Talk:Idolatry/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What looks to be missing from this entire discussion

In the Bible, the first Commandment is 'thou shalt have no other gods before me.' Many interpret this to mean 'false idols' in the sense of things one spends an inordinate amount of time chasing or lusting after, such as money or possessions. I believe that other versus do verify this. Can someone look that up?-- 76.215.47.190 (talk)

The need for a precise title

I think the biggest problem with this page is its title. The very word idolatry inescapably connotes "the forbidden practice of worshiping idols or false gods". This makes it very hard to make fine distinctions. Making fine distinctions, however, is precisely what an encyclopedia article on a broad religious topic ought to do. Determination of which religious practices or beliefs constitute "idolatry" and who is an "idolator" are just as tough as pinning down just which sexual practices are "immoral". Uncle Ed 16:00 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

That's right. For example, different Christian denominations have very different definitions of what they term idolatry (although all of them have classically agreed that all polytheists are idolators). However, I don't have a problem with the title; it is the most useful title to discuss the subject. We simply need to take care to note the full range of views within the article. RK

Really, it would be safer and easier to write a comprehenzive article on heresy than on "idolatry". At least the term heresy carries the connotation of "forbidden by a particular sect or leader". As in, Joe Blow was declared a heretic in 1342 by Jerry Blah.

This wouldn't be any easier. As above, different Christian denominations have very different definitions of what they term heresy, and Jewish and Muslim views of heresy differ further still. RK

Much discussion is devoted to comparing images and idols as if they are the same thing. They are not. A quick review of Genesis 31; where Rachel steals her father's image and the reading of the Book of Jasher, published in 1887 AD, describe the differences. A graven image, the same that are forbidden in the Ten Commandments describes a device made from a human-head, severed and bowed down to, in occult fashion, created a device that would "...answer any question asked of it." See "Graven Image" by RF Hawthorne for further details.RFHawthorne 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read with fascination what a lot of people call "idolatry". Either they don't know the definition of idolatry or they have the audacity of making up their own definitions. So why don't we get down to the nitty gritty: 1)Idolatry wants to turn into god that which isn’t God. When man honors a creature in place of God, as in Satanism, this is idolatry. Power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, can all be idols. How many people that have written on this page are already "idolators". 2)Men have an innate religious sense. Idolatry is a perversion of this religious sense. How many atheists have we just read on this topic. They are truly perverted in the religious sense in that they claim no belief in God. Truly they are idolatrous. 3)All men bow down before the idol of wealth. With the idol of wealth men believe they can do anything. To show how ridiculous idols can be, notoriety, or the making of noise in the world, is considered a great good and something to be venerated. Turn on the TV and listen to all the talking heads can show this to be true. 4)The worship of the one God sets man free from turning in on himself, from the slavery of sin and the idolatry of the world. 5) From the very start of Christianity until now idolatry has been condemned. Sometimes its forms would be new and not easily recognized, but the Early Church had a lot to say about it.

There is no idolatry in the Catholic Church and I doubt if there is any in the vast majority of Protestant Churches. If we were truly looking for the affects of idolatry in the various Churches around the world, why would anyone consider asking an idolator? Anathasius (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.85.234 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that worshipping the cross, the saints and Mary were all forms of idolatry. Maybe worship has nothing to do with idolatry then... Nicolasconnault (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Islam's View on Idolotry? .. Where is it?

Islam is notoriously anti-idolotry and idoloter. The Islamic invasions of South Asia show many instances in which Muslims massacred idolaters and destroyed idols. Mohhamed himself destroyed idols and the Quran instructs Muslims to slay idolaters in chapter 9.

So why is there no section on Islam? Is this a convenient way of sugarcoating or hiding Islam's view towards idolaters?

I suspect the motivation for not including the other major Abrahamic religions; Islam, and Baha'i (I'd like to include Sikhism but that would create more heat than light), is due more to ignorance than a desire to sugarcoat Islam. Would someone like to do some research to find information? What I know falls too much under OR.

