Worshipping Idols

Someone posted the following message:

i am a christan. and i was wondering.
I have been reading my bible alot lately and i have come across this passage which seems confusing.

what is meant by the idea of worshiping "Idols" ???
and how does it pertain what we do today

please some explain to me what this means .....



Here is my reply:

By definition, "idol" means a representation or symbol of an object of worship

Whatever you worship is an idol.

This leads to the question: "what is worship?"

The word worship has two roots

weorth (worth) + scipe

worship means giving "worth" to someone or some thing.

In essence, the first commandment

"You shall have no other gods before me"

and the second commandment

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments

are really the same commandment.

How does it apply today?

It applies everywhere. Every time you make a decision, you have to place priorities on all your options. Whatever you place as a higher priority than God you are placing greater worth than God, i.e., giving greater worship than to God: making he/she/it an idol.

If one decides that "going to a football game" is more important than worshiping God, then it is for that person an idol. If one makes budgetary decisions in which God does not get the "first fruit", then whatever came before God is an idol.

If one truly want to know if one is worshiping idols, all one has to do is list all his/her resources (time, money, energy, position, opportunities, etc.) and evaluate how one is using those resources. Did God come first?

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Matthew 11:28-30
28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."


Someone in one of the Christian forums posted that although these are the true words of our Lord and Savior -- so why are many of us having a difficult time? He suggested two problems.

1. Where many people struggle with their faith-walk is in the area of sacrifice. While talking may be easy, the possibility of ridicule (sacrifice) is painful. Going on a mission trip is easy, but the cost is, well costly.
   If you're struggling with sacrifice there's a good chance your real problem is selfishness.


2. Perhaps you've been barking up the wrong tree. You might be an a great singer, for example, but if God hasn't called you into a musical ministry then your efforts may be burdensome.

Here is my response:

Matthew 11:30 follows Jesus' very long teaching session in Matthew 6 which includes the following set of verses:

Matthew 6:19-21
19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6:24-33
24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.


In this very long teaching session, Jesus laid out the qualification for his promises. If you do this... I promise you this... "all these things will be given to you as well".

An easy yoke and light burden is the result of "all these things will be given to you as well". You don't have to labor, claw, or cheat to get "all these things"; "all these things will be given to you"; thus, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

To do so, our hearts must be in heaven and not on earth. Thus, our treasures must be in heaven and not on earth, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"

Both of the things, that the original forum post mentioned, are struggles with giving up treasures on earth. I think we can all identify more treasures on earth, e.g., a treasure on earth may be a relationship:

Matthew 8:19-22
19 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."
20 Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
21 Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
22 But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

It is understood that this disciple's father did not suddenly died and needed to be buried. He is asking that he be allowed to wait until his father die, to respect his father while his father is alive.


But there is an aspect that the original forum post did not address; an aspect that does not deal with treasures on earth. When we become a disciple of Jesus Christ, there will be growing pains.

John 16:19
19 Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, "Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me'?
20 I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy.
21 A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world.
22 So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.

Currently, we are living in a time when there's a conflict between two kingdoms (God's and Satan's). A product of this conflict (any conflict) is pain. e.g., See the Book of Job.

Unfortunately, we often confuse "having pain" with "not having an easy yoke and not having a light burden". Pain and burden are two different things.

Here's an illustration:

A soldier is seriously injured during a battle and can not move his legs. He is in pain. His buddy carries him out of the battle zone to the evacuation area so that the soldier can be transported to the MASH unit. The burden is on his buddy's back. Likewise, we may have pain, but the burden is on Jesus' back.

Christianity and the Psychology of Utilitarianism and the Biology of Moral

Until recently, research in cognitive studies have been based on the assumption that morals are learned behavior. Through positive and negative re-enforcement, decision making is reduced to a utilitarian process: What works within the context of the community is good, what doesn't work within the context of the community is bad.

One can see church teaching influenced by this utilitarian perspective, tying Christian doctrine to behavior that works within the context of the community.

I am not disputing the assertion that Christian doctrine promotes behavior that works within the context of the community.

However, I object to what is identified as the cause and what is identified as the effect.

Instead of community living being the origin of moral, the Bible clearly identifies God's moral as the origin of human creation.

According to Genesis, God created man in his own image, to be like Him, to have His nature. God wired into mankind His own moral values.

In fact, all of creation is designed to display God's moral.

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

His divine nature is not only seen but also understood from what has been made.

Recently, studies by Marc Hauser, a professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University, point to the biologically hardwired nature of morals.

In his studies, subjects were given the following scenario:

A trolley looses its brakes and is rolling out of control down a hill. It is about to hit five people who can not get out of the way. Between the trolley and the five people is a track switch. If the trolley is switched to the alternate track, it would hit only one person. Is it acceptable to switch the track so that the trolley hits only one person? Almost everyone answer the question with "yes". Hitting one person is better than hitting five.

Then, the subjects were given a new scenario:

There is no switch between the trolley and the five people. However, there is a person large enough to stop the trolley if pushed in front of the trolley. Is it acceptable to push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five people? Almost everyone answered the question "no".

