yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/28/84)
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. ************************
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (11/29/84)
> * 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. An image of something which is worshipped by whom? If druids worship trees, I don't think that it would be idolatrous for most of us to have pictures of trees around. (Maybe chuqui is an exception.) Along the same line, would it be idolatrous for a jew to use said stamps, since the nativity scene contains no entity of worship for him or her? Since the federal government is (supposedly) areligious, it is not apparently idolatrous for it to issue those stamps, but for christians to use them. Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/30/84)
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