All religions use images and forms to some degree.

[Guest guest]

" All religions use images and forms to some degree. Catholic and

Greek Orthodox Christianity use images, icons and statues, as an

examination of most churches will reveal. Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist

and Shinto groups use them as well. Native American, African and

Asian religions abound with them. The ancient religions of the

entire world from Mexico to Greece, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, India

and China used images, as archeology so clearly reveals. The use of

images therefore appears as an integral part of human religious

practices and no universal religion could be regarded as complete

without them.

 

Most Protestants and Muslims deny the use of all images as idolatry

and accuse the Catholics of idolatry for their use of images. No

statues or images adorn their churches or mosques. Yet we do find

that many Protestants have a picture of Christ, or at least wear a

cross, which is still a usage of images and symbols. Muslims worship

Mecca and a special rock placed there.

 

They pray only in the direction of Mecca, which is the limitation of

the Divine to a place. They similarly regard mosques as sacred

places. Many Muslims pray at the tombs of their saints. Muslims

often have pictures of their religious or political leaders (note

the worship of Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran), sometimes those of

Mohammed, perhaps with his face veiled. This is also a use of

symbols. Both Protestants and Muslims regard their holy books, the

Bible and Koran, as literally the Word of God. This is also a

worship of objects.

 

However, there is a strange dichotomy in how religious images are

judged. When they are part of the Christian tradition they are

called " icons " and classified as works of art and sacred in nature.

When they are part of non-Christian or pagan traditions they are

called " idols, " which is a derogatory term that indicates not the

sacred but mere superstition. In the case of native American and

African images, even when done by a culture as advanced as the Mayas

of Central America - which built great pyramids and had many great

cities - they are lumped along with so-called " primitive " art.

 

By this logic what makes for idolatry is not the use of

representational forms in worship, but only the use of non-Christian

images, which is obviously a prejudice. An image of Krishna as the

good cowherder is on par with that of Christ as the good shepherd,

the Divine as the caretaker of souls. To make one into a

superstitious idol and the other into a sacred image is hypocritical

and intolerant. It is like saying that only spices used in American

cooking are legitimate spices, while those used in Indian cooking

are food adulterants!

 

What Christian would accept a depiction of Christ being called an

idol? Would Christian religious leaders approve of it in the press

of Christian countries? Yet Hindus and other non-Christians

routinely accept that depictions of their deities - who represent

such high truths as Self-realization - are demeaned as idols. "

 

http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/hinduism/idolatary_dogmatism/

page7.htm