The results were consistent with people of varying religious belief, culture, ethnicity, age group, and social-economic class.

Occasionally, someone may answer yes for both. However, when dug deeper, the results are consistent with the norm.

e.g., Hauser's father is a medical doctor who is a stoic thinker. His initial response was yes for both since both scenarios resulted in saving five lives instead of one. So Hauser posed a scenario closer to home (in this case closer to work).

You have five patients who are in need of organ transplants but was unable to find matching donors. A healthy person with perfect match for all five patients. Would you sacrifice the life of the healthy donor to save the lives of the five?

His answer is, "Of course, not!"

Then, how can you push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five?

With that, Hauser's father changes his position.

This result proves that moral is not based on a purely utilitarian decision. Both switching the track and pushing the large person would result in sacrificing one life for five lives. Yet, one is acceptable while the other is not.

Moral decision making is not only not a purely utilitarian decision, it is not a purely Pavlovian learned behavior which is positively or negatively re-enforced.

In fact, when asked why the first is acceptable while the second is not, no one can give an answer. Part of moral decision making is biologically hardwired.

Another example of non-utilitarian response is the test of the self interest economy.

According to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", in a free market economy, the self interests of all traders would dictate the distribution of all resources.

In Professor Hauser's studies, subjects were given the roles of donor or recipient. Each donor was given a sum of money, out of which he or she must offer a portion to a recipient. The recipient can accept or reject the offer. If the recipient rejects the offer, the donor and the recipient would loose the entire sum.

If the market is driven by self-interest, all recipients would accept any offer greater than zero since the rejection would result in one not receiving anything; something is better than nothing.

The research, however, shows that unless the sum is greater than or equal to what the recipient considers is a fair distribution, the recipient would reject the offer. He or she would rather get nothing than to allow an unfair distribution to take place.

Once again, the decision is not based on an utilitarian response but on a built in sense of fairness.

Hauser found another departure from the traditional assumptions of cognitive studies. Until Hauser's studies, it was believe that we choose what we think is right. If we choose incorrectly, it is because we think incorrectly.

This assumption is counter to Biblical teaching.

Romans 7:15
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

Paul understands what is right and what is wrong. Yet, he confesses that his behavior does not reflect what he think is right.

Hauser's research agrees with Paul's experience. Many subjects are able to determine what is right and what is wrong (according to the hardwired responses). Yet, what the subject chooses to do may be different from what they think is morally right. Hauser concluded that determination of what is morally right and deciding what to do are two different processes that contribute to the decision making process.

Hauser was able to confirm this theory using brain imaging. He found two active regions in the brain when performing moral decision making. One region is the region associated with emotional response. The second is the one associated with computational processes.

By comparing the brain activities of "normal" subject with those of psychopaths, he found variations in the activities in the region associated with emotional responses. While the psychopaths have similar activates in the region associated with computational processes (utilitarian response), they lack the emotional brake which prevents them from doing what is morally wrong.

These findings mesh with Christian doctrinal teaching. Simply teaching what is right and what is wrong is not going to transform a person. The problem is not with one's computational decision making processes. The problem is with the emotional response. The problem is with where one's heart lies. This, only Christ can fix.

Responses to my "When should the church worship corporately?"

Most of the responses to my original post has been along the line of the following:

we exited the age of the law, now we can still keep the law if we choose to, but that is not what saves a person, in fact if you keep the law as it is written you would never get to heaven. the only way to heaven is by being a christian.

Here is my response:

Your theology is not quite right. If we are able to keep all the laws (given or otherwise) if we do not sin, we would be able to get to heaven. The rub is that we are NOT able to keep the law (given or otherwise) NOT avoid sinning. That's why we need grace.

You would have been correct if you had said, "Trying to keep the law would not save a person." because it is impossible to keep the Law.

The second problem is your statement "we can still keep the law if we choose to". It would imply that we can choose ignore the law. If so, then we can choose not to honor our parents or not to abstain from bearing false witness, or from theft, or adultery, or from committing murder, etc.

Just because we are forgiven for our sin does not mean that we should not longer attempt to avoid sin.

Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

The caveat is that there are two types of law. One is universal (apply to everyone at all time). The other type is given only to the Jews to be apply in the period before Christ.

e.g., honoring our parents and abstain from bearing false witness, and from theft, and adultery, and from committing murder are part of the universal part of the law.

e.g., the dietary laws the ceremonial laws are given only to the Jews to be apply in the period before Christ.

So which type is the keeping of the Sabbath? Since God gave the example of resting on the seventh day before there were Jewish people much less the giving of the law to the Jewish people, we can argue that it is universal.


p.s., It really bother me that there are Christians out there who flat out write off "The Law" as if it no longer matters because they are now saved. I've seen it not only in responses to the Sabbath discussion but also to a plethora of Christian issues. Sure, we are not able to be sinless. Sure, we are saved from the punishment due to violators. However, "the Law" (the universally applicable part) is still the standard by which we determine if we are on the right track. We've got to heed to Paul's urging in Romans 6:1-2.