graven images

[sojourner]

Idol is a physical thing that represents a divine entity...the type of idolatry where the physical object is the divine entity is pretty rare. Many see the cross, the Bible, etc. as idols.

An idol, in the biblical sense, is an object that has divine power in and of itself, and is worshiped as its own god. Neither the cross nor the bible have that kind of power, nor are they worshiped as separate gods.

 

[sojourner]

No. I'm simply interpreting what God says.

No, you're interpreting what someone translated that someone else wrote that someone else said that God said.

I think most people who argue 'biblical context' are simply arguing for their own personal theological wants.

In order to achieve a fair interpretation, given the nature of what is being interpreted, one has to take the context into account.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Worship, in the understanding of the biblical writers, was far more than simply "giving honor." Worship is a transformational relationship, in which the whole self is caught up in the divine identity.

 

[sojourner]

Did the golden calf worshippers really think the physical object was a divine being?

Yes. They did. The calf was imbued with deific power of its own.

 

[sojourner]

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.

"Represent," though, isn't what an idol is. The idol doesn't "represent" the god. The idol is the god. Even the "special holy" representations are still only representations.

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

No. It's the distinction between "representation" and "physical god" that makes the difference. The pictures and statues of Jesus are not gods in and of themselves. They are, rather, representations of something other than themselves.

 

[sojourner]

They're not my ideas. They're God's words.

Nope. God doesn't work for Houghton-Mifflin.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Jesus is God, so it's OK to pray to God.

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

Veneration and worship are two different things. Veneration and deification are two different things. Mary is venerated -- not worshiped. Nor has she been deified.

 

[sojourner]

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.

I was a licensed minister in the Anglican tradition for a number of years. It depends on the specific tradition, typically known as "high church" or "low church." Many Anglican churches are "high churches," and employ icons, stations of the cross, crucifixes, and statuary in their sacred spaces.

 

[sojourner]

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

You're forgetting, though, that we're not dealing with religions "all over the world." We're dealing with what the biblical writers thought. They thought of idols as objects being worshiped themselves, not merely venerated because of who the object represented. The popular term "idolatry" has been broadened to indicate all kids of things. In the bible, the term is very, very specific. Therefore, you can't take what some modern culture thinks and does, and apply it to "what the bible means."

 

[Tumah]

You're forgetting, though, that we're not dealing with religions "all over the world." We're dealing with what the biblical writers thought. They thought of idols as objects being worshiped themselves, not merely venerated because of who the object represented...

Is that true? A given city would worship their Ba'al. The Philistines for instance had their Ba'al Zebub. So everyone walked around with their little Ba'al statue and did whatever they did to it. So either:
1. Each person thought only he had the real Ba'al.
2. They believed there were plenty of Ba'al Zvuv's to go around for everyone.
3. They believed the piece of stone or wood they were carrying around was only a representation, medium, or avatar of their god.

-I don't think it would be the first one since it seems as though these Ba'als were communal.
-I don't think its the second, since there is no indication in the name that these are multiple entities. "BaAL" is singular.
-Which only leaves the last option.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I only speak American. Someone will have to present the quote to me in American.

And, respectfully, I'm not sure that anyone alive today can say with any certainty how the original writer of that quote was meaning his colons and semi-colons to be interpreted. (Speaking loosely, of course. i realize there were no such punctuations.)

Look at Old English or Middle English, or even early-American English, and I think you'll see that there's way more variety in usage than today. But even today, we find lots of variance in punctuation and other usage. I just don't see how we can claim to know what any 2,000-year-old writer meant with any certainty.

 

[Sees]

You're forgetting, though, that we're not dealing with religions "all over the world." We're dealing with what the biblical writers thought. They thought of idols as objects being worshiped themselves, not merely venerated because of who the object represented. The popular term "idolatry" has been broadened to indicate all kids of things. In the bible, the term is very, very specific. Therefore, you can't take what some modern culture thinks and does, and apply it to "what the bible means."