The term used in Islam for 'idolatry' is shirk and it covers the two basic fields: forbidding the representation of Allah and attributing a partner to Allah. Some sects will reject the version of the Shahada including Muhammed is his Prophet on the basis that it places Muhammed in the position of being a subject of veneration. Most of the Sunnis reject any depiction of a Prophet for that reason and will only allow geometric art and calligraphy in a place of worship. There is considerable dissension concerning tolerance for idols: the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan while the Egyptians remain proud of their artistic heritage.

David Cheater 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Break up article in several sections

My suggestion for fixing this article, as well as ameliorating the squabbling, would be to divide it into several smaller articles, each with a well-defined and easily-agreed-upon scope. For example, Jewish views on idol worship which presumably would begin with Old Testament prohibitions such as "worship no graven images". A defense of monotheism is related ("have no other gods before Me") but really peripheral to idol worship per se. My 2 cents. --Uncle Ed 15:34 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Actually from the Jewish viewpoint worshipping either a man-made object like a statue or a created object like the sun are considered the same thing. The Jewish version of the Decalogue considers this to be the second commandment after "Remember I am the L-rd your G-d...."

Rabbinic interpretations of idolatry forbid iconoclasm since the sin exists in the mind of the viewer rather than the object. David Cheater 06:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

King James Version and idolatry

Here is a quotation from the KJV:

20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

The text which I have emphasized in bold seems to forbid three related practices:

• Don't worship other "gods"
• Don't make idols
• Don't worship idols

Traditionally, I think, these are considered the #1 and #2 of the Ten Commandments. Whatever you call the 2 or 3 practices described in chapter 20, verses 3 to 5 -- it seems that some religious authorities have interpreted the verses as forbidding polytheism and idol worship. I bet some religious authorites have even branded these practices as "idolatry". But it seems to me that they are stretching the term idolatry as a blankey to cover polytheism and idol making and idol worship. Uncle Ed 16:00 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

This is a valid point of view, and one that is noted in the article (e.g. liberal religious Chrisitians and Jews who no longer see a reason to call polytheists idolators.) However, those who coined the word idolatry, and who have used this word for the past 1000 or 2000 years, disagree. This article is about what the word idolatry refers to in practice, and not what this word in theory could have refered to. It could have refered solely to people who literally worship stone idols. But it doesn't; according to people who use this word, it refers to much more. RK

Exactly what people believed when they genuflected in front of "idols" may also be of interest. Do they think the god is *in* the stone doll? Or what?

But I think we have to separate the Points Of View of the various condemning authorities from the Points Of View of the various advocating authorities, historians, anthropologists, etc.

So one outline for an article would be to list the various Jewish prohibitions stemming from 20:3-5 (the, um, first two Commandments). If someone has labelled one or more of these practices as "idolatry", we should say who that was.

That same article -- or possibly another, such as polytheism, might be the appropriate place to discuss issues such as to what extent people who use pictures or statues in their religious practice consider themselves to be practing "idolatry" or not. You see, we cannot come up with a one-size-fits-all definition or explanation of "idolatry". There are many views, expressed by many advocates. Let us simply describe and report on all those views.

I think RK, slr, Wesley and possibly Dietary Fiber are better qualified to write this than I am. So please try to get along together. --Uncle Ed 16:00 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Is this really brilliant prose?

i added this article to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose Kingturtle 17:36 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why? It's hardly excellent prose. It's very choppy and lacks introductory sentences in many places. Not brilliant at all, although it does appear to be prose. Graft

We need to represent the views of other faiths

Okay, by now I'm getting used to this on Wikipedia, but I'll at least register my complaint that Judaism, Christianity and Islam get primary treatment while Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, and so on get lumped together into "Asian beliefs" and tucked in as an afterthought. I mean, hell, there are only 3 billion of us, right? Graft

But idolatry is a Jewish and a Christian belief, not a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist belief. Similarly, the Ten Commandments are also Jewish and Christian elements of their belief systems. Why should other religions get a lot of space on things that have little to do with their religion? The only way that they ever enter into this article is the question of whether or not modern day Jews and Christians should think of these faiths as idolatry or not. The Bible certainly doesn't deal with any of these religions. RK

