Idolatry

[Darth Ultor]

As a Jew, from a very young age, I was taught that worshiping idols is a sin. According to the Quran, this is the worst sin a person could commit. Completely unforgivable. But not all idolaters were evil people, never harmed a single person. Gandhi was a Hindu, and though they do use images, they are not fundamentally idolatrous. Despite that, Gandhi was a very good man. It can't be that God simply overlooked all his deeds.

 

[Predator]

Despite that, Gandhi was a very good man. It can't be that God simply overlooked all his deeds.

Once a person commits the unforgivable sin of shirk , then God doesnt really doesnt not care whether he is a Mother Teresa, Gandhi or an Ariel Sharon, Hitler

He may be rewarded by people for his fame and wealth for his good deeds

But for the hereafter ,Without the right belief ,All good deeds are worthless and those idols which were worshipped are nothing but a pile of garbage which would will be the fuel for the hellfire

And , idol worship is forbidden even in hindu scriptures, so Gandhi is still a wrong doer when judged by his own scriptures

It is mentioned in Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 verse 20:

“Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires they worship demigods i.e. idols.(Bhagavad Gita 7:20)
ii. Yajurved Chapter 32 Verse 3

“There is no image of Him”

(Svetashvatara Upanishad 4:19, Yajurved 32:3)

iii It is also mentioned in

Yajurveda Chapter 40 verse 9

“They enter darkness those who worship natural things (for e.g. sun ,air, water, fire, etc.). They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti i.e. created things (for e.g. table, chair, car, idol etc.)

(Yajurved 40:9)


(Yajurveda 40:8)
“He is bodiless and pure”.


Furthermore , it is mentioned

(Bhagwad Geeta 7:20)
“He is one only without a second.”

(Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1)

Of Him there are neither parents nor Lord.”

(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 6:9)

“There is no likeness of Him”.

(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 4:19

God cant be seen

“His form cannot be seen, no one sees Him with the eye”.
(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 4:20)

 

[marwen]

But not all idolaters were evil people, never harmed a single person.

They don't harm people, but they are offending God, that's much worse.

 

[Asiyah3]

Thought just to clarify, in case Boaz doesn't know.

According to the Quran, this is the worst sin a person could commit. Completely unforgivable.

Allaah has told us that he will forgive all sins for the one who repents to Him. This includes all sins, even shirk. Whoever repents, Allaah will accept his repentance.

“Say: ‘O ‘Ibaadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allaah, verily, Allaah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful’”

[al-Zumar 39:53]

The gate of repentance is open until the sun rises from the west or before the soul reaches the throat [at death]. After that yeah, there is no repentance.

 

[Alpha Dude]

The Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) own uncle Abu Talib wasn't forgiven in this regard either, despite all the help he extended and his kind nature. Just shows the gravity of the sin.

 

['Abd Al-Maajid]

...
It is mentioned in Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 verse 20:

“Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires they worship demigods i.e. idols.(Bhagavad Gita 7:20)
ii. Yajurved Chapter 32 Verse 3

“There is no image of Him”

(Svetashvatara Upanishad 4:19, Yajurved 32:3)

iii It is also mentioned in

Yajurveda Chapter 40 verse 9

“They enter darkness those who worship natural things (for e.g. sun ,air, water, fire, etc.). They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti i.e. created things (for e.g. table, chair, car, idol etc.)

(Yajurved 40:9)


(Yajurveda 40:8)
“He is bodiless and pure”.


Furthermore , it is mentioned

(Bhagwad Geeta 7:20)
“He is one only without a second.”

(Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1)

Of Him there are neither parents nor Lord.”

(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 6:9)

“There is no likeness of Him”.

(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 4:19

God cant be seen

“His form cannot be seen, no one sees Him with the eye”.
(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 4:20)

That means Hinduism has been infiltrated...:?

 

[Predator]

Thought just to clarify, in case Boaz doesn't know.


Allaah has told us that he will forgive all sins for the one who repents to Him. This includes all sins, even shirk. Whoever repents, Allaah will accept his repentance.

“Say: ‘O ‘Ibaadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allaah, verily, Allaah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful’”

[al-Zumar 39:53]

The gate of repentance is open until the sun rises from the west or before the soul reaches the throat [at death]. After that yeah, there is no repentance.