I'll agree to this. Just don't like the stigma that gets presented that what we do with idols, icons, pictures, statues, etc. is some form of evil, unsophisticated materialism.

With the Bible what people take as cultural and/or era specific and what they take as eternal, universal divine command is a hugely mixed bag. All types of different sects, denoms, groups saying the others are at least astray - all the way up to evil/satan guided...let alone all the many pagans.

So people do have to say from time to time "we're not like that...we don't do that"

I think it's agreement here lol

 

[sojourner]

I only speak American. Someone will have to present the quote to me in American.

That's fine, but you realize if that happens, that it's no longer "God's words," but a translation (and in the process of translation come necessary choices of interpretation on how to translate words and phrases for which there is no English equivalent, in order to maintain what the translator thinks the text means).

I just don't see how we can claim to know what any 2,000-year-old writer meant with any certainty.

Right! And it gets even worse when a modern reader reads a translation and puts his or her own spin on the translation. You can't just "read the bible in English" and say, "These are God's words." It just doesn't work that way.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's fine, but you realize if that happens, that it's no longer "God's words," but a translation (and in the process of translation come necessary choices of interpretation on how to translate words and phrases for which there is no English equivalent, in order to maintain what the translator thinks the text means).

Yeah. That's why I consider it nonsensical to think of any words as 'scripture.' Maybe God really does infuse some text with His Meaning, but I see only bad choices so far as how we could read that text:

1) Believe that a Holy Spirit guides us to perfect discernment. The problem is obvious. It isolates us. We know what God meant, and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and worse -- somehow unable to commune with the Holy Spirit = spiritually flawed.

2) Believe that we can access the meaning of the text through studying ancient languages. I have a crude background in academic linguistics along with a lifetime love of language, and my opinion is that such an endeavor might get us in the same Meaning Ballpark as the text writer -- maybe, if we're very very lucky -- but that there is no way to actually know what that writer was trying to say. Heck, look at this forum. People living in the same time and place and speaking the same language are constantly misunderstanding each other. Even when we're not talking loosey-goosey theological stuff. But we're capable of understanding theology written by ancient people in a foreign language and culture?

3) Believe that scripture is more like poetry and that we are only to gain a sort of inspiration from it, but no certain theology. The problem with this stance is that it never happens but also there is the question of why other, 'secular' poetry is of a lesser value than is our chosen scripture. I know a lot of people are able to just embrace their favorite scripture, with no qualms or uncertainties, but that decision is impossible for me. I find God's voice everywhere and much moreso in modern speech and writing, in my own language, than in old books.

Anyway, that's a quick overview of how I see (Abrahamic) scripture.

Right! And it gets even worse when a modern reader reads a translation and puts his or her own spin on the translation. You can't just "read the bible in English" and say, "These are God's words." It just doesn't work that way.

Right. And I don't think anyone can read it in the original language either and say, "These are God's words."

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yeah. That's why I consider it nonsensical to think of any words as 'scripture.' Maybe God really does infuse some text with His Meaning, but I see only bad choices so far as how we could read that text:

1) Believe that a Holy Spirit guides us to perfect discernment. The problem is obvious. It isolates us. We know what God meant, and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and worse -- somehow unable to commune with the Holy Spirit = spiritually flawed.

2) Believe that we can access the meaning of the text through studying ancient languages. I have a crude background in academic linguistics along with a lifetime love of language, and my opinion is that such an endeavor might get us in the same Meaning Ballpark as the text writer -- maybe, if we're very very lucky -- but that there is no way to actually know what that writer was trying to say. Heck, look at this forum. People living in the same time and place and speaking the same language are constantly misunderstanding each other. Even when we're not talking loosey-goosey theological stuff. But we're capable of understanding theology written by ancient people in a foreign language and culture?