Ah, but the concept of idolatry is of immense political import to these religions, as it colors relations between Abrahamites and them. It's not just some neutral "belief". Literal iconoclasm is a recurrent and primary tactic used by Abrahamic missionaries to divide communities in parts of the "10/40 window" dominated by the Aryadharmic, Sinic, and animistic religions. Such iconoclasm is based on the Abrahamic taboo of idolatry. Given that this charge is specifically deployed to invalidate the spiritual practices of 3billion people, some might be curious for a response.--Aunty Entity 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Millions of Christians and Muslims have their minds poisoned against the followers of other religions, whom they have never even seen, merely because those religions are labelled 'idolatrous' by some overenthusiastic clergy. There is absolutely no logical basis for the animosity of the West Asian religions towards idol worship. If one were ask a Hindu to define 'idolatry' he would define it as the act of showing any object more veneration than due. By this definition, which is logically the only definition possible, every religion is idolatrous. This point must be explained patiently. Swami Vivekananda says that nobody knows why idolatry is banned in the western religions. Historically, the Hebrews developed an aversion to idolatry after their exposure to the Persian religious beliefs during their Babylonian captivity. Moreover, what is the use of a temple to a religion of non-idolators? What can they do there that would not be idolatry? As Vivekananda asked, why is a protestant church full of symbols, or what do the Muslims have in their mind when they pray? Idolatry is an inextricable part of every religion. Blaming others as idolators while practising it themselves is not fair. (Gopalan evr 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

You state, "Historically, the Hebrews developed an aversion to idolatry after their exposure to the Persian religious beliefs during their Babylonian captivity." What, then, do you make of the First Commandment?LCP 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Have the Ten Commandments been dated accurately? 2. What is there in the First Commandment that says that the God should not be worshipped in any material form? Gopalan evr (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of idolatry fails in two important points: you don't define "veneration" and you don't explain what "due" veneration involves. These are ambiguous terms which make the definition close to useless, although you are heading in the right direction IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasconnault (talk • contribs) 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is not identical to the Hebrew Bible

I am moving text around; we should not put everything related to the Hebrew Bible into the section on Jewish views. That introduces a historical anachronism. Rabbinic Judaism developed directly from the Israelite religion of the Hebrew Bible, but it is not identical to it. Further, both Christianity and Judaism draw from the Hebrew Bible. Also, we need to note that there are many passages in the Hebrew Bible which condemn all forms of idol worship and veneration; the prohibition is not only found in the Ten Commandments. Finally, the article should note that the Hebrew Bible explicitly condemns the use of all forms of images in the worship of God, YHVH. We should add a few more commandments on this topic so that people can understand this subject in a fuller context. RK

Thank you for making clear that Christianity draws from the Hebrew Bible, as well as Judaism. A couple questions: Were the carved images of cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant, there as part of God's instructions to Moses regarding how the Ark should be built, not somehow used in the worship of God? From the time of Moses forward, didn't various people offer sacrifices to God in various places, beginning with the Tabernacle as they traveled to Canaan, down to Samuel who offered sacrifices in several locations, and probably others as well? I would imagine this probably ended with the construction of Solomon's Temple, but I'm not sure... Wesley

According to Judaism (and I think, a literal reading of the Biblical prohibitions) there is no problem with art used in a Temple or sanctuary. Even carved images of the Cherubim are Ok, because they were not prayed to or venerated. Some denominations of Christianity, as I understand it, says that icons and statues of Jesus and the Saints are Ok to venerate because Jews venerated images of the Cherubim, but this is a misconception. These were works of art, and were not ever objects of veneration. Jewish law considers it a sin to venerate, or pray to, angels or images of angels. One of the commandments in the Hebrew Bible is that it is prohibited to pray to God himself by the use of an image or icon. RK

I agree that the Hebrew people did not pray to the images of the Cherubim, or to the Ark itself. But surely we can agree that they offered prayers to God while in the presence of the Ark (or at least the High Priest did on behalf of all), and that at least the Ark itself was treated with great reverence and respect, partly in obedience to God's commands concerning it and partly because it represented the presence of God with or among the Hebrew people? To an outsider, might it not look as though they were praying to the Ark? Why else did the Philistines steal the Ark, if not in a mistaken attempt to steal the Hebrews' god? Wesley

That is probably right. But the Philistines could have never succeeded in stealing God by taking the ark of the covenant. We actually kept God hidden in the vase behind the door. :) RK

Dammit! I was looking in my closet and now I have to re-pack the whole thing! Slrubenstein

