Why Is Idolatry a Sin to Abrahamic Religions?

[SalixIncendium]

This is one of those things that has always bothered me. IMO, it seems to imply (taking the position of a Jew, Christian or Catholic), that there ARE other Gods? As to say that Christianity is poly-theistic in a literal way (outside of the controversial trinity).

I believe the purpose of these verses was to facilitate forced conversion from other religions and their gods.

 

[Vouthon]

Correct. In fact, images, murtis, physical forms, idols, are actually sanctioned by Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied. Purport can be found here Bhagavad Gita 12.5

Tl;dr... Being sensory beings, it is difficult for humans to connect with the unmanifest Supreme. We need to use our senses to experience anything, including God.

From a Catholic perspective, I find myself very much in agreement with you here!

The Catholic tradition is acutely aware of our sensory disposition, hence why our masses and devotional practices are characterised by elaborate "smells and bells" ceremonies that aim to stimulate all five senses in worship.

Images depicting the divine or divinized, saintly individuals - whether statues, icons, paintings etc. - are an important element of this.

As the Catholic mystic and priest Blessed Jan van Ruysbroeck put it:

"...Certainly in this exercise a man should lay hold of good images to help him; such as the Passion of our Lord [crucifix] and all those things that may stir him to greater devotion. But in the possession of God, the man must sink down to that imageless Nudity which is God; and this is the first condition, and the foundation, of a spiritual life..."

Blessed John of Ruysbroeck (1293 - 1381), The Sparkling Stone​

In other words, he's concurring with what you've just said: if I might paraphrase the Bhagavad Gita, to advance towards "the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme" (the "Imageless Nudity which is God" in Blessed Ruysbroeck's words) one must first "lay hold of good images to help him".

Most Abrahamic traditions - Judaism, Islam, many forms of Protestant Christianity, Iconoclastic Orthodoxy and the Baha'i Faith - are against the idea that there ever can be "good images" of the one incorporeal, inexpressible, almighty God who exceeds the grasp of all finite imagination, or even of saintly humans who reflected God in their earthly lives. We Catholics are the definite exception, for which reason - despite being the oldest Christian tradition along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy - we've found ourselves accused by other Christian sects, on occasion, of being "idolatrous". So, yeah, I know how it feels to all you Hindus and Pagans and others out there

Our definition of "idolatry" is more liberal - but no less strict when it comes to what we'd view as constituting actual idolatry, I should reiterate.

But, you don't tend to see spectacles like this in other Abrahamic faiths:

 

[Jainarayan]

the Christian doctrine regarding other religions and their lack of salvific value.

That’s not a universal Christian view either.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because the item/image/whatevs is nothing more than what it is, an item/image. It should not be worshipped. As it has no power or significance on it own.

An example. Let's say your kid only talks to a photo of you. They do not talk to you or hug you, it instead they talk and hug the picture of you. This is not ok.

But doesn't "God" only end up being a sort of "picture" in your mind? Can you ever be 100% certain you are speaking directly to God? I would imagine you would not claim to have ever hugged God, is that a correct assumption? Why is it okay to only talk to a mental representation of God? Don't you have to admit that is what it is, when nearly everyone seems to have their own, specific representation that they are working from?

 

[BilliardsBall]

As the title says. I've never gotten why it is reprehensible to worship a physical object as an image/manifestation of God or gods. While this is a debate, i am not denouncing people who see idolatry as a sin. I would only like to understand why

Because God knew that people would pray/beseech these idols and not Him. Because such idols can have the power of a demon supporting them. Because we are to fear other idols, not just statues, but money, sex, relationships, work, school . . .

 

[Truthseeker]

As the title says. I've never gotten why it is reprehensible to worship a physical object as an image/manifestation of God or gods. While this is a debate, i am not denouncing people who see idolatry as a sin. I would only like to understand why

If you use an image to worship God, or a Manifestation of God, you are limiting God to some extent. One's mind and spirit must be free to encounter Reality itself. I disagree with the one who said that taking a representation of God knowing the object itself is not God is not idol worship. Any image used to worship God is an idol.

