This is a question for Christians, Jews and believers in any other deity:
A. What do you think about the possible existence of other gods? They’re figments of believers’ imaginations, they must exist, or something in between?
B. To what do you attribute the of wording of the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” - was this in your opinion something God actually communicated or something added by the scribe?
You may find what you’re looking for in this thread:
First commandment - suggestion of polytheism?
My answer to your first question would depend on what you mean by “gods.” As I said in that thread,
It’s pretty clear that other gods of that sort do exist.
God, by my definition, has to be one. If there were more than one, it would have to be like ants. Somehow many but, at the same time, the same. All the “gods” that religions have are different angles, views and perceptions of that same one God.
Just a reminder to not lose focus by worrying about other things. No idea is it was God saying it or the author, but the message holds the same (just as the rest of the whole thing)
A. Christianity as I understand it and practice it is a firmly monotheistic religion. I affirmatively deny the existence of any other god but God.
B. I presume that all the commandments are from God, not added by scribes. If I admit of additions by men, then all of the commandments, and every part of them, are suspect. I interpret “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” to mean that as Christians, we should not worship any other gods but God. It acknowledges the existence of the concept of other gods, but does not grant them status as actual gods, because there is only one.
I would also point out that the first two commandments, taken together, are frequently read to support this view. Cf: You shall not have any God before me. You shall not make any graven image of anything in heaven or earth or water (all elements created by God, nothing that is independent of God or independently “god”); you should not make graven images or worship them (the “them” therefore being things in heaven or earth or water, all things within God’s creation, all things that are therefore not “god”).
I think I’m going to have to move this from IMHO to GD.
A. I affirmatively deny (thanks Jodi) the existence of any other Gods (than
G-d). However, I acknowledge that the concept of other gods/types of god exists. I also believe that the G-d of Judaism is substantially the same god as in Christianity (though I obviously disagree on the specifics!) and Islam and, though I don’t know much about it, possibly Hinduism (which is sometimes spoken of as monotheistic with god of many ‘avatars’).
B. I believe that this commandment makes sense in the polytheistic, religiously ‘competitive’ environment surrounding ancient Israel (particularly of concern was ‘Ba’al’ the god of some neighbouring tribes). Allegorical interpretation of ‘god’ as non-god thing treated as god is an excellent reinterpretation that accomplishes the same thing for an age in which there are not many competing polytheistic religions.
There is only one true God, but there are many false gods. Many of these false gods are demonic supernatural beings, and do give this false gods power to act like a ‘god’ should, though this power is far less then the true God.
Absolutely from God, God does not want His children to worship demons.
What do you think is meant by graven image?
I (often) believe in the existence of one Divine Energy that is so massively complex, containing everything and nothing, that we’d can’t begin to comprehend It in It’s totality. Therefore we (people) break up the Whole into little bits and pieces that can be comprehended. Different names, personalities, rules, etc. I believe we people have the unconscious ability to “create” new gods by focusing on a different set of attributes and creating stories around them. I think that when enough people concentrate and will that into being, another god-form is created. I think that some god-forms, some names and stories, are best understood by different cultures at different times, or different individuals, or even the same individual at different times in her life and spiritual development.
I believe the passage was written by men (and perhaps women) and then translated from one language to another, with the inherent problems translations always bring. But since it works so well with my world view, I choose to take this commandment as meaning that there were other gods of equivalent stature and role of the God of Abraham, but that this particular god laid claim to those people with those words (or that they dedicated themselves to Him with those words - I’m not sure which way I think the intent went). I don’t believe the commandment applies to me, as I am not a descendant of Abraham’s people.
Going only by the English (because I don’t know the original language, much less anything it’s been filtered through), it seems pretty unambiguous: graven means carved, image means a likeness of; a prohibition against making graven images means you’re not allowed to make a carved likeness of anything. I actually have never heard the mental gymnastics that Christians go through to convince themselves that their Crucifixes, statues of Mary and butter lambs aren’t all violating that commandment.
I believe their is a spiritual realm, and a variety of spiritual beings in addition to God. Inherently most of what exists in the spirit realm is beyond what an ordinary human can understand, and can only be partially understood through simplification and metaphor. Some beings may be called “gods” or “goddesses” in such a simplification; they may share lesser versions of the same powers that God has, but none can equal or exceed the power of God.
I think God meant it literally–no worshiping beings other than God.
Although the Bible does seem to describe powerful spiritual beings distinct from God and desirous of human attention, it’s also worth noting that just talking about ‘other gods’ doesn’t necessarily mean that in every case; consider Isaiah 44:
-It’s pretty clearly describing an idol with no actual spiritual power or being, yet the term ‘god’ is still used to describe it - I would therefore say ‘making a god’ is about investing importance in something - and could therefore be applied to any object, living or inanimate, spiritual or mundane, real or imaginary.
Quite a few OT stories, such as the one about Elijah and the priests of Baal, make it clear that God exists and sometimes made his existence clear by works of wonder such as igniting a dripping-wet sacrificial pyre, while the objects of other peoples’ religions were constructs of their own imagination and had no power.
Here’s a mental gymnastic for you: Christians do not believe that their God resides in such an image, but only use it as a prop through which they can focus their attention on God in His infinite majesty. The heathen in his blindness may bow down to wood and stone, believing that the object he has made with the work of his own hands actually is his god, but no Christian actually believes that Jesus is the sculpted image on the crucifix worn around his neck - the image is only a reminder of Him Who sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
But because of Him of Whom the image is a reminder, it is very right and fitting to treat even the image with reverence - just as, for instance (AIUI), the Spanish do not lick their postage stamps on account of the gross disrepect to their King implied by putting his likeness in their mouths. It is not to imply that the image itself is the Person Who is depicted thereby, but to be aware that to disrepect the image today might lead to disrespect of the Person tomorrow.