That's pretty funny, God in the closet joke. Seriously though nobody points out that the Torah is/was in the ark. Jews don't venerate their Torahs (don't worship them) at all; they treat them with respect, like any expensive book, and they read them. That's like a joke, that some ignoramus would steal an ark, thinking it must be pretty strong in spirit, like stealing Popeye's empty spinach can. Dumb. Richard8081 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What is described in the Temple, is the setting for a idol, but without an idol. The idol would sit or stand on the Ark and be guarded & sheltered by the cherubim. Anthony Appleyard 16:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've made two slight modifications to the section regarding the Hebrew bible. I've clarified idolitry in the Hebrew bible to include the prohibition against worshipping animals and people. I've also added a clarification that the Hebrew Bible was not written by multiple people. Of course, you are all aware that this is a literal point that I am making the corrections based on the Hebrew bible and not the Hebrew-to-Aramaic-to-Greek-to-Latin-to-English interpretation of the Christian version of the bible. 07:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian worship of idols and images

I removed this passage:

Over the next few centuries, as Christianity developed as a new religion, it became standard for Christians to create idols and images of Jesus to worship. Christians hold that it is lawful to worship idols of God, because these idols only represent God, and are not literally the Christian God. The worship of the physical presence of a god is called "worship" or "prayer", while the worship of an idol that represents a god is called "veneration". Christianity teaches that according to the New Testament, idol veneration is permitted.

This seems to be confused on many different levels. First, "Christians" do not hold that it is lawful to worship "idols of God." Only some Christians venerate any images.

Not all Christian images of Jesus are made the objects of worship or veneration; the vast majority of them are for the purpose of instruction. Jesus the Son is the only person of the Trinity that Christians make "idols" of; no one venerates an image of the Father or the Holy Ghost. Moreover, those Christians who venerate images usually also venerate images of people who were not God.

I see no contradiction between the removed text and what you state. RK

As a whole, the article is really improving, but here I would agree with IHCOYC. The key is the term idol and worship. Whatever Christians have venerated images over the centuries, they would rigorously deny that the images are idols and the veneration is worship. For this reason, I can't think of a single Christian ever writing that is "it is lawful to worship idols of God". Also, I can't think of a single passage in the NT where "idol veneration is permitted." The term idol is almost inherently POV, and Protestants dislike the veneration of saints and icons precisely because it is not in the New Testament. SCCarlson 03:52 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Finally, some of these Christians also believe that God is physically present in some of their idols, such as when a consecrated Host undergoes transubstantiation and is then made an object of worship.

That is a different subject. If you want to add this, fine. RK

If we're talking about the way the worship of images worked its way into Christianity and became the cause for sectarian disagreements, perhaps some note should be taken of the Great Apostasy, where the issues raised here are discussed at some greater length. -- IHCOYC 00:50 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Christianity was a new religion, and it doesn't follow the rules of the Jews. It often allows its followers to do the opposite of certain rules. In regards to idolatry, this embarasses some Chrisitians, but why? After all, Christians do not follow the laws of keeping kosher or Jewish holidays, which is also a huge change from the laws of the Hebrew Bible. RK

Christianity follows some of rules in the Old Testament and not others. Technically, the rule against idolatry is one of those Christianity has always claimed to follow, hence the need for extremely fine distinctions between idol and icon, and between worship and veneration. If Christians thought it OK to worship idols, none of this other terminology would be needed. SCCarlson 03:52 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Generally RK, (as you probably already know), Christians of all kinds make a difference between the moral instructions of law (variously called "the moral law", "general equity of law", "spirit vs. letter", "ethical principles" etc.), and the civil and ceremonial statutes of law. Polytheism, idolatry, dishonor of parents, murder, etc. are understood as immorality. Note that Sabbath-breaking is skipped here, but some would include it - depending upon whether it is understood as a ceremonial or a moral obligation to keep the "Lord's Day" as a Sabbath (only some Protestants do so). The prohibition against idolatry is on all kinds of Christians' "morality" list, and at the same time it is practically forbidden that laws which were given for setting apart the Jewish people (circumcision, the tithes, food and clothing restrictions, Sabbaths and feasts, etc.) would be made obligatory for non-Jewish Christians. Mkmcconn 05:43 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't question the right of Chrisitions to use idols and icons. I just watch with astonishment as they perform verbal gymnastics to deny what they allow. They eat pork; why not just say "We don't follow the rules of kashrut". They worship in front of pictures or statues of Jesus, so why not just say "We don't follow the Biblical laws of idolatry." Instead, the Christian community has written hundreds of pages of text to prove that praying in front these images isn't really praying in front of an idol. From a non-Christian perspective, this is like arguing that consuming pork is kosher, but eating pork is not. Whatever. RK

