Christian attending a Hindu wedding?
Tim O'Neal
Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
people writing me back.
Thank you for your input,
TimBo'
--
Disclaimer:
----------
My company doesn't even know that I exist, let alone share
my ideas! :-p
Silverhoof
If the wedding is of a close friend of yours, I think you should go. We
are to be separate from, not isolated from the world, and as long as you
do nothing that would damage your testimony, it doesn't matter where you
go. As far as the fact that they worship idols goes, according to the
Bible, ANYTHING that a person loves more than God is an idol. Sad to say,
many Christians worship idols - a car, a house, a loved one, etc. But
pray about it, and if you really don't feel comfortable, you must do what
YOU feel is right.
In Christ's love,
Silverhoof
Michael Grello
In article <4racdu$6...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Tim O'Neal <on...@poppy.com> writes:
|> Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
|> Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
|> because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
|> say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
|> people writing me back.
|>
that with "So, what are you going to wear?" You were invited
to this wedding by a friend or acquantance? Would it not be
arrogant to turn it down? Did not the Pharisees critisize the
company that Jesus kept? So, if Jesus, who is God, can reach
out in fellowship, then why not you? Further, I suggest that
these people do not, in fact worship idols, or demons or any
of that other clap trap that you may have heard. The issue
is more akin to them speaking another language, religion wise.
They perceive eternity from a different angle (this is NOT an
appeal for all christians to convert to Hinduism, they would
be better served in discovering the fine points in their own
faith). All of us are valued creations of God, and if we
christians live the life that Jesus commanded, with all that
love and compassion, and non-judgementalism, then people will
want what we have. After the big eathquake in japan last year,
alot of people were impressed by the heart of compassion that
the christian churches had. No words, no critisizing, no judging,
just love.
hug a commie for Christ,
Mike <--- the last Jesus freak
voice of the religious LEFT
http://www.scsn.net/users/mgrello/
e-mail:mgr...@scsn.net
Jack Fletcher
In article <4racdu$6...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, on...@poppy.com says...
>
>Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
>Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
>because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
>say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
>people writing me back.
........look who Christ ate with and spent time with.....prostitutes/tax
collectors/the outcasts of the day.........would he have gone to the wedding
of friends who were non-believers? My bet is that he would have....
---
[I think we need a few more facts. I can think of several levels
of problem, in order of increasing severity:
1) the participants are Hindus
2) the wedding is going to occur in a building or room where idols
are present
3) the wedding is going to be a religious service that involves
worship of something other than God
I think your argument might hold for 1. I doubt it would hold for 3.
--clh]
Donna Lindner
Tim O'Neal (on...@poppy.com) wrote:
: Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
: Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
: because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
: say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
: people writing me back.
: Thank you for your input,
: TimBo'
: --
: Disclaimer:
: ----------
: My company doesn't even know that I exist, let alone share
: my ideas! :-p
If these people are your friends and you care about them then why wouldn't
you attend one of the happiest celebrations in their lives? Is there a
command somewhere that says not to associate with people who aren't like us?
Are you planning on worshipping their idols while at the wedding? We are
the salt and light of this world. We need to show people we are like
them. We are all people, we all have weddings. We all celebrate life.
LIfe is from God. Marriage is from God. Just my 2 cents.
Donna
Sharon Mech
Donna Lindner wrote:
>
> Tim O'Neal (on...@poppy.com) wrote:
> : Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
> : Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
> : because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
> : say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
> : people writing me back.
>
Several years ago my husband and I had the opportunity to attend the
wedding of one of my grad-school classmates. It was a fascinating
contrast to the "usual" American set-piece white-gown-and-tuxedo
wedding.
I don't know how things are elsewhere, but at the wedding we attended,
just about nobody paid much attention to the ceremony itself, as
it was in Sanskrit, the priest mumbled, and the origin of many of its
parts are obscure. The Indians mostly sat on the floor (in the most
GORGEOUS silk saris I have ever seen) and had a marvelous time chatting.
Most of the Americans sat uncomfortably on folding chairs, trying to
figure out what was going on. We sat on the floor & got the occasional
play-by-play when something of significance took place, and got
acquainted the rest of the time.
Most of these folks were academics and professionals. Most also did not
put a lot of effort/energy into the practice of their religion. Many
were "cultural" Hindus rather than "devout" if you will permit the
distinction. (This is not to say that most or all Hindus fall into this
category!)
There were various little alcoves within the temple with statuary &
offerings, and they were not used or acknowledged at all in the time we
were there.
As an Orthodox christian, I am secure enough in my faith to feel free to
attend the wedding of a friend. We were not participants, as we would
have been in, say, a service which involved Communion; we were guests,
spectators, witnesses, or whatever you want to call it. We were there
out of love for a friend. I don't see a big problem.
If this is the wedding of a friend, go, enjoy, just remember who YOU
are, and that Jesus Christ loves (and died for) Hindus too. Who knows
when you'll have another chance like this?
