Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Idolatry Message-ID: <1766@ucf-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 08:56:51 EST Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1766 Posted: Wed Nov 28 08:56:51 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 05:41:57 EST Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL Lines: 121 From pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Subject: Re: Supreme Court officializes US idolatry >[from Yiri BenDavid:] >The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived >from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition >encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, >sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including >peripheral entities such as angels. ]Paul Duboc... ]It needs to be more than just association to constitute idolotry doesn't ]it? I would think that the figure would have to be the actual object of ]worship or be identified with the object evidently by the actions of the ]worshipers toward it. I don't think the mere existence of images constitutes ]idolatry. The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant and in Solomon's ]temple would have to be included under "peripheral entities" yet they ]were included at God's command. I would think that idolotry lies more in ]the heart or motive of the worshiper than the image itself. Maybe you ]agree with this but, if so, you don't seem to be making the distinction ]clear. *********************** * Yiri responds: * Not much more than association. The phrase "representative * association" would likely do it. The only reason association might not * be adequate alone is because it can be exaggerated to almost anything. * The important idea is that it is NOT limited to "actual objects of * worship". That is precisely what needs to be understood. Rather than * be sidetracked in an argument over semantics of a definition, try to * understand the concept by example. The use by Catholics of images is * a clear and perfect example. Now however you want to describe that, it * is idolatry. If you want to describe it as using images to visualize * the object of prayer, or associating it with the object of prayer, or * whatever. The point to be learned by those who wish to learn is that * the goyim (all non-Torah-observant people; encompasses more than just * Christians) idea of idolatry only applying to those who actually and * literally worship an object is an insidious misinterpretation of * Jewish concepts by goyim... an idea I have mentioned before. The * insidious nature of it is found in its endorsement of idolatry as OK * because THAT isn't REALLY idolatry. But Torah does not change. I am * certainly trying to make that clear. It IS idolatry. ********************** >This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary, >saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the >traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc. >It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'. If the images are used for illustrative purposes rather than worship, I don't think we can call them idols. (There is and Orthodox synagogue here in Columbus that has some of the most beautiful stained glass I have ever seen depicting major events in the Old Testament Scriptures.) The accuracy of the illustration can be brought into question. I can't remember seeing a nativity scene where the figures of the family really looked Jewish. Same goes for paintings of Jesus. But I digress. These images, though they be of those with religious significance--may only serve a purpose similar to the statue of Lincoln at the memorial in D.C. *********************** * Yiri responds: * Go and study that stained glass again. Is there any image of anything * which the Jews worship? I can tell you right here and now you will not * find such a thing in those windows. How can I be so confident? It is * because this is so universally understood in Judaism... and has always * been. Illustrative or not, the prohibition is against making the * images as well - that is ALSO idolatry. If Lincoln were worshipped, * then that too would be idolatry. You have used an analogous analogy. * I repeat again. It IS idolatry. *********************** >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with >the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day. It seems to me that a nativity scene is not put up for the purposes of worship, but for more historical and cultural purposes. The traditional raison d'etre for Christmas festivities centered around the Christ. It is ostensibly getting much less so every year. More and more the importance of Christmas seems to be keeping our economy moving. Perhaps we should replace the nativity scene with a model of the Federal Reserve Bank. :-( "In God we trust" ************************ * Yiri responds: * Whether it is for the purposes of worship or not is not the * distinguishing factor. It is an image of something which is * worshipped. That is idolatry. I don't know how many different ways * this will have to be said for it to be understood. The prohibition * of idolatry is against the making of any kind of image/painting, * etc. of an entity of worship. Not even angels can be depicted. * That too is idolatry. You won't find those in the stained glass * windows of the orthodox synagogue either. The obvious questions * to come up are the kh'ruvim on the Ark of the Covenant and the * bronze serpent. No one really knows what a kh'ruvim (cherubim) * was/is so that cannot intelligently be pursued. As for the bronze * serpent, it actually got too close to being worshipped and had to * be destroyed for that reason. * You make a good point about the Fed. On the other hand, it * should be noted that those who are idolatrous, have rejected * Torah, and are following a counterfeit religion have some god * other than the God of Israel. When you quote 'In God we trust' * you should recognze that it is not in the God of Israel you * are trusting but 'In god you trust'. Of course, there is no * reason you have to continue that way. You are welcome to come * and worship the God of Israel if you wish to do it the way He * requires. But it is folly to think you are worshipping Him while * being idolatrous, rejecting His Torah, desecrating the Sabbath * He sanctified and preferring Sun-god-day of the Romans (see * article in Biblical Archaeology Review), preferring pagan * holidays to His festivals, eating unclean foods prohibited by * His complete and perfect Torah, etc. No, it is not Him you * worship. You worship the god of Dan. 7 who changed the times, * the seasons, and the laws. ************************