Are These Acts of Idolatry?

Andrew Eby wrote: Man you guys are still bickering about this subject!! This is what religion does, cause a belief so strong that we are willing to die for. Plain and simple TRUTH. The Bible was created by CHARLEMAGNE. Before that the BIBLE the KING JAMES version ALL the so called Christians and followers of Christ go by and all the different versions NIV, NKJ, all these RE-written versions that the BIBLE clearly states not to RE WRITE. Look up KING JAMES and who he was!! He was a tyrant, queer, was believed to have sex with animals, loved torture And made the BIBLE in HIS name to DENY the GENEVA version. He believed a king should have the divine right by his mom who was an adulterer, pretty much slut in modern day terms. Islam clearly states not to bow down before any other GOD. In a sense everyone who is religious in these days are following wrong teachings. All of our beliefs are connected and until the day we come together and find the TRUTH, you two will still be having this st**id argument calling people *****s and *****s. I could do the same but that's not my mission. My mission is to open your eyes to the facts if history.

First of all, who is talking about the Bible?  This thread is about whether the pictures shown in the first post are evidence of idolatry. 

Second, where did you get the idea that Charlemagne created the Bible?!  Charlemagne was born in the 8th century CE.  The Bible, even though it has been edited and corrupted many times, did exist before then.  The historical proof contradicts your claim.  The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest manuscripts of the Bible, and they date to the 4th century CE. 

Third, you are complaining about "bickering" and "argument".  When people have different views, there is going to be "bickering" and "arguments".  That is part of the problem!  Of course, if everyone believed the same thing, then we would not be arguing in the first place, but people don't believe the same thing.  That is why we "bicker", in an attempt to make the other person see the truth.  The problem is that people simply choose not to accept the truth.  But it is hoped that through the "bickering", perhaps someone will accept the facts, even if it is not the person you are bickering with.       

Sorry but the Sumerian texts is the oldest texts on this planet, they had it right!! All the great leaders and martyrs and all that they taught will be nothing if we don't come together and find out the TRUTH about our PAST!!! You guys sit here and bicker like two children when the majority of the planet refuses to accept the facts and TRUTH about what went on in the past!! So the mere fact that you two have continued this for this long shows me that this process will take longer than it should. Look up city of DWARKA, PUMU PUNKU, check out the FACTS that our ANCIENT SOCIETY LEFT US.

Ron Webb wrote: Not me personally.  I'm not actually a sentimental type.  But I know lots of people who are, and I could easily imagine them talking to a picture when no one is around. An better example would be how people treat the dead.  I've seen lots of graves that look like shrines.  Some even have pictures of the deceased.  Relatives visit regularly, bring flowers and other gifts, have "conversations" with the dead, etc.  These people know perfectly well that their loved ones are departed and only the corpse or the ashes are buried there.  It's all symbolism.  But it comforts them to do these things.

This is again an absurd comparison.  Praying to a statue is completely different from "talking" to a loved one at their grave.  First of all, for people who believe in the afterlife, a loved one who has passed on is not just a "corpse" or "ashes", because the soul still exists.  So, conversing with the departed makes sense in the regard.  In fact, it is stated in a hadith that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would greet the "inmates of the graves" and pray to Allah that they be granted safety and forgiveness (of course, there is nothing in the Islamic sources about being able to have actual "conversation" with the dead).  Now, of course, there are some people who take graves as literal "shrines" and even pray to the dead person.  This is also idolatry.  Some extremist Sufi sects practice this as well.  This is all shirk and a grave sin.

Ron Webb wrote: No, not correct at all.  No more correct than suggesting that because my wife is physically present on earth, then a picture of her is not necessary.

         

How do you know?  Do you think there were statues of Mary when she was still alive (assuming people actually prayed to her)?  What about Jesus?  Obviously, if Mary was physically present, for example, in front of the Pope, he would not need a statue to pray to her.  He could just tell her what he wanted! 

Ron Webb wrote: No, prayers are still being made to Mary, not to a physical object.  If I call my wife on the phone, I'm still talking to my wife, even though my voice is being directed to a physical device.

Is Mary, or any other person, not a "physical object"?  

Ron Webb wrote: Of course it is.  They obviously can't do those things to the "real" god, so they do it symbolically.