Oh - one other thing - be prepared to take off your shoes. (What a plus!
an opportunity to go to a wedding without thinking about how much your
shoes hurt!)
And if you get the chance, sit on the floor with the folks. You'll have
a much better time.
Cheers,
Sharon Mech
Cantor, soprano & sinner
sha...@cmhcsys.com
Gary R. Hipp
Go ahead and "GO". You will find a great number of people to share the
gospel with.
> Tim O'Neal <on...@poppy.com> wrote in article
<4racdu$6...@geneva.rutgers.edu>...
ke...@worldnet.att.net
> Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
> Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
> because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
> say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
> people writing me back.
>
This reminds me of the dilemmas forced on Roman Catholics
when I was a child in the 1940s and 50s.
We were not supposed to attend non-Catholic
worship services and were instructed this was a sin. This
in the eyes of many priests included even attending a wedding,
and even those who did not hold that extreme a view felt that
to participate in the ceremony as a witness, i.e. best man, etc.
was an absolute no-no.
Of course our diocese had the stricter rules and the more
conservative bishop; the next village, six miles away, was
in another diocese with a more "liberal" bishop who did not
attempt to enforce such draconian discipline.
Of course nowadays that's bygone hokum, and good riddence!
We celebrate the joys of our friends -- their marriages and
births, and share their sorrows with human compassion and
not with an eye out for some made-made orthodoxy meter.
I would assume these people are your friends. Be grateful
for the chance to be with them and wish them well. And if
there is an "idol" or two around and some incense...what's
that to you? Do you find that prospect tempting?
You seem to already be idolizing your scruples so you will
be safe from the boogie man :-)
Jack Carroll
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <4racdu$6...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Tim O'Neal <on...@poppy.com> writes:
> Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
> Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
> because these people worship idols.
Can't see anything wrong with your going, as an observer, not as a participant.
This might mean not just blending in by following the actions of those who
appear to know what they are supposed to do when; you might want to find out
what actions by the guests are considered ritual acts of worship, and avoid
those acts. Or you might want to just sit (or stand) quietly at the rear.
I would discuss my feelings with the couple, to make sure that they understand
that you want to share this important event in their lives, and that you do not
want to make any unnecessary distraction, but that at the same time you do not
want to inadvertently engage in an act of worship.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Tim O'Neal
> >Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
> >say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
> >people writing me back.
>
> collectors/the outcasts of the day.........would he have gone to the wedding
> of friends who were non-believers? My bet is that he would have....
>
> ---
>
> [I think we need a few more facts. I can think of several levels
> of problem, in order of increasing severity:
>
> 1) the participants are Hindus
Yes the participants are Hindus.
> 2) the wedding is going to occur in a building or room where idols
> are present
It is a Hindu ceremony I'm not sure as to whether their will be any idols
present, per se, but I do know that they have pictures. I don't know if they
will have those around.
> 3) the wedding is going to be a religious service that involves
> worship of something other than God
I strongly believe there is the possibility of praying to their idol. I would
definately NOT pray along with them.
Just to answer some of the other questions.
They are my landlord's sons' (double wedding). I am not too particularly close
to them, but they do live upstairs.
They had a house dedication that I did not attend. I was concerned about eating
food given up to their idol.
To whomever suggested that Hindu's do not worship idols (Michael Grello I
beleive) they in fact do. Have you not seen the four armed gold being that they
pray too?
I understand what you are saying about Pharisees and I have no problem talking
to hookers or criminals or Hindus for that matter. My problem is attending a
ceremony. Look Jesus would speak to murderers, but would not help them to kill;
talk to hookers but not partake of their service.
I hope this better explains my problem.
Thank you all for your help, please keep it coming,
TimBo'
>
> I think your argument might hold for 1. I doubt it would hold for 3.
>
> --clh]
--
Disclaimer:
----------
My company doesn't even know that I exist, let alone share
my ideas! :-p
----
[The obvious suggestion is to talk with them about your concerns.
Personally, I would not want to be in a position where it appeared
that I was participating in or endorsing worship of a false God.
However I also would not want to seem to be unreasonably fussy. A
Christian marriage service is intrinsically religious. The minister
conducting the service (at least in most traditions) invokes God in
the beginning, leads the congregation in prayers, and generally
assumes that he is dealing with a Christian congregation. I'm not
sure I'd refuse to be in the same room with a picture of an idol. I
might even be willing to accept others performing acts of worship.
But if the whole wedding is an act of worship, and the worship seems
to be an intrinsic part of the wedding, I don't think I'd want to
participate. In that case I might suggest that I'd skip the ceremony
itself, but join them for the reception. --clh]
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
Tim O'Neal writes:
>I strongly believe there is the possibility of praying to their idol.
>I woulddefinately NOT pray along with them.
