Is Sun Worship Idolatry?

[Iacchus]

In order to keep from further derailing the thread, A Note on Evolution, am reposting the last few posts here regarding Sun Worship and Idolatry ...

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

The question it begs is, "How is Christianity any different from the primative fables invented by prehistoric man to explain the unknowable?"

And of course the answer is

"Christians have put in additional fables."

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus

The mind is an environment unto itself. So how do you know that the mind is not in fact tricking us, Tricky, into thinking what we see is real? And how do you know you're not just a legend in your own mind?

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

That's so heavy!, dude. Wow! Let me have a couple of bong hits to ponder that!

No, seriously, Iacchus. When you lean towards sun worship, you reveal the essential basis in mythology that all religions base themselves on. The myths get more complex as new questions are asked. Prehistoric sun-worshippers may not have cared where the world came from, but just who was going to make sure their crops came in.

As new questions were asked, the mythology became more complex. Now we have to know where life came from. Now we have to know why people "sin". New myths had to be created to explain these things. In fact, our need to explain finally became so great that we had to have evidence for our myths. Ah, the Age of Reason.

Yet, the urge to turn back to the easy, obvious, primative Sun God is strong. Many Pagans yielded to that atavistic urge. Apparently some Christians too.

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus

No, what you're referring to here is idolatry. Do you know why? Because whenever you set up anything physically in the place of God, be it the sun, a stature or, a far off mountain top, then it only encourages people to bring God down to their level, and not worship God for what He truly is, as a Spirit. By the way, did you know that there's also a Sun in Heaven?

Also, did you know that the Age of Reason corresponds to the advent of Spiritual Bridegroom, at which point the Book of Revelation was actually fulfilled? (instead of some imaginary date in the future).

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

"Idolatry" refers to the worship of graven-formed images of a deity . . . like idols . . . why it is called "idolatry."

Satan: So you'd like to be articulate?

Stanley: Yeah! Yeah!

Satan: And be able to use words like "articulate?"

--J. "I'm Bedazzled!" D.

[Skeptical Greg]

No.

The Sun is not an Idol.. It is a star.

Wait.. Something's wrong here...


" American Idol "

" Star Search "


You might have something, after all...

[Bikewer]

What about those "Graven Images"? I personally think of a graven image as something "engraved", that is, produced by cutting into; linotypes for instance.

As such, a painting would not be a graven image, nor would a drawing. A sculpture might be, if it were produce by subtraction. (chiseling, cutting, and the like) Not if it were produced by addition. (build-up of clay, for instance.)

I personally like the idea of a large, bronze idol you can build a fire inside of, and then cast the sacrifices into. Ah, give me that old-time religion...

[ceo_esq]

The unabridged OED, grandaddy of dictionaries, offers the following definitions for idolatry:

Quote:

1. The worship of idols or images "made with hands"; more generally, the paying or offering of divine honours to any created object.

2. Immoderate attachment to or veneration for any person or thing; admiration savouring of adoration.

Sun-worship would does not meet the first (strict) part of definition 1, which refers to adoration of objects made by human craftsmanship. It does, however, appear to meet the second, more general part of definition 1, insofar as the natural universe constitutes, from a standard theological point of view, the "created order" (God's Creation), and all things in it - including the sun - are created things (and accordingly, not fit subjects of divine honours).

Sun-worship could also be said to fit definition 2.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

"Idolatry" refers to the worship of graven-formed images of a deity . . . like idols . . . why it is called "idolatry."

Satan: So you'd like to be articulate?

Stanley: Yeah! Yeah!

Satan: And be able to use words like "articulate?"

--J. "I'm Bedazzled!" D.

As I wasn't sure what you were posting here, whether you were refuting sun worship was idolatry or not, I decided to start this thread. For the second commandment (beginning with verse 4 below) suggests that the likeness of anything created by hand should not be used as an object of worship. Whereas the first commandment (verse 3) leads directly into the second and suggests both are closely related. Which suggests to me that anything shape or form (in the physical sense) should not be set up as an object of worship.

