Speculations on Idolatry

Originally posted by vistesd
[Originally from the "Mysti-Schism" thread, with corrective comments offered by Palynka]

“What is idolatry?”

Any attempt to turn the ultimately ineffable into a ‘graven image.’

“What d’you mean by a graven image?”

Any attempt to fashion the ineffable into a descriptive image or idea or definition that one then insists is adequate and accurate ...[text shortened]... .

“Can’t you just tell us what you mean by the ‘ineffable real’?”

Are you kidding...?

I know you read about Islam. So what forms of idolatry you see in Islam?

As you know the main objectives of the prophet Mohammed and his message to remove all forms of Idolatry. But from what I understanded from your argument (I didn't understand everything, my English didn't help me much) I see you didn't exclude any religious language.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I know you read about Islam. So what forms of idolatry you see in Islam.

Constructing Mohammed as a perfect individual on the basis of hadith and "worshipping" this mental image would be idolatry, to me. Of course that's the reason for the injunction on naturalistic representation, isn't it?

Idolatry is putting the cart before the horse and trying to make everyone get into the cart.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Constructing Mohammed as a perfect individual on the basis of hadith and "worshipping" this mental image would be idolatry, to me. Of course that's the reason for the injunction on naturalistic representation, isn't it?

Idolatry is putting the cart before the horse and trying to make everyone get into the cart.

Constructing Mohammed as a perfect individual on the basis of hadith and "worshipping" this mental image would be idolatry.

Saying "constructing" means that you belive that Muslims created the image of the prophet. I don't know why do you belive that but I will ask you a few questions:

1) I see you didn't talk about Quran. I don't know why , but you will see in Quran that not only prophet Mohammed who was descriped as a perfect individual , but all prophets and also some normal people. So do you think Quran fall under your statement?

2) Hadith mainly deals with three things:

a) Direct Teachings , Do you think following his teaching is idolatory?
b) Describing his life and what he is doing, in this part companions were trying to give a picture of his life. If you think that they added to it to show the prophet is perfect it is up to you. But I don't think descibing how the prophet was washing his body for example is a trial to make him perfect.
c) Some hadith give some stories about other prophets, the last day, and other sprituals.

I don't know which one of these categories are considered idolatory for you.

My be you think that because Muslims follow him. But the question is the inperfect act that Muslims follow and assume it is perfect?

Another important point is: Not every hadith is really hadith. There are many hadith are lies, people added to try to add some ideas to Islam. But they are easily detected and if you follow its roots you can find them. So before trusting any hadith you have to know is it true or not.

(sorry for my English, my be what I want to say is not clear).

Of course that's the reason for the injunction on naturalistic representation, isn't it?

I didn't understand this part.
---------------------------------------------

To help me understand your point can you give me a specific example of what you want to say (a hadith that reflect your point).

Originally posted by ahosyney
Saying "constructing" means that you belive that Muslims created the image of the prophet. I don't know why do you belive that but I will ask you a few questions:

I don't mean that at all. I'm pointing out that it's possible for people to make this mistake, and those who do it are idolaters.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't mean that at all. I'm pointing out that it's possible for people to make this mistake, and those who do it are idolaters.

In that I agree with you. Actually some Muslims do that. And a Muslim who do that is agreed to be and idolator from all Muslim scholars.

Your statment made me feel that you are genarlizing that to all muslims.

Regards

Originally posted by ahosyney
I know you read about Islam. So what forms of idolatry you see in Islam?

As you know the main objectives of the prophet Mohammed and his message to remove all forms of Idolatry. But from what I understanded from your argument (I didn't understand everything, my English didn't help me much) I see you didn't exclude any religious language.

I think Bosse gave a good example, which also may bear on how people treat the sunnah.

It might be possible that some people treat the Qur’an in a way that might approach idolatry (note the words “might” and “approach” ). But the Qur’an itself seems to point away from that, by referring to its verses as “signs” (ayat), just as it points to signs in nature; and specifically allows for allegorical readings (with some cautionary words about that, but nevertheless...).

You're right: I didn't exclude any religious language. Language expresses concepts. The concept is not the thing. It depends on how one treats the language-concepts.