 

[ajay0]

If you use an image to worship God, or a Manifestation of God, you are limiting God to some extent. One's mind and spirit must be free to encounter Reality itself. I disagree with the one who said that taking a representation of God knowing the object itself is not God is not idol worship. Any image used to worship God is an idol.

But then don't you think that even the mental concept of God would be an idol then, preventing an encounter with Reality as it is.

Whether inner concepts or outer statues, an idol is an idol, and all these are limitations for proper perception of the infinite or reality as it is.

 

[Enoch07]

But doesn't "God" only end up being a sort of "picture" in your mind? Can you ever be 100% certain you are speaking directly to God? I would imagine you would not claim to have ever hugged God, is that a correct assumption? Why is it okay to only talk to a mental representation of God? Don't you have to admit that is what it is, when nearly everyone seems to have their own, specific representation that they are working from?

Faith the size of a mustard seed.

Graven images are physical representations or objects.

 

[Truthseeker]

But then don't you think that even the mental concept of God would be an idol then, preventing an encounter with Reality as it is.

Whether inner concepts or outer statues, an idol is an idol, and all these are limitations for proper perception of the infinite or reality as it is.

Yes, a mental concept of God is the same. No one can picture God. If you mean we shouldn't be thinking that God is omnipotent and omniscient then I would disagree because that is revealed by Prophets. He is the all-powerful, the loving, the just, the merciful.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Faith the size of a mustard seed.

Not quite sure how to take this.

Here's the reply if you were referring to me:
Correction: I have faith the size of the smallest subsection of vacuum. That's none, in more direct language.

Here's the reply if you were referring to yourself:
Can you demonstrate to me the way in which you move a mountain, my good sir? Maybe show me how you can command some kelp to grow mulberries?

Here's the reply if you were referring to anyone using a mental image as representation of God, and referring to that mental representation as "a mustard seed" - meaning, perhaps, somewhat sufficient and capable of growing:
Maybe you meant the mental image is like the mustard seed - small, but capable of growing into something more? If so, I would ask how you feel this doesn't apply to faith pointed at a physical object rather than a mere thought? Doesn't the physical object draw to mind the thought? Isn't that what it is for in the first place? To bring the subject of your faith into your thoughts?

Graven images are physical representations or objects.

And these differ so much from mental representations in what drastic, incorrigible ways? Is this just one of those "because God said so" things?

 

[Enoch07]

Not quite sure how to take this.

Here's the reply if you were referring to me:
Correction: I have faith the size of the smallest subsection of vacuum. That's none, in more direct language.

Here's the reply if you were referring to yourself:
Can you demonstrate to me the way in which you move a mountain, my good sir? Maybe show me how you can command some kelp to grow mulberries?

Here's the reply if you were referring to anyone using a mental image as representation of God, and referring to that mental representation as "a mustard seed" - meaning, perhaps, somewhat sufficient and capable of growing:
Maybe you meant the mental image is like the mustard seed - small, but capable of growing into something more? If so, I would ask how you feel this doesn't apply to faith pointed at a physical object rather than a mere thought? Doesn't the physical object draw to mind the thought? Isn't that what it is for in the first place? To bring the subject of your faith into your thoughts?


And these differ so much from mental representations in what drastic, incorrigible ways? Is this just one of those "because God said so" things?

It's about faith. I know I am talking to God because if my faith. Faith the size of a mustard seed that can move mountains is a metaphor. It means with just a little bit of faith great things can happen. Not meant to be taken literally.

Because when I pray I am talking to God.

If I was to pray to a statue or other object that is wrong. Because the state or object is a nothing other than what it is. An inanimate lifeless object.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's about faith. I know I am talking to God because if my faith. Faith the size of a mustard seed that can move mountains is a metaphor. It means with just a little bit of faith great things can happen. Not meant to be taken literally.