Quote:

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

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. ~ Exodus 20:1-6

[Tricky]

All worship is idolatry. Sun, Cross, Bible, etc. they all have, at some level, a physical element. Since God Himself has declined to do personal appearances, you have to worship something that represents Him.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer

What about those "Graven Images"? I personally think of a graven image as something "engraved", that is, produced by cutting into; linotypes for instance.

As such, a painting would not be a graven image, nor would a drawing. A sculpture might be, if it were produce by subtraction. (chiseling, cutting, and the like) Not if it were produced by addition. (build-up of clay, for instance.)

I personally like the idea of a large, bronze idol you can build a fire inside of, and then cast the sacrifices into. Ah, give me that old-time religion...

And yet this is what the second commandment states ...

Quote:

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. ~ Exodus 20:4-6

[ceo_esq]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
All worship is idolatry. Sun, Cross, Bible, etc. they all have, at some level, a physical element. Since God Himself has declined to do personal appearances, you have to worship something that represents Him.

Why? I don't worship anything, but let's say I did for the sake of argument. Is something that represents what I worship necessarily something that I also worship? Note that no one worships (so far as I know) a cross or a Bible. Human beings - at least some of them - seem to be sufficiently capable of abstraction to be able to worship something that has no inherent physical elements.

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Is Sun Worship Idolatry?

From Idols and Idoltry:

Quote:

Objects of idolatry. The sun and moon were early selected as outward symbols of all-pervading power, and the worship of the heavenly bodies was not only the most ancient but the most prevalent system of idolatry. Taking its rise in the plains of Chaldea, it spread through Egypt, Greece, Scythia, and even Mexico and Ceylon.

...

Whatever of wealth or honor or pleasure is loved and sought before God and righteousness becomes an object of idolatry.

By the author's opinion, sun worship is in fact idoltry (it probably conflicts with Exodus 20:3).

Of course, by the author's opinion, he would probably consider saluting a flag idoltry, or perhaps he has faith in his god to guide his car through the streets because he probably considers obeying stop signs a form of idoltry.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

All worship is idolatry. Sun, Cross, Bible, etc. they all have, at some level, a physical element. Since God Himself has declined to do personal appearances, you have to worship something that represents Him.

Of course one way of looking at this is that the first commandment represents the theory, "Thou shalt have no gods before me"; the second commandment represents its practice, "Thou shalt not create any graven images"; and the third commandment represents the follow through, which occurs when practicing and preaching the first two, whereby leading others astray, "Thou shalt not take the Lords name in vain."

Whereas once we understand this, that indeed the worship of God is a private matter, then it frees up our minds and allows us to reflect on God -- in private -- and hence the fourth commandment, "Honor the Sabbath."

And, once we establish how to find God and maintain Him, in our minds, then we are free to observe the rest of the commandments.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

Of course, by the author's opinion, he would probably consider saluting a flag idoltry, or perhaps he has faith in his god to guide his car through the streets because he probably considers obeying stop signs a form of idoltry.

I think that anything that honors self (selfishness) over others is a form of idolatry, don't you?

[sackett]

Tricky makes an interesting assertion: "All worship is idolatry."

Certainly it's true that religious believers persistently contrive some physical object as a focus for their worshipful endeavors. Jews have Torah scrolls, Muslims have inscriptions and miniature (and quite unreadable) Qurans, Hindus and Catholics and Cargoists and ancestor-worshippers have idols and fetishes, Protestants have crosses (some of them pretty minimal blonde wood Scandinavian-style crosses), Wiccans and other let's-play-at-pagans cults have a welter of silly crap, and so on.

But is that really worship? A Hindu will tell you that by no means does he venerate the gross idol he sets up in his temple; rather he uses it as an aiming-point for his devotions; his prayers are not to the thing of wood and stone but to an invisible but somehow present deity. Less sophisticated cults may get touchy about their idols - just try messing with a Russian Orthodox icon - but they usually don't pretend that the god is permanently resident in the object. (There's an awful, awful lot of fuzzy thinking among the religious, but I hope this is their usual position.)

