Find solution
What is Dial Idol?

What do you think about my explanation of the Idol-worship?

  • I was answering a question by orangeandgray and before I got it done, she closed the question. Well, since I worked so hard...... Here is the answer I gave her about idol-worship. Tell me what you think. I used to believe that even making an image of God was one of the most outrageous sins that one could commit. And I was not allowed to even look at a picture or statue of an angel, of Jesus, or any God. But then I converted to Hinduism, and now I worship God through murtis all the time! So let me do my best to answer for the way I used to think. First of all, I believed what I did mostly because the Bible said so. My religion taught that God was so against idol worship that it was on a par with adultery and murder. The punishment for all of these was the same: death. I truly believed that the Bible was from God, so I assumed this was the right way. But that didn't mean I was not allowed to ask why. And I did want to know what was so bad about idol worship or making an image of something holy. And I was told that God could not be limited to any image. Still I never quite understood how it could be as bad as murder, but the Bible said it, so I believed it. Now I realize, after much study, that the Bible is not entirely the Word of God. I realize that there were political motivations behind forbidding the images of God. For example, there was a time when Israel was split up into 2 kingdoms, Judah in the South and Israel in the North. Judah had a temple in Jerusalem, and in their "Holy of Holies" (like the garbha griha) was where the presence of God (called the Shekhina) was supposed to reside. What was inside that? IMAGES! Not of God, but of "cherubim" which were basically like sphinxes. These were supposed to create a throne so that the invisible God of Israel could "sit" upon it. In Israel, there were 2 main temples, one in the southern part, and one in the northern. What was in their holy of holies? Images. An image of a bull was in each of them. And these too were to serve as a throne for the invisible God to sit upon. Symbolically, with a bull in the south and one in the north, the throne was to encompass the whole land, so that God's presence was symbolically over all of the kingdom. In the ancient Near East, a bull for a "vehicle" or to serve as a throne of a deity was quite common. And so was a sphinx-type creature. But Judah won out. Israel was invaded and the people were exiled to Assyria. But Judah held out. So the Judean Bible writers got the upper hand, and they condemned the temples of Israel in favor of theirs in Jerusalem. Why do you think there is ironically a story of the Golden Calf at Mt. Sinai? The story was put there as a direct condemnation of the Golden calves in the Israelite centers. Think about this: According to the story, the people had just witnessed the very voice of God speaking to the entire assembly - the entire young nation of Israel (before it was split). And God said, among the very first things he said, You shall not make any graven image of anything in heaven or on earth to bow down to and worship! The people were afraid and absolutely awestruck over the direct experience of God they were having. It was right after this event that the people made a golden calf and bowed down to it! What kind of dense people are these? They had just been told by GOD HIMSELF in the most amazing and direct revelation of history NOT to do that. And they believed in God. They said they would obey. And then they turned around and did the very thing He said not to. Well, the reason the story is so unbelievable is because it is not true! Historically, if we study the Bible, we can see that this was added into the story as a way to diminish the ritual centers of the North and favor the ones of the victorious south. So why were the images made in the South ok? Well, I don't know! And no one knows. I have asked this question and the answer I get is that in this one case, of the Temple, it was ok to make an image of a heavenly being. In all other cases it is wrong. But not this case. You also have to consider something else that was happening in Judah. The priests in charge of the Temple in Jerusalem got their food and pay by people's offerings brought to the Temple there. Well, people were building other temples in shrines in other places, complete with their own holy of holies with their own cherubim and images to enthrone God, and instead bringing offerings to those places. The priests had probably the biggest hand in writing the Bible we have today. And they forbade the other "high places" and instead put in the mouth of God that the people must ONLY bring their offerings to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This obviously gave the priests there power. And they were of course supported by the government, because Jerusalem was the capital. There is so much evidence of this. For one thing, the scroll of Deuteronomy was mysteriously "found" in the Temple around this time, and in that scroll is precisely where it says that God would pick ONE place and offerings must only be brought to that one place, and no other. It served to solidify the power of the priests. To allow images in any other area would weaken their hold. Because then people could worship God wherever, and bring their offerings wherever. And then the priests of Jerusalem would lose out. You are so right about images and the conception of it that God is everywhere. God is not limited by the image at all. Instead, it gives us a way to treat God as our guest of honor, and to realize as well that he has many manifestations. God can be present in the form of a Goddess, a God, or even an Elephant-faced God! ;-) All of these different images serve to show us some different aspect of God.

  • Answer:

    I like how well you thought this answer through and all the evidence you lay forth. I think it is a good answer. By the way, I'm a Hindu, too (former Christian as well). I had trouble at first with the murtis, but then once I realized that Hindus aren't worshipping the image and believeing that the image IS God, but that is more like a 'electrical outlet' to plug into God (or as one person said once "we worship God through the murti, but God is not the murti". Still, I didn't know all that you said above. Very good research! It's ashame it didn't make it as an answer to the question, but thankfully you posted it here for us to read. Om Shanti!

Sorrow_a... at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

hi. thanks for sharing these interesting facts. as a born Hindu i have been taught since childhood that all different kinds of god are just different forms of one supreme being. be it Rama, Krishna or Kali all of them are said to be Avatars not god . the main difference between Indian relegions and western tradition is acceptance of all types of forms of worship as legitimate. at least till it is not harming or hurting someone or others. not all Hindus practice all of the traditions and we like some and we do not agree with some other philosophies but none of them is called false. just that everybody has his own interpretation and is free to express his devotion as s/he wants. it is really confusing for an average westerner to understand that hindus are monothist and believe god can is beyond depicting yet they worship him in form of murtis. when muslims came to india they destroyed thousands of temples and thought they have proved supremacy of their god by destroying local ones. it was a surprise for them that hindus threw away broken icons and built a new one and kept worshipping them. they had learnt to respect and understand the concept to some extent. and you will get some devotional songs and poetry written by muslims writers in hindu tradition .in some sufi traditions muslim saits even used name rama (not rama of ayoddhya; it means supreme creater too) as an antonym for god. the truth is the present character of such assimilation and tolerance of hinduisn did not developed in a short span. it is result of efforts of several scholors and sages over the centuries. Rigveda written around 5000 BC ( came into present form around 3000BC ) is not only monothist but accepts god as an abstract supreme soul. all the upanishads and educated philosophiers have described god as abstract. he has many synonims but always one. "Truth (God) is one, the wise call it by various names" -Rigveda and exhort us to "let good thoughts come to us from every where" in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna assures the adherents of all religions that "those who pray with devotion to another god, it is to Me that they pray." though i doubt krishna was supposed to be a god, avatar among his contemporaries and think later devotees made this up but still this comment was very wise and it led towards tolerance and assimilation of small sects. krishna also succeeded in stopping worship of gods depicted as a king of heaven Indra or others (depicted in a similar way as greek gods) smoothly and without any hate campaign. he encouraged nature worship instead. and only those of gods(Indra and his mates) are revered today who were connected with nature as surya(sun) and agni(fire). sages like shankarachraya while themselves wrote relegious philodophies on abstract god yet constructed temples in a way to unite india. Gupta Dunasty played a very important role in assimilation. first it combined all less popular gods to main forms of god Vishnu or Shiva. then they created a joint murti of god Hharihar(vishnu+shiva). next they joined murti of god shiva and female god shakti as ardhnarishwar(half female god). these two icons were never much popular but this fusion helped in these different sects in merging to a great extent. the idols were sanctioned as avatars and represented god though not they were god in themselves. other saints in later dates to kept reinforcing these ideas and that is how the hinduism developed in current form. the cross, calling jesus the god, revering bible or kuran, revering graves of saints or their idols, revvering buildings of macca and such other things are a;lso icon worshipping. truth is all of us need some symbol for abstract . just as we have made up a line of equater and greenwitch timeline. and most of us need much more than just a candle to meditate. not all can pray to it!!! Now i am going on and on... thank you if you had patience to read it all. bye.

rian30

I loved your comments! That is how I feel about my own manifestations---my Barbie dolls, my Venus candle, and my stuffed toy rats on my altar. They are not the actual "god"....just a good representation. :-) KUDOS on your commentaries....you should post it at your blog if you got one. :-)

Nikki

I don't agree with it. There is a lot of assumptions and undocumented claims therein. But wow, what a long question. Like a lot of people on here, you are expecting us to take your comments and speculation as facts. The temple set up contained the holy and the most holy, the only thing in the Most holy was the Ark that was decorated and yes it had 2 angels on the cover. Never was a bull used to properly worship god, it was picked up and applied by external influence. The Israelites freed from Egypt who built a golden calf did so because of the length of time they had been captive in Egypt they had experienced many of their celebrations and no doubt partook in some of them being separated from their own places of worship for so long. The Egyptians worshiped a Cow God as well. It was during this time that they were accustomed to this celebration (remember that many Egyptians left with the Israelites and this might well have had an impact on the events). They did the customary celebration but justified it by assigning it a different name A festival to God. We see the same things today when people take a pagan event and assign it a Christian meaning like Christmas and Easter. Jesus never commanded a likeness of himself be made, he did not command his birth to be celebrated, none of his apostles carried crosses, or prayed with rosaries, or worshipped an image of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Sorry. I don't agree with your answer.

JAMMco

I am now 50 times more smarter than I was 5 minutes ago, thanks for the points!

jennilaine777

I agree, the same can be said about Catholics and the statues of the Saints. . . they are not THE saints, but a representation - much like the family photos, the image isn't your family member, but a likeness. well done.

AMDG CB

I wish I hadn't closed the question..this is the kind of answer I would have really liked to see. These are the things I was trying to convey to the people who keep telling me that idol worship is a sin. Your answer is doubly credible because you have seen it from both sides. I found it amusing that the people who say that we are made in the image of God are telling me that praying to idols is limiting. And that completely contradicts what Hinduism is about, which is that there can be and is God in everything. If you don't mind my asking, what church did you belong to before you converted? And what made you decide to convert?

meaniebahini

Your answer was well thought out and well written. I am not sure if I beleive in everything you have written, but YOU do and you make your points clear and concise. And that is the point of a good answer.

rp74

too long, you lost me.

jesusfrk

Thats interesting...

someone

Load more

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.