Use of foreign symbols - specifically the Hindu divine symbol

[Lohman446]

Hinduism uses the symbol Om to represent the absolute divine. It represents both the manifest and unmanifest aspects of the absolute.

It has been, to me, a tremendous help in understanding God. Well the attempted explanation of it by various Hindu writers. And I find I identify God with that symbol more readily than the word God and as much as I do with tradition symbols such as a cross.

Before we get too concerned with idolatry here I want to make a point in my defense. Early Bibles carried into America were often free of any markings whatsoever because of concern of turning the cross into idolatry and yet we commonly use it today as symbolic. The churches seem to have accepted that there is a difference between symbols and idolatry.

Absent idolatry is there a danger to such a consideration? I do not believe I am in danger of offending those of Hindu faith, or at least the majority. Is it actually offensive to those of Christian faith?

 

[Ripheus27]

Well, when the Bible is translated into languages used predominantly on the Indian subcontinent, the translators have to use foreign symbols (the letters/punctuation/etc. of the foreign language) to translate it, so I would hope that it would be okay to represent God in non-standard symbolic forms.

 

[timewerx]

It's funny but I saw God in my dog. When I see my dog, I see her creator.

I don't trust symbols much especially when its origins are not solidly determined. It could have been used for evil purposes and forgotten over a very long period time.

Time makes people and generations forget, don't underestimate the power of time to deceive!

 

[Albion]

Hinduism uses the symbol Om to represent the absolute divine. It represents both the manifest and unmanifest aspects of the absolute.

It has been, to me, a tremendous help in understanding God. Well the attempted explanation of it by various Hindu writers. And I find I identify God with that symbol more readily than the word God and as much as I do with tradition symbols such as a cross.

Before we get too concerned with idolatry here I want to make a point in my defense. Early Bibles carried into America were often free of any markings whatsoever because of concern of turning the cross into idolatry and yet we commonly use it today as symbolic. The churches seem to have accepted that there is a difference between symbols and idolatry.

Absent idolatry is there a danger to such a consideration? I do not believe I am in danger of offending those of Hindu faith, or at least the majority. Is it actually offensive to those of Christian faith?

Yes, it is.

 

[Lohman446]

Yes, it is.

You have been kind enough to address various concerns I have wanted to discuss since before finding these forums and I have appreciated your input. May I ask why as an honest question?

 

[Albion]

You have been kind enough to address various concerns I have wanted to discuss since before finding these forums and I have appreciated your input. May I ask why as an honest question?

Sure. First, let me say that this is rather an unusual situation, in my opinion, so it probably shouldn't be seen as a bigger deal than it is. At least, you're the first person I can ever remember raising this issue in this way.

So...why did I say what I did? There are several reasons.

One, I think that many Christians--if confronted with this--would be somewhat offended or at least think it's very questionable. Of course, it could be kept rather private by you, if you choose to do that.

Should they be offended or, worse, think it violates some religious obligation? I wouldn't say so, but that's just my POV. There are plenty of Christians who have strict codes of conduct and think all kinds of things compromise our fidelity to God that I don't think do that. So yes, there probably are those who would take offense...and you did ask if there would be any such.

Second, there's the more obvious reason for any Christian to raise his eyebrows at this usage. It's a symbol of another religion. It is that religion's divine symbol. Hello? It's not the symbol for eternity or love or anything like that. The cross, which you compared it with in the OP, is not just an emblem of capital punishment or the Roman legal system; it's the symbol that's recognized as standing for Christ as our religion's deity.

In short, I can well imagine that to use this particular emblem would indeed cause some people who know what it is to think that's not just right to do unless, perhaps, it were clearly in a non-religious context like people who collect American Indian dream catchers. I don't think idolatry is the issue, by the way.

I hope that answer isn't too garbled or rambling, Lohman! And I apologize if my first reply seemed cryptic. I wanted to answer and not presume that you wanted a longer explanation. Yes, you probably are running some risk of someone taking offense.