Sun worship is different. There's no idol involved, although a sun cult will usually employ symbolic representations of the sun (the pagan Norse come to mind) for after dark and on cloudy days. The big, bright thing in the sky is the deity itself; devotion is given to a ball of burning hydrogen, literally.

To these old eyes, that looks like idolatry. Of a particularly ignorant and pathetic variety.

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
I think that anything that honors self (selfishness) over others is a form of idolatry, don't you?

I'd say self-preservation is not something to be frowned upon.

[jimlintott]

This is a completely philosophical, point of view question.

In my point of view, given that the sun is real, I would say that worshipping a god is idolatry.

I have a completely non-religous frame of mind to form my view from. If I had been taught, by religous indoctrination, to believe that certain gods are real and others are idols then my point of view might be different.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes

No.

The Sun is not an Idol.. It is a star.

Wait.. Something's wrong here...


" American Idol "

" Star Search "


You might have something, after all...

Yes, and when we set up anybody and idolize them, then in effect it becomes a form of worship, hence creating a "new god."

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'd say self-preservation is not something to be frowned upon.

Neither would I. Also, I think people are perfectly capable of having fun, without getting a swollen head about it or, doing so at the expense of others. Otherwise where's the enjoyment in life?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and when we set up anybody and idolize them, then in effect it becomes a form of worship, hence creating a "new god."

And thus the origin of all Gods..

You do make sense somtimes..

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by sackett

Tricky makes an interesting assertion: "All worship is idolatry."

Certainly it's true that religious believers persistently contrive some physical object as a focus for their worshipful endeavors. Jews have Torah scrolls, Muslims have inscriptions and miniature (and quite unreadable) Qurans, Hindus and Catholics and Cargoists and ancestor-worshippers have idols and fetishes, Protestants have crosses (some of them pretty minimal blonde wood Scandinavian-style crosses), Wiccans and other let's-play-at-pagans cults have a welter of silly crap, and so on.

However, just because someone can read the Bible and feel closer to God, does not necessarily make the Bible an object of worship. However, if one were to uphold the Bible exclusively, as if the Bible itself were the power of God (or, God Himself), then yes, I would suggest that was a form of idolatry.

[Bikewer]

It's always been a point of interest to me as to why a God would require worship at any rate.

We're talking supreme being here, of course. Omniscient, Omnipotent, eternal...all that.

Seems like requiring us humans to worship would be kind of ...cheap.

[Bubbles]

I would argue the following:

Idolatry is, in the narrow Old Testament sense, the worship of physical images. When we talk about idoltry, though, we generally mean something more broad.

If we begin with the assumption of a trascendant God (A God apart from the universe), then it is idolatry to treat any part of the universe as if it were God. To broaden that a bit, it is idolatry to attribute to anything but God that which is true only of God (by the way, this is also what I say when literalists ask me if I believe in the innerancy of the Bible).

To take the matter in a second direction, we do not exist in isolation but rather in relationship to other people and things. I would argue that love is the appropriate response to goodness. If we accept the idea that all that is is good (I won't discuss that idea right now), then we ought to love all things. There are a great many preachers who will say things like 'Make sure you don't love your wife more than you love God'. I think that view misses a key destinction. Loves differ both in degree and in type. An error in degree can be either in want or excess. I would argue that there is no error of excess in love. Error of love by degree is always a matter of failing to love something enough. The error that touches on idolatry is error of love by type. There is a type of love appropriate to have towards God and that ought to be given to God alone. A side point is this. At some point in the next year I will get a cat (If it is a girl-cat I'll name her Bubbles after my favorite PowerPuff girl. That isn't really relevant, though). If I were to love my cat with love appropriate to loving God it would not only be an insult to God (No, I am not arguing that God doesn't like idolatry because it hurts his feelings), but also to the cat. After all, I am not loving the cat if I am loving it as something it is not.

To go by a third route, idolatry is an object that becomes a barrier to God. I would argue that all things can be (and are) sacraments. All things can be the means by which God manifests himself. However, sacraments become idols when they cease to be means and become ends. In that way, I would argue that our realtionship to things is circular. As a sacrament, the circle begins with God, passes through the object, comes to us, and returns to God. God is the beginning and end, and the object is the means by which God comes to us and we return to God. In an idolatrous relationship, the circle begins with me, passes through the object, and returns to me. I am then holding the place of God (idolatry, in the broad sense, ends in autotheism).

