Symbolising a Thing = Doing that Thing?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: If something is morally wrong, is engaging in symbolism of that thing also morally wrong?

Do the bad apples spoil the apples that are next to them? That happened historically to be next to them? If an evil person touches something, does that thing become evil?

A few examples (which not everyone agrees to the validity of, bear in mind):
Killing Native Americans was wrong, so Thanksgiving, which is related to killing Native Americans, is probably wrong.
Christmas and Easter are wrong for Christians because they contain Pagan symbolism and traditions.
Worshiping Lucifer the Light is wrong, so eating candy red hots with a picture of a cartoon devil on the package is wrong.
The Roman salute is wrong because Nazis used a version of it.
Hurting animals is wrong, so watching any media where an animal is hurt (even if no real animal was hurt in the process) is also wrong.
Eating babies is wrong, so eating a cake shaped like a baby is also wrong.
Eating meat is wrong, therefore eating tofu that is shaped like animals is also wrong.

One problem that comes to mind is that if we accept the validity of previous history tainting what would otherwise be innocuous actions, eventually no remaining actions will be permissible. Eventually every action will come to be associated with evil and then put aside. This will happen all the more quickly since the new evil people, even more than good people, don't want to be associated with other evil people - they want to hide the fact that they're evil, so they especially must select new actions and symbols. And thus, every generation, evil people do new things which must then be removed from the pool of acceptable actions.

As for the lesser question of symbolism, such as eating tofu shaped like animals, on certain levels it can give an ick reaction, but does that mean we mustn't do it, if no real animals are hurt? Arguably people (but not animals) can be emotionally hurt by something like that, but is that the sole reason one ought not engage in it?

[Purple Knight]

I don't subscribe, personally, to symbolism much simply because if you look hard enough at something, you can find just about anything wrong (or right) with it.

I don't either, but I'm waiting for JW's insight on the matter because he may well have something to say that changes my mind.

The way I see things now, if I reason that stealing a bird's egg that the parent birds invested so much work into, then crunching a little embryonic baby bird is wrong, then that's what's wrong. And since a Cadbury egg doesn't actually contain one, I should be in the clear. I'm just confused because sometimes, the power of symbolism is taught, that it makes things wrong that wouldn't normally be wrong except for being alike to other things that are wrong... and sometimes, that is not taught. If it's a rule I'll follow it, but if the rule is something else that applies to the specific situations they teach it in, I just want to know the actual rule is all.

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't either, but I'm waiting for JW's insight on the matter ...

I really don't really have anything to add. Unless you are claiming symbols aren't really a thing.



The import one attributes to any given symbol depends largely on one's personal worldview and moral values which is individual to each one.



I have explained my own as one if Jehovahs Witnesses. HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1032483#p1032483

Jehovahs Witnesses are not superstitious and do not believe inanimate objects have evil powers. We recognise however that objects and images can represent rituals, individuals and events which that are objectionable to our God and distance ourselves from for that reason.

Unless you propose I do not believe as I say, I cannot see what else there is to add.


JW



Are there any prophetic symbols described in the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1018529#p1018529

[2ndpillar2]

Question for debate: If something is morally wrong, is engaging in symbolism of that thing also morally wrong?

Do the bad apples spoil the apples that are next to them? That happened historically to be next to them? If an evil person touches something, does that thing become evil?

A few examples (which not everyone agrees to the validity of, bear in mind):
Killing Native Americans was wrong, so Thanksgiving, which is related to killing Native Americans, is probably wrong.
Christmas and Easter are wrong for Christians because they contain Pagan symbolism and traditions.
Worshiping Lucifer the Light is wrong, so eating candy red hots with a picture of a cartoon devil on the package is wrong.
The Roman salute is wrong because Nazis used a version of it.
Hurting animals is wrong, so watching any media where an animal is hurt (even if no real animal was hurt in the process) is also wrong.
Eating babies is wrong, so eating a cake shaped like a baby is also wrong.
Eating meat is wrong, therefore eating tofu that is shaped like animals is also wrong.