>To whomever suggested that Hindu's do not worship idols [...]
>they in fact do. Have you not seen the four armed gold being that they
>pray to?
I have to agree with the former poster on this--Hindus don't worship
idols. They aren't praying TO the statue of the four-armed gold being,
any more than Christians bowing down before a crucifix are worshipping
a piece of wood inside the church. They're worshipping what the statue
STANDS for.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Michael Grello
In article <4rfnqh$g...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>, on...@deshaw.com (Tim O'Neal) writes:
[stuff cut]
|> To whomever suggested that Hindu's do not worship idols (Michael Grello I
|> beleive) they in fact do. Have you not seen the four armed gold being that they
|> pray too?
I believe this was answered, but, the aren't praying to the statue,
but rather to whom the statue represents. I never said they didn't
own statues, I said they do not worship idols. You know, it's funny,
my wife collects stuff; glass birds crystal dolphins, porcelin whales,
etc. and my brother-in-law is a fundie's fundie; he comes over and
recites bible verses condemning idolotry, and fashion unto youself no
graven images and yada yada yada. And I'm sure he is going to do this
to the worng person (he called across to a tenent on christmas who had
santa in her window "hey get those satanic things out of your window,
idolotry!!!") and they are going to think Jesus is like that, pity. I
can assure you, however, Mr. O'Neal, as a past Budhist, that they do
not worship idols.
|>
|> I understand what you are saying about Pharisees and I have no problem talking
|> to hookers or criminals or Hindus for that matter. My problem is attending a
|> ceremony. Look Jesus would speak to murderers, but would not help them to kill;
|> talk to hookers but not partake of their service.
|>
Jesus went to peoples houses and parties where stuff was going on. He
didn't just talk with them, He hung with them He was know as a friend
of sinners, The Pharissees complained that He and His followers ate
and drank and celebrated. No, He didn't use a prostitute, or kill
anybody, but He was with them without judgement.
when you get there...
hug a Hindu for Christ,
Joel Thomas Ruggaber
Go ahead, but don't make a scene. It's not your day,
it's the bride and groom's. (This is the same rule I
use when attending Christian weddings/funerals/Confirmations/
etc.)
Think of what an honor it is to be invited, not the
issue of idol worshipping.
Tim Lehnerer/From a friend's account
Atheist. MiSTie. Jackie Chan Fan.
Kathy Connor
Just to add my two cents' worth...
I was invited to attend a Buddhist wedding two years ago. I was also
concerned (as you are) since there would be idols there and, I
assumed, some sort of "worship" going on. I asked one of the elders at
the church for his opinion, and he said that if I went as an observer
only (and not a participant), he saw no problem with it. I prayed
about it and decided to go.
The wedding was definitely... different. I refrained from
"participating" in the service itself. (Part of the ceremony involved
substantial amounts of congregational chanting that I could not in
good conscience participate in.) While I certainly didn't make a big
show of it, it was apparent that I was not a part of the service.
Looking back on it, I don't know if I would do it again. I was rather
uncomfortable, for sure, and these were people that I really didn't
know at all (they were friends of my ex-husband). If they had been
good friends of mine, it may have been different.
Timothy B. O'Neal
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> Tim O'Neal writes:
>
> >I strongly believe there is the possibility of praying to their idol.
> >I woulddefinately NOT pray along with them.
> >they in fact do. Have you not seen the four armed gold being that they
>
> I have to agree with the former poster on this--Hindus don't worship
> idols. They aren't praying TO the statue of the four-armed gold being,
> any more than Christians bowing down before a crucifix are worshipping
> a piece of wood inside the church. They're worshipping what the statue
> STANDS for.
>
> Tim O'Keefe
> tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Tim,
Do you know just what it DOES stand for? The people who run the candy
store in my building at work are Hindu. I once asked the woman about
the card she had with one of these idols on it. The answer is vague in
my memory but it had something to the effect that there were many such
idols and this just happened to be just one.
Being a Christian, I'm very particular about whom I pray to. I know
exactly what your talking about when you speak of crosses. I make very
sure to know and realize that the cross and crucifix are just symbols.
I do believe that there are Christians who take it a step further. This
becomes idolatry whether they want to admit it or not.
I welcome anyone with knowledge of the Hindu religion to clarify these
points.
Tim
(Question to the moderator; Does it take a long time to post here
because this group is moderated?)
angela joyce henry
Tim O'Neal (on...@deshaw.com) wrote:
> > >Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
> > >Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
> > >because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
> > >say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
> > >people writing me back.
REPLY:
I know that you would already have read the other replies to your
posting, so I would like to add a couple other points that have not yet
been covered...
(1) You are uncomfortable with the idea of attending the ceremony.