As to the earlier question of how Christianity is different from all of the other mythologies, I will offer this. I do not remember who is responsible for this quote or who he was asked about, but the exchange goes something like this:

Q: You know, you are getting as dogmatic as X

A: Yes, but there is a key difference: X is dogmatic and wrong, whereas I am dogmatic and right.

I mean, Christianity makes the same sorts of claims that other religions do. It is either true of a type that they are not or it is just another one of them. I happen to believe that Christianity is true in a way that other religions are not, but I do not claim to have proven the matter.

Anyway, we should not speak as if God demands worship because he is insecure. If God is the greatest possible being (Natural Theology assumption), then worship is the natural response to him. To the degree that it is a command, it is a command to come into conformity with reality.

[sackett]

If God is the greatest possible being, you'd damn well better worship Him. Anybody as don't like that can smell His shoes.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by sackett

If God is the greatest possible being, you'd damn well better worship Him. Anybody as don't like that can smell His shoes.

Maybe the best way we can worship Him is by being ourselves? (within certain guidelines that is). Besides, what does it mean to worship? Also, as far as smelling His shoes, they probably smell a lot better than anyone else's.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, just because someone can read the Bible and feel closer to God, does not necessarily make the Bible an object of worship. However, if one were to uphold the Bible exclusively, as if the Bible itself were the power of God (or, God Himself), then yes, I would suggest that was a form of idolatry.

Would you say then that when someone takes an oath with their hand on the Bible, that is idolatry. If God is not embodied by the Bible, then what is the point?

The point is that it is symbolic, and anytime you use symbols to represent god, that is idolatry.

Do you think that when Moses got all peeved because of the worshiping of the golden calf, that the people were worshipping the statue itself, or rather what it represented.

Sackett makes an interesting point though:

Quote:

Sun worship is different. There's no idol involved, although a sun cult will usually employ symbolic representations of the sun (the pagan Norse come to mind) for after dark and on cloudy days. The big, bright thing in the sky is the deity itself; devotion is given to a ball of burning hydrogen, literally.

Yes and no. Whild they may have devotion to the sun itself, they are still imbuing the sun with humanistic or godlike qualities, so while they are literally worshipping that gasbag, they are still thinking of it as representing something other than what it really is. A big idol, true, but still an idol.

[sackett]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yucckus
. . . . His shoes . . . probably smell a lot better than anyone else's.

And if they don't, who's going to tell Him?

But what's wrong with idolatry anyway? If you MUST be religious, then go the whole hog way! Goddammit (to employ a common, largely meaningless phrase), I want throbbing drums and billowing clouds of -very- aromatic herbs! I want sweet-voiced chorus lines of at least quasi-virgins! I want hideous, gigantic sculptures of many-toothed deities demanding sacrifice! (Again, virgins would be nice, but I'm not going to stickle over it.) Give me flowing wine and writhing limbs! Goddammit, I want REAL religion!

Atheism is a fine, brave, rational thing, but we needn't be so doctrinaire as to go to war with human nature.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Maybe the best way we can worship Him is by being ourselves?

I suppose that means I am worshipping Him by being an atheist.

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
(within certain guidelines that is).

Oh, here comes the caveat. Who sets those guidelines? Can I set them? Are not all religions simply the setting of those "guidelines"?

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes and no. Whild they may have devotion to the sun itself, they are still imbuing the sun with humanistic or godlike qualities, so while they are literally worshipping that gasbag, they are still thinking of it as representing something other than what it really is. A big idol, true, but still an idol.

They are also worshipping the very thing which brought them into creation.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

I suppose that means I am worshipping Him by being an atheist.

Yes, if you believe there's a reason for everything.

Quote:

Oh, here comes the caveat. Who sets those guidelines? Can I set them? Are not all religions simply the setting of those "guidelines"?

Hopefully you do, otherwise somebody else will set them for you.

[sackett]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
They are also worshipping the very thing which brought them into creation.

There he goes again, equating the sun with some kind of creator. (Note the inept phrasing: "brought them into creation." But we can guess at the meaning obscured by the words.)

Lacchus is probably not wrong that the appearance of life on earth most likely involved solar radiation, although other scenarios might be possible. (I hope somebody knowlegable will jump on this.) But that's one helllluvvvaaa looooong waaaaay from equating God with the sun. And damme sir but I think that's what he's getting at.

[Iacchus]

Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...

Quote:

The Sun in Heaven

116. In heaven neither the sun of the world, nor anything from that sun, is seen, because it is wholly natural. For nature has its beginning from that sun, and whatever is produced by means of it is called natural. But the spiritual, to which heaven belongs, is above nature and wholly distinct from what is natural; and there is no communication between the two except by correspondences. What the distinction between them is may be understood from what has already been said about degrees, and what the communication is from what has been said in the two preceding chapters about correspondences.

117. Although the sun of the world is not seen in heaven, nor anything from that sun, there is nevertheless a sun there, and light and heat, and all things that are in the world, with innumerable others, but not from a like origin; since the things in heaven are spiritual, and those in the world are natural. The sun of heaven is the Lord; the light there is the Divine truth and the heat the Divine good that go gorth from the Lord as a sun. From this origin are all things that spring forth and are seen in the heavens. This light and heat and things existing therefrom in heaven will be treated of in the following chapters; in this chapter we will speak only of the sun there. In heaven the Lord is seen as a sun, for the reason that He is Divine love, from which all spiritual things, and by means of the sun of the world all natural things, have their existence. That love is what shines as a sun.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...

"The sun of heaven is the Lord"

Oh dear. Who is going to break the news to all those folks who bought the "Jesus is Lord" bumper stickers?

So which one is really the Lord, the sun or the son?

[sackett]

Swendenborg is no threat to religion. Nobody can read him for more than five minutes at a stretch -- and I don't mean with comprehension, just read him without entering a narcoleptic state.

And does god wear shoes?

Deep questions.

I could see why a god would be dead set against idolatry in supposedly intelligent beings that it made. Makes 'em look pretty stupid. Then they do stupid things as well. By misdirecting people's focus on a bit or rock, metal or a couple of crossed pieces of wood, people focus on things instead of things that they should focus on. When the priests say the things tell them to do things, they believe, and they do. Instead of blaming the priests, they blame the rock. Handy device.

One might go a little further about idolatry, though it stretches the definition a bit. Wouldn't having a preconception, a MODEL of god in your mind be a form of idolatry? I would maintain it could be perceived in that way. From this perspective, all Christians who believe in a 'personal Jesus' believe in different gods. All Christians who have a personal notion of what God (or their Jesus; a god-like substitute) are like are probably wrong, but more importantly praying to, worshiping, etc. different gods.

Certainly Jack Chick goes all out and depicts a faceless throned glowing caricature in white as his 'god', to draw on a humorous example. He worships that god.

When you think about various religious leaders and all of their seperate 'gods', its sort of humorous, but very sad as well.

Certainly agnosticism seems like the right choice, if we're to avoid all forms of idolatry.

[LostAngeles]

Well, wait. Isn't the cross and Christ on the cross a graven image? Wouldn't paintings and sculptures of Christ and the Angels violate the commandment as it says

Quote:

The Bible saidThou 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."

and Christ is in heaven above?

Tricky was right. All worship is idolatry.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Well, wait. Isn't the cross and Christ on the cross a graven image? Wouldn't paintings and sculptures of Christ and the Angels violate the commandment as it says

Why just Christ? It sounds like any sculpture, painting etc. is a no no...

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
The Bible said
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."

LOL. Sounds like God hates artists. Michelangelo is probably frying in Hell now!

Since the Republicans also want to get rid of any programs that support artists, maybe they are right about God being on their side.

[Bubbles]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
And does god wear shoes?

Deep questions.

