An iconoclast is not necessarily faithless. As a matter of fact, Judaism has what could be considered a tradition of what could be called iconoclastic behaviour, formal debate of their law.

Islam, as I understand it, is iconoclastic? Islam is iconoclastic in the literal sense, but has many strictly orthodox sects though some that aren’t considered orthodox as well. Sufism is one example of Islamic iconoclasm or could be seen as such, and the Parsi people don’t keep to all the old concepts of their parent faith. Parsi are modern followers of the teachings of Zoroaster, which was the start of the Manichean heresy in Catholicism. Originally, Satan didn’t have a war with God. They didn’t even have the word Satan.

The notion of an adversary predates that name. Yes, and was a role held by an angel in the spiritual counterpart to Jewish courts. It was basically the prosecutor of souls, and Islam does not have a fall of the adversary angel. In Islam, it was another creature that had a falling out with God.

I’ve heard that applied to Christian Theology. Also a story that an Angel was given authority over Earth and then rebelled against heaven. A Jinn perhaps? Iblis and his people.

I had thought Jinn and Angels similar. Well, more specifically it was an Efreet. A creature of smokeless fire rather than of the air, and Iblis refused to take a subordinate stance to humanity because he felt humanities origins not as a noble as that of the Efreet. He judged humanity inferior.

I ‘ve heard that adjusted into the Christian story where incarnation of Jesus is what upset Iblis/Satan. Yes. The logos being incarnated among the lesser creatures. Though in another school, they link the spirit, that Jesus was a vessel for, to the order of the seraphim. The fiery ones, as was Lucifer.

Makes him less than divine. Well, in one school of theology the angels are not independent of Gods very own essence, and thus if one angel were the most perfect of these forms, it would be almost identical to God itself.

Any big iconoclastic movements today? Scientology? Regrettably no, not really. In fact, scientology has its own very elaborate iconography and they do swear by it.

Iconoclasm is questioning representational thought of any kind. Not rejection of the essence of any ideal or spiritual presence/principle so much as a rejection of fixed descriptions.

So more plastic notions would fit in? Plasticity would fit an iconoclastic philosophy. More of an embracing of artistic inspiration and an almost Gnostic attitude than anything institutional.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~