Well, the Catholic argument for the use of images in worship always makes me feel a little crazy, too. But, it is what it is: idolatry is sin, veneration of images is a religious duty. Mkmcconn

Were I writing only for myself, I might be inclined to agree, that any venerated image is in fact an idol. It may in fact fulfil a social role no different from the idols of other faiths. The problem is that "idolatry," in Christianity, remains the name of a sin; even those denominations that practice what I'd call idolatry do so under cover of mental reservations that officially maintain distance between their own practices and what they're willing to call idolatry.

No Christian "hold(s) that it is lawful to worship idols of God." They will claim that their worship is not worship, or that their images are not idols. These differences are expressed in official doctrinal statements, and are real to those who accept them, even though to outsiders they may well seem to be distinctions without a difference. To label their practices as "idolatry" is going to seem deliberately provocative. -- IHCOYC 07:07 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Quotes that may belong in the article

Should we work some or all of these quotes into the main text? I want to make clear that the Hebrew Bible has many rules against idolatry, not just the one in the Ten Commandments. I also want to discuss Deut. 4:12,15-19, which explicitly allows idolatrous beliefs for gentiles; the Torah is very clear that idolatry is wrong, and that many idolatrous practices are forbidden to both gentiles and Jews. But the Torah itself does seem to allow idolatrous beliefs for non-Israelites. (Later books in the Bible, of course, make clear that idolatry is prohibuted to all people, and that all people should eventually become monotheists. But historians hold that this was a later view.) RK

Exodus 34:13 Beware of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land which you are advancing, lest they be a snare in your midst. No, you must tear down their altars, smash their pillars and cut down their sacred posts, for you must not worship any other god. (New JPS)

Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-19 The Lord spoke to you out of the fire; you heard the sound of words but perceived no shape - nothing but a voice....For your own sake, therefore, be most careful - since you saw no shape when the Lord your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire - not to act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness whatever; the form of a man or a woman, the form of any beats on earth, the form of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the form of anything that creeps on the ground, the form of any fish that is in the waters below the earth. And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them. These the Lord your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven. (New JPS)

Deuteronomy 12:30, 31:

Exodus 22:19 Whoever sacrifices to the gods other than the LORD alone shall be proscribed. (New JPS)

20:3-5 You shall have no other gods besides Me. You shall not make for yourself a sculpted image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

In the JPS Torah Commentary on Exodus Professor Nahum Sarna comments "The theophany was direct, public and communal. All Israel was witness to the phenomenon of God speaking from heaven; that is, His abode is neither on nor of the earth. He is wholly removed from the natural confines of the material world. The noncorporeal nature of God's unmediated self-manifestation was apparent to all....therefore God may never be represented by any shape or form; nor may God be associated with any idol such as other peoples accept idols."

Exodus 20:19,20: You yourselves saw that I spoke to you from the very heavens. With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shal you make for yourself any gods of gold. (New JPS)

rgvedic aryans

It is believed in some quarters that the rgvedic aryans did not practise idol worship and that this practice crept into the Hindu religion later in the 12th. century A.D. or so when the Bhagavatha cult came into existence and slowly wiped out the earlier vedic religion. Can anyone throw light on this aspect pl.? sankars_@rediffmail.com

Catholic and Orthodox views

Wesley adds "Put another way, Catholic and Orthodox Christians only depict God as He revealed Himself in the Incarnation here on earth, so when they depict Jesus Christ or the saints, they are not making "any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above". To prohibit this depiction, they feel, is tantamount to denying that the Incarnation took place."

