The Divine Code part 2 chapter 3
Which Actions Make One Liable for Idol Worship;
page 167 & 168;
#26; If a Gentile performs the service of an idol in its usual manner, even if it is in a degrading fashion (and his intent was only to degrade it, and not to worship it), he is liable for a capital sin. For example, one who.. throws a stone to Merculis to degrade them is liable, since those are the traditional ways of serving them, even though the rituals are degrading to the idols...
#27; One who served an idol out of love (for example, he desires this idol because its service is very pleasing), or who served it from fear that it may wrong him,.. is liable if he accepts it as a deity...
Likewise, if on serves an idol out of love or fear of a person, and does not accept the idol upon himself as a deity, he is also exempt.
dificulty; In both cases the person does not accept the idol as a deity. If the purpose of service is to degrade the idol, then the person is liable for the prohibition of idol worship. If the purpose of service is an expression of love, then the person is exempt from the prohibition. It would seem the rules should be the other way around. If the person is motivated by love would be stricter than if he is motivated to degrade.
Footnote 107 explains a person motivated by love intends personal benefit by from the service.
The critical distinction seems to be in #26 the focus is on the idol while in # 27 the focus is on the self. If the focus is on the idol, then the service is to thus while if the focus is on the self, then the service is not to the idol.
on a side note; the last 2 sentences in footnote 107 seem to contradict each other. also, it should be clarified if while # 27 is not a capital sin, if it would still be forbidden to do so.
Which Actions Make One Liable for Idol Worship;
page 167 & 168;
#26; If a Gentile performs the service of an idol in its usual manner, even if it is in a degrading fashion (and his intent was only to degrade it, and not to worship it), he is liable for a capital sin. For example, one who.. throws a stone to Merculis to degrade them is liable, since those are the traditional ways of serving them, even though the rituals are degrading to the idols...
#27; One who served an idol out of love (for example, he desires this idol because its service is very pleasing), or who served it from fear that it may wrong him,.. is liable if he accepts it as a deity...
Likewise, if on serves an idol out of love or fear of a person, and does not accept the idol upon himself as a deity, he is also exempt.
dificulty; In both cases the person does not accept the idol as a deity. If the purpose of service is to degrade the idol, then the person is liable for the prohibition of idol worship. If the purpose of service is an expression of love, then the person is exempt from the prohibition. It would seem the rules should be the other way around. If the person is motivated by love would be stricter than if he is motivated to degrade.
Footnote 107 explains a person motivated by love intends personal benefit by from the service.
The critical distinction seems to be in #26 the focus is on the idol while in # 27 the focus is on the self. If the focus is on the idol, then the service is to thus while if the focus is on the self, then the service is not to the idol.
on a side note; the last 2 sentences in footnote 107 seem to contradict each other. also, it should be clarified if while # 27 is not a capital sin, if it would still be forbidden to do so.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment