I find not only does Jesus (and Muhammad) qualify as idols, I find both Christianity and Islam require a necessarily false testimony (as contrary to the biblical ten commandments) in their respective required testimonies. In effect, one can not become a Christian/Muslim without violating the testimony commandment - like a mark. One must testify on the basis of a crucifixion and resurrection which happened 2 000 years ago and the other must testify of a man who has been dead for 1 400 years. Isn't the point of a testimony commandment not to bear witness of things unseen and not witnessed? Isn't that the point of not falling into an idolatrous cult that requires a testimony and "belief" in a book or idol? Isn't this what is supposed to shield one from taking up idols and bowing to them etc.? What are these people doing taking these testimonies?

I know the "believers" say life is a test... I'd hope for their sake it is not. I find even many atheists naturally follow the ten commandments more closely because they intuitively know not to go around killing people. Idol worshipers seem to have problems in this department - spilling blood over books and idols.

It seems to me any male central figure that serves as a model for humanity is an idol. It takes "belief" to have idol worshipers "believe" that what they are doing by imitating a model man is somehow *not* idol worship. If they are willing to spill blood over it, they are worshiping it, and this relates to fascism and military protection of "belief"-based 'states' (ie. forcibe suppression).

What is an idol in the biblical view. An idol is a graven or carved image, spiritual entity or substance that attempts to detract glory from God. The whole point of Jesus's ministry was to show human beings the true and perfected way of worship. Christ himself said " I am in my father and my father in me, he who believes in me believes in my father" also " there is only one way to the Father and that is through the Son" Admittedly due to the current popularity of Christianity and the diverse denominations coming into being everyday a lot of strange philosophies are masquerading as Christian but this was anticipated by the early disciples, it doesn't mean you should separate Jesus from the Christian God or set him up as some sort of apostate or selfcontradiction

Christian churches are full of carved images. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Now to this , the issue of the rosary and other supposedly holy statuary is one that still Sparks debate in Christian gatherings.
As much as I agree with your assessment of this act as idolatory. Your overly generalistic view of Christianity is not very realistic

What are these people doing taking these testimonies? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Doing what their lying preachers have done before them. I think of all those who swear to supernatural 7th hand garbage are lying. They just never admit to their hypocrisy.

spilling blood over books and idols. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Those who have used inquisitions and jihads to kill freedom of religion and thought are the ones who today cry and scream of injustice when their ideology is question or tried to be denied them. Hypocrisy at it's max in this.

and this relates to fascism and military protection of "belief"-based 'states' (ie. forcibe suppression). — A Gnostic Agnostic

Indeed. People forget how Catholicism helped Hitler, also a fascist, as his banker and helper.

Your overall view is bang on buddy.

Regards
DL

it doesn't mean you should separate Jesus from the Christian God or set him up as some sort of apostate or selfcontradiction — New2K2

I see more than one Jesus in scriptures, a Gnostic Christian Jesus and a Rome created one.

If you see only the Constantine/Rome created Jesus, then you are correct that he cannot be taken out of the Trinity and that makes Jesus/Yahweh a genocidal prick who kills instead of curing, while that same Jesus said he came to cure and not kill. It seem that your Jesus has a split personality.

The Gnostic Christian Jesus that I know in scriptures would be closer to an Eastern mystic Jesus and would be closer to an apostate than a Christian.

Here is how the Jesus I follow spoke and you will never see the Christian preachers quote him.

I have it in an old O.P showing why I call my god I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

As much as I agree with your assessment of this act as idolatory. Your overly generalistic view of Christianity is not very realistic — New2K2

Nice that you agree.

What have I put that is not realistic? All Christian fly the cross and there is little difference in their immoral scapegoating ideology.

