Why are idols bad?

[Vrindavana Das]

what evidence is there that the hindu scriptures are actually from the Almighty God?

Depends on what would 'you' consider as an evidence.

=> Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna, spoke the great scripture - Srimad Bhagavad Gita about 5,000 years ago, when He was personally present on Earth to guide humanity in the matters of religion. This great literature still exists and is for all to see. Over 5,000 years, millions have given their own interpretations of this great literature on the 'Science of God.' Not one has been able to change even a single word till date.

=> The places, mentioned in the scriptures, where Krishna played His pastimes are still there. They are thronged by devotees from all over the world, throughout the year.

=> The scriptures tell us that Krishna built a city in the middle of the sea - Dwarka. Remnants of Dwarka city, submerged under sea, have been found.

=> The name "Christ" means "annointed one". This is take from the Greek word "Christos". Language historians trace the origin of Greek language to Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, the word "Krista" means all-attractive. The Sanskrit word "Krista" is a variation of the word KRISHNA, one of the countless and ancient names for God Almighty. The name "Krishna" also means "all attractive". We should ask, "What do Christ and Krishna have in common? It is common knowlege that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Who he called "The Father". He referred to himself as the Son of God dozens of times, and to God the Father over 200 times in the New Testament.

That is proof enough for me I guess!

 

[Pegg]

Hinduism is about discovery. It teaches methods of finding out truth instead of just having faith. There are many Hindus who, like most people, only have faith. But there are also many who follow this path or end up drawn to this path through mystical experiences or actual Realisations.

Aside from that, I agree with Wannabe. The Gita, along with many of the scriptures, speak for themselves. I acknowledge the subjectivity of my following statement. I have found no concepts or philosophies with as much intelligence as Vedic scriptures nor any religion that so accurately embodies my experiences with life and my perceptions about life.

Again, my following statement is subjective. The absolute love and joy and peace that comes from worship of God; Bhagavan, is beyond anything I can imagine being able to achieve through material activities. It relinquishes all fears, all attachments, all material desires. It leaves you without doubt. Many Hindus have such strong faith due to this experience of complete Bliss through our service to this, our God.

This explains my reasons for believing in this God. I can't prove anything.

Its great that you've found a path that you can identify with and feel that way about. I know there are a lot of relgious people who do not achieve such an outcome

 

[Pegg]

Depends on what would 'you' consider as an evidence.

=> Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna, spoke the great scripture - Srimad Bhagavad Gita about 5,000 years ago, when He was personally present on Earth to guide humanity in the matters of religion. This great literature still exists and is for all to see. Over 5,000 years, millions have given their own interpretations of this great literature on the 'Science of God.' Not one has been able to change even a single word till date.

=> The places, mentioned in the scriptures, where Krishna played His pastimes are still there. They are thronged by devotees from all over the world, throughout the year.

=> The scriptures tell us that Krishna built a city in the middle of the sea - Dwarka. Remnants of Dwarka city, submerged under sea, have been found.

=> The name "Christ" means "annointed one". This is take from the Greek word "Christos". Language historians trace the origin of Greek language to Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, the word "Krista" means all-attractive. The Sanskrit word "Krista" is a variation of the word KRISHNA, one of the countless and ancient names for God Almighty. The name "Krishna" also means "all attractive". We should ask, "What do Christ and Krishna have in common? It is common knowlege that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Who he called "The Father". He referred to himself as the Son of God dozens of times, and to God the Father over 200 times in the New Testament.

That is proof enough for me I guess!

interesting about the city of dwaraka. The archeologists exploring the city say the the whole coast of western India sank beneath the ocean by nearly 40 feet around 1500 B.C.E. It makes me wonder if this was the global flood of Noah in our bible. Do hindu's have a global flood legend?

Also, if Krishna was a man, what made him a god?

 

[Pegg]

The same can be said for the bible, Pegg. I see no evidence, in that book, that it is the word of God. I do, however, see plenty of evidence amongst the multitudinous Hindu scriptures that speak to the Truth and, more importantly, I see it in the practise of my Hindu brethren.

im curious what you think...

if we are told that A,B & C are truth, how do you think we can be sure that it is truth? Is there some way to test it, or can we compare it to something to make the determination?

