Zone1 Is a conceptual idol as dangerous as a graven idol?

[Blues Man]

Nah. Thor and Zeus are dead

The Abrahamic gods are the ones I was referencing and what are those gods but an amalgamation of all the gods that came before it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It takes an interest in ancient histories, ancient cultures, and ancient philosophies. What did they know, what did they learn, what did they want to leave their descendants.

With the knowledge of ancient histories, ancient cultures, and ancient philosophies we know the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man; that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that ‘god’ doesn’t exist – it exists as a human conceit, a metaphor of religious belief and philosophical contemplation.

And as a creation of man it gives license to great evil, wrongdoing, and suffering – religion and ‘god’ are indeed the bane of humankind.

 

[Meriweather]

With the knowledge of ancient histories, ancient cultures, and ancient philosophies we know the fact that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man; that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

You may know that...I know something entirely different. However, how do you know that 'god' are creations of man? How do you know there is no 'god' as perceived by theists? How did you come to know this? Is it knowledge, or are these your valid conclusions?

That doesn’t mean, of course, that ‘god’ doesn’t exist – it exists as a human conceit, a metaphor of religious belief and philosophical contemplation.

Yours is an interesting man-made philosophy. I'm not sure it takes us anywhere, but it is interesting.

 

[Blues Man]

You may know that...I know something entirely different. However, how do you know that 'god' are creations of man? How do you know there is no 'god' as perceived by theists? How did you come to know this? Is it knowledge, or are these your valid conclusions?

Yours is an interesting man-made philosophy. I'm not sure it takes us anywhere, but it is interesting.

No one really knows.

There is no proof in this matter at all

There are reasons people believe or not but none of those reasons are actual proof.

Even if there is a supreme being there is no proof that supreme being is the one described in any religion's texts.

 

[HaShev]

Yes We are all "victims" in that we all have evolved the same way and our brains are all similar and work the same way. But I have no religious canons that I can violate. I cannot violate the commandments of the Abrahamic god because I lend no credence to it. One of the reasons I don't is that those religions hold human beings to an impossible standard then when you inevitably fail to meet that standard there is punishment for your failure.

Thoughts come unbidden to humans and when thought can be called a sin it's no different than saying breathing or the very beating of your heart are also sins.

And I see no importance in describing the unknowable. We can acknowledge that we do not know and IMO we will never know but that doesn't mean we can't live in harmony with the nature of the universe.

What I am saying and what I mean is that when someone discusses the word God and you discuss it from a Christian precept of an anthropromorphized deity and this turns your mind off that their interpretation aka precept is not the same as other cultures precepts, then their mistake becomes your mistake and you end up arguing from the position of their mistake, and why? Because you both don't read directions, thou shalt not make a tangible image for that which is not tangible but is a nature aka an Essence.
So when you say there is no such thing as God and are using their forbidden precept thus error, you'd be politically correct to say their precepts of God, but can't argue your point until ybou define the word God, least you be saying there is no such thing as the Essence to progress-no such thing as evolution & natural order of things-which would be a wrong statement brought on by their mistaken precept and sin (breaking the guidelines), whereby they take you down with them in that error of their ways.

 

[sparky]

The Christian religion is chock full of idolatry anyway so it seems to be an accepted practice for them.

You're somewhat descriptive of the dif betwixt religion and spirituality here Blues

As a recovering christian , i've learned to come to terms with it

I'm far from alone

In my view things celestial translated through terrestrial religmo hierarchy always assumes a bias

take it FWIW .....

~S~

 

[foggedinn]

Ezekiel 14

King James Version

​

14 Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me.
2 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
3 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?
4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;
5 That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.
6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.
7 For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the Lord will answer him by myself:

Ideas can definitely be idols. Ask the Mississippi Squirrel.

 

[Blues Man]

What I am saying and what I mean is that when someone discusses the word God and you discuss it from a Christian precept of an anthropromorphized deity and this turns your mind off that their interpretation aka precept is not the same as other cultures precepts, then their mistake becomes your mistake and you end up arguing from the position of their mistake, and why? Because you both don't read directions, thou shalt not make a tangible image for that which is not tangible but is a nature aka an Essence.
So when you say there is no such thing as God and are using their forbidden precept thus error, you'd be politically correct to say their precepts of God, but can't argue your point until ybou define the word God, least you be saying there is no such thing as the Essence to progress-no such thing as evolution & natural order of things-which would be a wrong statement brought on by their mistaken precept and sin (breaking the guidelines), whereby they take you down with them in that error of their ways.

Where did I say there was no such thing as what humans call gods?

I don't think any religion that humans have invented have anything to do with the god or gods that may exist (or not).

I personally don't have any mental image of what that supreme being or force or "essence" may be and I have no name for it.