The Word says that if you doubt about something, you sin if you
in fact do it. Romans 14:23 says..."he who doubts is condemned if
he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not
from faith is sin." If your faith is such that you are
absolutely sure that you cannot be harmed in this ceremony, and
if you believe that you could witness to these people by
attending their wedding, then, by all means, go. However, if you
have any doubts at all about eating food offered to idols, etc,
you should not force yourself to go. At the same time, we should
all pray for the kind of faith that would allow us to attend such
ceremonies without fear.
(2) Hindus usually approach their marriage guest list differently
from Christians. In fundamental Hindu weddings, no one can be
turned away. Even if you were not invited, you could show up
there and be made welcome. Hindus, in line with their beliefs,
usually invite not only their close friends, but even mere
acquaintances, and the people who live nearby. You've been
invited to the wedding, but bear in mind that this does not
necessarily mean that you are a cherished friend. Don't get me
wrong... I don't know how close your relationship is to these
people. I'm just saying that if you decide not to go, it's
possible that it won't be taken in the same way as if you had
decided not to go to a Christian wedding.
Please consider these issues along with all the others that have already
been posted. God's will be done...
Angela J. Henry
Indiana University
Tim O'Keefe
Tim O'Neal wrote:
>Tim O'Keefe wrote:
>> I have to agree with the former poster on this--Hindus don't worship
>> idols. They aren't praying TO the statue of the four-armed gold being,
>> any more than Christians bowing down before a crucifix are worshipping
>> a piece of wood inside the church. They're worshipping what the statue
>> STANDS for.
>Do you know just what it DOES stand for? The people who run the candy
>store in my building at work are Hindu. I once asked the woman about
>the card she had with one of these idols on it. The answer is vague in
>my memory but it had something to the effect that there were many such
>idols and this just happened to be just one.
Well, Hinduism doesn't have as well-established a credal system as
does Christianity, so the answer can't be as straightforward as you
might like to have. There _are_ many different statues, but that
doesn't necessarily mean many different gods...
Here's the answer, as far as I know, but anybody who is more knowledgable
about Hinduism, please feel free to correct me:
In Hinduism, there are many different gods, who often represent different
aspects of the world and nature, Shiva, Kali, etc. That makes Hinduism
sounds like a type of pantheism, and historically, Hinduism probably
_did_ develop out of pantheism. Furthermore, probably a lot of Hindus
think of the various gods in pantheistic terms.
But things aren't as simple as that. In more developed Hindu theology and
philosophy, the tendency is either towards pantheism or monotheism, with
Shiva, Kali,etc., thought of as different aspects of God, or different
ways of viewing God. In pantheistic strains of Hinduism,the world and
the self are thought of as totally illusory, with the goal to see through
this illusion and be reabsorbed with the Godhead. But others think that
there is a real distinction between the self and God, and that the self
is _united_ with God in love, but is not absorbed.
But whether polytheistic, pantheistic, or monotheistic, I think that
calling it "idol worship" is a misnomer.
>Being a Christian, I'm very particular about whom I pray to. I know
>exactly what your talking about when you speak of crosses. I make very
>sure to know and realize that the cross and crucifix are just symbols.
>I do believe that there are Christians who take it a step further. This
>becomes idolatry whether they want to admit it or not.
About the wedding itself: the advice that several other people have
offered sounds very sensible to me: let your friends know that that you
very much want to celebrate their wedding with them, but that you'd
rather not participate in any _religious_ worship, and ask them what
you need to do (or not do) for that to happen. As long as you asked
them in a respectful way, I'm sure they'd be happy to accomodate you.
>(Question to the moderator; Does it take a long time to post here
>because this group is moderated?)
Well, I'm not the moderator, but I can answer that: the normal posting
schedule is some time near midnight, from Sunday through Thursday night,
so that the posts arrive in one big block a day Monday through Friday,
with weekends off, so that the Monday block is usually particularly
gargantuan.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Bryan J. Maloney
Here's my take on it: It is acceptable to attand and observe. After all,
if we only associate with "acceptable" people and denigrate those who
associate with the "unacceptable", how close are we to the Pharisees?
However, keep separate observing from participating. If you don't think
you can manage that, then don't go, and no opprobrium upon you for it. To
paraphrase Paul: A man strong in conscience can eat meat with no fear of
sin, but one weak in conscience should only eat vegetables. However, if
my eating meat is to cause a Brother to sin, then I should not eat meat.
Maura Hart
Michael Grello wrote:
> |>
> |> I understand what you are saying about Pharisees and I have no problem talking
> |> to hookers or criminals or Hindus for that matter. My problem is attending a
> |> ceremony. Look Jesus would speak to murderers, but would not help them to kill;
> |> talk to hookers but not partake of their service.
> |>
>
> Jesus went to peoples houses and parties where stuff was going on. He
> didn't just talk with them, He hung with them He was know as a friend
> of sinners, The Pharissees complained that He and His followers ate
> and drank and celebrated. No, He didn't use a prostitute, or kill
> anybody, but He was with them without judgement.