I ask this because as you know, there are many forms of truth out there. Some will say that C, F & G are the truth, but others object and say A, Z and X are truth. What formula do you use to decide which truth is correct? Or do you think they can all be correct?

 

[Gharib]

I replied to this thread not in a way that explains how the Abrahamic faiths see idolatry, but instead started by trying to 'show' the Hindu members how idolatry is wrong. That's basically (like) a debate.

So here goes an explanation:

In Islam we believe that God is only one and is not a part of his creation, He is a separate entity to his creation. So to worship an idol means to confine God into the idol while he says that He is not 'in' his creation.

Now since from our view only the concept of God which is presented to us by Islamic teachings is true and every other concept is false, to say that God (or a part of God) is within the idol as well as everything else in existence holds no weight. So instead from our perspective it is the actual idol who is worshiped, which explains the condemnation of such an act.

From a Hindu perspective, to pray to an idol makes sense because God is in that idol as well as many others including everything else in existence. But not so from an Islamic perspective and thus such worship makes no sense and is labeled as associating partners to Allah.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Pegg]

Prophecies are subjective; the miracles of the prophets are hearsay. Various Hindu texts have prophecies and stories of miracles. However, I don't really care for these, personally.

For me it's the spiritual truths I find in the Hindu texts, and not stories of miracles, prophecies, incarnations etc

The latter just doesn't 'speak' to me at all, either spiritually or intellectually, so it's not true for me. They both have about the same in the way of evidence (scientific evidence), which isn't a lot.

right i see what you are saying. Those texts are visually stimulating, and would it be correct to say, appealing to the senses?

 

[Madhuri]

right i see what you are saying. Those texts are visually stimulating, and would it be correct to say, appealing to the senses?

I think Odion is pointing toward the general theme and mood of the scriptures. The Hindu scriptures are all about the glory of God based on love and joy. Whereas the Bible, especially the OT seems to be filled with horror, death, torture, rape and how God might decide to kill you horribly or send you to hell. This is the impression I get. I find the story of Jesus refreshing compared with the OT but even that is a sad kind of story.

I think you can find inspiration in any religion. What Odion is saying is that he finds it in scriptures like the Gita but it isn't for us to say that it is more true just because its happier or portrays a more loving God.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

interesting about the city of dwaraka. The archeologists exploring the city say the the whole coast of western India sank beneath the ocean by nearly 40 feet around 1500 B.C.E. It makes me wonder if this was the global flood of Noah in our bible. Do hindu's have a global flood legend?

Yes! There is mention of Global flooding in our scriptures. It is the story of Fish Incarnation of Supreme Lord - Matsya Avtaar.

I think it is the same story that has found it's place in the Bible.

Below is a small excerpt: [S.B. 8.24.32-37]

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
saptame hy adyatanād ūrdhvam
ahany etad arindama
nimańkṣyaty apyayāmbhodhau
trailokyaḿ bhūr-bhuvādikam​

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O King, who can subdue your enemies, on the seventh day from today the three worlds — Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ and Svaḥ — will all merge into the water of inundation.

tri-lokyāḿ līyamānāyāḿ
saḿvartāmbhasi vai tadā
upasthāsyati nauḥ kācid
viśālā tvāḿ mayeritā​

When all the three worlds merge into the water, a large boat sent by Me will appear before you.

tvaḿ tāvad oṣadhīḥ sarvā
bījāny uccāvacāni ca
saptarṣibhiḥ parivṛtaḥ
sarva-sattvopabṛḿhitaḥ
āruhya bṛhatīḿ nāvaḿ
vicariṣyasy aviklavaḥ
ekārṇave nirāloke
ṛṣīṇām eva varcasā​

Thereafter, O King, you shall collect all types of herbs and seeds and load them on that great boat. Then, accompanied by the seven ṛṣis and surrounded by all kinds of living entities, you shall get aboard that boat, and without moroseness you shall easily travel with your companions on the ocean of inundation, the only illumination being the effulgence of the great ṛṣis.

