pictures or icons intended to be worshipped), and then worshipping said idols, is idolatry.

We have evidence that Jewish synagogues, not just the Temple, had images in them, in almost identical fashion to the way that Orthodox Churches today have churches covered in icons. Or are you going to try and say that an entire community of Jews was guilty of breaking the commandment against idolatry?

No. I'm simply interpreting what God says. Forgive me, but I think most people who argue 'biblical context' are simply arguing for their own personal theological wants.

Typically, it's the other way around--those who take one or two verses and isolate them from the rest of the Bible and historical context are the ones "arguing for their own personal theological wants." And that's because their own ideas fall apart as soon as their cherrypicked verses are put back into their proper contexts.

 

[Sees]

You mean, in that the idols are described as the things being worshipped?

They're respected/not disrespected for the same reason that (most reasonable) Americans respect/don't disrespect the American flag.

No, because these are not worshipped. The Biblical definition of idolatry would be to literally worship an idol--which is precisely what "idolatry" means in the first place: latreia in Greek means "to worship" or "to serve." So eidololatreia literally means "to worship or serve an idol."

Making pictures or icons does not constitute idolatry. Making idols (pictures or icons intended to be worshipped), and then worshipping said idols, is idolatry.

We have evidence that Jewish synagogues, not just the Temple, had images in them, in almost identical fashion to the way that Orthodox Churches today have churches covered in icons. Or are you going to try and say that an entire community of Jews was guilty of breaking the commandment against idolatry?

Typically, it's the other way around--those who take one or two verses and isolate them from the rest of the Bible and historical context are the ones "arguing for their own personal theological wants." And that's because their own ideas fall apart as soon as their cherrypicked verses are put back into their proper contexts.

I think it's a case where the Bible was silly, personally.

Worship is giving honor, if you are a patriotic, nationalistic American you do worship America....and the flag is an idol.

Which people think an image of something is a god its very self? This is a very rare thing. I highly doubt pagan traditions/cultures in the biblical Holy Land would be doing this in great numbers.

Most of us have idols.

 

[CMike]

EXODUS 20 [4] THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:[5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;[6] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Is this commandment a 2 parter. Theres 2 thou shalt nots.

Don't make them and don't worship them. Two different things.

 

[CMike]

An idol is something that is worshipped as a god. The Cross has never been worshipped in Christianity.

The Cross is only believed to have power because it is connected with Christ--without the connection to Christ, it would have no power. So really, it is not the cross itself which has any power, but Christ Who was crucified upon it.

I think an image of jesus on a cross that is worshipped would be worshipping a graven image.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I think an image of jesus on a cross that is worshipped would be worshipping a graven image.

As far as I understand it, this is the main difference between the Catholic and Anglican Faiths.

 

[Sees]

The distinction between icon and idol is a very funny one because orthodox church view of how to use an icon and what it is for are your typical, standard "pagan" methods of idolatry. The church religious icon falls under most definitions of idol very neatly.

Did the golden calf worshippers really think the physical object was a divine being? Most commentary mentions the Egyptians and their love of idolatry as influencing Moses' people...from what we know of their religious views did any of the Egyptians think physical objects were divine beings? Other than a Pharaoh of course...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Typically, it's the other way around--those who take one or two verses and isolate them from the rest of the Bible and historical context are the ones "arguing for their own personal theological wants." And that's because their own ideas fall apart as soon as their cherrypicked verses are put back into their proper contexts.

They're not my ideas. They're God's words. It is best not to make them say something different than what they clearly say.

 

[outhouse]

You mean, in that the idols are described as the things being worshipped?

.

Many idols today are worshipped even within Christianity.


I think at the Vatican a poll was done and Jesus was like #6 as to how many people prayed to him compared to others.


many cultures have deified Mary, carry her picture and worship her.




Your getting into the definition of worship more so then others, but in this case, no personal definition applies.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Many idols today are worshipped even within Christianity.