Because when I pray I am talking to God.

If I was to pray to a statue or other object that is wrong. Because the state or object is a nothing other than what it is. An inanimate lifeless object.

Okay, but (and please answer some of these questions directly - the questions are in bold and blue):

Isn't a physical object merely a conductor/guide/inspiration?

What about people who use music as inspiration? Who use music to get "in-tune" with their spiritual feelings and commune with God? Is use of music also idolatry? Music isn't your own thought... so, is it acceptable?

If you want to get technical, music is also physical - being caused by the vibration of environmental molecules and, ultimately, the membranes within your ear. Granted, people don't worship the music. But then I don't think that you could successfully argue that people actually worship little (or big) statues either. There is a target to the worship BEYOND the object. Just as there is in music. Just as there is in thought. Where is the line drawn? Why is the line drawn?

 

[Enoch07]

Okay, but (and please answer some of these questions directly - the questions are in bold and blue):

Isn't a physical object merely a conductor/guide/inspiration?

What about people who use music as inspiration? Who use music to get "in-tune" with their spiritual feelings and commune with God? Is use of music also idolatry? Music isn't your own thought... so, is it acceptable?

If you want to get technical, music is also physical - being caused by the vibration of environmental molecules and, ultimately, the membranes within your ear. Granted, people don't worship the music. But then I don't think that you could successfully argue that people actually worship little (or big) statues either. There is a target to the worship BEYOND the object. Just as there is in music. Just as there is in thought. Where is the line drawn? Why is the line drawn?

No it's just a representation. People like these things as I pointed out in another post. They shouldn't be worshipped though in Christianity. I live by this. I don't own a single cross. I don't believe in holy buildings or places*. I don't attend a church. I do have a bible, but I do not worship it.

Music is an acceptable way to worship. So long as the music itself is not worshipped. Which I agree with you I don't think anyone does worship the music itself, at least in Christianity.

*with the exception of Jerusalem. It's not special to me personally. But God does say it is His favorite place in the whole world. So in that regards I respect it as a "Holy" place.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't own a single cross. I don't believe in holy buildings or places*. I don't attend a church.

I find this interesting. Do you fear you would worship a cross were you to own one? Do you fear you might be inclined to worship a building? Do you believe that anyone truly worships the cross, or worships buildings? Isn't there, instead, always a target intended for the worship, regardless what that worship is directed at?

 

[Enoch07]

I find this interesting. Do you fear you would worship a cross were you to own one? Do you fear you might be inclined to worship a building? Do you believe that anyone truly worships the cross, or worships buildings? Isn't there, instead, always a target intended for the worship, regardless what that worship is directed at?

No fear. I just don't have a need for any of it.

I don't believe all people who do own crosses or attend churches worship these things. But I believe that some do, even if inadvertently.

 

[Milton Platt]

As the title says. I've never gotten why it is reprehensible to worship a physical object as an image/manifestation of God or gods. While this is a debate, i am not denouncing people who see idolatry as a sin. I would only like to understand why

Christians seem to interpret this as only being objects outside their own religion. They do not include their own idols. The cross, the fish, all the relics.........if they are not idols, what are they?

 

[Baroodi]

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, see it all, hear it all if you say it loud or silently. Then why idolaters use the pagans. People change things over time by extrapolating each time in endless series. This how false cults propagate

 

[ajay0]

Yes, a mental concept of God is the same. No one can picture God.

Okay. So mental conception is an idol as well and a limiting factor with respect to the perception of God.

If you mean we shouldn't be thinking that God is omnipotent and omniscient then I would disagree because that is revealed by Prophets. He is the all-powerful, the loving, the just, the merciful.

But isn't that a mental conception as well !

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't really keep religious iconography. At most I have the Om symbol and a lotus blossom on my car. My mom has angel paintings, crosses, etc. It's not my thing but that's okay. I don't believe God would make art a talent and then deny its use.