dodhūyamānāḿ tāḿ nāvaḿ
samīreṇa balīyasā
upasthitasya me śṛńge
nibadhnīhi mahāhinā​

Then, as the boat is tossed about by the powerful winds, attach the vessel to My horn by means of the great serpent Vāsuki, for I shall be present by your side.

ahaḿ tvām ṛṣibhiḥ sārdhaḿ
saha-nāvam udanvati
vikarṣan vicariṣyāmi
yāvad brāhmī niśā prabho​

Pulling the boat, with you and all the ṛṣis in it, O King, I shall travel in the water of devastation until the night of Lord Brahmā's slumber is over.

Interesting?

Also, if Krishna was a man, what made him a god?

Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. At the time of His birth, He appeared to Devaki & Vasudeva in His four armed form of Narayana. Later, at the request of Devaki & Vasudeva, He turned Himself into a new-born.

Krishna Himself declares in the Bhagavad Gita:

yo mām ajam anādiḿ ca
vetti loka-maheśvaram
asammūḍhaḥ sa martyeṣu
sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate​

He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.[B.G. 10.3]

The same is confirmed by Lord Brahma - creator of the universe as:

isvarah paramah krishnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam​

Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.[B.S. 5.1]

 

[Madhuri]

interesting about the city of dwaraka. The archeologists exploring the city say the the whole coast of western India sank beneath the ocean by nearly 40 feet around 1500 B.C.E. It makes me wonder if this was the global flood of Noah in our bible. Do hindu's have a global flood legend?

Also, if Krishna was a man, what made him a god?

I can't help replying instead of waiting for others...

Hindus do have a global flood story but it took place millions of years ago, not a few thousand. Krishna is one of the most recent avatars whereas the flood occurred during the appearance of the very first avatar (Matsya).

Krishna was never a man, as in a 'human'. His body is always Spiritual, not made of matter. I am not sure how to answer this question though, except to wonder exactly how he was not a God. To me he represents everything Godly.

 

[Vinayaka]

Despite the supposed 'bad' in 'idol' worship, I think I'll just continue on with it. As will a billion or more others.

Thanks Madhuri, for jumping in on that one. It helps the concept that we're a vast lot, which ranks right up there along with the false idea that we worship idols, as one of the most common misunderstandings the west has of Hinduism.

 

[Madhuri]

In Islam we believe that God is only one and is not a part of his creation, He is a separate entity to his creation. So to worship an idol means to confine God into the idol while he says that He is not 'in' his creation.

How is it logical for god to be separate from his creation? If nothing exists originally except for God (which must be the case since everything comes from him) then where does the world come from? What does God use to make the universe? How can something be made by God unless it comes 'out of' his own Being? I do not see the logic.

Furthermore, the idea of deity worship (no such concept of idol worship in Hinduism) does not confine God into anything. Why would it? God is everywhere, including in an object. Even your religion says he is everywhere. How can he be everywhere if he is not in his creation? Again I am not seeing the logic.

Now since from our view only the concept of God which is presented to us by Islamic teachings is true and every other concept is false, to say that God (or a part of God) is within the idol as well as everything else in existence holds no weight. So instead from our perspective it is the actual idol who is worshiped, which explains the condemnation of such an act.

Ok, so let us talk hypothetically. Because it is just as easy for me to say that since in our view the concept of God presented to us by Vedic teaching is true, to say that our God is within an object as well as everything else in existence is perfectly possible and even probable.

If God is all powerful, there should not be any problem in agreeing that if he wants, God could be manifest entirely in all things at any or all time. If God is all powerful, there should be no problem agreeing that if he wants, he can appear in Spirit within an object for the sake and mercy of his devotee. If God is all powerful, then there should be no problem agreeing that to say 'God cannot do this or that' is a huge contradiction.

If God's power is limited, and in fact he cannot manifest himself within his own creation, then it may be a different story. Even so, the average Hindu does not look at a statue of God and see the statue. His consciousness turns to God, in Spirit, and the statue simply helps to focus his mind. So for me, I feel that to spite this form of worship is not only silly, ti is also cruel (of God, hypothetically speaking).