It is difficult to point to a behavior and say, “that is idolatry,” without knowing what is going on in someone’s mind. That is why I tend to talk about it in general terms, and let people decide whether they think it fits with what they’re doing. When people elevate the sign to the same status as its referent, perhaps.

An icon is not always an idol. Signs, such as paintings, say, can be used as icons without being idolized. Islam prohibits many signs, I would conjecture, not because they are necessarily idolatrous, but because of the danger that they can lead to idolatry. I read somewhere that the first Muslims to settle in India came to realize that the Hindus (most of them anyway) used their statues and the like as signs or symbols, and not as idols per se. Fundamentally, they discovered that this seemed somewhat different from pre-Islamic Arab paganism. Also, they realized that the Hindus had scriptures. And so, although they disagreed, they did not try to prevent the Hindus from using them.

Again, I think it is a matter of what is going on the a person’s head.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't know how you get that from what I said.

Where I got that interpretation from was the fact that you said you are an atheist Christian. I then assumed that your post ment that believing something can help bring about a reality for that person, rather than saying that believing in a power greater than yourself can bring about an outcome based upon the power of the outside force you place your trust in. For example, if you believe you are going to get well or be healed your upbeat attitude may help your overall physical situation rather than lying around depressed. I interpreted this to be your position as where a believer would believe that God is able to deliver them from their illness based upon his power alone.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I come acrosss many people who have faith in healing that is completely unrealistic for the circumstances they are in. I think you have to consider what is the difference between a miracle and magic. What I hear often is that people are looking for magic.

I think when you look at the life of Christ you will find times of "doubt." Doubt is a good thi t believe pie in the sky ain't God good" soul molester, I'll go with the doubting Thomas.

I am not sure how you distinguish between a miracle and magic. For me, magic is done in an illusionary way devoid of real power as where a miracle is done through a power greater than I to actively effect change that would not otherwise occur. When it comes to those who seem as though all hope is gone would you say that not even God could or would intervene? I have seen times when all hope seems lost and a miracle seems to have occured and they recover as well as those who do not. Why God seems to intervene in some situations and not others is somewhat of a mystery for me, however. As far as soul molesters go, I think I know the type you are referring to who tell those who do not see their prayers being answered that it is their fault in that they do not have enough faith in God to bring about an answer to their liking. Also those who fake people being ill in a crowd so that they can miraculously come up on stage and get healed. However, when you say that there are unrealistic circumstances in which all hope is gone reminds me of when Christ told a crowd that a girl that had died was not really dead but merely sleeping and they laughed at him. That is before he went in and raised her from the dead, however.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure how you distinguish between a miracle and magic. For me, magic is done in an illusionary way devoid of real power as where a miracle is done through a power greater than I to actively effect change that would not otherwise occur. When it comes to those who seem as though all hope is gone would you say that not even God could or would intervene ...[text shortened]... eping and they laughed at him. That is before he went in and raised her from the dead, however.

I tend to think God works in reality. Magic tends to focus on an unfathomable thing in the future. A miracle is often experienced in hindsight.

Paula White is my soul molester of the week. "If you don't send in that $77 your prayers for healing will go unanswered." I love to call her 800 number and match wits with her telephone whores. Maybe I'll post some of my conversations as a little treat and levity for this forum.

Originally posted by kirksey957
[b]I tend to think God works in reality.

Do you not believe the miracles listed in the Bible such as the Red Sea being parted or Noah's ark or Christ raising people from the dead? Are these events not based in reality even though they are unexplainable and miraculous? Those who do not believe these event occured would then either have to argue that they never happened because the Bible is bunk or they would argue that you should not take any of it as the literal truth, rather, you should get some greater meaning out of it and leave well enough alone. The problem I have with either of these assumptions, however, is that if there be a God he should be capable of such miracles. After all, the miracle of life being created in the first place I think is the greatest miracle of all. Manipulating life circomstances that seem unchangable to us then seems trivial in comparison, no?

Edit: Maybe if you send in that $77 we can get some answers around here. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Do you not believe the miracles listed in the Bible such as the Red Sea being parted or Noah's ark or Christ raising people from the dead? Are these events not based in reality even though they are unexplainable and miraculous? Those who do not believe these event occured would then either have to argue that they never happened because the Bible is bunk or ...[text shortened]... comparison, no?

Edit: Maybe if you send in that $77 we can get some answers around here. 😛

I'll just comment on the exodus and Red Sea. One possible translation for "Red Sea" is "Sea of Reeds." It is very possible that the exodus occured through what was a marsh at that time. Also, an interesting take on the plague of the first born is that there was a very natural phenomenon to explain what happened. The Israelites , it is believed, slept on the rooftops as it was cooler. The first born in Egypt were given a place of honor on the first floor. It is possible that an earthquake or seismic activity release a large about of carbon monoxide ( or is it dioxide) gas which hovers at ground level. This is exactly what happened to a small town in Nigeria. Entire village was wiped out.

The Israelites recollection of this is seen as God's hand of deliverance.

Originally posted by kirksey957
[b]I'll just comment on the exodus and Red Sea. One possible translation for "Red Sea" is "Sea of Reeds." It is very possible that the exodus occured through what was a marsh at that time.

Yes but how did the Egyptian chariots then subsequently drown in the marsh?

Is God capable of parting an entire sea or is he held prisoner to the natural laws he has estasblished that we are imprisoned by? Can the Creator be held prisoner by what he has created or are we simply more comfortable with the notion God works through naturally occuring phenomenon only because it is more in line with what we understand and are comfortable with? I find we tend to be more fearful and distrusting of what we cannot comprehend or have no knowledge of. I think this false notion of perceived predictability has an illusion of safety for us.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I have a small question here:

As far as I know the language of Jesus was not Greek. So what is written in alll the Gospel are translations of what Jesus realy said. So is it correct to take its meaning literally while they might not reflect the real meaning that was said by Jesus himself?

I think this is a good point. But the answer is not clear. Jesus may well have been tri-lingual: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Sepphoris was a major Hellenistic city within 5 miles of Nazareth; I read somewhere recently of the relatively large number of “Greek” towns within 25 miles. Koine Greek was a common language. Paul, writing to the gentiles, could be expected to write in Greek.

On the other hand, Jesus may have spoken more Aramaic to his immediate followers (and I think it is pretty certain that he knew his Hebrew).

There is a theory—though not the majority one—that there were earlier Aramaic versions of the gospels, though no one has found them. This, I think, is held in the Syriac Churches—Syriac being a version of Aramaic.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes but how did the Egyptian chariots then subsequently drown in the marsh?

Is God capable of parting an entire sea or is he held prisoner to the natural laws he has estasblished that we are imprisoned by? Can the Creator be held prisoner by what he has created or are we simply more comfortable with the notion God works through naturally occuring phenom ...[text shortened]... dge of. I think this false notion of perceived predictability has an illusion of safety for us.

It may have been as simple as the tide coming in.

Saying God is held captive by the way he created things is an excellent way to look at it. I know you don't think a marsh is very "miraclesque" but there are plenty of other natural phenomenon that would scare the bejesus out of anyone. Tsunamis, earthquakes, pyroplastic flows, volcanos, necrotizing fasciatus, or just a plain ole famine.

You know it really is OK if God isn't Steven Spielberg.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think this is a good point. But the answer is not clear. Jesus may well have been tri-lingual: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Sepphoris was a major Hellenistic city within 5 miles of Nazareth; I read somewhere recently of the relatively large number of “Greek” towns within 25 miles. Koine Greek was a common language. Paul, writing to the gentiles, could ...[text shortened]... as found them. This, I think, is held in the Syriac Churches—Syriac being a version of Aramaic.

That doesn't answer part of my question. But there still a problem. In your first post:

However, based on the word analysis and context, some scholars (maybe most of them, I don’t know) think that these statements in John take on a special meaning. In them, Jesus is not referring to his human self, but to the divine “I-AM” of the Hebrew scriptures,

Is this compariston valide while the NT and OT are written in a totally different languages where the meanings of words and what they might imply is different. i mean how can we compare "Ego-Emi" to "I-AM", while they are both written in two different languages and we are not sure about what is the original meaning by Jesus was , because we are not sure what language he was speaking.