  

Are you kidding?  If it was all "symbolic", then there would be no need to use music to "wake up" the idol (and yes, it is the idol that is being literally "woken" up).  There would also be no need to "bathe" the idol (and yes, it is the idol that is literally being "bathed").  This is all literal, not symbolic.  Your special pleading will get you no where.   

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, as in the so-called "milk miracle", for instance.  You believe it was demons acting through the idols.  The Hindus believed it was the gods themselves.  Just as if Muhammad "split the moon", it would actually be Allah acting through Muhammad, not Muhammad himself performing the miracle.

And you believe it was either capillary action, evaporation, mass hysteria, observational error etc., and yet after being confronted with the facts, you have avoided further discussion! 

Ron Webb wrote: Do you even know what "humanism" is?

Yes, I know what "humanism" is and I also know that atheistic apologists are embarrassed at the fact that fellow atheists have committed monstrous acts of violence (despite their insistence to the contrary), so they use the word "humanism" instead, because it sounds so much better. 

The reality is that using different words does not change the fact that atheists are a bunch of clowns who try to whitewash history. 

By the way, do you even know what "Islam" is?  I think not! 

Ron Webb wrote: I wouldn't ask for proof of a hypothetical.  I said I'd like to see you make the case for it.  It's interesting that your response was that the world would not be very different.  So you agree that "the religion of peace" has not not brought peace to the world?

No, you ninny, that's not what I said.  I said that even if Islam did not exist, the world would still be a violent place.  People are the problem, not some ideology or religion.  So even if Islam did not exist, the problems in the Middle East (for example) would still exist.  Conversely, if people actually followed the tenets of Islam, then the world would be a much better place. 

In fact, I would actually say that if Islam did not exist, the world would be a much worse place, because then there would not be the moral compass of Islamic tenets to persuade people to avoid sinful behavior, such as violence against the innocent.  Islam abolished savage acts like female infanticide, tribal war etc.  It also jump-started the European Renaissance.  If it did not exist, then it is unlikely that the Renaissance would have ever occurred.  At the very least, the Renaissance would have been delayed for hundreds of years.

Ron Webb wrote: There has been a state of almost continuous tension between Christianity and Islam ever since the beginning, with innumerable wars and incalculable bloodshed.  Are you sure this isn't something that Satan would have wanted to bring about?

There you go again with your clownish statements.  Satan could just as easily have caused "continuous tension" by spreading the pagan religion instead, wouldn't you say?  After all, the Christians weren't exactly known for their tolerance of other religions and as we have seen, polytheists have also been know for their intolerance! 

And yet, with the spread of Islam, many once oppressed communities (including Christians themselves) were given much more freedom than they previously had.  Even Christians themselves admit this!  For example, author David Bercot has observed:
 
"Sadly to say, when the Muslim armies invaded Egypt in 639, most Christians in Egypt welcomed them as liberators, for they fared better at the hands of the Muslims than they did at the hands of their fellow Christians." ("Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today�s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity� p. 123")

Also, i-d-i-o-t-s like you tend to ignore the fact (or are completely oblivious to the fact) that in many cases, Muslim and Christian leaders showed mutual respect to each other and did not have "continuous tension" between them.  For example, the Abbasid caliph Harun Al-Rashid had friendly relations with Charlemagne and each would send gifts to the other.

I hardly think that all of this was part of Satan's plan!   

Ron Webb wrote: Thanks, I'll see if I can track it down at my local library.  Meanwhile, I have enough reading just trying to get through your posts.

Oh, you're making me cry!  

If you are at all interested in learning about Islam, free of all your m-o-r-o-n-i-c prejudices, then you should be much more enthusiastic at all the "reading" you have to do.  But, I know that you are just another Islamophobe living in his fantasy world, so I frankly doubt that you are interested in really learning anything.  I have suggested a few books already for you to read.  Will you actually read them?  Time will tell, but I doubt that you will. 


Edited by islamispeace - 17 August 2014 at 12:28pm

Equation for reality or the truth as I would say.

Cp-p=r>p
Cp- common properties/ commonalities of all of life
P-probability (false)
R- reality (true)

Reality has to be greater than probability. Basic understanding of TRUTH is that you have to acknowledge that there is truth in false and false in truth. Until the day the TRUTH is fully revealed by our governments and leaders of the Catholic Church