>
Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it but to save the world.
Did you notice that when Jesus went to a "sinners" house that the
"sinner" wanted to make resitution for theirs wrongs? Jesus did not go
there just to "hang" with them but to bring them to the understanding
that they could be forgiven and lead a new life. He didn't have to judge
them because they judged themselves. He did not "hang" with the Pharisees
as a whole because they thought they were righteous and didn't need what
Jesus had to offer. But of course we know that Jesus critized them
heavily because they acted righteous on the outside but were unrighteous
on the inside. Is that criticism not judgement? We are not righteous
unless we put on his righteousness and we are not judged by him if we
continously judge ourselves.
--
Maura
" Ring around the rosie
Pocket full of posies
Ashes, ashes, we all FALL DOWN " -- nursery rhyme
Tim O'Neal
I thank everyone for their responses.
I went to the wedding this past weekend, and found it rather
interesting. I could watch, the ceremony without participating or
standing out like a pair of plaid pants.
The ceremony took some two and a half hours, I'm glad I only went to
one. The people watching didn't pay as much attention as I thought they
would and there were no -group- prayers. The priest said the prayers
but did not require everyone to join in. I wondered if it had anything
to do with him speaking Hindu.
A couple of interesting things that I pulled from the ceremony. The
preist spoke in Hindu but translated in English so everyone knew what he
was saying. The couple was told NOT to give their children Christian
names but Hindu. To make sure this is what he said I asked the closest
person sitting next to me to verify this and he did.
The couple had to take the seven steps of friendship. One of these
steps had something to do with God blessing them with treasures and
riches, now comes the clincher, a NECESSITY of life. That blew me away.
Oh yeah, the priest told the woman that she was to stay calm and not to
overreact when the man was losing his temper and yelling at her. HA,
HA, HA, I'd like to see ANYONE do that.
More later, feel free to ask questions.
OOps I almost forgot; I've been questioning this whole idol thing. So
far I've seen people say that it's actually a higher power and not the
idols they worship. I saw a post that stated that when the golden calf
was made that it was supposed to be an offering to God. This isn't all
that fresh in my mind, but I thought it was definately an idol.
comments?
TimBo'
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <4s1pc4$1...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>, Tim O'Neal
<on...@poppy.com> wrote:
> idols they worship. I saw a post that stated that when the golden calf
> was made that it was supposed to be an offering to God. This isn't all
As I recall, I believe that the Israelites explicitly stated that the
golden statue was the thing that delivered them, not that it was to be an
offering to God.
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
>OOps I almost forgot; I've been questioning this whole idol thing. So
>far I've seen people say that it's actually a higher power and not the
>was made that it was supposed to be an offering to God. This isn't all
In the OT, the term idol seems to be used of any image of God or a
god. Even in the time of the OT, people weren't idiots. Most of them
would have known that this image they had made wasn't a god. They
would have said that they were worshipping the god through the image.
The OT does not seem to accept that as an excuse, and in fact treats
all images as if they are being worshipped. In my opinion, the 10
Commandments outlaw both making any image of God and worshipping God
through an image.
Ex 4:9 ff argues that because God revealed himself without showing a
physical form, we should not attempt to create a form ourselves by
using images of people, animals, etc. The prophets and others
uniformly opposed any use of images. There is no sign of a
recognition that they might serve as vehicles to worship God.
Note that the prohibition seems to be against using images in worship.
There does not seem to have been a general prohibition against
artistic representations of people and animals.
There is a divergence among Christian traditions when it comes to
images of Jesus. In Jesus, God took on a visible form, so it can be
argued that images of Jesus are justified where images of the Trinity
would not be. Thus Catholics and Orthodox will use images
(3-dimensional in the first case, 2-dimensional in the second) of
Jesus in worship. They will not, of course, actually worship the
image. Protestants generally do not permit this, since they typically
interpret the Commandment as prohibiting all use of images in worship.
However these things are probably irrelevant to the situation you
faced. Even if they didn't have images, the fact that they worship
different gods (or at least that their concept of god is so different
as to be incompatible) would be sufficient that I wouldn't want to
take part in Hindu worship. However as you describe it, you weren't
expected to do that. So I agree with you that there was nothing wrong
with what you did, and it was probably good both to be with your
friend and to learn about their approach to marriage.
Anne Furlong
Dear Tim'bo,
Though I haven't had the opportunity to attend a Hindu wedding, I have
been to a feastday held by a local Hindu couple. There was a shrine to
the goddess whose feast it was, and offerings were definitely made at
that shrine, and to her. On the face of it, idolatry.
However, the couple are adamant that there is only one God, and that He
is supreme over all things. How does this square with the shrine etc?