 

[Lohman446]

I appreciate the answer. I figured answering it for myself and saying "I would not be offended" does not do much in actually answering the question. I needed the view point of someone who was offended (or could see from the point of view of someone who would be offended) to share with me that view.

I'm trying to expand my knowledge in certain areas as I try to get my mind to resettle itself on various questions and some of the things I ask can be rather "out there" when taken individually (or I guess collectively as well).

 

[timewerx]

Keep in mind we have been punished with different languages in Babylon. This also resulted to diverse cultures.

PUNISHED!

Would you use something that is symbolic of our punishment to represent God?

 

[Lohman446]

Keep in mind we have been punished with different languages in Babylon. This also resulted to diverse cultures.

PUNISHED!

Would you use something that is symbolic of our punishment to represent God?

Punishment by God in is just. I think this statement is central to the Christian beliefs. The sacrifice of Christ is meaningless if we do not acknowledge the value in restoration it represents. That its use represents punishment is less concerning to me than that it would be offensive for other reasons.

 

[Albion]

Punishment by God in is just. I think this statement is central to the Christian beliefs. The sacrifice of Christ is meaningless if we do not acknowledge the value in restoration it represents. That its use represents punishment is less concerning to me than that it would be offensive for other reasons.

Again, though, you know your own mind and your personal feelings and thoughts about this symbol.

But what you asked was whether there are "Christians" who might be offended by your use of it...and some might. If you do not flaunt it, however, or if you pay attention not to do so in the company of those who are likely to take offense, this could quite easily turn out never to be a problem.

 

[Lohman446]

Albion that is true. But my questions regarding if it is offensive are not intended to give the impression that simply being offensive is reason enough to abstain. One should not be offensive if there is no purpose to the offense beyond being offensive but being too careful in avoiding offense can avoid learning as well. This is why I am curious as to the reasoning behind those who would take offense. If the value of learning and understanding (or being faithful) is worth the offense than the offense can be forgiven.

Let me do what always works out badly for me (because I do not learn quickly) and try an example. Say, for instance, that someone claims that your silent prayer in whatever situation is offensive to them. Because that prayer is important to you for various reasons you do it anyways and accept the offense. You may simply continue the offense without ever considering why it is offensive and that is fine. However you stand the chance of gaining knowledge and understanding, and perhaps sharing it, by opening a discussion about why it is offensive.

 

[Albion]

Albion that is true. But my questions regarding if it is offensive are not intended to give the impression that simply being offensive is reason enough to abstain. One should not be offensive if there is no purpose to the offense beyond being offensive but being too careful in avoiding offense can avoid learning as well. This is why I am curious as to the reasoning behind those who would take offense. If the value of learning and understanding (or being faithful) is worth the offense than the offense can be forgiven.

Let me do what always works out badly for me (because I do not learn quickly) and try an example. Say, for instance, that someone claims that your silent prayer in whatever situation is offensive to them. Because that prayer is important to you for various reasons you do it anyways and accept the offense. You may simply continue the offense without ever considering why it is offensive and that is fine. However you stand the chance of gaining knowledge and understanding, and perhaps sharing it, by opening a discussion about why it is offensive.

You CAN look at it that way, but I understood the OP to be asking only if "Christians" (which I took to mean some Christians) would take offense...and perhaps why that might be so. I guess I assumed that you'd hoped to avoid giving offense, but how you should respond if offense is taken hasn't actually been part of our discussion before now, has it?

 

[Lohman446]

It hasn't. One of the major issues I have in how I write things is I tend to broaden or narrow the question and it is either an error in how I communicate, failure to fully consider point on my part, or a rapidly evolving (or devolving) view. Or of course there is always the option I am baiting conversation.

Its not the latter. The first three are most likely it. While I have a thought on this when I ask the question the question is in itself intended to be honest and gather the views of others.

My thoughts are, admittedly, often disjointed. The good news is some of the paths that my mind takes as a result of it are inspirational to me and give me a much better understanding. For instance I started a reply that noted a certain view often held by Christians. I deleted it because it was started a debate that I did not want to start. My question was "why is it ok to act on the view in an offensive matter." Then I realized something. Christ never attempted to avoid offending individuals if it meant the message was delivered effectively. The leaders of the temple were in fact, so offended, that they actively sought to put him to death.