Regards
DL

Catholics have always used idolatry. Praying to statues etc. Buddhists do it too. When Christ was crucified, his followers were left isolated in a pagan world. Pagans loved gimmicks including idolatry. Some pagan gimmicks survived the spread of Christianity. The Christmas tree is one. I suspect the tricks (miracles) were invented to capture the attention of pagans, including Christ's unproven rising from the dead. Too bad they didn't have cell phone cameras. Notice how flying saucer sightings have diminished since the spread of smart phones?

Those who have used inquisitions and jihads to kill freedom of religion and thought are the ones who today cry and scream of injustice when their ideology is question or tried to be denied them. Hypocrisy at it's max in this.

Yes - I link it to the general idea that "Canaanites" (ie. mark of Kain) attempt to scapegoat the iniquities of their own tribe/house and accuse their political adversaries of the same while whipping up dumbed-down emotionalist "believers" into attacking their own state "believing" the problem is coming from their own state rather than another. That is precisely how Islam fights their jihad - project and scapegoat.

Now is it obvious why I am undermining "belief" entirely? It takes "believers" to "believe" the problem is the solution and the solution is the problem. Islam is just this and is a humanitarian crisis which is going to wipe women off the face of the planet. It's already got people confused over what a woman is (ie. if one merely "believes" they are a woman, they are one and must be treated as one) because the House of Islam does not want anyone noticing where the "real" women are going... to the Mullahs of the House of Islam. It's all very sick but most people don't understand what is actually going on and the gravity of it. Anyways....

Indeed. People forget how Catholicism helped Hitler, also a fascist, as his banker and helper.

I had journalist Benjamin Fulford tell me that he has two sources which indicate the historical Muhammad was actually handled by the Vatican. If this is true (I don't know if it is - I keep pushing him to pursue those sources but he seems reluctant) it obviously would implicate the Vatican as complicit in... pretty much everything humanity has been suffering for a long time, including Islam. I personally know and understand the Qur'an is not what is being claimed... like, at all. It is actually almost absurdly the opposite it is embarrassing, and this is exactly why I feel that the House of Islam is hiding behind the Vatican as much as they can and turning them into a scapegoat as they did/do the Jews.

This scapegoating is really at the root of evil, and "belief" seems to be the fuel that keeps it going. There needs to be a global political 'state' that rejects "belief" as a basis for existence. Rather than authority over/as truth, we need truth over/as authority. I find "belief" necessarily inverts this, and should be discarded.

Can he sing?

I can only respond to the arguments regarding Christianity because I lack the knowledge regarding the teachings of the Qur’an.

To break down your argument into two sub-arguments (with additions from the original post you say you agree with):

Christians worship an idol.
The Bible says “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above.”
Christians worship Jesus before YHWH.
Jesus is a likeness of something that is in heaven above.
Christians violate two of God’s commandments (inferred from a-c).
Chrisitains bear false testimony.
God commands Christians to not bear false witness.
Christians did not witness the death or resurrection of Jesus.
When Christians profess faith and testify to the resurrection of Jesus, they are bearing witness to an event they did not see themselves.
Christians are bearing false testimony. (inferred from a-c)

To address the idol argument:

I have to object to both premise B and premise C. Christianity commonly teaches the Trinity, or the concept of God as Three in One comprised of God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God the Son, one part in the Trinity. It is impossible for Christians to worship or put Jesus before YHWH because Jesus is a part of YHWY in the same way that YHWY is a part of Jesus. The are One. Jesus is not even a likeness of what is in heaven above. He IS what is in heaven above. There are much more thorough and clear explanations of this concept out there are on the Internet if one is interested in exploring this further.

To address the false testimony argument:

While it was in a short paragraph, this really gave me food for thought. I had not previously considered this concept of “false witness” as it relates to modern professions of faith. My initial intuition is to object to premise C by appealing to tradition. The Bible is the written record of those who did witness the events of Jesus’ life. We don’t tell a history teacher that they are bearing false witness regarding the Civil War when they teach from a textbook. Rather than attacking Christians at the physical experience level, this argument might be better directed at the validity of their text or the traditions that have been passed through church teaching. Saying that someone cannot believe something that they have not witness appears to also rule out a lot of beliefs regarding history, stories friends tell us about their lives, and so on.