True.

The Jews worshipped the Golden calf and then Moses (PBUH) smashed the calf and then they seeked repentance and Allah forgave them.

If they had not repented before their death , then they would have been punished

 

[Supreme]

As a Jew, from a very young age, I was taught that worshiping idols is a sin. According to the Quran, this is the worst sin a person could commit. Completely unforgivable. But not all idolaters were evil people, never harmed a single person. Gandhi was a Hindu, and though they do use images, they are not fundamentally idolatrous. Despite that, Gandhi was a very good man. It can't be that God simply overlooked all his deeds.

Well, I see little point in worshipping something that somebody equal to me has created. It has no supernatural powers, no thoughts, no intelligence- and idols can be destroyed just as easily as they are created. Idol worshipping is generally pointless anyway- what reward could and idol possibly grant you for worshipping it? There's no simply no feasible rationale.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Once a person commits the unforgivable sin of shirk , then God doesnt really doesnt not care whether he is a Mother Teresa, Gandhi or an Ariel Sharon, Hitler

Faith over works. Ghandi in hell and a repentant Hitler in heaven. Truly a disturbing concept. This is one of the primary reasons why I have always found Christianity, Judaism and Islam to be such objectionable and potentially dangerous religions. It highlights once again that Obedience is key, not morality.

Why would a creator of the universe care so much that his creation (which he purportedly gave free will not to) worship him? It sounds like he has self esteem issues and needs constant patting on the back. That doesn't befit an all powerful creator of the universe. But it sure does fit what leaders of man would want in a religion they created. Only through religion can you get people to self monitor to adhere to your agenda. Only in religion can you get people thinking that not only are you Big Brother but you are actually Big Brother with constant awareness of what people THINK.

 

[Supreme]

Faith over works. Ghandi in hell and a repentant Hitler in heaven. Truly a disturbing concept. This is one of the primary reasons why I have always found Christianity, Judaism and Islam to be such objectionable and potentially dangerous religions. It highlights once again that Obedience is key, not morality.

Why would a creator of the universe care so much that his creation (which he purportedly gave free will not to) worship him? It sounds like he has self esteem issues and needs constant patting on the back. That doesn't befit an all powerful creator of the universe. But it sure does fit what leaders of man would want in a religion they created. Only through religion can you get people to self monitor to adhere to your agenda. Only in religion can you get people thinking that not only are you Big Brother but you are actually Big Brother with constant awareness of what people THINK.

I must say, I do agree with virtually everything in your post. Why does a diety need to worshipped- it does indeed sound like He's lacking in confidence. An all powerful being that demands to be worshipped by His far inferior creation and punishes those who don't worship Him simply doesn't sound worthy of worship. I assure you, this was, and indeed is, the concept I've most struggled with since converting to Christianity. A jealous diety that demands to be worshipped by His creation due to confidence issues doesn't quite match the all powerful being the Abrahamic religions portray Him.

 

[Skavau]

They don't harm people, but they are offending God, that's much worse.

A thoroughly disturbing sentence. The claim I quite frequently make stands wholly true in light of it. Theistic morality is only concerned with obedience to God, and the subservience towards God. Humanity is a secondary concern, and if God was to will it by definition a non-concern.

 

[Skavau]

Well, I see little point in worshipping something that somebody equal to me has created. It has no supernatural powers, no thoughts, no intelligence- and idols can be destroyed just as easily as they are created. Idol worshipping is generally pointless anyway- what reward could and idol possibly grant you for worshipping it? There's no simply no feasible rationale.

The idea that someone deliberately worships idols is a misnomer and a bigoted characterisation born from the evangelical roots of the main Abrahamic religions. Many religious beliefs often accused of worshipping idols do not themselves believe they are. They would say that they are worshipping a real, tangible deity (or deities). Often when Muslims claim that other beliefs worship idols they are actually just claiming that they aren't observing the correct God and then immediately claim idolatry as if it has some recognisable objective meaning.

In any case, I'm slightly interested in knowing that you lace all worship motivation with some sort of self-interest in gaining reward.

 

[marwen]

A thoroughly disturbing sentence. The claim I quite frequently make stands wholly true in light of it. Theistic morality is only concerned with obedience to God, and the subservience towards God. Humanity is a secondary concern, and if God was to will it by definition a non-concern.

