Religion
Questions 41-50
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next
10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
RE50: I am Jewish and have a question for (at least)
Catholics: What is the necessity for trans-substantiation in the
Eucharist? Why is the symbolism of the wine and bread not enough?
POSTED MAY 12, 1998
Michael
<TheMartian@juno.com>,
Houston, TX
ANSWER 1:
We are simply doing what we believe Jesus told us to do:
"Do this in memory of Me." He did not speak of symbolism in this
matter. Similarly, the early Church believed in the bread and wine
literally becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. And so it continued
until the Protestant schism (the "Reformation"). The consecrated Body
and Blood have been associated with great miracles, not to mention
the lesser "miracles" that take place in the hearts and souls of
those who receive them - turning from sin to virtue, greater love of
one's fellow man and so on. The term "transubstantiation" comes from
the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Eastern Orthodox Church
rejects such an analytical explanation, and there is some merit to
their stance. It is a mystery that defies words or explanation. To
make a long story short, it is becoming one with God.
POSTED MAY 14, 1998
fda, Myrtle Beach , S.C.
FURTHER NOTICE:
The Eucharist, based on the story of the Last Supper, was
borrowed directly from Mitraism, which was practiced widely in the
Roman Empire at the supposed time of Christ. Mitras supposedly said,
"He who will not drink of my blood and eat of my flesh will not know
salvation." It didn't originate there, of course, but came from the
time when a person killed a strong enemy, he ate some of the flesh
and drank some of the blood to gain the strength of that enemy,
either man or animal. Later it went to only animals, then to items
representing the flesh and blood. The early church fathers said that
"the devil" had created this procedure in Mitraism, because he knew
it would develop later in Christianity. Wow! What a tangled web we
weave... Thus, symbolic cannibalism, one of many pagan items found in
the Christian myth.
POSTED MAY 26, 1998
Ed H., 56, white male,
<EdHam@aol.com>, Silver
Springs, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
To Ed H.: Roman Mitraism arose after about 100 AD. That's
the earliest possible dating for any of the artifacts available to
us. Some claim it borrows from earlier Iranian/Persian Mithrianism,
but that is a tenuous proposition since the actual myths are quite
different (only the Roman version involves the slaying of the bull,
for instance). The New Testament canon was complete by about 70 AD.
Chronologically, there is no real support for the idea that
Christianity is a myth based on Roman Mithriasm or other mystery
religions. Roman Mithriasm rose between 200-300 AD and probably
borrowed from early Christianity in an attempt to defuse its rising
popularity (Christianity did not achieve real political status until
Constantine in 314 AD). The Church Fathers were decrying mystery
religions (there are others, i.e. Horus) as Satan-inspired, not the
Eucharist. Sorry, the facts don't support the "tangled web"
theories.
POSTED JUNE 9, 1998
Peter P., Roman Catholic, PPROUT20@aol.com, Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To Peter P.: Mitra, Mithra, Mithras, was brought from the
East. Roman historians of the First Century CE record that Persian
soldiers taught the initiation secrets of Mithra to the Cilician
pirates. When Pompey defeated these pirates in 67 BCE, he settled
them in Greece - thus the Mithras' mysteries were brought to the
West. The Mithras cult, which was only for men, was popular with the
Roman army, and by the supposed birth of Christ had spread to Roman
garrisons in Britain. Early Christians tried to destroy all trace of
Mithraism, but they were not successful. For a compact history of
Mithraism, see Mithras - Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered
by D. Jason Cooper (1996).
POSTED JUNE 22, 1998
Ed H.
<EdHam0132@aol.com>,
Silver Springs, FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE49: I keep seeing references to "secular Jews" in stories
concerning developments in Israel. They seem to be in opposition to
what are called "Ultra Orthodox" or "Orthodox" Jews. What is a
"secular Jew"?
POSTED MAY 11, 1998
Chas. P., Christian
<capettee@aol.com>,
Dayton, OH
ANSWER 1:
A secular Jew is simply a non-religious Jew, as Judaism
refers not only to the religion but to the nationality as well. A
person can be Jewish by nationality without being religious.