I asked the question in the OP because it has been my experience that religious people on this planet do have in their head an image of the god they worship. They have given that god names and personality traits in their futile attempts to know the unknowable.

I think that is no different that carving a idol out of wood to use in religious practices.

 

[HaShev]

Where did I say there was no such thing as what humans call gods?

I don't think any religion that humans have invented have anything to do with the god or gods that may exist (or not).

I personally don't have any mental image of what that supreme being or force or "essence" may be and I have no name for it.

I asked the question in the OP because it has been my experience that religious people on this planet do have in their head an image of the god they worship. They have given that god names and personality traits in their futile attempts to know the unknowable.

I think that is no different that carving a idol out of wood to use in religious practices.

I thought the OP was a good question and topic however the creator-creation HAS TO BE DEFINED for reasons I already stated, therefore it's pushing it by claiming understanding creation and our place in it and path is somehow idolization and wrong. It's just the opposite, if you had no definition nor pursuit of understanding, you'd have the same thing as what idol worshipers have=false reliances.

 

[Blues Man]

I thought the OP was a good question and topic however the creator-creation HAS TO BE DEFINED for reasons I already stated, therefore it's pushing it by claiming understanding creation and our place in it and path is somehow idolization and wrong. It's just the opposite, if you had no definition nor pursuit of understanding, you'd have the same thing as what idol worshipers have=false reliances.

I never claimed to understand the origins of the universe in fact I have said multiple times that I think it is unknowable.

Why does this thing have to be defined ? This is the human aversion to mystery that stems from our innate arrogance. People do truly believe that humans are absolutely capable of understanding everything. This is what leads to the naming of gods and the invention of gods with personality that are actually cares about the outcome of a sporting event if people get wiped out in a tornado, flood or earthquake

I disagree with that premise. Our brains and sensory suites are physical , organic systems with very real limitations. There is no reason to think we can unravel absolutely everything there is to know.

We walked into the theater after the movie started and had been playing for billions of years and we will all be long dead and gone before the movie ends in many more billions of years.

But that is the very mystery humans find unbearable uncomfortable

 

[HaShev]

I never claimed to understand the origins of the universe in fact I have said multiple times that I think it is unknowable.

Why does this thing have to be defined ? This is the human aversion to mystery that stems from our innate arrogance. People do truly believe that humans are absolutely capable of understanding everything. This is what leads to the naming of gods and the invention of gods with personality that are actually cares about the outcome of a sporting event if people get wiped out in a tornado, flood or earthquake

I disagree with that premise. Our brains and sensory suites are physical , organic systems with very real limitations. There is no reason to think we can unravel absolutely everything there is to know.

We walked into the theater after the movie started and had been playing for billions of years and we will all be long dead and gone before the movie ends in many more billions of years.

But that is the very mystery humans find unbearable uncomfortable

You mention analogy of a movie: take the Movie "Michael" for example:
The script writer jokingly makes Michael the inventer of lines.
So John Travolta as Michael says something tovthe affect: "before lines, people had no sense of their place and just meandered around"
You state why do people need to know their place in this creation, well there you go, you'd have no idea what your purpose or point would be and you'd just be meandering around not getting anything done. You mean to tell me ants get it more than you do? They know instinctly to build (progress), Freemasons understood this, stability and progression including wealth and flow of taxes are generated by building not sitting idle, which destroys civilizations.

 

[Blues Man]

You mention analogy of a movie: take the Movie "Michael" for example:
The script writer jokingly makes Michael the inventer of lines.
So John Travolta as Michael says something tovthe affect: "before lines, people had no sense of their place and just meandered around"
You state why do people need to know their place in this creation, well there you go, you'd have no idea what your purpose or point would be and you'd just be meandering around not getting anything done. You mean to tell me ants get it more than you do? They know instinctly to build (progress), Freemasons understood this, stability and progression including wealth and flow of taxes are generated by building not sitting idle, which destroys civilizations.

That assumes that everyone is given a purpose before they are born.

There is no purpose to life just like there is no purpose to a wave in the ocean or a cloud in the sky. These things just happen as a natural expression of the nature of the universe.

And tell me what is it exactly that people have to get done? Do you think that a god gives everyone a to do list tattooed on their souls? Or that our purpose is to build civilizations and collect taxes?

 

[HaShev]

That assumes that everyone is given a purpose before they are born.

There is no purpose to life just like there is no purpose to a wave in the ocean or a cloud in the sky. These things just happen as a natural expression of the nature of the universe.

And tell me what is it exactly that people have to get done? Do you think that a god gives everyone a to do list tattooed on their souls? Or that our purpose is to build civilizations and collect taxes?

So basically, you're admitting you are the ant that stands still looking up, watching the shoe stomp on you.

