Russell Crowe

Exodus 20:4-5 commands the Israelites "You must not make a carved image for yourself, nor the likeness of anything in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them in worship..."

However, in Exodus 20:24, God tells Moses "The altar you make for me is to be of earth, and you are to sacrifice on it both your whole-offerings and your shared-offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle."

I guess my question is, isn't there an awfully fine line between offering sacrifices to God on an altar, and idol worship. At some point, don't you cease to worship God, and begin worshiping the altar and the offerings themselves? It seems to me that the spirit of non-idolatrous worship of an omnipresent, supernatural God who is readily accessible through personal prayer ought to preclude the building of altars to represent him (because in reality, what you're doing by building an altar of any sort is creating a symbol to represent God in your mind). By limiting God into a finite concept like this altar, aren't you disrespecting the power of an almighty God to suggest that his essence can be expressed by an inanimate object like an altar?

To be more broad about it, couldn't the use of any symbols in a religious service be seen as idolatry? If you look at the cross while you pray in church, isn't there a risk that at some point you're no longer worshiping Jesus, but are worshiping the cross upon which he died? Is there ever a place for reverence of inanimate objects and symbols that does not constitute idolatry?

(I realize these verses were directed specifically at the Israelites, but I think it's important enough of an issue in all Abrahamic religions today that it still warrants discussion).

xrey

Personally, I think that evangelicals who are soooooo enthralled with Jee-suz are guilty of idolatry.

It's always "Jesus did this", "Jesus did that", "Jesus created the Universe (!?)".

Ultimately, it's just as ridiculous, counter-productive, and far removed from monotheism as if they started worshipping Ba'al.

Dlx2

They do worship Ba'al. Just, you know, a different culture's name for Ba'al.

xrey

Exactly. I think that there is a fundamental human need to anthropomorphize any deity.

The vague notion of the "prime mover" of the Deists is just too esoteric and disengaged for most religions. Instead, they need someone tangible and personal.

That's why Orthodox Christians have their icons, the Catholics have their Mary statues, and the Evangelicals have their smiling Jee-suz paintings.

If I were still religious, I would accuse all of them of idolatry. If there was a God the Father, I think he'd be pissed! After all, he is a jealous God.

Incidentally, as I understand it, because the Jews actually took the "graven images" prohibition seriously, it negatively affected our historical understanding of them. They could not make paintings, pictures, coins, etc. of their leaders. Yet we have representations of the kings of all their neighbors.

Doug Shaver

It can happen. But as long as it doesn't, there is no inconsistency.

(Assuming your point being that the referenced commandments are inconsistent.)

Ray Moscow

I thought you were going to bring up the bit about the fiery serpent, but that was Numbers:

This was God's idea, even -- but maybe not such a good idea, since they were still hauling this thing around generations later and worshipping it.

Magdlyn

wiki:

Esther, Abraham.


The other religions which had temples at the fort were those of Bel, Adonis, Mithra and Christ (who is depicted as short haired and wielding a magic wand).

photos:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/s...ures/index.htm

It's just a wee jump from sacrificing a calf to worshiping a golden one. Esp if your temple is liberally decorated with golden cherubim ( which look like winged sphinxes) anyway...