Are all believers in God automatically idol worshipers?

[Seattle]

As pointed out an idol is a thing. I'm not a believer but I think most believers would take exception to the premise that they "know" God only from what they are told by others.

Many feel that they do commune with God directly and also that God is part of Man.

It's all nonsense of course but so is the OP.

 

[Greatest I am]

But ,as I said that can be generalized to any second hand belief and so is only trivially true.

Is that point not valid? .

Not for religions as they do not portray their beliefs as second hand.

They are lying but some of the more gullible in their religions are accepting what is said as real and not trivial.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Believers have only their own perception of God to worship. It makes no difference whether they acquired that perception by first-hand experience or by second-hand commentary. In many cases, second-hand (confirmed) perceptions are more reliable than first-hand.

But none of that has anything to do with idolatry.

First hand revelation or apotheosis would certainly make a difference as compared to second hand.

Second hand is not a confirmed knowledge. First hand does not need confirmation if trusted.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

GreatestIAm: It sounds like, on a scale of badness, you see that as worse than worshipping a god, so your entire point is an attempt at a denigration: "Do you realize that you worship an idol?"

But your premise wrong.

Idol definitions:
- a picture or object that is worshipped as a god
- a representation or symbol of an object of worship; broadly: a false god
- a likeness of something

The idol is the thing, not the god.

It's pretty straightforward.

The description you give has no real relevance.

Idol worship is a mental condition. Most believers will not admit that they are idol worshiping the mental construct that they have invented for themselves from the words of other people and not of anything of a real God.

Be it a thing or a God, likeness or object, to worship it or what it represents is idol worship.

Regards
DL

 

[geordief]

Not for religions as they do not portray their beliefs as second hand

Islam does.That is why Mohammed (and Jesus I think) is called the Prophet. He is supposed to interpret the word of God (I think)

NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR: EACH OF THE FIVE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS HAS ITS OWN PROPHET. SOME OF THEM RESPECT SOME OF THE OTHER RELIGIONS' PROPHETS.

IN ORDER OF THE EMERGENCE:

1. JUDAISM: ABRAHAM
2. CHRISTIANITY: JESUS CHRIST
3. ISLAM: MOHAMMED (SPELLING VARIES BECAUSE THE KORAN IS WRITTEN IN ARABIC SCRIPT AND THE TRULY FAITHFUL ARE SUPPOSED TO READ IT ONLY IN ARABIC)
4. BAHA'I: BAHA'ULLAH (FORGIVE MY FLAKY SPELLING)
5. RASTAFARIANISM: RAS TAFARI MAKONNEN (HAILE SELASSIE)

 

[Yazata]

Are all believers in God automatically idol worshipers?

No.

I'm not convinced that idol worshipers ever existed.

When the ancients made statues of their gods, they rarely if ever confused the statue with the god. They recognized that the statue was a representation of the god, even if some of them thought that the god's power entered into the statue to energize it, so to speak. So technically speaking, it's false to say that anyone actually worshipped the statue, even if they prostrated before it.

All believers in God are following an entity that they only know by what other people have said about that God. Few, if any, know their God from apotheosis or first-hand information.

That fact makes whoever that God is, an idol.

It must be so, as what is believed is not a known or real entity.

That doesn't follow. You are apparently assuming that people can't learn things or know them from the testimony of others. (Too bad for all those school textbooks, I guess.) And you are apparently assuming that anything that isn't known from personal experience can't exist.

I've never been to France, but I've read and been told by others that there's this city called 'Paris' there. I've never experienced it for myself though, so apparently not only can I know nothing about Paris, it can't even exist.

You are also ignoring personal religious experience, which might be more widespread than you assume.

 

[Greatest I am]

Islam does.That is why Mohammed (and Jesus I think) is called the Prophet. He is supposed to interpret the word of God (I think)

True enough but Islam says that that is first hand as it came as a direct revelation from God/Allah.

They, like Christians believe it all to be the WORD of God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No.

I'm not convinced that idol worshipers ever existed.

When the ancients made statues of their gods, they rarely if ever confused the statue with the god. They recognized that the statue was a representation of the god, even if some of them thought that the god's power entered into the statue to energize it, so to speak. So technically speaking, it's false to say that anyone actually worshipped the statue, even if they prostrated before it.