 

[Blues Man]

So basically, you're admitting you are the ant that stands still looking up, watching the shoe stomp on you.

No.

The ant does what it is the ant's nature to do.

People do what is in their nature to do. There is not a preprogrammed purpose in every human being or in human beings as a collective.

 

[HaShev]

No.

The ant does what it is the ant's nature to do.

People do what is in their nature to do. There is not a preprogrammed purpose in every human being or in human beings as a collective.

And we see this in the open border, lawless , no incarceration let it be society experiment today-how's that working out?unstable=hell
But it could be stable and paradise via following simple rules based on knowing that nature and path I spoke about, wgich could not be discerned without knowing that Essence of creation to know if you are being in line or in opposition to life, aka right or wrong. Without knowing right from wrong, you have chaos and gray areas and people justifying their evil repetitive behaviors and repeated mistakes in history.

 

[Blues Man]

And we see this in the open border, lawless , no incarceration let it be society experiment today-how's that working out?unstable=hell
But it could be stable and paradise via following simple rules based on knowing that nature and path I spoke about, wgich could not be discerned without knowing that Essence of creation to know if you are being in line or in opposition to life, aka right or wrong. Without knowing right from wrong, you have chaos and gray areas and people justifying their evil repetitive behaviors and repeated mistakes in history.

People by nature are not lawless. In fact it's just the opposite. People's behavior is highly influenced by conformity bias and most people will be reticent to go against what they perceive as a group consensus even when those consensuses are false.

The people coming to the border are under the delusion that their life will be better somewhere else. That they cannot change their lives if they stay where they are.

And that illusion is one we Americans have authored and published to the world. We are reaping what we have sown in Central America

Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north

Central America’s inequality and violence, in which the US has long played a role, is driving people to leave their homes

www.theguardian.com

And the whole right from wrong thing has nothing to do with religions. Societal norms evolve into laws which then evolve into morals.

You are literally conditioned from the second you are born by the society you live in.

You happen to be in favor of a top down authoritarian world view so you have decided that people cannot be trusted to do the "right" thing but must be forced to do so. After all the kingdom of heaven isn't a republic right?

 

[HaShev]

People by nature are not lawless. In fact it's just the opposite. People's behavior is highly influenced by conformity bias and most people will be reticent to go against what they perceive as a group consensus even when those consensuses are false.

The people coming to the border are under the delusion that their life will be better somewhere else. That they cannot change their lives if they stay where they are.

And that illusion is one we Americans have authored and published to the world. We are reaping what we have sown in Central America

Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north

Central America’s inequality and violence, in which the US has long played a role, is driving people to leave their homes

www.theguardian.com

And the whole right from wrong thing has nothing to do with religions. Societal norms evolve into laws which then evolve into morals.

You are literally conditioned from the second you are born by the society you live in.

You happen to be in favor of a top down authoritarian world view so you have decided that people cannot be trusted to do the "right" thing but must be forced to do so. After all the kingdom of heaven isn't a republic right?

That's not what I said about right or wrong, read it again, I am saying you DO NOT KNOW what right or wrong if you don't define the Essence of Creation (which you argued was not necessary).
Your method without theology trying to define it and your logic is to allow understanding of right or wrong to be subjective, so how's that working out these days with a society that is made up of more people subjectively picking and choosing which rules to follow, including our own President. It's called being Nihilist while expecting the people THEY CHOSE to follow their rules, that's called hypocracy & Totalitarianism=a soup for creating instability and chaos=hell

 

[Foxfyre]

I was listening to Alan Watts speaking of life after death and he brought up this point.

Idolatry is regarded by many religions as undesirable. But why do we limit that to physical idols made of wood or stone or gold?

Is not the very concept of a god in your mind an idol of imagination? An attempt to depict what cannot be seen so that people can relate to it?

Is that why many people see a god as a person, a king on a throne, the cosmic boss? Is that very image conjured in your mind an idol as much as any statue? And is it just as dangerous as a wooden idol or is it even more dangerous?

I prefer to keep things simple. A piece of artwork depicting Pharoah or Buddha might be considered an idol to a fundamental literalist. I see such as just interesting or decorative artwork as I bear no emotional, mental, or psychological allegiance to Pharoah or Buddha or any other such figure in any way.

Jesus was not really big on keeping the rules and regulations established by religious authoritarians though he did find value in many religious traditions and gestures, i.e. observing the Passover, giving thanks, etc.

Jesus was very big on common sense. I'm pretty sure he would say that if you placed any power/confidence in that graven image of Pharoah or Buddha or whatever, you are engaging in sin as well as ignorance. It is how we see these things and not their existence that is the problem.

My opinion for what it's worth.