I think at the Vatican a poll was done and Jesus was like #6 as to how many people prayed to him compared to others.


many cultures have deified Mary, carry her picture and worship her.




Your getting into the definition of worship more so then others, but in this case, no personal definition applies.

Originally posted by me: As far as I understand it, this is the main difference between the Catholic and Anglican Faiths.

I was a member of the Anglican Church for a while...it says on my Birth Certificate that I am Anglican, so I thought I'd stay true to my 'heritage' or whatever for a while...

The first thing I noticed upon entering any Anglican Church, was that there were no statues...no crosses...no Mary...

There were pictures of such on the stained glass windows, but nothing inside the Church whatsoever. Even the pictures inside the Church were all peaceful village/country scenes and such.

So, after the service, I asked the priest why?

He said that the Anglicans adhere more strictly to the Bible when it comes to the 'Graven Image' part. He also said that it's better if the sun's rays come through the pictures on the windows, bathing us all in the Glory. Then I understood.

I also watch documentaries about the Greek/Roman Orthodox and they have many idols (I believe they call them 'icons' to make that distinction) and parade them around. I don't know much about that side of it though.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think an image of jesus on a cross that is worshipped would be worshipping a graven image.

Yes, but that never happens. Images, icons, etc. are never worshipped in Christianity. Those who do so are in grave error. Only God and God alone is worshipped, and not through images, either.

 

[Shiranui117]

The distinction between icon and idol is a very funny one because orthodox church view of how to use an icon and what it is for are your typical, standard "pagan" methods of idolatry. The church religious icon falls under most definitions of idol very neatly.

Except it's not. How much do you know about Eastern Christian iconography? Being immersed in the world of Byzantine Christianity and having done extensive study and research, I can tell you with confidence that icons are not idols. Worship is never directed to an icon or through it--not even an icon of Christ. That would be inappropriate, and it's not the point of icons in the first place.

Did the golden calf worshippers really think the physical object was a divine being? Most commentary mentions the Egyptians and their love of idolatry as influencing Moses' people...from what we know of their religious views did any of the Egyptians think physical objects were divine beings? Other than a Pharaoh of course...

Looking at the Bible, that seems to be the case to me--the Israelites worshipped the golden calf.

 

[Sees]

Except it's not. How much do you know about Eastern Christian iconography? Being immersed in the world of Byzantine Christianity and having done extensive study and research, I can tell you with confidence that icons are not idols. Worship is never directed to an icon or through it--not even an icon of Christ. That would be inappropriate, and it's not the point of icons in the first place.

Looking at the Bible, that seems to be the case to me--the Israelites worshipped the golden calf.

Not a ton about eastern orthodox specifically...did read quite a bit last night to see how they explain icons to other Christians who see it as wrong. It's really the same as vast majority of non-christian traditions use idols. Not much else to it. Catholic Church I'm pretty decent with and have spent time in a few.

Maybe those Israelites with Moses did worship the calf as the embodiment of a god, who knows.

 

[Shiranui117]

Not a ton about eastern orthodox specifically...did read quite a bit last night to see how they explain icons to other Christians who see it as wrong. It's really the same as vast majority of non-christian traditions use idols. Not much else to it. Catholic Church I'm pretty decent with and have spent time in a few.

You've done some research last night. I've been living in the world of Byzantine Christianity (including the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholics) for three years now.

From The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:

We shall consider first the charge of idolatry, which the Iconoclasts brought against the Iconodules; then the positive value of icons as a means of instruction; and finally their doctrinal importance.

The question of idolatry. When an Orthodox kisses an icon or prostrates himself before it,he is not guilty of idolatry. The icon is not an idol but a symbol; the veneration shown to images is directed, not towards stone, wood, and paint, but towards the person depicted. This had been pointed out some time before the Iconoclast controversy by Leontius of Neapolis (died about 650):

We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross.. When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who on the Cross was crucified, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them (Migne, Patrologia Graeca [P.G.],
xciv, 1384D).