 

[Albion]

Then I realized something. Christ never attempted to avoid offending individuals if it meant the message was delivered effectively. The leaders of the temple were in fact, so offended, that they actively sought to put him to death.

Very well, let's go with some of these ideas and just see what happens.

First, do you think that everything Jesus did is what we ought to do? Some Christians would immediately say to you that he taught us to turn the other cheek, not to go into the temple and drive out the money-lenders by violent force....even if he did that.

Second, is it not a part of the Christian way to avoid giving offense unless your own religious duties are infringed in the process? St. Paul seems to say that. But I don't see anything in your case as described here that would amount to you being denied your thoughts about God or the practice of your faith. It seems almost a private matter or, if not that, so nearly unnoticeable as to never be an issue unless you make it one.

 

[Lohman446]

First, do you think that everything Jesus did is what we ought to do? Some Christians would immediately say to you that he taught us to turn the other cheek, not to go into the temple and drive out the money-lenders by violent force....even if he did that.

I believe we are to follow the example of Christ. However, attempting to take what you mean, Christ acted with perfect knowledge that none of us have. When Christ drove the money-changers from the temple he did so with perfect knowledge that it was the will of God. When Christ submitted to the Roman authorities and told his disciples to put down their swords he did so with the perfect knowledge that it was the will of God. Thus Christ can take actions that we might see as different with perfect knowledge of context we cannot have.

The other part of your question involves the actual application of my question. I am in the process of commissioning some artwork for myself that involves that symbol in a fairly religious scene. But, as you note, it is not something that is likely to be a concern. That likely should have been the question I asked myself first - would anyone really care?

Which leads me to the question I need to ask myself. I am over complicating a lot of things in this arena. Am I doing so out of pride or out of trying to be right in the eyes of man?

 

[Albion]

I believe we are to follow the example of Christ. However, attempting to take what you mean, Christ acted with perfect knowledge that none of us have. When Christ drove the money-changers from the temple he did so with perfect knowledge that it was the will of God. When Christ submitted to the Roman authorities and told his disciples to put down their swords he did so with the perfect knowledge that it was the will of God. Thus Christ can take actions that we might see as different with perfect knowledge of context we cannot have.

OK, but that suggests that we are, in our behavior, to be guided by what he taught his disciples to do, not what he, as God, did himself in every situation.

The other part of your question involves the actual application of my question. I am in the process of commissioning some artwork for myself that involves that symbol in a fairly religious scene. But, as you note, it is not something that is likely to be a concern. That likely should have been the question I asked myself first - would anyone really care?

That's basically the way I see it. There could be others who would oppose you doing that, but under the circumstances you've described I doubt that there's anything wrong with it. The issue has been more one of giving offense and what to think of that. This doesn't even look very likely to do that.

Which leads me to the question I need to ask myself. I am over complicating a lot of things in this arena. Am I doing so out of pride or out of trying to be right in the eyes of man?

Of course this is something for you to answer, not me. However, I would tend to see it as self-defining. Do you display this symbol in public as though wanting to make a statement or invite a response? Or do you utilize it in your own home, in your own devotions, and perhaps on items (a bookmark used in your Bible, for instance) that the other person is unlikely even to notice?

 

[Lohman446]

My use of it at this time is likely to go unnoticed. I'm not certain that will continue indefinitely though and perhaps that may be part of why I am trying to define its spot in a broader context. Perhaps I am putting to much thought on my own interaction. I am thankful, for instance, that it was shared with me because it was one of those moments that clicked with me and helped me to understand God and the Trinity without understanding it. So I am thankful someone shared it with me. I would hate to think that something that helped me is never passed on by me.

 

[single eye]

GOD is love. That love is fearless and effortless, "perfect love casts out fear," and "my yoke is easy and my burden is light". Does your symbol communicate this to you? If not, you should consider how valuable it is.