POSTED MAY 12, 1998
Efrat N., Israel
FURTHER NOTICE:
In general, secularization of a nation means that state
and religion are separated. In Israel, this is not always so. Rabbis,
for instance, are the judges in many important civil law cases. For
an Orthodox or Ultra Orthodox Jew, there is no way state and religion
can be separated. For secular Jews, however, it can. There are also
many secular Jews who do not or hardly practice Jewish religion, just
as many people who live in "Christian" countries do. For instance,
they work or drive cars during the Sabbath, etc., which sometimes
causes friction between the secular and Orthodox Jews.
POSTED MAY 14, 1998
Mario, The Netherlands
<mariotam@wxs.nl>
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
"Jew" can denote overlapping personal identities. You can
be culturally Jewish, ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish or (as
most Jews are) a combination of the above. The term "secular Jew"
refers to a hodge-podge of Israeli Jewish groups that do not identify
themselves in purely or exclusively religious terms. Religious
practices vary from non-existent to fairly observant within this
group.
POSTED MAY 14, 1998
David de G., 31, Dutch Jew who lived in Israel
<degraaf@iname.com>
Brookline, MA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
An Orthodox Jew is follows all tenets of halaka (the way
to go). Halaka is based on Torah (the first five books of the Bible),
and is spelled out in the Talmud (study). The Talmud is the study and
interpetation of Torah and of the Mishna (Oral Tradition).
Ultra-Orthodox Jews take a strict construction on anything that is
not clear in the halaka. Secular Jews are people born of a Jewish
lineage but who do not believe in or practice the religion of
Judaism.
POSTED JUNE 11, 1998
Larry H., larryhil@gte.net, Huntington Beach, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE48: Does Hinduism contain differing groups the way
Christianity does, in which one group might say of another, "That
group is not really Hindu"? Is there a dominant tradition in
Hinduism?
POSTED MAY 6, 1998
C.G.. Dallas, TX
ANSWER 1:
First, one must understand that the term "Hinduism" was
applied by the West in order to somehow conceptualized India's vast,
amorphous array of faiths, practices, beliefs and traditions. The
closest "Indian translation" of the term is "Santhana Dharma," a
recently coined term that loosely means "The Eternal Religion," "The
Eternal Faith" or "The Eternal Law." Many labels and concepts that
try to categorize the various strains of Hinduism are also themselves
Western creations. This is not a bad thing, just a way the West can
perhaps better conceptually organize what is otherwise a very
disorganized and decentralized "religion." Thus, there are no easy
lines and boundaries between any sort of "denominations" in Hinduism,
unlike Western religions. There are some clearly defined sects, such
as the Arya Samaj, Swaminaryan (which has its own subsects), and more
politically oriented groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Now, it may be the case that one group
might question the practices, beliefs, etc. of another. But because
Hinduism, as an Eastern faith, is by nature very anti-dogmatic and
amorphous, you will generally not hear "Well, they're not Hindu" or
"We're more Hindu than them," as you might find in Judaism or
Christianity. One of Hinduism's most enduring features is that it
will accept and tolerate just about any creed or belief under its
culturo-religous umbrella. There are far too many gods, deities,
saints, sages, ideas, practices, beliefs, etc. for one to draw neat
boundaries. If there is a strong tradition in Hinduism, it is the
ancient scriptures, the Vedas. The epic poems Mahabharata and
Ramayana are also very "popular" now because of the production of TV
serials.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25
<mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie,
IL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE47: I am a Baptist but have a problem with tithing (Malachi
3:10). It is mentioned in the Old Testament, but not as a mandate in
the New Testament. To Christians: Can you please explain why we are
supposed to tithe, according to the New Testament? I'd prefer answers
that are Bible based, not necessarily what you have heard.
POSTED MAY 6, 1998
Seriously concerned, 26, too embarrassed to ask in church, Detroit,
MI
ANSWER 1:
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said people should attend more to
justice, mercy and honesty than to the details of calculating their
tithe. My church promotes stewardship, based on the idea that we are
only taking care of wealth that really belongs to God. One basis for
this is the story of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30. The amount of
money we give to the church is a matter of justice and mercy. People
use tithing as their guide, but also consider other giving and
responsibilities. Your church may have a tradition that emphasizes
different scriptures, though; I urge you to ask your pastor or a lay
leader what seems a very reasonable question.