Understood. But what about the Christian propensity to make paintings of God the Father? (i.e. the Vatican, and dozens of paintings in my local museums.) RK 02:35, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Ummm... very good question. I think that propensity is much more limited in Eastern Orthodoxy; I won't attempt to speak for any other Christian traditions, hopefully a Catholic will answer about the Vatican. In the Orthodox icons I've seen, some show a hand in the top left corner extended toward a saint or biblical figure who is the main figure in the icon, and I've been told the hand represents God speaking, perhaps inspiring a prophet with the words to record. That's about it. In one Orthodox church I visited, the interior of the central dome was dominated by a figure of an old white-bearded man sitting enthroned, probably surrounded by angels and cherubim. I asked the resident priest about it, and he noted that that and most of the iconography painted on the walls were from when the building was a Catholic church before they moved in. He told me that such depictions of God the Father were of course forbidden, and he could only justify leaving painting in the dome intact (for the time being) by assuming it was a depiction of Jesus Christ as the Ancient of Days, as described in the book of Daniel. Icons showing the hospitality of Abraham towards the three strangers depict God the Father as He appeared to Abraham; there's a good discussion of this struggle among Orthodox iconographers here: [1]. If Catholics don't share this aversion to portraying God the Father, perhaps the article should be amended accordingly. I can't say I know for sure what their teaching is on the subject; the one difference I know of is that they use a lot of statues, whereas Orthodox limit themselves to paintings or occasionally something like a bas relief, but usually avoid full statues. Wesley 17:40, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I corrected the paragraph that talked about a "fateful alliance" between the Church and the Empire, as no such alliance was formed, and in fact Constantine I continued (I think) to use imperial money to fund the pagan temples for some time after he ended the persecution of Christians. Christianity did not become the official state religion until about 381 or 382, under a different emperor (Theodosius?). Wesley 17:57, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hindu POV

The Hindu point of view needs more attention. See e.g. Ishta-Deva that I wrote. I think it is strange that there is one headings for 2 religions i.e. Buddhism and Hinduism. They should have seperate headings Andries

• I put Buddhism and Hinduism under separate headings, as well as Shinto. I felt this addressed the lack of writing on "Islamic views", as well as the plentifulness of writing on Buddhist and Hindu views. Rickyrab 15:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Quote question

Is the following passage from the article meant to include a quote? There is an apostrophe before "that" but the quotation doesn't close. Moreover, who, exactly, are the philosophers of religion to which the passage refers? Unless we can name names, we should delete this. Slrubenstein

In merging the various points of view for the concept of idolatry, philosophers of comparative religion view "idolatry" as 'that which interferes which a direct spiritual relationship with God and nature (or other similar names and terms).

NPOV warning

I think the following sentence is non-NPOV "Regardless of the particular culture, the loss of personal direction is considered disatrous, and the reverence of an idol is a quintessentially foolish thing to do, always resulting in destruction. " That is why I put a non-NPOV warning on the article. Andries 22:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence is obviously nPOV. I'm going to remove the sentence and the nPOV warning. Quadell 12:46, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, please check all the edits by user Svertigo. I find them suspicious. Andries 20:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Splitting into sections

Should the "Jewish views of idolatry" and "Christian views" be moved into separate pages? It is a rather long article. Quadell 12:46, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Rare?

The current version says "it is rare for non-Catholics to locate any representational art in front of the congregation." I don't think that's true. A lot of Protestant faiths have crosses, pictures of doves, etc. in front of the congregation, and many have statues of Jesus, angels, or saints, or pictures or stained glass. I would simply say it is less common. Quadell 14:54, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say that it is rare for them to have such images on an altar or pulpit, or otherwise placed "center stage." Smerdis of Tlön 15:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox Christians have a lot of human representation art in their houses of worship. RK 19:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Depending on which denominations you look at, you can find the entire range. It seems particularly common for a cross design in some form to be on the front of a pulpit, or on the cloth that covers the altar or communion table. In the latter case, some artistic representation of a cup or chalice and bread is also common, to represent communion. Thinking about it more, it's probably more common in "high church" settings, and less common in "low church" informal, less liturgical settings. For instance, my mother's old country Lutheran church in Wisconsin has a full crucifix front and center on the back wall behind the altar. My younger sister's quasi-Lutheran church (Evangelical Free I think) meets in a Chicago gym on Sundays; I remember some Bible verses painted on the walls, and they had a large cross set up near the stage next to one of the huge speakers. I guess it was off to the side. My point is that practice probably varies widely. Wesley 16:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