Well, in our prayers we often dwell on the attributes of God (the
merciful, the compassionate, the loving, the just, the creator, and so
on), and it's my understanding from conversations I've had with Hindu
friends, and from observing Hindu practices, that the gods and goddesses
are personifications, if you like, of these divine attributes. Just as
each one of us, at a given time, may be more attracted to, or may better
understand, or may be in greater need of, one of these attributes, so
some of my Hindu friends have particular devotions to the gods who
personify these qualities. I have no doubt that among the unthinking the
attributes are actually worshipped (a form of idolatry), but among my
acquaintance I have not found this.
The closest analogy might be to the Catholic practice of devotion to a
saint, or better yet to a particular "aspect" of Christ (the sacred
heart, corpus christi and so on). Although in excess, and without an
understanding of what is actually going on, such devotion can degenerate
into a kind of idolatry, its origin is more along the lines of attraction
to a particular quality of God.
I doubt the people there spoke Hindu, btw, as it's not a language, but a
people and (loosely speaking) a faith. They might have been speaking
Hindi, but it might also have been Kanada, Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali, or
one of the many, many languages spoken in India and the surrounding areas.
All the best,
Anne Furlong
---------------------------------
afur...@ganymede.cs.mun.ca
You Can Call Me Al
WHy shouldn't you? There's nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not
socialize with non-believers." It's a special day for people when they
get married, regardless of their beliefs. If you've been invited to
attend, it means that they believe you to be a good enough friend that
they want you present when they make a life-long commitment. That's a
pretty cool thing. :) Go and have fun and post what it was like, i'm
curious. :)
Alison
*******************************************************************************
Alison Strobel | There are two ways to be a light unto the world:
str...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu| to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.
*******************************************************************************
On 2 Jul 1996, Tim O'Neal wrote:
> Does anybody have any idea as to whether I (a nondenominational
> Christian) should attend a Hindu wedding? I feel a little peculiar
> because these people worship idols. I can't quit write what I mean to
> say at this particular moment but I'm sure I'll get it out whether
> people writing me back.
>
> Thank you for your input,
>
> TimBo'
> --
Robert W Burke
Y
> >There is a difference between observing and participating in
non-Christian cermonies. When I was dating my wife she experimented with
Buddhism. Since I was inviting her to attend Mass with me she invited me
to attend a Buddhist meeting with her. I was invited to participate but
politely declined. I felt there was nothing wrong with observing and it
did provide us with a great deal of discussion (among which, why were so
many Buddhists so anti-Christian, but that is a subject for another
posting).
Robert Burke
Gerry Palo
In article <4scjm0$b...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>,
Anne Furlong <afur...@cs.mun.ca> wrote:
>Dear Tim'bo,
>
>Though I haven't had the opportunity to attend a Hindu wedding, I have
>been to a feastday held by a local Hindu couple. There was a shrine to
>the goddess whose feast it was, and offerings were definitely made at
>that shrine, and to her. On the face of it, idolatry.
>
>However, the couple are adamant that there is only one God, and that He
>is supreme over all things. How does this square with the shrine etc?
>
>Well, in our prayers we often dwell on the attributes of God (the
>merciful, the compassionate, the loving, the just, the creator, and so
>on), and it's my understanding from conversations I've had with Hindu
>friends, and from observing Hindu practices, that the gods and goddesses
>are personifications, if you like, of these divine attributes.
....
>The closest analogy might be to the Catholic practice of devotion to a
>saint, or better yet to a particular "aspect" of Christ (the sacred
>heart, corpus christi and so on).
Another possibility is that the gods they worship are real, but that they
are beings of a lower order, in other words the heavenly hosts,
archangels, and so on. The Bible is full of references to higher beings
who stand beneath the one God. It does not have a systematic teaching
about them but rather talks about them as if everyone knew from their own
experience about the reality of their existence. It is interesting that
the First Commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not worship false gods,"
but "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The idea that these gods
were made up out of abstract speculations about the mysteries of
existence is, in my opinion, incorrect. The consciousness prevailing in
those times was one that could still perceive them, if dimly, and they
were pictured and characterized in accordance with their essential
nature. So for the ancient Hebrews it was a serious problem as they,
chosen out for a direct relationship to the one God, were commanded to
establish a direct relationship to the creator not only of men but of
those divine beings themselves.
The gods of the ancient pagans (as come down also in the form of the
ancient religions such as Hinduism that survive today) could be
represented, spiritually, as images, as having forms -- not material forms
but spiritual forms that could be represented in material forms. But
JHWH, or JHWH-Elohim is himself the creator of form. To make an image of
him is not possible. The Israelites, having lived for many generations in
Egypt, where the representation of the gods as forms was developed to the
highest degree, had to sever themselves from this habit of living in what
could be spiritually revealed through the contemplation and worship of
graven images. As long as they lived in that plane of conscious devotion
they could not rise to a direct relationship to a God who was higher than
anything formed. I believe this is connected with the fact that it was
necessary for the Israelites to remain in the wilderness until the last of
them who had been born in Egypt, including Moses himself, had died. A new
generation, born with the Law and raised in it, who had been able to
eschew the practice of devotion through the medium of images was able to
develop to a high enough degree the ability on the one hand to grasp
through thought the idea of the one God and on the other hand to develop
the capacity, not of spiritual seeing but of spiritual _hearing_. If you
survey the Old Testament, it is permeated with references to hearing. The
great example is the Sh'ma, "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord."