POSTED MAY 11, 1998
Chris G., Dallas, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Jesus and the Apostiles had only the Old Testiment
writings to teach from (Luke 4:16,17 and Matthew 21:42). Jesus taught
nothing new, but showed a people a better way of living. It
was not based on legalism, but on love and compassion. This was based
on the Ten Commandments, written with God's finger on stone, a law
we'll be judged by. The Mosaic Law (Joshua 9:31) governed the mass's
way of life, the way our civil laws governs us. They also had
religious laws (not on stone) aside from the Ten Commandmants given
by God that governed their services. Their means of taking care of
their responsibilities of payments (bills), feeding, clothing, and
caring for the needy, etc, were the same as ours today. Therefore
Malachi 3:8-10 is a command with a blessing carried over to today's
churches. Their order of service was a pattern for us. Too often,
people disregard what God says as not being necessary. Who's the
authority? God's not a myth. What He says should be taken
seriously.
POSTED JUNE 10, 1998
A.M.H., Protestant; San Diego, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Read 2 Corinthians, Chapter 9, verse 6-9. A lot of people
would take time to think what exactly one-tenth of their income is so
they can tithe it, but God is not expecting that. Actually, why would
He bless you back for money that you feel you had to give? Example:
If you had given $70 to a collection plate, and thought to yourself,
"That money could have paid my electric bill, but I gave it away just
because I felt I had to," then you would have been better off paying
your bill. Money you give is acknowledged from God when your heart
gives with it.
POSTED JUNE 26, 1998
Damon, 25, white male, Christian
<dgreen01@crosslink.net>,
Martinsburg, WV
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE46: How do the beliefs and practices of Mormons differ from
those of mainstream Christian faiths? Would a Protestant or a
Catholic consider them to be Christians? Do they consider themselves
so?
POSTED MAY 6, 1998
A. Morgan, Houston, TX
ANSWER 1:
As a 20-year Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints - I was formerly Baptist), it is astounding to
me (and all LDS as we prefer to be called) that we are sometimes
accused of "not being Christian." My point here is not to argue
doctrine, but to point out some facts. First - our Church's official
name should make it clear. Secondly, the Book of Mormon is subtitled
"Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and stands with (not
against or instead of) the Holy Bible in testifying to Jesus Christ's
divinity and mission. Thirdly, it is impossible to read the Book of
Mormon, other Church Scriptures, Church talks, magazines, lessons,
whatever, and not see that they are full of acknowledgements of
Christ and largely centered on Jesus Christ. It is very aggravating
to me to state that I believe something and then have someone say -
"no you don't," which is essentially what happens when others tell me
I am not a Christian. In fact, I would claim that the LDS are the
most Christian of any church (by the dictionary definition) because
we believe Christ not only is the head of our Church (in the
figurative sense) but actively and personally administrates it
through a living prophet and apostles. I would refer you to
www.lds.org for more information on Church beliefs, etc. While there,
take a look at some of the "Conference Talks" to see just how
centered on Jesus Christ we are. Also, I am not interested in arguing
what "Christian" means with anyone. If believing in the Holy Bible,
in "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," having it in our name, being
baptized in his name, and centering our religion and lives on Him
doesn't convince you, no amount of argument will.
POSTED MAY 11, 1998
K. Matson
<kmatson@bellatlantic.net>,
Philadelphia, PA
FURTHER NOTICE:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is
considered outside "mainstream" Christianity for a number of reasons,
the most prominent of which is that the existence of the church is
predicated on the illegitimacy of other Christian churches. This is
nothing newl it's on the Church's web site, and, as the first writer
pointed out, it's in the name. The LDS church believes Jesus Christ
first tried to set up the church in Palestine but that that church
collapsed in apostasy shortly after the death of the last apostle,
John, in about 100 A.D. He then tried to set up shop in South America
with a couple of bands of migrant Jews. That supposedly collapsed in
apostasy and a massive war in 420-ish A.D. Finally, He revealed
himself to Joseph Smith in an orchard in upstate New York in 1830,
giving Joseph some mystical tablets that were translated with the
help of a couple of angels, one of which was named Mormoni, hence the
name of the book. Joseph and his sucessors were to restore the
fullness of the Gospel that had collapsed so many centuries earlier,
hence the term "Latter Day Saints." Joseph Smith founded the LDS
church on the idea that traditional, mainstream Christianity was
corrupt and illegitimate. That is what is meant on the LDS web site
by the reference to the church being "restored" in 1830. Smith was so
vociferous in preaching the illegitimacy of traditional Christianity
that his church was run out of several locations before settling in
Utah, and Smith was ultimately killed by an angry mob. There are a
number of doctrine and practice differences between LDS and
mainstream Christianity, but, as noted in the first response, it's
probably pointless to discuss them. Suffice to say there are a bunch.