I could see why a god would be dead set against idolatry in supposedly intelligent beings that it made. Makes 'em look pretty stupid. Then they do stupid things as well. By misdirecting people's focus on a bit or rock, metal or a couple of crossed pieces of wood, people focus on things instead of things that they should focus on. When the priests say the things tell them to do things, they believe, and they do. Instead of blaming the priests, they blame the rock. Handy device.

One might go a little further about idolatry, though it stretches the definition a bit. Wouldn't having a preconception, a MODEL of god in your mind be a form of idolatry? I would maintain it could be perceived in that way. From this perspective, all Christians who believe in a 'personal Jesus' believe in different gods. All Christians who have a personal notion of what God (or their Jesus; a god-like substitute) are like are probably wrong, but more importantly praying to, worshiping, etc. different gods.

Certainly Jack Chick goes all out and depicts a faceless throned glowing caricature in white as his 'god', to draw on a humorous example. He worships that god.

When you think about various religious leaders and all of their seperate 'gods', its sort of humorous, but very sad as well.

Certainly agnosticism seems like the right choice, if we're to avoid all forms of idolatry.

I assume that this is true in other religious traditions, but I know it to be true in Christianity:

There is a long tradition of 'the negative way' in Christian spirituality. That is the idea that nothing that we can say or think about God is true. Rather, they are constructs of a not-God and calling that thing God (idolatry). The ideal of this spirituality is an experience of the indescribable and incomprehensible divine that shatters all of our notions and doesn't allow us to construct a new idol.

Allow me to make a destinction that you did not make but that I believe is important. Each of us has a different mental conception of God (even atheists would, they would just say that the thing does not exist). If God is beyond our understanding, then our conception of God, being of our understanding, is not beyond our understanding, and is not God. It is, in some sense, an idol.

In that sense it can be said that everyone who believes in God worships a different idol. Now, I am one of the people that argues that everyone worships the same God. They just happen to make various claims about that God. If that is the case, then I would say that we all worship different idols of the same God.

Is agnosticism the right choice? Is staying at home better than risking getting lost? Personally, I'm willing to risk getting lost, but I won't force that choice on anyone else.

Finally, if the idol is inevitable, I think the important step is to know it to be an idol. Once you know that it is an idol, it can become a sacrament: it creates a place for a communion between God and man.

[Bubbles]

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Well, wait. Isn't the cross and Christ on the cross a graven image? Wouldn't paintings and sculptures of Christ and the Angels violate the commandment as it says

and Christ is in heaven above?

Tricky was right. All worship is idolatry.

There was a very big controversy in the church over this. The iconoclasts wanted to destroy all of the sacred images. The answer that the church came to was this:

The commandment against idolatry is based on the idea that no form in creation can truly manifest the divine. However (assuming Christianity to be true), in Christ the human form did manifest the divine. The law, while generally vaild, is not universally valid.

The reference to "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." and "Christ is in heaven above" is mixing two slightly different meanings of the same word. In the first, the heavens are what we would call 'space'. In the second, 'heaven' is what would be called 'the transcendant divine state'. The two don't quite mean the same thing. After all, while we have seen things in the heavens in the first sense, obviously we do not see things in heaven in the second sense.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles


....... All that stuff you said..

Finally, if the idol is inevitable, I think the important step is to know it to be an idol. Once you know that it is an idol, it can become a sacrament: it creates a place for a communion between God and man.

So what I hear, is that some point, you can put a plastic Jesus on the dasboard, right under the fuzzy dice, and God is going to be O.K. with this?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles

Is agnosticism the right choice? Is staying at home better than risking getting lost? Personally, I'm willing to risk getting lost, but I won't force that choice on anyone else.

Agnosticism seems to be the right choice for me, but is it staying at home, or walking a treacherous and disciplined path?

There could be one or more gods (with infinite possible properties to speculate on)

There might not be any god (with no sensible additional properties to speculate on)

There could be an afterlife, a reincarnation, a further mode of existence, etc. (with infinite possible properties to speculate on)

Death might be it (with no sensible additional properties to speculate on)

There may or may not be a lot of things.