"We all idol worship in some sense. If you can think analogically you will agree".

No I don't agree. I've watched your soapbox preacher video and I can see why you are attracted to it.
IThis is just another attempt to troll with your parasitic thesis by baiting believers with a facile assertion.

Who knows for sure what god looks like? If you worship something that does not look like god, you are worshipping an idol. Which is a sin. On the other hand, the scriptures give no precise indication what god looks like.

Therefore you may worship god, or you may worship an idol, depending on your random fortune whether the god image you envision is coincidental with the true image of god. This is an unsolvable problem.

For sure Pantheists are idol worshippers, as they can't possibly imagine precisely what the universe looks like.

Gnostic Christians also have an ideal, but we do not let ourselves be subsumed by our own creations and remain perpetual seekers of the best god/rules and laws to live by, as Jesus taught. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The 'ideal' you mention is your idol. This ideal/idol is having-no-idols (except the idol/ideal of having-no-idols of course.) I like that idol. It's an old idea/ideal/idol.

We all idol worship in some sense. If you can think analogically you will agree. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Unlike fresco, I agree with you on this one. If we bother to shoot our mouths off on a philosophy forum, then I think that we are in general embodying some ideal, projecting it for others, evangelizing.

That seems uncontroversial. If there is insight in your analogy, I think it lies in seeing that religion is continuous with politics and literature. Sure there are ghosts involved, but they should be understood in terms of their function, of what they do for people (bind them together, comfort them, etc.) There are ghosts in politics and literature too. In literature On TV people know that their ghosts are made up, sometimes. But a charismatic ghost matters in the real world, made up or not.

Have the believer somehow break and/or lose the symbol, the sign, the cross, the bust, picture, representation, figure, etc. of Jesus and see how it effects/affects them.

The response and subsequent behaviour will sometimes provide enough evidence to know if it (the belief of the candidate) qualifies as idolatry.

PS

The "figure" part was added after reading the post immediately following this one.

Idol worship is not about ideals. It is very constricted to the worship of a figure. A physical figure, a manifestation or likeness in physical features of another figure. Idol worship does not extend to the description of other attributes of god, aside from the visual form.

In Islam visual depiction of Mohammad and many other prophets are not encouraged by hadiths as well as not welcomed by Islamic scholars. Even if there was a depiction of such, Artists tried to express it spiritually rather than visually. Moreover, scholars throughout history did not promote it as they believed it would to idolatry. As a result, Islamic art is mostly geometrical and calligraphical.
Thus, they wanted to protect uniqueness and indivisibility of God.

Idol worship is not about ideals. — god must be atheist

We all idol worship in some sense. If you can think analogically you will agree. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

<emphasis added>

Since most of us don't worship graven images but instead serve concepts these days, it's only the analogical extension of 'idol' that's interesting. And this analogical extension is itself an old thought. It's a good thought, too, since it allows (potentially) for a kind of intellectual distance from our current investments.

I'd say 'deep' critical thinking is on this level. It's exciting and dangerous, and I think it's where the big revolutions in personality come from. And then even our ideals are perhaps more image-based than we would like to admit. We'd probably see certain faces in a album of pictures as fitting or not fitting our image of a 'deep thinker.' We imagine a certain lifestyle or way of being as the real thing. Maybe the genuine thinker is an activist. Or maybe the genuine thinker lives on a mountain away from everyone. Or maybe the true thinker just lives like a normal person, to get a great view of reality or as a manifestation of humility. Or perhaps is a full professor at a prestigious university. Or gets summoned by the government as an expert when there's an emergency. TV rules because it's close to the animated idols in our imaginations.

Joshua, your point is valid, inasmuch as the bastardization of the words and teachings of the bible are valid. People these days take a lot of bible teachings and adapt it to their own liking, creating straight disobedience and contrarianism to the words of the bible.