This great commandment is also repeated by Jesus. The boy Samuel hears
the Lord calling his name and says, finally, after Eli explains it to him,
"Speak, Lord. Thy servant heareth." And over and over the prophets write,
"Thus saith the Lord..."
So by forswearing the practice of other peoples of establishing a
relationship to the divine in imaginative picture consciousness, the
Israelites, through a long and hard spiritual schooling which not all of
them were able to pass, developed a relationship to the One God of which
also the Hindus now speak, that was direct, having swept away by means of
what was embodied in the First Commandment (including the injunction
against making graven images), and literally suppressing the perceptive
faculty of inward imagination, of the forming of images to represent the
lower divine beings.
This is also reflected in the fact that the commandment does not only
forbid them to make images of God but also of things of the earth. This
again points to the fact that an old faculty had to be left behind in
order that a new one might arise.
It is interesting too that the Jewish theme of hearing permeates the New
Testament. In Luke's nativity story the angels appear, but it is what
they say that is important. Zecharias beholds Gabriel, who tells him of
the coming birth of John, and as a result of his conversation he is
struck dumb (but not deaf). I believe that the reason why the old priest
was struck dumb may have had to do with the need to rechannel the forces
of speech, which must have been very highly developed in Zecharias after
so many years of priestly service, so that in his old age he could become
the father of John -- the "voice crying in the wilderness".
And of course we have the Gospel of John, which begins withe the
proclamation of the incarnating Logos. And how often do the Gospels say,
"And Jesus said...". And there are the seven words from the cross. And
so on and so on.
It is interesting too that since the descent of Christ -- who in his
divine cosmic existence was not representable in forms -- the
representation of Jesus as well as the flourishing of art and sculpture
became a vital part of Christian spiritual culture. But again, it has to
do with the fact that the Unimaginable, Unpicturable God descended into
the realm of forms, the realm of time and space, and became Man, thus
revealing himself, not indirectly through symbolic representation, but to
actual human vision, both before and after his Resurrection. But to
begin with, in preparation for this descent, it was essential that the
old paths to divine perception -- and with them the veneration of the
lower gods, the angels and archangels, had to be swept away. The other
peoples, such as the ancient Indian peoples, were not required to put
those gods aside, and they continue to this day to represent them in the
most manifold images.
One other thought about the Oneness of God. It is not that he is the only
God, but rather that He is the God that creates and embraces the whole of
reality, embodying the totality of existence in His Being. If you would
know him, then you may not have any other gods before Him. Oneness
implies completeness, total integrity, something all-embracing. In this
contemplation we also come to the mystery of the Trinity, of how the One
God can be understood to have a threefold nature.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Mike Grello
On Friday, July 12, 1996, hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu wrote...
> In the OT, the term idol seems to be used of any image of God or a
> god. Even in the time of the OT, people weren't idiots. Most of them
> would have known that this image they had made wasn't a god. They
> would have said that they were worshipping the god through the image.
The above statement has me wondering if you read the same Old
Testament as I. All through the Old Testament God and Prophets are
chiding people for doing just that very thing. "Your gods are made
from stone or wood and cannot speak", they exclaim, or "You go into
the woods, and cut down a tree, carve it and laden it with gold, the
worship it proclaiming it your god."
--
hug a commie for Christ,
Mike <--- the last Jesus freak
the voice of the religious LEFT
http://www.scsn.net/users/mgrello/
e-mail: mgr...@scsn.net
---
[Immediately following the lines you quoted is the following:
The OT does not seem to accept that as an excuse, and in fact treats
all images as if they are being worshipped. In my opinion, the 10
Commandments outlaw both making any image of God and worshipping God
through an image.
I think we may be in agreement.
The posting to which I responded said that he wasn't sure idols were a
problem, as the people weren't actually worshipping the idols. The
point I'm making is that I'm sure the folks in 1000 BC or whatever
would have presumably have said the same thing. However the prophets
do not seem to me to take that as an excuse. I see no signs that
either the law or the prophets distinguished between people who
actually worshipped the images and those who would have said that they
were worshipping a god through the images. I believe the prophets
treated all statues of gods as idols, using the polemic you cited.