 

[HaShev]

I prefer to keep things simple. A piece of artwork depicting Pharoah or Buddha might be considered an idol to a fundamental literalist. I see such as just interesting or decorative artwork as I bear no emotional, mental, or psychological allegiance to Pharoah or Buddha or any other such figure in any way.

Jesus was not really big on keeping the rules and regulations established by religious authoritarians though he did find value in many religious traditions and gestures, i.e. observing the Passover, giving thanks, etc.

Jesus was very big on common sense. I'm pretty sure he would say that if you placed any power/confidence in that graven image of Pharoah or Buddha or whatever, you are engaging in sin as well as ignorance. It is how we see these things and not their existence that is the problem.

My opinion for what it's worth.

But with all due respect, Jesus was that Buddha idol, because he was a created image not a singular historical figure, but a story plagiarizing previous mythologies mixed with Biblical characters and a few cult leaders and figures combined stories.
The warning was clear about this:
Metal idols
Leviticus 19:4
"`Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.
1 Kings 14:9
Isaiah 48:5

Isaiah 44:10
Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

The prophets (including Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) were spokesmen for God to the people and to their leaders: they often disagreed with the men in power and had no fear of expressing their messages from God -- generally directing against the idolatry and "false gods." Jeremiah warned the people not to use idols such as totem-pole-like "gods"
Idols: it has Imigrated into Men’s minds from the dogma’s of the churches philosophies, also from the wrong path of the Hierarchy that imposes the control. It is in the way they bow to the cross, burn candles, kiss medalions and worship a Prophet as God Himself in place of God. One of the things that G0D forbids is idols, worship using images gods or even of G0D himself (Exodus 20:4 and Leviticus 26:1). Man, as it is written, was created as an image of G0D (Genesis 1:27). And, so, worshipping a man as G0D is idolatry.
After all, G0D himself says that "G0D is not a man" (in Isaiah 2:22, 14:13, I Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hosea 11:9).


In Isiah44;9 It states they that make a graven image are all of them vanity and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses;(christians) they see not; nor know; that they may be ashamed. Still confused well here is some more. Isaiah44;13(notice it is 13) The carpenter(Who is that was Jesus not considered a carpenter) strecheth out his rule(over the world)he marketh it out with a line;he fitteth it with planes and he marketh it out with a compass, and maketh it after the fiqure of a man(JESUS);according to the beauty of a man;that it mat remain in the house(Maybe over your bed?) One more passage Isiah44;17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god(JESUS)Even his graven image(AGAIN JESUS);He falleth down unto it and worshippeth it. and prayeth unto it and saith Deliver me; for this art my god(JESUS).

 

[Foxfyre]

But with all due respect, Jesus was that Buddha idol, because he was a created image not a singular historical figure, but a story plagiarizing previous mythologies mixed with Biblical characters and a few cult leaders and figures combined stories.
The warning was clear about this:
Metal idols
Leviticus 19:4
"`Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.
1 Kings 14:9
Isaiah 48:5

Isaiah 44:10
Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

The prophets (including Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) were spokesmen for God to the people and to their leaders: they often disagreed with the men in power and had no fear of expressing their messages from God -- generally directing against the idolatry and "false gods." Jeremiah warned the people not to use idols such as totem-pole-like "gods"
Idols: it has Imigrated into Men’s minds from the dogma’s of the churches philosophies, also from the wrong path of the Hierarchy that imposes the control. It is in the way they bow to the cross, burn candles, kiss medalions and worship a Prophet as God Himself in place of God. One of the things that G0D forbids is idols, worship using images gods or even of G0D himself (Exodus 20:4 and Leviticus 26:1). Man, as it is written, was created as an image of G0D (Genesis 1:27). And, so, worshipping a man as G0D is idolatry.
After all, G0D himself says that "G0D is not a man" (in Isaiah 2:22, 14:13, I Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hosea 11:9).


In Isiah44;9 It states they that make a graven image are all of them vanity and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses;(christians) they see not; nor know; that they may be ashamed. Still confused well here is some more. Isaiah44;13(notice it is 13) The carpenter(Who is that was Jesus not considered a carpenter) strecheth out his rule(over the world)he marketh it out with a line;he fitteth it with planes and he marketh it out with a compass, and maketh it after the fiqure of a man(JESUS);according to the beauty of a man;that it mat remain in the house(Maybe over your bed?) One more passage Isiah44;17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god(JESUS)Even his graven image(AGAIN JESUS);He falleth down unto it and worshippeth it. and prayeth unto it and saith Deliver me; for this art my god(JESUS).

The art figures I mention are not gods nor do I see them as such. I enjoy them as art, not objects of worship. Let's use some common sense here as to what the intent of the scriptures is. We are not to turn to graven images as objects of worship. I don't do that. Figurines representing religious or political figures to be revered, they are not.