One problem that comes to mind is that if we accept the validity of previous history tainting what would otherwise be innocuous actions, eventually no remaining actions will be permissible. Eventually every action will come to be associated with evil and then put aside. This will happen all the more quickly since the new evil people, even more than good people, don't want to be associated with other evil people - they want to hide the fact that they're evil, so they especially must select new actions and symbols. And thus, every generation, evil people do new things which must then be removed from the pool of acceptable actions.

As for the lesser question of symbolism, such as eating tofu shaped like animals, on certain levels it can give an ick reaction, but does that mean we mustn't do it, if no real animals are hurt? Arguably people (but not animals) can be emotionally hurt by something like that, but is that the sole reason one ought not engage in it?

What is the symbology of a purple dragon, as the dragon is a symbol for the devil? I thought the symbology of purple was with Babylon the Great, the church which worships the dragon. (Revelation 17:4).

[nobspeople]

I don't subscribe, personally, to symbolism much simply because if you look hard enough at something, you can find just about anything wrong (or right) with it.

I don't either, but I'm waiting for JW's insight on the matter because he may well have something to say that changes my mind.

The way I see things now, if I reason that stealing a bird's egg that the parent birds invested so much work into, then crunching a little embryonic baby bird is wrong, then that's what's wrong. And since a Cadbury egg doesn't actually contain one, I should be in the clear. I'm just confused because sometimes, the power of symbolism is taught, that it makes things wrong that wouldn't normally be wrong except for being alike to other things that are wrong... and sometimes, that is not taught. If it's a rule I'll follow it, but if the rule is something else that applies to the specific situations they teach it in, I just want to know the actual rule is all.

I would agree with the bolded section and suspect the reason why this happens is because people are 'looking too hard' to see what's there. Pareidolia, as it were.
But I don't much care - Billy across town, or Marla next door, can see symbols in whatever they want in their own lives. Just don't chastise me for doing something they think is wrong based on their own whims of symbolism.

[Purple Knight]

What is the symbology of a purple dragon, as the dragon is a symbol for the devil? I thought the symbology of purple was with Babylon the Great, the church which worships the dragon. (Revelation 17:4).

I'll tell you what it means to me: To me it's about not just logical charity, but logical chivalry. To go beyond simply refraining from using strawmen and actually defend everyone, because everyone is worthy of defence. Now as to why a purple dragon to symbolise this.

First of all it's a dragon. Dragons are associated with knights because knights slay dragons. Not only might a knight have a dragon on his coat of arms, but for me it's about the fact that I am also for the dragon. I am for whosoever gets bullied. I am for the slain, not just the slayer.

Secondly it's purple. Purple isn't a particularly oft-used colour to represent allegiance, but red and blue are. To me, purple represents that I will not give in to the biases of either side, but try my best to truly see, and honestly defend the case of any side.

Lately I've actually been questioning whether doing this might be genuinely evil.

The import one attributes to any given symbol depends largely on one's personal worldview and moral values which is individual to each one.

Jehovahs Witnesses are not superstitious and do not believe inanimate objects have evil powers. We recognise however that objects and images can represent rituals, individuals and events which that are objectionable to our God and distance ourselves from for that reason.

So it's primarily about God, right? If so, my main question would be, what if there was some forgotten ritual of Satan that involved, for example, different coloured lights? What if it was similar to the effect of stained glass windows, but no one left alive knew that Satanists had ever worshiped this way. Would God still be upset if someone had a stained glass window? Or is it about what's in the mind of the person at the time?

I would agree with the bolded section and suspect the reason why this happens is because people are 'looking too hard' to see what's there. Pareidolia, as it were.

Basically, your idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that symbolising a thing is not wrong, that it's not an overarching moral rule, and that people are sometimes too quick to look into the minds of others and try to find something wrong?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #16]

Basically, your idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that symbolising a thing is not wrong, that it's not an overarching moral rule, and that people are sometimes too quick to look into the minds of others and try to find something wrong?

I thought I explained it once. But if not, here it is:

If one wants, symbolizing can be taken to any extreme.
A cake shaped like a person? Cannibalism
A carrot that looks phallic? Sexual
A white snowman? Racist

It becomes silly after a point.

But if one wants something to be symbolic, that's fine for them if it doesn't impact others negatively. Belief is a powerful thing.

[JehovahsWitness]

The import one attributes to any given symbol depends largely on one's personal worldview and moral values which is individual to each one.

Jehovahs Witnesses are not superstitious and do not believe inanimate objects have evil powers. We recognise however that objects and images can represent rituals, individuals and events which that are objectionable to our God and distance ourselves from for that reason.

So it's primarily about God, right? If so, my main question would be, what if there was some forgotten ritual of Satan that involved, for example, different coloured lights? What if it was similar to the effect of stained glass windows, but no one left alive knew that Satanists had ever worshiped this way. Would God still be upset if someone had a stained glass window? Or is it about what's in the mind of the person at the time?

That is what scripture is for. God is neither petty nor fearful of his own material creation but his memory is long and his principles unchangeable. We believe if there is something which He views as morally or religiously unclean, he has communicated that to us in His word.

The bible condemns Idolatry, immorality, spiritism and a disregard for the sanctity of life. Symbols directly linked to rituals or customs in regard to such things are repulsive to True Christians as are anything that violates bible law and principle.

The bible doesnt condemn coloured glass.



JW

[nobspeople]

The import one attributes to any given symbol depends largely on one's personal worldview and moral values which is individual to each one.

Jehovahs Witnesses are not superstitious and do not believe inanimate objects have evil powers. We recognise however that objects and images can represent rituals, individuals and events which that are objectionable to our God and distance ourselves from for that reason.

So it's primarily about God, right? If so, my main question would be, what if there was some forgotten ritual of Satan that involved, for example, different coloured lights? What if it was similar to the effect of stained glass windows, but no one left alive knew that Satanists had ever worshiped this way. Would God still be upset if someone had a stained glass window? Or is it about what's in the mind of the person at the time?

That is what scripture is for. God is neither petty nor fearful of his own material creation but his memory is long and his principles unchangeable. We believe if there is something which He views as morally or religiously unclean, he has communicated that to us in His word.

The bible condemns Idolatry, immorality, spiritism and a disregard for the sanctity of life. Symbols directly linked to rituals or customs in regard to such things are repulsive to True Christians as are anything that violates bible law and principle.

The bible doesnt condemn coloured glass.



JW

By 'his word' do you mean the bible or the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?

A side curiosity: why wasn't the bible good enough for JWs? Why did they feel the need to 'translate' it yet again? Not to derail the thread here, but it is curious.....
Mormons did it, too, I suppose so it's not like it's unprecedented (even the bible had been edited and translated and re-written over the years, but it seems even those weren't good enough?)

[JehovahsWitness]

why wasn't the bible good enough for JWs? Why did they feel the need to 'translate' it yet again?

For the following reasons, to ...

1. make the bible available in languages have not previously had bibles
2. better reflect the ever increasing knowledge of ancient manuscripts and bible languages.
3. Produce a translation in language more understandable to modern readership
4. produce a translation free of the religious bias favoring unscriptural teachings
5. restore the Divine Name (YHWH) to its original place






RELATED POSTS

Why are there so many translations of the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91#p851791

Why did Jehovah's Witnesses choose to produce their own translation ? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1032792#p1032792

Which Bible translation is the best?
viewtopic.php?p=960898#p960898

Do Jehovahs Witnesses reject all other translations of the bible as the work of the Devil?
viewtopic.php?p=1100421#p1100421

Which bible translations do Jehovahs Witnesses accept?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p935089

How do Jehovah's Witnesses view the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 25#p873125

Further Reading WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007409#h=19

Literal bible translations
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... bible.html

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , THE DIVINE NAME and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

* bible interpretation

[nobspeople]

why wasn't the bible good enough for JWs? Why did they feel the need to 'translate' it yet again?

For the following reasons, to ...

1. make the bible available in languages have not previously had bibles
2. better reflect our ever increaing knowledge of ancient manuscripts and bible languages.
3. Produce a translation in language more understandable to modern readership
4. produce a translation free of the religious bias favoring unscriptural teachings
5. restore the Divine Name (YHWH) to its original place


BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

So the JWs thought they knew better than all the other, previous translators, editors, scholars and distributions?
They thought they could do this without bias, or just without the bias they don't like?
Not saying they didn't (or did, for that matter). It seems rather pompous to think such a thing (but that doesn't mean they were wrong).