Antoher "FUN" Theological question!

[koshergrl]

No, I wouldn't destroy their idol. Moses destroyed the Golden Calf because the children of Israel knew better, and had been told SPECIFICALLY not to worship false gods. So the minute their prophet left, they made a golden calf and took to screwing at the base of it. Moses was understandably ticked off, as was God.

I wouldn't worship it though, or pretend to. Even if by refusing I was killed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not trying to nitpick, but even if he doesn't share your principles at least Chomsky has principles.

I suppose you could say Stalin had "principles" as well, though I'm not going to be praising him, or Noam, any time soon.

Obamabots "principles" are whatever Obama tells them they should be for the day, and it could be 180 degrees different the next day. Chomsky bashes Obama, especially his warmongering policy, all the time.

Hitler bashed Stalin, didn't make Hitler a great and principled guy.

Chomsky is a revisionist - he alters history in a very dishonest fashion to present a view that is at stark contrast with reality. He deliberately fashions falsehood to promote his political agenda.

Case in point. Chomsky is renowned for attacking the United States for the cold war policies of containment of the USSR. Chomsky argues that the Soviets never had any expansionist goals.

Chomsky writes;

{One category of these [far-reaching mistakes after World War II] consists of the ones I pointed to in the first of these lectures. These were the mistakes involved in attributing to the Soviet leadership aims and intentions it did not really have: in jumping to the conclusion that the Soviet leaders were just like Hitler and his associates, that they were animated by the same lusts for military conquest, that they had the same sort of timetables for external military aggression, and that they could be met and dealt with effectively only in the same way that Hitler had to be met and dealt with.}

Now obviously what he says is false, the Soviets sought world communism. The ideals of Marx depended on global communism. Their involvement in China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa, ad infintium demonstrate that what Chomsky claims is utterly false.

Ah, but to the disingenuous Chomskyite, it's fair to say this because the Soviets were aiding revolution, not invading. (Just ask Afghanistan or Hungry!)

Chomsky is completely dishonest, as communists tend to be. He is clever enough to provide weasel words, but the man is no more honest than Hitler or Stalin were.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would not worship thier 'god' or 'gods' but I would not disrespect them either. No, I would not break the 'idol'. Somebody said the stone images were depiction of the supernatural deities that the people believe existed. In most cases that was probably true, but great deference was paid to the stone image.

Some Christians also put great store in 'sacred' things to the point that they are handled in a special way and treated with the utmost respect. And that is okay too, because they feel they are respecting the God behind the imagery that way. Much as many of us respect and treat the flag with special rules to show our allegiance and respect for the people/nation that it represents.

Anyway, to what advantage is there in mocking a people's religion or tearing down their beliefs? Most especailly when you're pretty well stuck in a place? I would hope to have an opportunity to lead some or all to an understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the God incarnate from which Christianity developed, but I would expect that God to lead me in how to do that.

Meanwhile, I'm assuming this is a tropical isle with pleasant peoplea and a great beach. How bad could that be?

 

[koshergrl]

You obviously haven't watched King Kong, Foxy.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Because Solomon figured that allowing his wives to worship idols, was no big deal, and the consequences of that decision got his people turned into slaves, I would be afraid to turn a blind eye. I'd break the idol, and then tell them not to worry. If the idol has any power, it will piece itself together.
Then I would tell them about their father who loves them. Then I would ask God to send the Holy Spirit to convict them. Then I would go fishing.

If he loved them he wouldnt cause earthquakes, sunamis, and volcanoes to kill them would he...

...Why does he always act as if he's not really there

He doesn't. We just don't look for Him.

Not that He hasn't used nature to His advantage in the past, and will again, truth is shifting plates cause earthquakes. Earthquakes cause tsunamis. Pressure causes volcanoes to erupt.
What God DOES do though is make sure His children are in Paradise before their old dead clay hits the ground. Not bad for a Dad.

 

[koshergrl]

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not trying to nitpick, but even if he doesn't share your principles at least Chomsky has principles.

I suppose you could say Stalin had "principles" as well, though I'm not going to be praising him, or Noam, any time soon.

Obamabots "principles" are whatever Obama tells them they should be for the day, and it could be 180 degrees different the next day. Chomsky bashes Obama, especially his warmongering policy, all the time.

Hitler bashed Stalin, didn't make Hitler a great and principled guy.

Chomsky is a revisionist - he alters history in a very dishonest fashion to present a view that is at stark contrast with reality. He deliberately fashions falsehood to promote his political agenda.

Case in point. Chomsky is renowned for attacking the United States for the cold war policies of containment of the USSR. Chomsky argues that the Soviets never had any expansionist goals.

Chomsky writes;

{One category of these [far-reaching mistakes after World War II] consists of the ones I pointed to in the first of these lectures. These were the mistakes involved in attributing to the Soviet leadership aims and intentions it did not really have: in jumping to the conclusion that the Soviet leaders were just like Hitler and his associates, that they were animated by the same lusts for military conquest, that they had the same sort of timetables for external military aggression, and that they could be met and dealt with effectively only in the same way that Hitler had to be met and dealt with.}

Now obviously what he says is false, the Soviets sought world communism. The ideals of Marx depended on global communism. Their involvement in China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa, ad infintium demonstrate that what Chomsky claims is utterly false.

Ah, but to the disingenuous Chomskyite, it's fair to say this because the Soviets were aiding revolution, not invading. (Just ask Afghanistan or Hungry!)

Chomsky is completely dishonest, as communists tend to be. He is clever enough to provide weasel words, but the man is no more honest than Hitler or Stalin were.