I agree. And even which books are included in this or that official bible of this or that religion are the results of politics.

As far as disobedience and contrarianism go, I agree there too. But the bible is library of books that even individually contradict themselves. A person could spend decades trying to focus on the 'true' personality of Jesus, and this would be like trying to make sense of prince Hamlet. Really strong literary creations force us to keep reconsidering them and ourselves.

My current opinion is that the character Jesus from the gospels is glued together from incompatible fragments. That's an aesthetic claim, an opinion. If I was a director handed the gospels as a script, I would have to make decisions about what to cut out. I'd have to choose one of the fragments. Personally I'd go in for a more mystical, philosophical Jesus. He'd only sound crazy to those who didn't decode his metaphors.

There is only one purpose of the OP...to bait 'believers' with a religiously emotive word and in order to promote his version of iconoclasm. The turgid parasitic baiting of 'traditional religionists' is the only activity the author does on this and other forums.

I agree. But he's already banned, I think.

The ideals/idols relationship is still fascinating, tho.

Why 'fascinating'? Its a truism that much of humanity tends to be herd-like in terms of following popular trends, fashions and seeking 'leaders' with simplified worldviews. It could all be merely expression of our innate tribalism and social tendencies we have in common with other primates.

Is it a truism? I agree it's an old thought. But few of us are eager to apply that thinking to ourselves.

...that's where the 'much of humanity' comes into play !:wink:

Indeed, but I venture that all of us are caught up in some kind of 'magical' identification. What varies is the complexity of the game.

As you say, simplified worldviews. But at some point we all lean on such a narrative, or so it seems to me. To be sure, clever people are good at hiding it.

Or good at making their own narrative the least worst.

I take you for one who knows the pleasures of the cynic.

I've never thought of it as 'pleasurable'...more like the Camus character in 'The Outsider'.

I didn't read that one. But I really liked The Fall.

As far as pleasure goes, it's also the fires of hell.

What is to see the species as a bunch of haunted monkeys? To enjoy/suffer the alienation that comes with that? It's a strange loop. And it's also the old goal of seeing the game from the outside. So of course it's just one more way to be haunted. Since ghosts are not optional, it's about the quality of one's ghosts, which one is never done determining.

Maybe this can be compressed: how seriously shall one take seriousness and the faces it makes ? Is the highest mental life necessarily entangled in the burning issues of the day? Or is this just a more complicated version of taking out the trash, so that we can get back to dreaming? I think of Archimedes and his circles. The burning issues of the day are also just raw material for pattern finding.

What are the general structures of intellectual types bashing it out? What ideals/idols must they appeal to in order to threaten/seduce the opponent into submission? Then there are all the handshakes and salutes and pats on the back. Humans like to hunt in packs, go to war together. The cause is secondary to the warmth of fighting for something Ideal with others in the know, who see It.

Mostly we are on this side or that by chance, shaped by circumstances we didn't shape. 'Others are determined by their source, but not me. I decided. I am a spark of pure freedom. ' In theory we're too hip for that fantasy, but in practice we depend on it (incarnating God in his self-sufficing apartness, minimizing how embedded we are.) The 'I' (gaseous entity) continues to emit self-descriptions which it could not predict and did not decide. It rides the horse backwards.

If we spend too much time speculating about 'God' I think we disappear into the clouds. I'd suggest that ever since the development of agriculture it has been possible for thugs to demand tribute, and they gradually managed to brainwash the masses they were robbing into believing that they were somehow 'superior'. Every so often someone comes along to suggest that ordinary people are as good or better, though they have often to bring in the god stuff to justify what they are saying. If they get a good hearing, the powers-that-be have to do a quick conversion job to turn them into idols and confuse the issue, as the state capitalist bosses have done with Marx.

Does Jesus qualify as an idol? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If Christians want to worship statues of Micky Mouse, the First Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

How is it a problem for you?