That doesn't follow. You are apparently assuming that people can't learn things or know them from the testimony of others. (Too bad for all those school textbooks, I guess.) And you are apparently assuming that anything that isn't known from personal experience can't exist.

I've never been to France, but I've read and been told by others that there's this city called 'Paris' there. I've never experienced it for myself though, so apparently not only can I know nothing about Paris, it can't even exist.

You are also ignoring personal religious experience, which might be more widespread than you assume.

Note how few theists ever admit to direct revelation or apotheosis.

As to textbooks. Note how they are revised as knowledge increases. Holy book do get revisions but not to the real pertinent lies they propagate.

Be they worshiping a representation or statue or the God they represent, most believers will not admit that they are idol worshiping the mental construct that they have invented for themselves from the words of other people and not of anything of a real God.

Note how those mental construct are quite varied if you consider the plethora of denominations and their various creeds that pop out of most religions.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Second hand is not a confirmed knowledge. First hand does not need confirmation if trusted.

The point is that second-hand can be confirmed. First-hand can not.

That's why one of the most common expressions is, "Did you see that?" People want and need outside confirmation of their first-hand perceptions, even if it is something they think is "direct revelation" or "apotheosis". That's why there are organized religions. A certain amount of humility is an evolutionary advantage. We can trust society farther than we can trust ourselves.

 

[DaveC426913]

Be it a thing or a God, likeness or object, to worship it or what it represents is idol worship.

No. You cannot redefine terms at your whim.

Idol worship is by definition the worship of an object or thing, distinct from a god. The idol is substituted for the god.


What you have tried to do is tantamount to this:
"GIM likes sex. Festishes are a substitute for sex, so sex and fetishes are the same thing. So GIM likes fetishes."
As you can see, the conclusion is preposterous.

 

[sculptor]

“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

The opening post of this thread appears to be an attempt to bait some people into making angry responses.

Members are advised to think carefully about how they frame topics like this one. It is not appropriate to insult other members with whom you do not share certain religious beliefs.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are all believers in God automatically idol worshipers?

Both the dictionary and Wikipedia insist that an idol is a physical object.

Of course the word has been extended to other uses, for example "American Idol," a contest in which the winner is a flesh-and-blood human. But no one confuses him or her with a god.

All believers in God are following an entity that they only know by what other people have said about that God. Few, if any, know their God from apotheosis or first-hand information. That fact makes whoever that God is, an idol.

You have completely lost your way. Your argument completely ignores the dictionary definition of the word, as well as thousands of years of idolatry.

As the Moderator of the Linguistics subforum, it is my duty to make sure that our members are not misled by incorrect statements. I will add notes to your posts to make sure that no one is misled--and/or delete the most egregious violations.

 

[Yazata]

Both the dictionary and Wikipedia insist that an idol is a physical object.

Not necessarily. From the Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions. (2000 Oxford University Press) p. 266

"Idolatry (Gk eidolon image + latreia worship.) The attributing of absolute value to that which is not absolute, and acting toward that object, person or concept as though it is worthy of worship or complete commitment. In a religious context this most usually means treating as God that which is not God, and in particular acting toward a representation of God as if it is God. In that sense, idolatry is extremely rare, since most religious worshippers are well aware that the signpost is not to be confused with that which is signified." [Discussion of Jewish and Islamic attitudes to idolatry follow.]

I think that GIA was arguing that religions divert people away from direct experience of God towards the representation of God found in the religion's scriptures and doctrines. Since idolatry might arguably consist in putting concepts in place of God, GIA might arguably have a good and valid point.

There's a whole tradition in theology (Eastern Orthodox theology particularly) that agrees with this argument and denies that God can be captured in concepts at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

 

[Greatest I am]

The point is that second-hand can be confirmed. First-hand can not.

That's why one of the most common expressions is, "Did you see that?" People want and need outside confirmation of their first-hand perceptions, even if it is something they think is "direct revelation" or "apotheosis". That's why there are organized religions. A certain amount of humility is an evolutionary advantage. We can trust society farther than we can trust ourselves.

You have a point on us wanting confirmation but I am not sure if one would believe his apotheosis all by itself without some proof to bolster his confidence in it.

Apotheosis happens in our minds. In my case, the confirmation preceded my apotheosis in the form of a witness/victim to the reality that telepathy was real. Without telepathy, I do not think apotheosis is possible.