From a Hindu perspective, to pray to an idol makes sense because God is in that idol as well as many others including everything else in existence. But not so from an Islamic perspective and thus such worship makes no sense and is labeled as associating partners to Allah.

I understand that if your religion says this then you will believe this. But I have not yet heard or read an argument that makes logical sense. This is why I have trouble with Islam, because it often does not seem logical to me. I am happy for you to try and make sense of it for me :yes:

 

[Gharib]

Madhuri, I sense you may be somewhat annoyed by what I said. I didn't want to debate and tell the Hindu members how their religion is wrong. A question was made and I replied based on what was asked.

From what I understood from your post, you are pulling me into a debate. I don't what to go into a comparative debate on how what I believe makes better sense while what you believe doesn't and vice versa. That's why I made a new post instead of continuing my old discussions in the thread.

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri, I sense you may be somewhat annoyed by what I said. I didn't want to debate and tell the Hindu members how their religion is wrong. A question was made and I replied based on what was asked.

From what I understood from your post, you are pulling me into a debate. I don't what to go into a comparative debate on how what I believe makes better sense while what you believe doesn't and vice versa. That's why I made a new post instead of continuing my old discussions in the thread.

Ooops, sorry I thought you said you wanted to debate. My bad

Honestly, I'm not angry. I am very passionate about defending my religion, especially because very few people actually understand the concepts and constantly mis-represent it. But I'm definitely not angry.

It is ok if you do not want to debate. But some day I would love to read an explanation about Islam that makes logical sense to me.

 

[Gharib]

Ooops, sorry I thought you said you wanted to debate. My bad

Honestly, I'm not angry. I am very passionate about defending my religion, especially because very few people actually understand the concepts and constantly mis-represent it. But I'm definitely not angry.

It is ok if you do not want to debate. But some day I would love to read an explanation about Islam that makes logical sense to me.

If you read Islamic material and compare it with Hindu teachings, then it will never make sense, even if it is only black and white. The same applies to me if i look at Hinduism and judge it with the teachings of Islam. Even Christianity doesn't make sense if I do that.

f you can't judge another religion by it's own teachings and not those of Hinduism then it's never going to make sense.

 

[Madhuri]

If you read Islamic material and compare it with Hindu teachings, then it will never make sense, even if it is only black and white. The same applies to me if i look at Hinduism and judge it with the teachings of Islam. Even Christianity doesn't make sense if I do that.

f you can't judge another religion by it's own teachings and not those of Hinduism then it's never going to make sense.

I try to be as objective as possible. But if you say that god is all powerful and then say that God can't do something, it doesn't matter what I come from. It is not a logical concept. However, sometimes things that seem illogical can end up making sense. I just haven't received an explanation that makes it seem logical...yet.

 

[Breathe]

right i see what you are saying. Those texts are visually stimulating, and would it be correct to say, appealing to the senses?

I think Odion is pointing toward the general theme and mood of the scriptures. The Hindu scriptures are all about the glory of God based on love and joy. Whereas the Bible, especially the OT seems to be filled with horror, death, torture, rape and how God might decide to kill you horribly or send you to hell. This is the impression I get. I find the story of Jesus refreshing compared with the OT but even that is a sad kind of story.

I think you can find inspiration in any religion. What Odion is saying is that he finds it in scriptures like the Gita but it isn't for us to say that it is more true just because its happier or portrays a more loving God.

I think Madhuri has summed it up pretty good.



It's not because it's "appealing to the senses", but to use something a bit more "Christianese", I'd say something like "it speaks to the spirit". It feels truer to me. I'm also aesthetically more pleased with the Bhagavad Gītā and the Gurū Granth Sāhib than I am that Bible or Quran, but that isn't really affected my beliefs. At least, not subconsciously.

 

[Gharib]

I try to be as objective as possible. But if you say that god is all powerful and then say that God can't do something, it doesn't matter what I come from. It is not a logical concept. However, sometimes things that seem illogical can end up making sense. I just haven't received an explanation that makes it seem logical...yet.

I didn't say that God can't do 'something' or create everything out of Himself.

Islam teaches monotheism, to say that God is everything and everywhere in the literal sense (physically) is not monotheism.

If we take monotheism as being illogical because God can't do what Hinduism teaches about God, then the same applies to Brahman for not doing what Islam says God can do, which is to create something out of nothing.

If I was to judge Brahman with the Islamic criteria of God, then Brahman fails because he had to create everything out of Himself and not out of nothing.

That's one of the things that sets God apart from everything else and which makes him unique in a very big way.

We as humans 'create' things but only through what already exists. Everything you see on earth other than what we consider 'natural' has come from the earth itself. If God has no better abilities of actually making 'something' out of nothing which existed before then he too is no different to a human and creates out of what already exists, which is Himself.

By definition (maybe only by Islamic definition) that's not called 'creation' but rather manipulation/transformation of existing objects.

 

[Tbone]

We are not going to see eye to eye with this sort of debating. My belief is that God encourages many forms of worship and that the deities humans use for worship are not 'idols' as you would label them.

It is not me you need to agree with, it's God.
God only encourages one form of worship and says there is only one way, the rest is up to you.
Good luck with your way as apposed to God's.

 

[HerDotness]

Yeah i understand and mostly agree but what i was trying to point out is. If you say for example: all Cows are God and then have a Cow-Statue before you when you pray it seems to me that it defiantly looks like Idol-worship, now someone can say ''It isn't'' and i am willing to belief that person but would it not be better to remove the whole ''statue or idol'' in the first place when you pray and pray to a formless god (if you belief he is formless) even if its a ''respected or loved figure''.

Now place the cow part away and put Jesus(p) in that part ''a creation of god'' and i think you will have something looking similar to (Paganism/Idol-ism) hence people belief that he is God or at-least a part of concept of god. Now i am not claiming its that and i fully well understand your argument and points that you brought forth and that's why i also agreed mostly on what you just said and certainly about having ''different perspectives on certain things''

It seems better to eliminate statues and simply pray to the formless god because that is what you were taught is right.

To a Catholic or Hindu, the use of statues or other images doesn't seem the least bit wrong, so they'd disagree that you are correct and they should give up their images, many of which are highly valued because of their age and tradition.

Think about it--praying before a statue LOOKS like idol worship to you. And that's because you were taught differently.

 

[Madhuri]

I didn't say that God can't do 'something' or create everything out of Himself.

Islam teaches monotheism, to say that God is everything and everywhere in the literal sense (physically) is not monotheism.

How do you define monotheism? The idea that only God exists is monotheistic as far as I know. It still is defined that there is only One God.

If we take monotheism as being illogical because God can't do what Hinduism teaches about God, then the same applies to Brahman for not doing what Islam says God can do, which is to create something out of nothing.

But what if 'nothingness' is not real but rather an illusion? Since God is infinite, how can there be room for 'nothing'? Do Muslims believe that God is infinite? And what does it mean for God to be infinite, as far as you understand?

If I was to judge Brahman with the Islamic criteria of God, then Brahman fails because he had to create everything out of Himself and not out of nothing.

But Brahman is defined as being All-Pervading and infinite. Nothingness cannot exist because God exists. If there is any void, it is also a part of Brahman. So simultaneously, the answer to the hypothetical question is yes and no. Yes, because the void is also part of God. And no because there is no room for nothing or rather there is no 'nothing' since there is only everything/infinity.

That's one of the things that sets God apart from everything else and which makes him unique in a very big way.

We as humans 'create' things but only through what already exists. Everything you see on earth other than what we consider 'natural' has come from the earth itself. If God has no better abilities of actually making 'something' out of nothing which existed before then he too is no different to a human and creates out of what already exists, which is Himself.

By definition (maybe only by Islamic definition) that's not called 'creation' but rather manipulation/transformation of existing objects.

I must disagree with you here. What sets God apart is that he is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. He is the Origin, the Source, the Beginning, the Middle and the End. The is the full controller of all things.

You see, even if all units of creation are a part of God, that they come from his own energies and powers, no unit is equal to God who is all that I mentioned. The units are limited because they are only units. Whereas God is the Whole. And much, much more.