The main reason they are not considered "mainstream" is that they
want it that way; it's the whole reason for the existence of the
church.
POSTED MAY 17, 1998
Peter P., Roman Catholic, Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I have also been baptized Mormon, but have experienced
different religions. I have encountered those who do not consider
Mormons to be Christians because of the Book of Mormon. It is
sometimes incorrectly believed that Mormons do not study the Bible
and use the Book of Mormon instead. The truth is that the Book of
Mormon is studied as a complement to the Bible. In basic terms, a
Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ. Mormons believe Jesus
Christ is the savior and son of God. To me, that qualifies. Some
Mormon practices are different from other denominations. Examples:
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints has a non-paid
priesthood. The work is voluntary, based on a calling. It is
preferred for all young men at the age of 19 to go on a mission for
two years. Mormons believe in taking care of their own and not
relying on the government. Family is very important, and one night
per week is generally set aside as family time ("Family Home Evening"
is a frequently used term).
POSTED MAY 17, 1998
M. Bower, 24, Macomb, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
In addition to these other differences, from the LDS
writings and the writings of the church's so-called prophets, it is
clear the God of the LDS Church bares little resemblance to the God
of the Old and New Testaments. This is a god who supposedly was once
a man and has progressed to godhood. By contrast, the God of historic
orthodox Christianity has always been and always will be holy,
immutable, eternal, etc. Merely by having the name "Jesus" in the
name of the church and claiming one of their authorities is another
testament of Christ does not make one Christian - no more than
wearing a stethoscope makes one a doctor.
POSTED JUNE 15, 1998
Garrett B., evangelical, Lakeport, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has what
is called the Thirteen Articles of Faith. Basically, these are
statements of LDS church doctrine. The First Article of Faith states:
"We believe in God, the Eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ
and in the Holy Ghost." The Third Article of Faith states: "We
believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be
saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel."
To Peter P.: Some of your facts are incorrect. The name of the
Angel is Moroni and the Book of Mormon does not take its name from
him. As a member of the church all my life, and a return missionary,
I have a firm belief and testimony in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my
Savior and Redeemer. He is the same Christ born of Mary in Bethlehem.
He suffered for the sins of the world and died on the cross and was
resurrected on the third day. What other evidence of "Christianity"
is needed?
POSTED JUNE 18, 1998
Charlynn, 39, Middletown, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
It should also be noted that many Christians refuse to
believe in the Mormon faith because of the line in Revelations that
says, basically, "There shall be no other true prophets after me,
until the days of Christ's return." Since many modern Christians take
the Bible to be the literal word of God expressed through human
mouths and hands, they see any claim to Christian phophesy after John
of Patmos (sp?) to be heresy. Also keep in mind there were nearly 40
gospels written about Christ, but only four were made canon. The rest
were declared heresy.
POSTED JUNE 27, 1998
John, 24, straight white male
<the-macs@geocities.com>,
Cranford, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I am a member of the LDS church and wanted to correct the
second answer above. The angel who appeared to Joseph Smith is
Moroni, not Mormoni. The book is not named after Moroni, rather it is
named after his father Mormon, who abridged the book from a larger
portion of writings of prophets in his day.
POSTED JUNE 28, 1998
Jill D., Northglenn, CO
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I am a Protestant who has studied the Mormon church, and I
have no doubt Mormons are Christian. Their beliefs in key areas
aren't all that much different from what evangelicals believe; the
main difference is that Mormons believe they have all the truth (or
at least all the truth available), not just most of it. I have seen
an incredible amount of misunderstanding about what Mormons
believe.
POSTED AUG. 7, 1998
Eric 45, Seattle, WA
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
I do not believe the Mormon Church is Christian in any
way, shape or form. Christians believe in the Bible alone, while
Mormons have three other books they call Scripture. Joseph Smith, the
founding prophet, made more than 50 false prophecies. Christians
believe in one God who always was. Mormons believe God used to be a
man on some distant planet. Mormons believe polygamy will be
practiced in Heaven; Christians do not. The list can go on and
on.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Jeff B., Christian
<Jeff922@aol.com>,
Westland, MI
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE45: Many people are finding love with individuals outside
their religion and marrying. How are they dealing with selecting a
religion for their children?