Of course, there are 'god' models and 'afterlife' models, but the agnostic perspective naturally recognizes that "it's only a model" (movie quote). So does the atheistic perspective, for that matter. As true and real as any placebo effect. What "Truth" is there in it? Or is there "Truth" at all beyond the measurable psychological effects?

From the religious perspective, it's must be very hard to separate one's own beloved model of god from the reality, realising it might not be true. It's rather an agnostic perspective, relative to your deity's nature, when you think about it.

It's a more interesting perspective to examine beliefs from than you give it credit for, because you can examine all components of an issue, not just "your" side of it. You're can't really allow yourself to take sides, except as an exercise to understand one side or the other. It doesn't offer the comfort and shelter of belonging to a group that "believes" in something, or at least believes that they all believe in the same things.

You don't get to be indoctrinated and just told to lazily accept whatever is spooned into you. The believers on either side of an issue don't value your non-commital choice, claiming you are sitting on a fence, or "staying home". There is no real support that anyone else provides for not being just like them.

I don't get the comfort of pretending that I "know things" that I do not.

[Bubbles]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave


Agnosticism seems to be the right choice for me, but is it staying at home, or walking a treacherous and disciplined path?

There could be one or more gods (with infinite possible properties to speculate on)

There might not be any god (with no sensible additional properties to speculate on)

There could be an afterlife, a reincarnation, a further mode of existence, etc. (with infinite possible properties to speculate on)

Death might be it (with no sensible additional properties to speculate on)

There may or may not be a lot of things.

Of course, there are 'god' models and 'afterlife' models, but the agnostic perspective naturally recognizes that "it's only a model" (movie quote). So does the atheistic perspective, for that matter. As true and real as any placebo effect. What "Truth" is there in it? Or is there "Truth" at all beyond the measurable psychological effects?

From the religious perspective, it's must be very hard to separate one's own beloved model of god from the reality, realising it might not be true. It's rather an agnostic perspective, relative to your deity's nature, when you think about it.

It's a more interesting perspective to examine beliefs from than you give it credit for, because you can examine all components of an issue, not just "your" side of it. You're can't really allow yourself to take sides, except as an exercise to understand one side or the other. It doesn't offer the comfort and shelter of belonging to a group that "believes" in something, or at least believes that they all believe in the same things.

You don't get to be indoctrinated and just told to lazily accept whatever is spooned into you. The believers on either side of an issue don't value your non-commital choice, claiming you are sitting on a fence, or "staying home". There is no real support that anyone else provides for not being just like them.

I don't get the comfort of pretending that I "know things" that I do not.

By the way, I am a graduate student running a discussion section for an undergraduate course. I give quizes, as per the professor's instructions every meeting, but am allowed to have some be attendance quizes (if you hand in a sheet of paper with your name on it, you get a 10/10). My last quiz had the following 3 questions:

1) What. . . is your name

2) What. . . is your quest?

3) What. . . is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Thought you might like that based on your reference. . .

Maybe we mean different things by agnosticism. It sounds like you may mean what I mean by skepticism. Skepticism, in the classical sense, is the denial of the possibility of certain knowledge (You can call it negative dogmatism: "The only thing that can be known for certain is that nothing can be known for certain"). I am a skeptic philosophically. I find it to be very liberating. I find I am free to BELIEVE when I accept that I do not
and can not KNOW. Granted, I get annoyed by very dogmatic people, but I am still able to see different perspectives better than I otherwise would be able to.

I was perhaps using agnosticism in a lazy way. I was meaning the idea of not making a descision without adequate data when adequate data will never be available. That is why I contrasted staying at home with the risk of getting lost. Meant in that way, I think it is reasonable to contrast an agnostic who stands at the fork in the road and stays there because he doesn't know which road to take; a dogmatist who comes to the fork in the road and goes right without ever considering going left; and a fideist skeptic who comes to the fork in the road, makes the best descision he can, and gets on with his life. The 2nd risks getting lost while thinking himself safe. The 3rd risks getting lost, knowing the risk. The first never gets lost, but never gets anywhere.

That, no doubt, glorifies my view and denegrates yours. From what you said, I think it a very inadequate caricature of your stance, but I don't actually know what your stance is. . .