You have the right to make these thoughts. But just to clarify, I didn't say it's ok to harm people, but I said : for a believer, it's more horrible to offend God than to offend people, but harming people is horrible too. I'm sure you understand the difference.

 

[Skavau]

You have the right to make these thoughts. But just to clarify, I didn't say it's ok to harm people, but I said : for a believer, it's more horrible to offend God than to offend people, but harming people is horrible too. I'm sure you understand the difference.

I didn't imply that you believed it was okay to harm people. I meant to state that you by your own moral philosophy, you cannot have any regard for anything outside of God. That all moral objectives and moral obligations have to necessarily fall under the umbrella of pleasing the divine arbiter. That humanity pales in comparison to obeying God. It is the ultimate in subservience.

 

[marwen]

I didn't imply that you believed it was okay to harm people. I meant to state that you by your own moral philosophy, you cannot have any regard for anything outside of God. That all moral objectives and moral obligations have to necessarily fall under the umbrella of pleasing the divine arbiter. That humanity pales in comparison to obeying God. It is the ultimate in subservience.

Why do you think that pleasing God can be opposite to morality. Personally I have my human understanding of morality independently from my beliefs, and If I were Atheist, I don't think my vision to morality will change. But I found also that obeying to God's orders is not contradictory with morality. I found that God orders us to be kind with people and to not be unjust with them. And just to let you know, in my religion (Islam), harming people is a sin, and if I hurt someone intentionally I will be disobediant for God's orders.

 

[Alpha Dude]

Faith over works. Ghandi in hell and a repentant Hitler in heaven. Truly a disturbing concept. This is one of the primary reasons why I have always found Christianity, Judaism and Islam to be such objectionable and potentially dangerous religions. It highlights once again that Obedience is key, not morality.

Hitler in heaven, after sincere repentance, actually shows the mercy of God.

We all make mistakes* and nobody is perfect so ultimately, we should always have the chance to realise our mistakes and seek forgiveness for them. In fact, one could argue that it would be unfair for God to not forgive if the repentance is sincere since he is the one that created us imperfect in the first place.

* yes of course, Hitler's 'mistake' is a really huge one, but let's accept it is just that, a mistake, for argument's sake.

The atheist's conception of what is moral is subjective. It differs from people to people and culture to culture.

Why would a creator of the universe care so much that his creation (which he purportedly gave free will not to) worship him?

Due to it being our eternity that is on the line, we are the ones that need to care where we end up, not Allah.

The parents of a rebellious child would consider the child to be in need of punishment for not acknowledging their existence and further going against the rules set by them.

Similar thing, in principle, with God.

It sounds like he has self esteem issues and needs constant patting on the back.

If God really had self esteem issues, he would use his power to literally force us to be in a constant state of worship. Yet we have been given freewill to deny worship.

Only through religion can you get people to self monitor to adhere to your agenda.

Not true at all. There are several ways in which people can be made to adhere to a third person's agenda.

Living in a rented house, you must sign a contract saying you agree to abide by the landlord's rules (eg. no pets). Going to school, you must follow rules such as no fighting etc. Same with college/university (eg. no collusion/plagiarism). Even a mother telling her young boy to not walk in the house with mud on his shoes will get that child to self monitor to adhere to the mother's agenda of keeping the house clean.

Many such places/situations/institutions set out laws for people to follow. Day to day, we find ourselves involved in these 'contracts' and hence we keep ourselves in check in order to avoid punitive measures/breaking of contract (which would prove detrimental to us in the long run, not the people on the other end of the contract).

A thoroughly disturbing sentence. The claim I quite frequently make stands wholly true in light of it. Theistic morality is only concerned with obedience to God, and the subservience towards God. Humanity is a secondary concern, and if God was to will it by definition a non-concern.

I think you struggle to understand that there is no such thing as morality independent of God. Nothing can exist independent of God. All that we know and understand have been created by him, including what we judge as being moral.

 

[Supreme]

That's a misquote- Skavau said that, not me.

 

[Alpha Dude]

That's a misquote- Skavau said that, not me.

Sorry, I've corrected it.

 

[Skavau]

Why do you think that pleasing God can be opposite to morality.