--clh]
Bruce H. McIntosh
Gerry Palo wrote:
(* SNIP *)
> The Israelites, having lived for many generations in
> Egypt, where the representation of the gods as forms was developed to the
> highest degree, had to sever themselves from this habit of living in what
> could be spiritually revealed through the contemplation and worship of
> graven images. As long as they lived in that plane of conscious devotion
> they could not rise to a direct relationship to a God who was higher than
> anything formed. I believe this is connected with the fact that it was
> necessary for the Israelites to remain in the wilderness until the last of
> them who had been born in Egypt, including Moses himself, had died.
As I recall, the point is made several times in the Old Testament (starting
in Joshua) and in the New Testament (in Hebrews) that the Israelites died in
the wilderness as judgement for their disobedience. God commanded them to
go up into Canaan and take the land, but they refused, choosing to fear the
reports of the spies rather than have faith in the Living God. The death
of an entire generation (save only Joshua and Caleb, who alone of the spies
urged the people that they could, indeed, take the land, since God was with
them) was nothing more or less than the judgement hand of God for unbelief
and disobedience.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce H. McIntosh pers: afn3...@afn.org
U of Florida Division of Housing work: bru...@neufhou.mail.ufl.edu
http://www.afn.org/~afn37319
parental unit(Amanda Marie 1/5/94, Pending due 11/5/96))
minstrel(guitar) ferroequinologist(HO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Burning like fire, falling like rain; I need to hear your voice again
Gerry Palo
In article <4sv5di$p...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>,
>> Egypt, where the representation of the gods as forms was developed to the
>> highest degree, had to sever themselves from this habit of living in what
>> could be spiritually revealed through the contemplation and worship of
>> graven images. As long as they lived in that plane of conscious devotion
>> they could not rise to a direct relationship to a God who was higher than
>> anything formed. I believe this is connected with the fact that it was
>> necessary for the Israelites to remain in the wilderness until the last of
>> them who had been born in Egypt, including Moses himself, had died.
>
>in Joshua) and in the New Testament (in Hebrews) that the Israelites died in
>the wilderness as judgement for their disobedience. God commanded them to
>go up into Canaan and take the land, but they refused, choosing to fear the
>reports of the spies rather than have faith in the Living God. The death
>of an entire generation (save only Joshua and Caleb, who alone of the spies
>urged the people that they could, indeed, take the land, since God was with
>them) was nothing more or less than the judgement hand of God for unbelief
>and disobedience.
The direct explanation given in the Bible is in line with what I said
above. However, I would not look at it as punishment so much as an
objective judgement of a condition that became manifest when they feared
to go. They continully yearned for the land where the old consciousness,
the image-consciousness embodied in the golden calf, which they had left
behind in Egypt, and could not break through to the direct relationship,
based on "spiritual hearing" that the needed in order to follow Yahweh.
The forty years in the wilderness, one of the characteristics of which
was gloom and darkness, was a kind of test, a sifting process through
which, you might say, the blood of the Children of Israel was cleansed.
Not the old generation, but their children were capable of establishing
themselves in the new land on the basis of their relationship to the
Lord.
So I think that it is not a matter so much of God saying to the old
generation, "You disobeyed me, and now I am going to punish you by not
letting you go over into Canaan," as his sayinng, "Your wavering reveals
that you are not prepared in soul and spirit, in understanding and will
-- i.e. in faith -- to follow me into Canaan. You may not pass over the
Jordan. You must live out your days here." The whole history of the
Hebrews from Abraham on is one of sifting, winnowing, selecting. In the
case of the patriarchs it was a matter of choosing one sone or the other
as being capable of bearing the covenant. in Jacob's case, it was a man
who was a deceiver and liar who cheated both his father and his brother,
and yet he, rather than Easau, became the progenitor of the Children of
Israel, who to this day bear his name.
In the wilderness of Sinai, the choosing
was not one of one branch or another, but a kind of generational
selection. The Lord did not offer the Promised Land as a reward
for being good, rather he had work for them to do, much hardship and
danger, many battles to fight, to establish his sanctuary in the holy
land. He needed a generation of Israelites who would be strong and
unwavering and not prone to falling back when things became difficult, or
who would not succomb to the temptations of the Canaanite religions and
gods. To use a modern phrase, the old generation of Israelites did not
make the cut. They had become to fixed and hardened in their souls to
the old ways and could not free themselves from them. They longed, in
other words, for the old, lower gods, which gods were adequate for the
Egyptians but not for the folk chosen by Yahweh himself to be his own
people. They required something more, and that included what is
indicated in the commandments to have no other gods before the Lord and
to not make images -- not only of the gods but of the things in nature at
all. This image consciousness could only divert the attention of the
soul from the Lord, who cannot be represented in image form. Only the
lower spiritual beings, lofty and divine as they were, could be so
represented, but not the Lord, the creator of forms, of time and space.
(On the other hand, we read in Genesis that if you want an image of God
you have to look to the human being himself, and ultimately to the Lord
incarnate, Christ Jesus.)