In the same section, I replaced "non-Catholic" with "Protestant" because the largest non-Catholic group is the Eastern Orthodox, who certainly make heavy use of icons and other representational art. Hopefully, "Protestant" is sufficiently broad to indicate the ones meant here. Wesley 16:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I now approve of the current wording. Quadell 18:24, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Major changes made in the Christianity section

Setvertigo seems to have unilaterally removed the entire section on Idolatry in Christianity, and replaced it with his own writing. I think this kind of major change would require comment from the many other contributors to this article. I haven't changed any of his new material. RK

I do approve of the idea of moving much of the pre-altered text to a new article, Idolatry in Christianity. It has always been standard Wikipedia practice to spin off article sections into their own articles when they become their own topic. As of this writing, that new article contains the older text. RK

Hello, RK. I apologise for mixing up some of the text, but I had thought that I had it all sorted out. I chose to rewrite the intro because it seemed to be simply a continuation of the Hebrew bible section. Rather than make a prerequisite of reading the entire section previous, my version simply tries to start again with the general. I apologise if that was your work I rewrote, but for the reasons above, and others ("animosity towards idolatry") I chose to start with an examination of the very general perceived "differences" between Christian and Jewish interpretations of "idolatry."

I see that you now have begun to add an intro to the new Idolatry in Christianity article, and I will take a look at working in some of the more general overview I wrote yesterday, when it has become more settled. What I write is not always perfect in the first draft, which is why your help is much appreciated. -Stevertigo

I have removed this new paragraph for discussion:

By some interpretations, the relaxed cultural views of many Christians and others, are akin to morally relativistic views, wherin interpretation is so unrestricted, as to allow non-conforming, idolatrist views an entry into its culture. The merging of expansionist militarism with a religious culture is a prominent example of this kind of deviation from a religious ethos, but history often shows that this tendency for deviation is not limited to a particular religion.

This seems to be an indictment of Christians today as being morally relaxed, which is held to be a form of idolatry. We are not told who holds this opinion, or how widely held this view is. I am not contesting that many people may hold such views; I suspect we can find many such views by Christians about other Christians, by Jews about others Jews, and by Muslims about other Muslims. I just wish some clarification. RK 22:33, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Your version a bit of an oversimplification of my rather grappling and stretching material. But you were right to remove it for review though, if only for the problematic last minute tack-on about 'militarism as a "symptom" of nationalism (which is a kind of idolatry, perhaps), which could be better addressed in the main article. I was (still am) trying to find the right words (particular to Christianity) that outline the issue that certain aspects of Christianity by the 'symptom of a deeper deviation' definition, may be seent to have a tendency (despite "salvation") to deviate into (perhaps) idolatry.

I'm thinking of how, for example, ethnic Christians may mix their Flag-waving patriotism a little too much with their "Gee-zuss," (wether there's anything Christian about it or not) such that the faith itself can be manipulated for politcal ends, as with the criticism of American Protestantism as (in some ways) functioning as a state religion, similar to wahabism, etc. This kind of nationalism+religion connection is by no means particular to the US, but all the relevant articles should deal with their particular aspects of this form of idolatry, as viewed from their respective theologies. -Stevertigo

Idolatry as discussed in psychology

I have temporarily removed the following text from the article, pending explanation. Do psychologists really use the term "idolatry" as described? RK 19:25, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

In psychology, "idolatry" be the philosophical and religious antecedent of attachment theory, which refers to the problems that develop in attributing exaggerated importance to symbols, which is thought to lead to a state of crippling "attachment." 'Putting something upon a pedestal' is a relevant idiom.

inescapable idolatry with semiotics of the ineffable?

If we accept that there is a prohibition against both the representation of deity (as well as the deity in situ) by (some) faiths that prohibit idolatry, then do we not fall into the problems arising from any representation of the ineffable?

Do we not find that regardless of the form, even the communication of divine is bound by signifiers (therefore representation), and the signified - concepts of God - are not God the object (therefore also representations)? It would appear that any cultural acceptance of the ineffable necessarily involves idolatry - certainly at the linguistic/conceptual level.