Because icons are only symbols, Orthodox do not worship them, but reverence or venerate them. John of Damascus carefully distinguished between the relative honor or veneration shown to material symbols, and the worship due to God alone.
​

From the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea:

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.

IOW, icons are venerated/saluted in the same frame of mind that a soldier salutes his country's flag--he is respecting his country, his people and his forefathers, nothing more. Likewise, when a Christian kisses an icon, he is not offering any worship (latreia) either to or through the icon, but is merely offering respect (dulia) to that which the icon portrays, nothing more. Kallistos Ware also speaks to this:

In Greek theology the distinction is very clearly marked: there is a special word, latreia, reserved for the worship of God, while for the veneration of the Virgin entirely different terms are employed (duleia, hyperduleia, proskynesis).​

 

[Sees]

You've done some research last night. I've been living in the world of Byzantine Christianity (including the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholics) for three years now.

From The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:

We shall consider first the charge of idolatry, which the Iconoclasts brought against the Iconodules; then the positive value of icons as a means of instruction; and finally their doctrinal importance.

The question of idolatry. When an Orthodox kisses an icon or prostrates himself before it,he is not guilty of idolatry. The icon is not an idol but a symbol; the veneration shown to images is directed, not towards stone, wood, and paint, but towards the person depicted. This had been pointed out some time before the Iconoclast controversy by Leontius of Neapolis (died about 650):

We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross.. When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who on the Cross was crucified, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them (Migne, Patrologia Graeca [P.G.],
xciv, 1384D).

Because icons are only symbols, Orthodox do not worship them, but reverence or venerate them. John of Damascus carefully distinguished between the relative honor or veneration shown to material symbols, and the worship due to God alone.
​

From the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea:

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.

IOW, icons are venerated/saluted in the same frame of mind that a soldier salutes his country's flag--he is respecting his country, his people and his forefathers, nothing more. Likewise, when a Christian kisses an icon, he is not offering any worship (latreia) either to or through the icon, but is merely offering respect (dulia) to that which the icon portrays, nothing more. Kallistos Ware also speaks to this:

In Greek theology the distinction is very clearly marked: there is a special word, latreia, reserved for the worship of God, while for the veneration of the Virgin entirely different terms are employed (duleia, hyperduleia, proskynesis).​

This is the same as vast majority of non-christians with their idols brother.

I understand exactly what you and the articles are saying.

Whether we call the images or objects by the term icons, idols, symbols, etc. it doesn't matter if the same thing is going on. I think the dance around is only necessary because the OT stance against such things.

People do this in every religion, it's natural. Even atheistic Buddhists have little Buddha statues and/or shrines. I got one and I'm not even Buddhist!

 

[Sleeppy]

This is the same as vast majority of non-christians with their idols brother.

I understand exactly what you and the articles are saying.

Whether we call the images or objects by the term icons, idols, symbols, etc. it doesn't matter if the same thing is going on. I think the dance around is only necessary because the OT stance against such things.

People do this in every religion, it's natural. Even atheistic Buddhists have little Buddha statues and/or shrines. I got one and I'm not even Buddhist!

Good eyes, Sees! I'd say you both are right. The command is vague, when you separate it from verse 5. The Most High is zealous; I'd assume so much so that idols, icons, symbols and even language (remember Babel) have been a great source of confusion.

 

[WALL]

Does it matter if we make or bow down before these idols if one believes we are not under any of Gods laws?

 

[Tumah]

EXODUS 20 [4] THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:[5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;[6] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Is this commandment a 2 parter. Theres 2 thou shalt nots.

If you're going to break it down like that then there are three "thou shalt nots"

1 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image
2 Thou shalt not bow down to them
3 And thou shalt not serve them

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you are misreading it. In the form presented, and based on current American English practices, it's two different commandments.

Problem is, the text wasn't written in English, nor out of the current English-speaking culture. He's correct in his interpretation of it being one piece.