POSTED MAY 4, 1998
Laurie, NJ
ANSWER 1:
My husband and I are different religions and have our
first child. We have discussed some of our religious differences and
decided we will encourage our son to learn about different religions.
Then, he may choose his own religion based on his faith. Until our
son is old enough to make such a decision, we have charged ourselves
with exposing him to different religions. I feel our child will be
more committed to a religion that is chosen based on his actual faith
and beliefs.
POSTED MAY 7, 1998
M. Bower, 24, Macomb MI
FURTHER NOTICE:
My husband and I were raised in different faiths. Neither
of us was terribly active in our respective churches when we married,
but my need and interest was much stronger than his. For this reason,
I accepted responsibility for our sons' religious upbringing. As the
years passed, my husband began to join us on Sundays for church and
then became more active in supporting the faith milestones that the
boys experienced. I would be very happy if he chose freely to
convert, but it is really a non-issue at this point. All the boys
(19, 16 and 10) are active in some way in the church we attend. I am
satisfied they now have a basis for making moral decisions as adults.
I must add one more thing: There have been a number of studies done
with families in which parents are from different faiths (Newsweek
did a cover story on this about six months ago). Most of the data
indicate that children raised with different faiths and then allowed
to choose end up without any faith. I've known couples who have tried
it, and their teens eventually resent the pressure that choosing puts
on them and opt out by not having any religious affiliation. Most
people of faith recommend one religion, and it doesn't matter which.
It's just less confusing for children.
POSTED MAY 7, 1998
S. Johnston, 45, Dayton, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
To M. Bower (Answer 1): I find it interesting what you're
doing, raising a kid with two religions. But how can you live with
the idea that your husband and child are not going where you are
going when you all die? E.g. you go to heaven, while they are Hindu.
They will be doomed forever, in your opinion.
POSTED JUNE 8, 1998
Thijs, 19, T.J.vinken@kub.nl, Tilburg, The Netherlands
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To M. Bower: As someone who was not raised within a
particular religion, I spent a lot of time drifting before I found a
belief that suited me. I would recommend choosing one faith to raise
your son in, but teach him tolerance for other religions. When he is
an adult, he will be able to make a choice based on his knowledge of
the church he grew up in.
POSTED JUNE 11, 1998
Larry H., larryhil@gte.net, Huntington Beach, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I disagree with those who say it is too confusing for
children to make up their own minds about religion. My parents let us
do that, and I thought it was great. Oh sure, there was a time when I
wished I'd been raised in a certain religion, but I was just being
lazy, not wanting to think for myself because I was wrapped up in
other things. My parents had five kids: One Southern Baptist, one
Christian but of an unspecified denomination and three atheists. And
why is it such a crime if it creates more atheists? If the only way
for children to accept a religion is if it's forced on them and can't
stand on its own merits, maybe it's not such a great one. It also
sends the message that love is conditional on acceptance of the
parents' religious beliefs, and that isn't healthy. It's good for
people to know how to make up their own minds at an early age.
POSTED SEPT. 5, 1998
Lynne, atheist
<lynne@darklair.com>,
Fairfield, IA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE44: Do Orthodox Jews still practice animal sacrifices in the
temples like in the Old Testament of the Bible?
POSTED MAY 3, 1998
Julie J., 39, Ypsilanti, MI
ANSWER 1:
Since the Temple was destroyed by the Romans (2,000 years
ago), the Jews are not practicing animal sacrifices. It is against
Jewish religious law and the Israeli law.
POSTED MAY 12, 1998
Shimon F.
FURTHER NOTICE:
Sacrifices, along with many other ritual practices
described in the Torah, are not legitimate outside of the
jurisdiction of the original Temple, which no longer exists.
POSTED MAY 12, 1998
Joseph, Karlsborg, Sweden
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
There are some extremist groups in modern-day Israel who
want to bring back animal sacrifice. The opinion of virtually all
mainstream Jews is that, with the destruction of the second temple,
only the Messiah can legitimately reinstate animal sacrifices, and if
the Messiah came, animal sacrifices would not be necessary. However,
it is sometimes brought up as a political issue by extreme groups
that want to make a dramatic point. In Jewish theology, it's believed
that prayer now literally fulfills the atoning function that animal
sacrifices used to fulfill. There is a story recorded in which an
authoritative rabbi declared that Jews "must now atone for their sins
through deeds of loving kindness" since the temple was ruined.
