real question

[Nemo]

According to Muslims, Jews and Christians we are idolaters. There is no doubt in this.

Priceless artifacts of Buddhist history are still destroyed with alarming regularity.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... C0%2C1%2C0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sophistry generally has had little effect on zealots swinging a hammers in the last 1300 years.

I feel no need to apologize for my idolatry. I think the monotheists following Abrhamic faiths should be the ones apologizing.

[Wesley1982]

Also, the exoteric aspect of "monotheistic" religions is actually mono-idolatry. They simply worship one invisible idol and call it "God". Not to say that invisible-to-the-physical-senses noumena don't exist. Nevertheless, to take a single invisible—whether existent or non-existent—noumenon and give it attributes of The Absolute, is mono-idolatry.

God isn't an idol. (I know it gets real complicated)

[krodha]

Also, the exoteric aspect of "monotheistic" religions is actually mono-idolatry. They simply worship one invisible idol and call it "God". Not to say that invisible-to-the-physical-senses noumena don't exist. Nevertheless, to take a single invisible—whether existent or non-existent—noumenon and give it attributes of The Absolute, is mono-idolatry.

God isn't an idol. (I know it gets real complicated)

God is an idea, it has to be believed in. Any concept that the mind relates to (which can be accepted or rejected) is an idol. Christianity is highly involved in idol worshipping, though it loves to pretend it isn't. You'll disagree because you identify with the belief system in question, and in order to validate it, a label of idol worshipping must be denied at all costs. You have to protect it because it cannot protect itself... It can't protect itself because it's a concept/idea which only has as much power as it receives from those who believe in it.

[KathyLauren]

God isn't an idol. (I know it gets real complicated)

It's not that complicated. It amounts to worshipping my idol isn't idolatry, but worshipping yours is.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Nemo]

Also, the exoteric aspect of "monotheistic" religions is actually mono-idolatry. They simply worship one invisible idol and call it "God". Not to say that invisible-to-the-physical-senses noumena don't exist. Nevertheless, to take a single invisible—whether existent or non-existent—noumenon and give it attributes of The Absolute, is mono-idolatry.

God isn't an idol. (I know it gets real complicated)

That statue of a guy nailed to a piece of lumber sure looks like a sacred and often worshipped idol to me.
Idolater!!!

I hear they worship him on Sundays. Everyone knows that is a good day for the invocation of demons. Did you read what their "God" did to the Egyptians. Murdered all their children in the night. It's worhsippers needed to slaughter animals and put sigils in blood on their doors to be protected. Terrifying. I hope one of these demon worshippers does not move into my neighborhood.

(Nothing like a superficial and biased opinon on a topic.)

[PadmaVonSamba]

If you are looking at this from an Abramic (Judeo/Christian/Islamic) point of view, then yes, it is idolatry, because the concept of idolatry itself is an abramic concept, as is the concept of "worship" in this sense. But this is taking a concept out of one context and trying to apply it to a different context.

if I, as a Buddhist, brought a Buddhist point of view to a Christian concept, I might ask, "isn't belief in God just an extension of the idea of an existent 'self'?" and from a Buddhist point oif view the answer would be yes, but from a Christian point of view the answer might be no.

So, if you mix these different contexts the answer is going to be confusing.

The regarding of idols as actual beings, or as objects of devotion depends on the notion that the beings represented in these images, statues and so forth have an independently functioning reality to them. For example, Catholics pray before a statue of Mary because they believe Mary exists outside of the mind of the worshiper and exercises a kind of conscious awareness that hears the prayers of the worshiper.

In Buddhism, all Buddhas and so forth represented as images are in fact ultimately aspects (or, in Vajrayana Buddhism, manifestations), of one's own true mind, the awakened state free of confusion. In discussing whether one regards them as 'real' or not, one must also ask to what degree one sees oneself as 'real'. In buddhism, seeing yourself as real (as Christians regard themselves as "real') might be considered a type of idol worship.

To say that the deities and various celestial beings in Buddhism are real or not is actually beside the point.
Are they any more "real" than the person who "worships" them?
.
.
.

[Wesley1982]

God isn't an idol. (I know it gets real complicated)

It's not that complicated. It amounts to worshipping my idol isn't idolatry, but worshipping yours is.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

You idolater.

[Wayfarer]

I think the distinction is as follows: it becomes idolatry when you are seeking a benefit, boon or assistance, in some matter, by way of the power imputed to the idol/symbol/form.

This certainly can apply to Buddhism, just as much as any other religion, and only insofar as Buddhism is a religion (bearing in mind that 'dharma' and 'religion' are not synonymous). But I don't think the original meaning of (for example) invocation of the name of the Buddha or the Bodhisattvas or bowing before the form of the Buddha is 'idolatrous'. The original meaning and intent is only to embody, serve and understand dharma, for the sake of understanding it, and for no other reason. I have found that bowing is a way of acknowledging that the teaching reveals something I don't understand, that is beyond my understanding. It is not supplication for an advantage. In other words, this is something undertaken solely for its own sake. As soon as it become a means to an end - a way to secure good fortune, a better rebirth, better days ahead, and so on, then it tilts towards idolatry, because then you are reducing it to a symbol for 'what I want', thereby subordinating the entire teaching to your needs. If you can really look upon such symbols with no ulterior motive and without any thought of gain, there is no possibility or idolatory arising.

[acarefreeman]

I think the distinction is as follows: it becomes idolatry when you are seeking a benefit, boon or assistance, in some matter, by way of the power imputed to the idol/symbol/form.

This certainly can apply to Buddhism, just as much as any other religion, and only insofar as Buddhism is a religion (bearing in mind that 'dharma' and 'religion' are not synonymous). But I don't think the original meaning of (for example) invocation of the name of the Buddha or the Bodhisattvas or bowing before the form of the Buddha is 'idolatrous'. The original meaning and intent is only to embody, serve and understand dharma, for the sake of understanding it, and for no other reason. I have found that bowing is a way of acknowledging that the teaching reveals something I don't understand, that is beyond my understanding. It is not supplication for an advantage. In other words, this is something undertaken solely for its own sake. As soon as it become a means to an end - a way to secure good fortune, a better rebirth, better days ahead, and so on, then it tilts towards idolatry, because then you are reducing it to a symbol for 'what I want', thereby subordinating the entire teaching to your needs. If you can really look upon such symbols with no ulterior motive and without any thought of gain, there is no possibility or idolatory arising.

Great! Very insightful observations and very thorough explanations as well.

~acarefreeman