3) Believe that scripture is more like poetry and that we are only to gain a sort of inspiration from it, but no certain theology. The problem with this stance is that it never happens but also there is the question of why other, 'secular' poetry is of a lesser value than is our chosen scripture. I know a lot of people are able to just embrace their favorite scripture, with no qualms or uncertainties, but that decision is impossible for me. I find God's voice everywhere and much moreso in modern speech and writing, in my own language, than in old books.

Anyway, that's a quick overview of how I see (Abrahamic) scripture.

There's a fourth option. Study how the people of the time interpreted the Bible, what their mindset was, what beliefs they drew from the text, study what exegetical methods and techniques they used in interpreting the Bible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There's a fourth option. Study how the people of the time interpreted the Bible, what their mindset was, what beliefs they drew from the text, study what exegetical methods and techniques they used in interpreting the Bible.

Yeah. I guess I always wonder why some people believe that God appeared to us in the Old Days, gave us a particular body of Holy Words, and has never come back to give us more, much less to put them into our own mouths and pens, much less to put them in everyone's mouth, every day as we go through our lives.

Why do some of us need to worship words?

Why believe in scripture?

It leads us into long discussions about how God meant us to interpret His semi-colons, as in the OP.

Surely that can't be what God wants of us.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah. That's why I consider it nonsensical to think of any words as 'scripture.' Maybe God really does infuse some text with His Meaning, but I see only bad choices so far as how we could read that text:

1) Believe that a Holy Spirit guides us to perfect discernment. The problem is obvious. It isolates us. We know what God meant, and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and worse -- somehow unable to commune with the Holy Spirit = spiritually flawed.

2) Believe that we can access the meaning of the text through studying ancient languages. I have a crude background in academic linguistics along with a lifetime love of language, and my opinion is that such an endeavor might get us in the same Meaning Ballpark as the text writer -- maybe, if we're very very lucky -- but that there is no way to actually know what that writer was trying to say. Heck, look at this forum. People living in the same time and place and speaking the same language are constantly misunderstanding each other. Even when we're not talking loosey-goosey theological stuff. But we're capable of understanding theology written by ancient people in a foreign language and culture?

3) Believe that scripture is more like poetry and that we are only to gain a sort of inspiration from it, but no certain theology. The problem with this stance is that it never happens but also there is the question of why other, 'secular' poetry is of a lesser value than is our chosen scripture. I know a lot of people are able to just embrace their favorite scripture, with no qualms or uncertainties, but that decision is impossible for me. I find God's voice everywhere and much moreso in modern speech and writing, in my own language, than in old books.

Anyway, that's a quick overview of how I see (Abrahamic) scripture.



Right. And I don't think anyone can read it in the original language either and say, "These are God's words."

Just my opinion, of course.

Then why on earth did you say this?:

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.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then why on earth did you say this?:

Because I conform myself to the person with whom I'm dialoguing. I use his language, his stance, in order to communicate with him.

Do you think I really believe in God? The Holy Spirit?

Of course I do and obviously I don't. Depends.

 

[sojourner]

Because I conform myself to the person with whom I'm dialoguing. I use his language, his stance, in order to communicate with him.

Do you think I really believe in God? The Holy Spirit?

Of course I do and obviously I don't. Depends.

Well, you sure miss the mark in my case. I'm sure we'd all just as soon you'd simply be yourself instead of some mock-clairvoyant chameleon.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah. I guess I always wonder why some people believe that God appeared to us in the Old Days, gave us a particular body of Holy Words, and has never come back to give us more, much less to put them into our own mouths and pens, much less to put them in everyone's mouth, every day as we go through our lives.

Why do some of us need to worship words?

Why believe in scripture?

It leads us into long discussions about how God meant us to interpret His semi-colons, as in the OP.

Surely that can't be what God wants of us.

It doesn't have anything to do with interpreting "God's words." It has nothing to do with worshiping words. It really has nothing to do with "believing" in scripture, AFAIC.

It has everything to do with properly utilizing the best, most ancient sources we have of the Tradition, so that continuity can be established between people and cultures.