What Idolatry Isn't

Forgive me did I miss something here? I read this article and it was about idolatry not homosexuality. Thanks for the insight as to the matter as I think many have maybe misunderstood it. I for one. As for the young man I pray that he will seek deliverance from the spirit of perversion. We have so watered down the Gospel, and I think we are in great danger if we do not confront the problems we see plaguing our world. I did not say it Jesus was clear about it. Deliverance is real and it too has not been discussed in most mainstream churches. I am not passing a cruel judgment on this young man. As I have been there, and done that. I am only saying there is hope and he can get turned around. It is unnatural and it is a spirit.

To freelunch,

"So, you don't accept the general scientific consensus that same sex attraction is primarily innate. What evidence do you have to support your claim?"
Knowing the accuracy of Gods warnings, it is clear that if a people or nation turn from Him, He eventually gives them over to the lifestyle they want. In Romans Ch.1, verses 18 onwards it is clear that certain lifestyles are the punishment. We are to hate the sin but care about the person.
As Kathleen said "is any wonder that gay and lesbian youth have a higher suicide rate?" We do care for their safety and prosperity, and many have changed their ways, and even married and raised a family, isn't that what life is about?

"The Gospel is about redemption. Watering it down would imply that you are making exceptions about redemption for those sins that you don't want God to forgive."

God states what He will not accept or accept, the rest are "thrown in the rubbish" to put it mildly. We don't want that for anyone.

"Don't you think that intolerance from much of the religious community and others who do not understand those who are attracted to the same sex is a major cause of the problems that they have? "

I think the lack of good guidance is the problem, often boys brought up without a fathers guidance, or left to find their own standards.

And now for something actually on topic: Interesting post. As a Catholic, I have no problem with the traditional Catholic/Eastern Orthodox view that icons, statues, etc. serve the purpose of helping direct one's devotion towards God or through the saints to God. This tendency can be overdone to the point of superstition or true idolatry, of course, but in principal it is not in itself idolatrous. The general Catholic/Orthodox teaching is that the prohibition on images in the Old Testament was necessary in order to get people to understand that God is transcendent and not anthropomorphic. Then, when God indeed became man in Christ, joining the divine to the human, it was possible to reinstitute images on a higher plane of understanding.

What is fascinating about it from the Jewish perspective is the seeming contradiction. The Ten Commandments clearly forbid the making of "an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" (Exodus 20:4, NIV), and the Israelites are directed to smash the idols of the Canaanites when they enter the Promised Land. However, the Ark of the Covenant, above which the Presence of God Himself dwells, is capped with images of cherubim (which probably looked much like Assyro-Babylonian shedus, that is, human-headed winged bulls). Moreover, when the Temple is constructed, it is chock full of images: the bulls holding the brazen sea, the cherubim in the inner sanctum where the Ark rested, and the motifs of cherubim and flowers all around the interior. No wonder the protomartyr Stephen, in his speech before being stoned, implies that the Temple itself was indeed (or had become) an idol (Acts 44-53)!

I think it depends on the situation. The Romans and Greeks had pretty much the same idea towards images as Catholics and Orthodox do today. They never believed that the statues were actually "gods"; they merely served as a focus for devotion to humans who think in terms of the senses. The philosophers, as far back as Xenophanes (about the 5th century BC or so) were clear that God has no physical form and that the multiplicity of gods, goddesses, and images was for the benefit of the less intellectual and philosophical. All the philosophers were more or less monotheistic. However, they had no problem with devotions before images to the extent that it focused the devotion of the worshipers. Likewise, in a modern context, praying before an icon, showing reverence (such as crossing oneself), lighting candles before it, or having a May crowning of a statue of Mary are all harmless and even beneficial to the extent that such devotions increase ones faith, focus one's prayers, and help one to come closer to God through reverence of His saints.

I think that in principle the placing of prayers in the Kotel or visiting or sending written prayers to an ohel (tomb of a tzaddik), such as that of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, are similar practices. Ditto the veneration of saints' tombs in some forms of Islam, particularly Shi'ite.

On the other hand, the Ancient Egyptians (at some times, anyway) and some branches of Hinduism have statues of the gods which are "awakened" at the beginning of the day, washed and dressed, attended by priests, "fed" by offerings of food, sung to, and "put to bed" at night. This, to me, is an example of symbolism gone way too far, and would be something I'd consider to be true idolatry.

Thus, I think it's a matter of motivation and balance. If a practice deepens one's faith and brings one closer to God, then it is doing what it should. If God gets crowded out and the practice becomes a quasi-magical or superstitious end in itself, then you're sliding into idolatry. Even normative parts of faith, in this sense, can be idolatrous. A too-literal reading of Scripture can be idolatrous (or bibliolatrous); viewing sacraments or specific prayers in a magical or superstitious manner can be idolatrous; focusing too much on observance to the exclusion of content and meaning can be idolatrous. One always has to be aware of one's motivations. I think this is the point of such passages as this in Psalm 51:16-17: "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (NIV)

Heretic_for_Christ: To hold ANY scripture as sacred is to flirt with bibliolatry.

To some extent, I agree, as I've pointed out.

We CAN learn from sacred scripture; but then, intelligent people can learn from any source of ideas and information.

Of course, we can make an idol of any source of information. Yes, scriptures can become idols; but so can human understanding, personal opinion, "revelation" that individuals may claim to receive, etc. My take is that any scared scripture is something that has stood the test of time in speaking to many, many people over the centuries, and that this puts some corrective mechanisms in place, if done right; but that's me. In any case, any mode in which we may claim to know God or His will can potentially be an idol. Rejecting pat or facile interpretations of texts or organized religion in general doesn't get one off the hook.