Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

I agree fully. My extrapolations are far from absolutes; they're just the best I can do with what I have; and that keeps changing as my understanding of things changes (hopefully increases).

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Don Winterstein ; asa
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 8:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

  Don -

  I appreciate your awareness of the problems involved in basing an argument on personal experience. Let me note 1 more thing. Personal experience is 1 thing & "extrapolation" from it is another. Our own interpretation of our experience is actually such an extrapolation & is influenced not just by the experience itself but by our upbringing, cultural baggage, personal propensities to see things 1 way or another (is the glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty? &c). It's basically the same situation we have with science - all data is theory-laden.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Don Winterstein
    To: asa ; george murphy
    Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:27 AM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

    You may have noticed from my previous posts that some of my teaching is extrapolation from personal spiritual experience. Such is the case here. Because my experience differs significantly in some ways from that of other Christians, it's to be expected that the content of the extrapolations will also differ from and on occasion conflict with traditional interpretations. My experience defined me, so I must go with it even if it should conflict with biblical teaching. That's why I joined ASA as a friend, not a regular member.

    Unfortunately private experience is fundamentally not sharable, so in these instances of conflict I have no way to make my case. Communication breaks down. However, I still feel free--and to a degree even obligated--to state my case, whether anyone can accept it or not. I try to make my case as rational and traditional as possible, but sometimes the content doesn't fit inside accepted bounds.

    I have great respect for your learning and your ability to come up with appropriate responses in so many instances. But you don't have my experience.

    GM: Your claim that "most of Christianity" ignores the prophetic period may be true for the uninformed but not for serious biblical scholars & theologians.
    DW: "Most of Christianity" still applies, as far as I can discern from personal contacts and reading. Arguing from private experience would carry no weight with scholars and theologians; since experience is the best thing I have to offer, it would do no good to try to meet such people on their own turf.

    GM: ...Your notion that "true idolatry" is "taking a demon into your God-shaped hole for the pleasure of it" is wrong on several counts.
    DW: Here I'm defining what true idolatry should mean (although the "pleasure" part might not apply generally). I'm of course aware of the root meanings, but it's unlikely anybody ever worshipped an image. People worship what they feel their image represents. So the root meanings only get at the appearance, not the substance, of what's always been going on. In line with an earlier comment of yours, a different word would be better; but for historical reasons we're stuck with "idolatry."

    As for my being a teacher--well, it's hard to take yourself seriously as a teacher if you have no students. If I were a normal person, I wouldn't be a student of mine, either. This lack of influence tempts me sometimes to be flippant, but I try hard to resist.

    Don

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: George Murphy
      To: Don Winterstein ; asa
      Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:33 AM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

      Ponder James 3:1 a bit before you become too zealous to be "educational."

      Your claim that "most of Christianity" ignores the prophetic period may be true for the uninformed but not for serious biblical scholars & theologians.

      Then your notion that "true idolatry" is "taking a demon into your God-shaped hole for the pleasure of it" is wrong on several counts. As I already pointed out, the original sense of "idolatry" is literally latria of an eidolon, worship of an image. In the Christian tradition it is by extension worship of anything that is not the true God. E.g., in Phil.3:19 Paul refers to those "whose god (theos) is their belly." Of course there are biblical references & a strong current in the Christian tradition holding that the false gods of the heathen are really demons, but that is neither the original sense nor an exhaustive meaning of "idolatry."

      Yes, it isn't always easy for us to tell whether or nor our trust in things other than God is excessive - whether what should be our penultimate confidence is really ultimate. We're very good at fooling ourselves - "The Lord's my shepherd, says the Psalm, but just in case, we need the Bomb." This doesn't really mean that idolatry is a matter of degree however. & the proper counsel is not to try to set up detailed & ultimately fruitless rules but to ask for God's help (as, e.g., in the Lord's Prayer), do the best we can, realize that we're never in this life going to "fear, love and trust in God above all things" at every moment, and trust in the righteousness of Christ rather than our own righteousness.

      Shalom
      George
      http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Don Winterstein
        To: asa ; george murphy
        Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:02 AM
        Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

        My primary motive for offering my "improved view" was, I suppose, primarily educational: True idolatry is qualitatively different from what Christian teachers call idolatry, and an understanding of the difference sheds light on the period of the prophets through the Babylonian exile. That period is particularly meaningful to me. I recognize that most of Christianity, while it likes to quote prophets selectively on occasion, finds that period largely ignorable and so can get along without my improved view. So I won't make an issue of it.

        However, I was also pointing out indirectly that idolatry in the conventional Christian sense is almost always a matter of degree, as you acknowledge. There's no question that true idolatry--taking a demon into your God-shaped hole for the pleasure of it--is wrong in any degree. In contrast, all figurative kinds of idolatry are OK for God's people up to a point. That is, it's OK to trust people, possessions, laws of nature, etc., to a degree; otherwise life wouldn't be livable. This means there's always a question of when a person's trust in things exceeds that degree. At what point does the trust become "entire"? Because the point of sin is not defined in a way that individuals can apply to their living (few would ever admit to themselves that their trust had become sin), sensitive Christians might worry endlessly about it. They'd probably love to have some latter-day Pharisee tell them how far they can go in fine detail. Insensitive Christians will likely ignore the whole thing.

        How useful is a concept that's always a matter of degree when the degree can be defined only hypothetically? I suppose it simply serves as a warning not to get too wrapped up in that which is not God.

        Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 9 23:04:43 2007