I'm not arguing any of that or saying anything good about him, just saying he'll question and bash Obama, american democrats will not.

 

[Wolverine1984]

Thanks for demonstrating that you only know the urban-legend version of history.

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[9] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It wasn't really necessary to offer further proof of what I said.

Alright , so what in your opinion really happened with Galileo ?

 

[rightwinger]

Lord of the Flies rocks!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lord of the Flies rocks!

Put down the crack pipe, you've had enough.

 

[Wolverine1984]

No, I wouldn't destroy their idol. Moses destroyed the Golden Calf because the children of Israel knew better, and had been told SPECIFICALLY not to worship false gods. So the minute their prophet left, they made a golden calf and took to screwing at the base of it. Moses was understandably ticked off, as was God.

I wouldn't worship it though, or pretend to. Even if by refusing I was killed.

I wanted to point out that this would be against Jewish tradition As pikuakh nefesh (Saving another life or your own.)supersedes most of the torah commandments.

After a brief research ,it turned out that I'm wrong, even thought when a life is at stake pikuakh nefesh does supersedes most of the torah commandments , it does not supersede commandments concerning worshiping other gods.

I was deeply disappointed to find this out.

 

[koshergrl]

So...do those who worship false idols follow Jewish tradition?

 

[Foxfyre]

You obviously haven't watched King Kong, Foxy.

LOL, oh yes I have. I probably saw the original version much sooner than you did too.

I just figured the indigenous population was friendly or else I would be roasted on a spit, have my head shrunk, or otherwise be greeted in a fashion in which I would have no opportunity to choose whether I would respect their graven image or not.

 

[Old_Liberal]

I would be a good guest and respect their idols. I call this having good manners.

Yet Christ has been turned into an idol by the Church. It seems all worship some idol or the other. They just refuse to see that idol worship is involved.

 

[koshergrl]

That's idiotic. Christ isn't an idol, he's the son of God. There is a difference, you know.

An idol is either a physical representation of, or a false, god.

Christ is neither a physical representation of (as in statue) a god, nor is he a false god.

 

[amrchaos]

That's idiotic. Christ isn't an idol, he's the son of God. There is a difference, you know.

An idol is either a physical representation of, or a false, god.

Christ is neither a physical representation of (as in statue) a god, nor is he a false god.

If you worshipped an idol, would you refer to it as a false god?


If you did, why would you worship it?

If you did not, how would you know if it was a true god?

In any case, It is not our place to break the idol. Yet the people may try to socialize with you by bring you before the idol to worship!

I guess you would not be very social, huh KG.

(This reminds of a time I was brought to a friends church. What to do when the reverand calls you down before the alter? "Play along" was my answer! People thought I was born again, and I could not help but smile at the fact that I did not believe a word I repeated! I am such a charlatan, huh?)

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you worshipped an idol, would you refer to it as a false god?

Ask a Buddhist - the answer might surprise you.

 

[Wolverine1984]

So...do those who worship false idols follow Jewish tradition?

No , and that is exactly my point.
I would have thought that worshiping an idol to save your own life should have fallen under the 'pikuah nefesh' category. But sadly that is not the case.
I doubt that god would have wanted people to die in his name.

 

[Wolverine1984]

That's idiotic. Christ isn't an idol, he's the son of God. There is a difference, you know.

An idol is either a physical representation of, or a false, god.

Christ is neither a physical representation of (as in statue) a god, nor is he a false god.

Well on that matter of Jesus, there are Christians who think he is god. Many people are praying before statues of Jesus, much like they did with idols in the old times.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, the way Daniel did it was when shown their first idol that was in a chamber which was tightly locked at night, he sprinkled the floor with fine powder, because the tale was that the offerings left at night disappeared in the morning. The next morning after the powder was sprinkled? It showed a hidden passage and footprints.

Then, there was a second one which was a dragon (and it was a live animal) that was rumored to be immortal and could eat anything. He figured out how to poison it.

That's the kind of science I'd use. And yeah.........you're right........sometimes it can be dangerous to do, but if you can actually show all the people where they're wrong all at once, you can come through okay, they might even think you're magic.

Copernicus and Galileo didn't have a telescope that could be used for everyone to look through, and I don't think the Church had the patience to sit through night after night of observation.

Remember.........that which you know the least about, you fear the most.

OK biker, You tend to have solutions for a concrete idol.

How about an abstract idol. One not made of material but is conceptualized?

I say that in either case, one should not seek to destroy the idol. Eventually, the people will begin to develop new understandings about the world around them and seek new ways to justify what they consider sound moral behavior.

By the way, it seems to me that you would exchange their physical idol for an abstract one. There is little difference between the two to me. (and considering the idol of stone that Daniel proved was not a diety, consider that some believers argue that god talks to them and orders them to do certain acts. If we are to believe these types of arguements, then is it not possible that the idol talk and commands certain people to do act in its name?)

Possible, but you shouldn't make graven images or accept any other deity than HaShem.

As far as God talking to people? Ever get the feeling that you really shouldn't do something only to find out later that the transport crashed or some other disaster? How about feeling bad when you do something bad to others?

It's really not hard to listen, just look for what your conscience tells you.

You do mean subconscious, right. Possessing intuition is not a proof of god. More like the abilitiy of the subconscious mind to alert the conscious mind of questionable situations and events. Intuition can also be wrong.

Just remeber, If having intuition is to be gods way of communicating with you, then why is it that intution has led to differing religions, cultures, and behaviors between men?

Would not God be more consistant in his communications?