Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Idolatry
Message-ID: <4211@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 17:14:41 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4211
Posted: Thu Nov 29 17:14:41 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 19:09:42 EST
References: <1766@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 156


I definitely agree with the substance of Yiri's response to my comments
on "US idolotry".  I don't see any value in religious images described
by Yiri as falling under the category of idols.  I even have a certain
disdain for the overuse and abuse (e.g. commercialization) of Christian
symbols and cliche's.  So I don't really value nativity scenes exept as
as symbol of meaning for Christmas.  That meaning is lost in our culture
and without it the symbols smack of tokenism.  I would just as soon the
scenes not be put up, that the name of Christ be removed from the holiday
and that it not be observed with any religious significance at all.  My
reason for this is because of the attitude of our present day culture
to the holiday, not because it was originally a pagan feast.  (That is
irrelevant to any meaning I would attach to a Christmas observance.  My
wife and I are going to institute the tradition of celibrating Chrismas
on a different day for our family.  We're making some other changes as
well, like ignoring Santa Clause.)

In response to some details:

[from Yiri's first article:]
>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'.

[my response:]
}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.
***********************

You are right in that there is no image of God depicted in the windows.
But there is one of Moses.  You said before that idolotry encompasses
images of apostles, saints, Mary, and angels.  It is true that (except
possiblly for some Roman Catholics) Christians do not worship any of these
figures and repudiate the practice as unchristian (certainly unscriptural).
So the depiction of them in art may be analogous picturing Moses
receiving the Commandments.  There is no idolotry inherently involved
here and the pictures are not claimed to be an actual depiction, only a
symbolic one.  Who really knows what Moses, Jesus or the Apostles actually
looked like or how some of the scenes actually appeared?

With regard to nativity scenes, I think the same principle applies.
Do Christians worship a "baby Jesus"?  I hope not.  The scene depicts
a historical event that undergirds the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation--
God's actual entry into history in order to redeem man.  The figure
of the child is just that--a child.  It is not supposed to be an actual image
of Jesus, but an illustration that God did enter our history as a child.
I would agree that attaching any more significance to it than that
constitues idolotry.  But the idolotry is in the heart of the idoloters
not in the image itself.  Yiri mentioned the example of the Serpent which
was not made to be an idol but had to be destroyed when people treated
it as one.

[from me:]
}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. 

But why have any images at all, knowing man's tendancy toward idolotry?
And why then have them put over the Ark and in Solomon's temple?  They
were surly a depiction of *something* (every image is) and had some
religious significance by virtue of where they were placed.

As for the serpent, God instructed Moses to make it and the people
to look upon in in order that they might be delivered from deadly
snake bites.  Why would God do this?  Such an action could naturally
lead to idolization of the snake; which it seems to have done.  It seems
that the Israelites had been burning incense to it for some time
by the time Hezekiah destroyed it.  Why would God tolerate such an
image being made and focused upon in the first place.  Perhaps the
history of the snake served as a good lesson against idolotry.  But
if so, that seems to indicate that idolotry is not in the making of
images per se but in our treatment of them or making them with the
intent of worship.

*     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.
************************

I'm afraid I used the quote in a cynical manner.  I think the continuance
of this inscription on our money is hypocritical.  I would like to
see it removed.  (That is also my reason for not favoring nativity
scenes--hypocrisy, not idolotry.)

As for your insistence that I do not worship the one true God, I will
just register my disagreement with that point and let your opinion be
the last word (as it almost invariably is anyway).  I certainly don't
worship any Roman gods just because I worship on a particular day of
the week.  If I used another word instead of "sunday" (like you do for
"saturday") when speaking of its religious significance, would that
make a difference?  I see no particular significance in which day we
use.  As to which is the seventh day (and even whether there are seven
days in a week) depends on what calendar you use.  I don't see how the
"seven days of creation" could have been of the same duration as we
measure our days.  I "esteem all days alike", myself.  The times and
the seasons are what they are.  To claim that they are what we call them
is reification.  I think that to reserve one day out of every
seven upholds the spirit of the Law.  As Jesus said, "The Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath".
-- 
The "resurrected",

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd