I do not understand the intent of the artist or the object itself to constitute idolatry, but instead believe that idolatry reflects one’s relationship to an object.
So, you believe that the makers of idols, who are artists, were not intentionally carving, sculpting, or painting actual likenesses of the "god's" of their imagination which they expressed in artistic form. Instead, those who purchased these "images" made them into idols and thus something never intended by the artists??? I have ocean side property in Montana for sale, are you interested???:thumbs:
So now, you are going to have to back pedal and admit that the artists in Biblical times did have that intent, but you think artists in modern times don't have that intent. It must be wonderful to be able to read the minds of artists and tell everyone else what what their thoughts and intentions were at the time of their artistic expressions???
In the Old Testament God ordered the idols destroyed as they were a constant temptation to His people (another lesson in itself).
So with one swipe of your keyboard you simply ignore the fact that when God spoke of them ABSTRACTLY he did not call them "images" as your interpretation demands but called them "idols" and "molten gods"???? Convenient! So God did not destroy them because he recognized them as "idols" and "molten gods" due to both intent behind their design and use, but only destroyed them because they were a "constant temptation to his people"??? So how did that deal with the problem which you claim was INTERNAL only in the first place as the external "images" were NEVER anything but the INTERNAL was what made them "idols"?????
To go beyond this would be, for me, attributing supernatural qualities to the object itself. I view it as superstition.
Apparently, Paul must be supersititious then as he told the Corinthians that "demons" were associated with the images (1 Cor. 10), just as he told Timothy that "demons" were associated with all false "doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:1).
They were told not to go up to a certain geographical place where people were offering up food to these idols because they would be in communion with demons for just attending WHEN THEIR HEARTS HAD NO ASSOCIATION WITH THESE IDOLS but recognized them as NO GODS at all. Indeed, the boast of these Corinthians about the superior KNOWLEDGE they possessed in regard to these "images" is exactly the same KNOWLEDGE you are claiming about these "images." You too believe they are no gods, but just "images" and so you too are claiming NO INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP with these images. However, Paul associated a direct relationship with these "images" to demons, just as he associated a direct relationship with false doctrine to demons. He ordered them not to sit at the tables where food was being offered to these idols because of a DEMONIC PRESENCE with these idols.
I conceded that this was inconsistent of me and went along with your remark. I was trying to be charitable, not inconsistent.
Wow! Talk about double talk, wow! You "conceded that this was inconsistent of me" but in reality it was "not inconsistent" but you were simply trying to be charitable?????????? Is that a fancy way to say YOU LIED?
I was speaking of idols in the sense that they were at one time worshipped.
I see, you can call them "idols" not because the archeologists were using them to worship, but because once upon a time that was their use, while you deny that was the intent of the ancient artist as well??? I think if you carefully considered what the scriptures say about the artists that provided these "images" it would clearly indicate they DESIGNED them for that very use and thus the "images" were idols from the INTERNAL CONCEPTION in the mind of the artist as much as when they were actually put to that use by others. Of course, you dismiss that HEART IDOLALTRY within the artist and merely ascribe it to artistic expression not to any kind of attempt by the Artist to actually present an "image" (likeness) of a god. So with your mumbo jumbo mental gymnastics the artistic image of a god is not really meant to express an "image" (likeness) of the god?????????:BangHead:
Actual idols (those which constitute idolatry) are, in my view, anything that man prioritizes in his or her own life in the place of God. It may be a picture of Jesus. It may be a cross. It may be a wife, child, car…this is my understanding of idols and idolatry. As I stated before, we disagree.
Of course I agree with this PARTIAL definition of idolatry. However, what you fail to see is that the HEART of the artist is intentionally expressing a MENTAL image into a visible IMAGE of the god in question, and a "image" is by definition a "LIKENESS" of the god. So for you to say that the artist is not really trying express any kind of LIKENESS of a god is like saying "image" does not mean "image." Now that is real double talk!
The point is that what I am talking about is not what you are trying to turn the conversation unto. I am talking about the intent of an artist to produce an "image" of something that others will acknowledge to be a "god" rather than merely ANYTHING that might be exalted in the heart to take the position of God. The intent of the artist is BOTH. He knows what he is fashioning will not only be an intentionally fashioning of what others will recognize and call "a god" but that they will also put in the position of "a god." Therefore, the artist's conception is the revelation of what his own mind conceives to be THE LIKENESS of the god he is fashioning.
Likewise with the artistic expressions of Jesus. They are making visible what is their own MENTAL CONCEPTION of Christ, who is God, and that is why one artistic expression differs from another. They also intentionally realize in doing this they are providing an "image" of God for what others will also acknowledge to be a visible expression of Christ, who is God. Hence, from the imagination of the Artist to the acknowledgement of the viewers it is the SIN of making an image of God that limits and thus perverts God in the minds of both the artists and those who acknowledge the intent of the artists to express a visbile "image" (likeness) of God.
You believe my understanding unbiblical and I believe yours superstitious by attributing a quality to inanimate objects that could be seen as idolatry in a different light. We simply find ourselves at odds on this issue.
You are trying to take the point of contention and immerse it within generalties, while I am dealing with one specific issue and that is the intent to provide a visible likeness of God or "a god" to an audience who shares the same conclusion, of which, the Scriptures clearly deny and condemn as a perversion of the God of the Bible.