I don't say it is opposite to morality, I say that it is fundamentally amoral. I contend that morality is a system of behavioural constraint based upon how one ought or ought not act in the context of a community of people. When your moral priorities are first to please God, and carry out what God wants before the consideration of humanity then I think you have a glorified system of obedience to authority (God).

Personally I have my human understanding of morality independently from my beliefs, and If I were Atheist, I don't think my vision to morality will change. But I found also that obeying to God's orders is not contradictory with morality. I found that God orders us to be kind with people and to not be unjust with them. And just to let you know, in my religion (Islam), harming people is a sin, and if I hurt someone intentionally I will be disobediant for God's orders.

Right, this isn't quite what I was getting at. I know that you believe God condemns things such as the harming of other people. I know that you believe that God condemns such as rape, theft, etc - and there's nothing wrong with that per se.

However the specific issue is that if you really, truly believe that all moral ideas originate from God's word then you have a moral problem. You couldn't, by your own reckoning believe that murder is wrong because of the impact that it has on other. You could not, by your own reckoning claim that rape is wrong due to the suffering of those it is inflicted on. You could only say that you disapprove because God happens to disapprove. You could only measure what is right based on whether or not God happens to agree.

That is what so concerns me.

 

[Skavau]

Hitler in heaven, after sincere repentance, actually shows the mercy of God.

Well, yes. It could. However, a good person who dies without knowledge of the God and therefore suffers eternal torment shows a very different image of God. You must know how it comes across to an observer.

The atheist's conception of what is moral is subjective. It differs from people to people and culture to culture.

Everyone's conception of what is or is not moral happens to be subjective. Some people derive their moral understanding from Christianity (and all of its sects). Some people derive it from Islam. Others derive it from Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Scientology, Shinto, Taoism, Zoroastarianism, Paganism, Confucanism, Buddhism and the list goes on.

Merely claiming to hold a viewpoint that is allegedly 'objective' does not mean anything pragmatically.

Due to it being our eternity that is on the line, we are the ones that need to care where we end up, not Allah.

That was not his question. Pygoscelis asked why the creator has such a vested interest in our capacity to worship and acknowledge him. You cannot very well answer and say it is because our eternity is on the line because it is not a necessary symptom in this case. God, allegedly being interested in our perspective of him created or allowed heaven and hell to exist after deciding he would get involved.

So the logical question is why is God so interested in whether or not we obey him or not so much so that he invokes an afterlife based on our success or not?

The parents of a rebellious child would consider the child to be in need of punishment for not acknowledging their existence and further going against the rules set by them.

Similar thing, in principle, with God.

What a horrendous parody parenthood and pathetic justification of atrocity. What parents do you know that threaten their children with torment for not obeying commands? What parents do you know that demand unquestionable obedience and persistent recognition of their neverending authority for the duration of your childhood, or even (keeping with the 'God' comparison) your entire life? God represents the father that is never going to leave. Never going to stop watching, judging and making demands of you in life. Is that how you want to represent parenthood?

If God really had self esteem issues, he would use his power to literally force us to be in a constant state of worship. Yet we have been given freewill to deny worship.

But that would be an automation, wouldn't it. If God is interested in being recognised, and so virulently then it could not be satisfied through programming us into submission. It could only be determined by him attempting to convince others to observe him. At any rate, why is it then that failure to believe and worship God commands such a tortorous and malevolent punishment?

Indeed, I suggest you keep this in mind as it is as true to me as it is to others. I do not believe in a God not because of some spiteful disobedience, or as some arrogant belief that I do not need to - but simply do not believe in a deity entirely because I am not convinced. I simply do not believe it likely that a divine being exists. I do go so far as to state that I actually cannot believe in a God until specific evidence or logical argument has been presented sufficiently. Are you to say that my sincerity born from my free-will that God decreed I should have would be my downfall? It would be my confession towards my punishment? How can you defend the concept of someone that would punish people entirely for getting their information wrong?

I think you struggle to understand that there is no such thing as morality independent of God. Nothing can exist independent of God. All that we know and understand have been created by him, including what we judge as being moral.

This, of course is what you believe. I should ask you what precisely this means here as far as you are concerned as with the greatest respect, it comes across as rhetoric to me.