Worship of idols?

[ManaMinori 4,149]

If a well-known figure (Jesus, Buhdda, etc,) were placed on an elevated platform, and people gathered and praised that figure, raising their hands in symbol of prayer to it, etc. that would be considered worship of that figure/idol, right?

 

So, as an outsider looking in, is this setup and behavior- which can be observed at concerts, elections, etc. any different than religious idol worshipping?

[Anneal 2,198]

The short answer: yes, it is, at the very least in how its done. For both cases, the religious figure or the pop star act as role models for his or her followers, and whatever they do influences what the followers see and react to. The significant difference, however, is that people worship religious figures simply because of following religious ideas and morals, while worshipping a president or a movie star is less seeing said people as a god or deistic figure and more of extreme adoration. Saying that Taylor Ssift is sexy and mostly right in her decisions is different than praying to Jesus.

[Gestum 2,493]

So, as an outsider looking in, is this setup and behavior- which can be observed at concerts, elections, etc. ny different than religious idol worshipping?

Well, it's not religious. That's one difference.

[yeet 2,027]

It's blasphemy isn't it? You're not supposed to worship an idol, even if it is of god or jesus, pretty sure it's blasphemy to depict them too.

[Shanks 10,817]

There are some Buddhist sects that do worship Buddha as a god but others that simply revere him as a wise teacher and spiritual leader more akin to a prophet but not quite. As for Christians there are various Christian denominations that would agree that images of crucifixes counts as idolatry due to concerns that the crucifix itself would become an object of worship instead of Jesus himself. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity are well known to have alot of symbolism that some would interpret as idolatry partly due to how much each borrowed from various pagan traditions with pagan holidays getting Christian versions and the veneration of the saints.

 

The reaction against this among certain strains of Protestantism is partially rooted in their interpretations of old testament passages condemning the worship of graven images which was common among various pagans at the time and was sometimes tied to some unsavory practices like human sacrifice. Islam takes this a step further than these denominations and even Orthodox Judaism by even having strict rules against physical depictions of their prophet Muhammad. It seems no matter how strict the restrictions can be there is still symbolism of some kind. Muslims for example pray facing in the direction of their holy city of Mecca and one of the pillars of Islam is to visit Mecca, particularly the Kaaba which was once a pagan shrine and there is the symbol of the star and cresent moon which was once the symbol of the Arab moon god.

 

As for elections there is far too often a sort of tribal quality to them, people often get so blinded by partisanship and cults of personality that they can be blinded as to what their proposed candidate actually stands for. Obama is just as much of a warmonger as Bush and has just as much disrespect for out civil liberties as Bush yet democrats have given him a free pass on all of that when they went after Bush for it. Republicans gave Bush a free pass on all of his irresponsible deficit spending when they are going after Obama for it, though to be fair part of this is due to how much what it means to be a conservative is changing. As for concerts they may have some similarity to religious ritual but are usually in a different category. Though some musicians and bands can fall under celebrity culture at times which in and of itself can be called a form of idolatry.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Shanks

[Invincible 2,092]

That depends.. In concerts you would probably have people cheering at their stars, not demanding divine interventions from them.

 

Well, i'm pretty sure my example applies to mosy cases, anyway..

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 42,202]

There is a big difference there: If I go to a concert, I am embracing the music that they are creating, something that is indeed there in full. People go there to embrace the music and the band. wWth a religious figure, most are praising it as a savior of some kind, as an ultimate being above all humanity and literally putting that figure above all else.

 

That is a drastic difference to me.

[On-Locoweed 108]

Television is the Jesus of post-war America.

[heavens-champion 1,907]

Idol worshipping is blasphemous. And from a practical standpoint, it's also a waste of time. They should use that building material to make something useful, like houses.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

If a well-known figure (Jesus, Buhdda, etc,) were placed on an elevated platform, and people gathered and praised that figure, raising their hands in symbol of prayer to it, etc. that would be considered worship of that figure/idol, right?

 

So, as an outsider looking in, is this setup and behavior- which can be observed at concerts, elections, etc. any different than religious idol worshipping?

 

Well you're bringing up kind of two separate comparisons. And even that can be individuated.

 

Part of the reason Jesus was a controversial figure was that people considered worship of a man, even or especially one who claimed to be God incarnate, the epitome of idol worship and violation of the First Commandment. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Jesus Himself though made it a point to say that the kingdom of Heaven was not one of flesh, or coin, or anything of our physical world. To put things before others, before love, was not the way.

 

Meanwhile the Buddha made it a point to say he was NOT a deity. Yes, there are sects that pray to the Buddha, yes it still very much is a religion for many of its followers, yes there actually are gods in Buddhist theology; but the Buddha himself was/is holy because of the state of existence he attained. Again, like Jesus, he emphasized that our physical world, any "idols" we cherish, are distractions keeping us from attaining Enlightenment.

 

Now the second thing you bring up is "celebrity worship" which I agree, is very similar to idol worship. People look to larger than life figures of a higher status than their own to see as models of how to live their lives. How much of this is a "problem" I would say varies but in general I wouldn't call people like [insert relevant music/television/film personality here] people to model one's everyday behavior around.