POSTED JUNE 26, 1998
Seth S., 18, atheist, raised Jewish
<schoen@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
Berkeley, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE43: If a person you consider a friend makes a disrepectful
comment about your religion, how do you address the situation without
hurting the friendship?
POSTED MAY 2, 1998
Delight
<topazhu@hotmail.com>,
Washington, D.C.
ANSWER 1:
Without knowing the nature of your friend's comment, I'm
going to assume it was spoken in ignorance and not intended to hurt
you. First, let your friend know how his/her comment made you feel -
hurt, angry, sad, disappointed. Do this in a non-confrontational
manner; your goal is to make your friend aware the comment was
disrespectful and not to escalate the situation. Second, educate your
friend about your religion. Tolerance begins with understanding.
Clear up any preconceived ideas your friend may have or answer
questions she/he has regarding your beliefs. This would be an ideal
time to begin a dialogue in which the two of you share each other's
religious experiences - careful, though, not to let it develop into a
theological debate (a no-win situation). The point is to learn and
enlighten, thus developing a mutual respect for each other's
religious beliefs.
POSTED MAY 17, 1998
David O., 31, Nashville, TN
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE42: Why do Christians and people following other religions
think it is wrong to pray to statues of deities, as practiced in
Hinduism? After all, everyone knows the statues are representations
of gods and not gods themselves. For example, don't Christians have
crosses, statues and paintings of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, etc.?
POSTED APRIL 30, 1998
B., Hindu
ANSWER 1:
In the Bible, in God's first contact with Abraham (whose
descendent would be Jesus), he is ordered to smash the idols in his
father's shop. Americans view God as something that can't be
symbolized in an idol.
POSTED MAY 3, 1998
M.D., Detroit, MI
FURTHER NOTICE:
Hindus pray to a statue itself. Christians will oppose
making an object your God, i.e. the Golden Calf (Moses). Christians
use symbols such as crosses to represent certain situations in the
Bible (the cross for the crucifixion, for example), but do not pray
to the statues themselves.
POSTED MAY 3, 1998
Rob, 27
<innvertigo@aol.com>,
Southfield, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
During the Crusades, Christians sneered at the Moors as
idol worshipers and the Moors sneered at Christians as idol
worshipers. It seems to be a matter of perspective: If you believe in
the deity the statue represents, you feel you are not worshiping an
idol, but the deity. If you don't believe, then it appears that
people are worshiping an idol because the image doesn't represent
anything from your own point of view.
POSTED MAY 4, 1998
Colette
<inkwolf@earthlink.net>,
Seymour, WI
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
The G-d of Abraham is an infinite and omnipotent entity.
Any material representation of G-d puts finite limits on the infinite
and will be an imperfect representation. The Jewish custom of not
spelling out G-d, or not calling G-d by name, comes frome this same
need not to limit G-d. Also, making idols is the first step on a
slippery slope from worshiping G-d to worshiping rocks, as was common
in Biblical times.
POSTED JUNE 11, 1998
Larry H., larryhil@gte.net, Huntington Beach, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE41: U.S. Christians reserve Sundays, by and large, for
worship; Jews the Sabbath, or Saturday, beginning Friday at sunset.
What day of the week do Muslims reserve for prayer?
POSTED APRIL 30, 1998
Steve, 48
<vrhino@bellatlantic.net>,
N.J.
ANSWER 1:
I've been seeing a Muslim guy for a while, and his
"sabbath" is the same as the Jewish sabbath - from sunset Friday
until sunset Saturday.
POSTED MAY 21, 1998
C. Leest, 22, Jewish, Arlington, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Muslims consider Friday the sabbath, the most important
part of the day being the Friday afternoon prayer at around 1
p.m.
POSTED JUNE 8, 1998
W.A., San Ramon, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
There isn't really a concept of a sabbath or a holy day of
the week dedicated for prayers. Muslims pray five times a day,
everyday. With some special days, there are special prayers you can
choose to do. On Friday, men are required to do their afternoon
prayers in the mosque.
POSTED MARCH 24, 1999
Hafiz, Muslim, Singapore
To respond
BACK TO TOP