See, that to me is the difference between “God-capital-G” and “a god”.
God is Almighty. A god is not.
God is All-creator. A god is not.
God has to be one. “Encarnations of ideas,” “values,” “things you strive for,” you can have tons (the first option is pretty much what the Greek and Roman gods where, and the vibe I get from many other polytheistic religions, but I’m not a theologian).
That thing about Spanish stamps is complete UL. Heck, you rarely even see a stamp with Juan Carlos on it, it’s usually some other pic. People who use lots of stamps don’t lick stamps because they have a little wet sponge that doesn’t feel icky after wetting several stamps - those of us who don’t have a little sponge lick stamps just fine and go “ewww” if we’ve licked more than a couple.
Oh, I don’t think that’s very gymnastic at all. Maybe there’s a teensy handspring backflip in there, but it’s only in thinking that we heathens can’t work out the same rationalization as a Christian. I don’t literally believe that the hunk of resin and paint I bought for $14.99 at the mall is actually the Egyptian goddess Isis. As you say they say, it merely serves as something for me to look at and focus my intent on, as well as containing subtle cues that align my subconscious into a particular frame of mind. I’ll treat the hunk of resin with respect, because I’ve made it Sacred, but it’s not itself any more Divine than anything or anyone else.
But the part I don’t understand isn’t about the worshiping of or in front of graven images - it’s the making them part. It just seems so very clear: “(8)You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;”
See the semicolon? Means that side of the sentence stands on its own merits. The prohibition against worshiping graven idols, which comes next: “(9)you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” is in addition to, not instead of, *making *said graven images
So in addition to the religious symbols I’ve already mentioned, a stone bird, a statue of a fish or statues of revolutionary war heroes should all be anathema. That’s the gymnastics I’ve never heard explained. They all seem to skip over that first part and jump right to the worship issue.
The commandment is a ban on portraiture but on such art to bow down/show reverence to it. As such, I am uneasy about “iconodulia”, which I have participated in as a former Blue Army of Fatima member. Biblical Jews had images of the Cherubim in the Temple but those images were not revered. They technically could have made images of the Shekinah Glory of YHWH all day long BUT they could not have shown reverence to this. The image of the Bronze Serpent (Seraphim?) was commanded by God, but later destroyed when it became an object of veneration. In their practice of a “fence around the Law”, the Jewish authorities discouraged all such depictive art.
Believe me, there was a big theological row in the Church about it which was finally settled by the Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD
Basically, the Christian (Cathlic & Orthodox) defenses of venerating objects-
the Incarnation of God as Jesus gave us a valid material image of God,
icons are images of real Godly spiritual beings (the Trinity, angels & saints)
and not of false gods, and Malacandra’s explanation.
There are some extreme iconoclasts in Reformed circles today who even condemn Bible story books with pictures of Jesus. I think there is even a Reformed publishing company that caters to them.
While I do see the dilemna, btw, about Crucifixes & Mary-images, I’m not aware of any veneration of “butter lambs”.
My apologies for choosing three obviously religious images for my first examples; it only served to muddy the waters by putting the focus on the worship angle. As I replied above, a reading of the commandment seems to indicate that any graven image, worshiped or not, is prohibited by your God.
A. I believe that an omnipotent God could and would reveal Himself to different cultures in ways that each culture could best understand. I don’t think that belief in the God of Christianity precludes the possibiity that the gods of say the Polynesians are but a different manifestation of the same God.
B. I think it was given to Moses as stated. But I wouldn’t interpret that as invalidating other religions, it was for that people at the time that the commandment was directed.
A. I am Roman Catholic. I believe that “God” is “the One God”, the Creator, Supreme Authority over all of Creation. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of other gods. Whether they are truly “gods”, or whether they are something “else”, I have no idea. For example, I personally have no problem with the idea that God allowed dominion over the seas to some divine being, who made himself known to men as Poseidon, Triton, and a host of other names.
B. Considering that those words were not written down (on paper, that is), until quite some time after the event, and that they have since been copied, recopied, translated, and retranslated god-knows how many times, I don’t think anyone can say whether or not god actually used those words; however, I interpret that passage to mean exactly what it says. We are not to place any other god ahead of God. Short, simple, and to the point.
Well, I’d take the second quoted verse as continuing the subject of the first one, explaining why you’re not to make these things and what they’re not to be used for. I doubt the semicolon was there in the original - indeed, I’d stake next month’s beer money that it wasn’t - and as to its meaning in the translation you cite, I’d interpret it as some style guide I read once; it might have been Fowler, or Gowers’s Complete Plain Words; that the semicolon just brings to an end of the list of things that you must not make to use as worship objects. (A bit like how I just used semicolons in that last sentence.)
For myself, I have small use for icons of any kind. I don’t even wear a plain cross, let alone one “with the little man on it”, I don’t have a cross in the house, and I’m as happy to pray in an empty room as anywhere else. But I’m happy to accommodate other people’s sensibilities; and I don’t feel out of place in a cathedral full of bells and smells; still less do I feel the need to cry “Idolatry!” on those who find them comforting.
You’re depending on English grammar rules pertaining to one semicolon in a 20th Century English translation of thousands-of-years-old text from another language and think that’s relevant or definitive? It’s not.