It's blasphemy isn't it? You're not supposed to worship an idol, even if it is of god or jesus, pretty sure it's blasphemy to depict them too.

 

Well depends on the sect. Most Christians don't have a problem with depictions of Christ at least in a historical context as He had a personage that you could touch. Depictions of the Divinity He's a part of aren't always seen as "blasphemy" as simply inadequate because nothing we could create as an image could capture what is supposedly the Infinite. (With other sects I'm sure this is the case.)

 

With Judaism, that very much applies as they don't believe Christ was the savior God promised. The First Commandment is strictly adhered to in official Judaic circles even if the more irreverent might not mind depicting God for more humorous or satirical purposes.

 

By the far the strictest adherent to this is Islam. Depiction of not only God, but His prophet is forbidden. The idea, as above, is aniconic. To capture an image of something infinite and eternal is to make it finite and thus, lessen it. Google Islamic art and you won't see many pictures of people or plants or animals but you will see beautiful designs of shapes.

 

The idea that is that we can't ever see the Divine for the same reason we can't behold the entire universe all at once with the naked eye. It's an acknowledgment of the pale blue dot.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Steel Accord

[Anneal 2,198]

There is a big difference there: If I go to a concert, I am embracing the music that they are creating, something that is indeed there in full. People go there to embrace the music and the band. wWth a religious figure, most are praising it as a savior of some kind, as an ultimate being above all humanity and literally putting that figure above all else.

 

That is a drastic difference to me.

Not the case for the last statement. For most Abrahamic religions, yes, to some degree (and the beauty of religion is that despite what people think, there's really no "wrong way" to practice a certain religion – people think there is, which has caused many sad events in history). In Buddhism it's entirely optional to see Buddha as an ascended god. Certain groups simply see him as an enlightened teacher, which does not necessarily equal "above all humanity" (in some cases some followers see that phrase as against his teachings).

 

That doesn't just go for Buddhism, either (that religion is surprisingly popular in the US recently...). Hinduism is generally stricter but is mostly the same thing and doesn't really force you to particularly worship anything (because their god is not one distinct figure but infinitely many, but we only see some representations that we can understand) but more to achieve moksha. In fact, Buddhism and Hinduism weren't really that different – Buddha just didn't like the rules Hinduism set up and made his own religion that thought mostly the same things. And Daoism doesn't even need anything to worship other than harmony with the Dao, though in parts of Asia Daoism usually ends up mixing with other gods from Asian cultural myths and folktales.

 

That is to say the Abrahamic religions aren't bad, either. There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying to Mecca. Personally I think all religious (or the lack of practicing a religion) have interesting aspects in them and reveal parts of the cultures of humanity.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Not the case for the last statement. For most Abrahamic religions, yes, to some degree (and the beauty of religion is that despite what people think, there's really no "wrong way" to practice a certain religion – people think there is, which has caused many sad events in history). In Buddhism it's entirely optional to see Buddha as an ascended god. Certain groups simply see him as an enlightened teacher, which does not necessarily equal "above all humanity" (in some cases some followers see that phrase as against his teachings).

 

That doesn't just go for Buddhism, either (that religion is surprisingly popular in the US recently...). Hinduism is generally stricter but is mostly the same thing and doesn't really force you to particularly worship anything (because their god is not one distinct figure but infinitely many, but we only see some representations that we can understand) but more to achieve moksha. In fact, Buddhism and Hinduism weren't really that different – Buddha just didn't like the rules Hinduism set up and made his own religion that thought mostly the same things. And Daoism doesn't even need anything to worship other than harmony with the Dao, though in parts of Asia Daoism usually ends up mixing with other gods from Asian cultural myths and folktales.

 

That is to say the Abrahamic religions aren't bad, either. There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying to Mecca. Personally I think all religious (or the lack of practicing a religion) have interesting aspects in them and reveal parts of the cultures of humanity.

Taoism is typically spelled with a T in English even though it's pronounced with a d sound.

 

Also you are right. Even the various sects of the Abrahamic Faiths show how differing interpretations can exist within them despite the dogmatism that they/we are accused of. (Sometimes fairly, sometimes not.)

[Stardust* 3,302]

The difference is what are you worshiping. Are you surrounding the figure/idol and worshiping the being behind it? Take the Cross for instance, if people are gathered around it and praising Jesus and all that He did then that is acceptable. 

 

However, if the group of people is there to worship the actual cross itself. That is not acceptable. 

 

Take the golden calf for instance, when Moses went upon the mountain, the people built and worshiped the golden calf, not what it represented, but the actual figure. 

 

There is also a difference between having respect for and "idolizing" someone in the entertainment world. You should not strive to be exactly like said person, dressing like them, acting like them, obsessing over them. 

 

There is clearly a difference, you have to know what is going on within the group before jumping to conclusions. Just because they have a symbol with them does not mean that they are worshiping the physical symbol itself. 

 

Make sense?

[EpicEnergy 23,246]

Yes, I consider that to be worship of an idol.

[Splashee 28,599]

I don't worship idiots!

[Here No Longer 5,286]

Celebrity worship has VERY much gotten out of hand in recent decades here in the US. To the point where it's as if the populous is brainwashed with their obsession of them.