If I did not have that witness, I don't think I would believe in the possibility of what we call apotheosis and might just chalk it up to a mental burp or hiccup of some kind that should not be trusted.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No. You cannot redefine terms at your whim.

Idol worship is by definition the worship of an object or thing, distinct from a god. The idol is substituted for the god.


What you have tried to do is tantamount to this:
"GIM likes sex. Festishes are a substitute for sex, so sex and fetishes are the same thing. So GIM likes fetishes."
As you can see, the conclusion is preposterous.

Whatever is believed is believed by our minds.

Most believers will not admit that they are idol worshiping the mental construct that they have invented for themselves from the words of other people and not of anything of a real God.

How much of your belief is not what others have said of God?

Likely not a damned thing.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

What happens with what is caught in a net or on a hook?

What does a shepherd do with his flock if not fleece them and eat them?

Thank the church and indulgences and tithes.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Moderator note:

The opening post of this thread appears to be an attempt to bait some people into making angry responses.

Members are advised to think carefully about how they frame topics like this one. It is not appropriate to insult other members with whom you do not share certain religious beliefs.

If the responses that come in are angry, it shows how intolerant to ideas the angry ones are.

Tell us, if I had put a cartoon of Mohammad, would you have deleted it for fear of upsetting Muslims?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Both the dictionary and Wikipedia insist that an idol is a physical object.

Of course the word has been extended to other uses, for example "American Idol," a contest in which the winner is a flesh-and-blood human. But no one confuses him or her with a god.You have completely lost your way. Your argument completely ignores the dictionary definition of the word, as well as thousands of years of idolatry.

As the Moderator of the Linguistics subforum, it is my duty to make sure that our members are not misled by incorrect statements. I will add notes to your posts to make sure that no one is misled--and/or delete the most egregious violations.

Thanks for the offer of keeping us honest.

Many people idolize Jesus to the point of having scrapped Yahweh as their God.

Jesus was to most a physical entity whom they plan to ride into heaven as their scapegoat. Substitutionary punishment is quite an immoral concept, but that aside, do you think Jesus fits the criteria you would set for a physical idol?

Many people sure seem to think so as they pray to that idol all the time and count on him to pay for their sins, which as I said is an immoral concept.

Regards
DL

 

[James R]

Greatest I am:

If the responses that come in are angry, it shows how intolerant to ideas the angry ones are.

It is your opening post that strikes me as intolerant.

You make various provocative and unsupported claims, such as these two:

It must be so, as what is believed is not a known or real entity. Believers have no real or personal knowledge or experience of their God.

These are your own beliefs, but you state them as if they are incontestable facts. The general tone of your opening post is to imply that believers do not understand the implications of their own beliefs. There is also an unstated assumption that worshipping an idol is a bad thing to do for some reason - probably because of your "not a known or real entity" assumption.

It is possible that you were truly ignorant of the standard definition of the term "idol", but I think it unlikely. I think it is more likely that set out to paint believers in God as idiotic people who worship idols without realising what they are doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to think that you posted honestly and in good faith. But all indications suggest that you did not.

Also, your opening post comes across as you preaching a sermon, assuming that your own beliefs are self-evidently true.

Tell us, if I had put a cartoon of Mohammad, would you have deleted it for fear of upsetting Muslims?

What I would do would depend on the context. If it was posted as a transparent attempt to troll and anger Muslims, without making any kind of useful point, then I would be more likely to cesspool the thread and to warn the poster involved than I would be to delete the content entirely.

The same would apply if you posted an offensive cartoon of Jesus, or perhaps a figure like Richard Dawkins. Context would be important in all cases.

Many people idolize Jesus to the point of having scrapped Yahweh as their God.

Really? It is my impression that most Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God. I'm not sure whether you consider Yahweh to be the same as the Christian God. Perhaps you don't. If that's the case, I wonder why you think a Christian should worship a non-Christian god.

Jesus was to most a physical entity whom they plan to ride into heaven as their scapegoat. Substitutionary punishment is quite an immoral concept, but that aside, do you think Jesus fits the criteria you would set for a physical idol?

Jesus was a person, not an object. The definition of "idol" has been provided to you already, but you still don't seem to get it. Unless you're using the term "physical idol" as a reference to pop culture, as in "American Idol".