From which we can easily argue that as the distinction between sculpture and speech is crude at best, an argument against idolatry in representation is an argument against religion that involves the ineffable!

I really interested in responses! (20040302)

My response: this is an issue theologians and philosophers have addressed for a very long time. I suggest you read rambam's Guide to the Perplexed which begins with a discussion of the problems of language. If you prefer a Christian take, look at works by Paul Tillich. I've also seen a book specifically on religion and the problem of language but that was twenty years ago and I forget the editors (but they were philosophers at major US and British Universities). If I wanted to be flippant, I'd say since the second commandment was written in language, obviously the people who first formulated this view did not mean by "idolatry" what you mean. They used the term "graven images" and apparently did not include physical writing in this concept. Slrubenstein

Not quite. "Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness " [...] implies any likeness as well as sculpted images. Therefore we can assume a mental representation is indeed not to be made. I have read some of Rambam and Tillich, but I do not feel they addressed the specific nuance of the argument. (20040302 06:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC))

It appears (answering my own question) that Exodus 36:35 And he made a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubim made he it of cunning work. is evidence enough to show that Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth is not to be taken literaly - indeed that it is okay to make likenesses of cherubim for instance, so long as one does not make the mistake of worshipping them rather than God. There is also reference to false gods, reinforcing the theo-imperialist position of the Abrahamic religions. Therefore, it appears that a sensible meaning being given to this idolatry question is that worship of any god (regardless of the graven image blind) or thing other than YHVH is "idolatry". So, though the Philonic rendition of the decalogue splits verse 3 and 4, the other interpretations do not do so. In this case, it seems just to say that the term idolatry is a misnomer (due to greek translation?) in that even a simple interpretation of Exodus makes it clear that it is not so much the idol, but it's worship which is condemned. In a broader sense then - my interpretation of this portion of the decalogue would be Do not be heterodox, or as mentioned in the main article, Do not practice "avodah zarah" (foreign worship). This instruction would act as a substantial foundation for the institutionalisation of the Abrahamic faith. Apologies for citing from KJV, for those who don't like it- it was the first Bible I googled. (20040302)

As an addendum, it follows that the non-abrahamic religious are idolators (according to Abrahamics), not for having statues in their temples, but for worshipping or revering beings that are not YHVH. Even Buddhists are idolators (though they have no god to worship) not because they have statues in their temples, (which they do not worship, having no object of worship), but merely because Buddhism is heterodox to Abrahamics and outside the theo-imperialist project. (20040302)

These thoughts have been used to construct a rewrite of the relevant section.

I think the above comments are very constructive,. I would only add that instead of trying to summarize a Biblical (even Hebrew Bible) view, one must talk of "views" -- the view of contemporary Jewish movements and past interpreters who believed that the entire Torah had one, divine author; the view of different possible authors at different times (JEPDR) prior to the canonization of the Tanach; and so on. Thus, the view described above is I agree one Hebraic view but it is possible that even within the text of the bible there are different views expresed. Slrubenstein

It is always pleasant to receive constructive criticism- thanks. I would like to claim that there is an inherent difficulty in summarizing something as complex as the multitude of histories of thought regarding the decalogue - the purpose of the summary was to address the issue lightly, but sensibly, for those outside of the general sphere of Abrahamic study (which includes myself) - especially Hindus, Buddhists and so on - who may be stuck with the view that the 'idolatry' clause within the Abrahamic context is merely concerned with the worship of graven images. I would not begin to attempt (and I am certainly not qualified!) to summarize the extent of the literature and scholarship that has been spent studying and elucidating Abrahamic views concerning idolatry over the past few thousand years! I wonder if it is particularly meaningful to attempt to syncretise them at all? And would those who hold various views actually agree with any syncretisation, which to many would surely be a new and distinct interpretation?

I think it is useful and interesting to examine whether or not different traditions have subscribed to the idea that non-Abrahamics actually worshipped statues themselves- but I feel that this is more likely to be a kind of negative propaganda, rather than any basis in fact. Certainly within the community of faithful that I have encountered in my travels, I have seen many statues, many temples, enclosures or holy spaces - but I am yet to meet someone who mistakes the representation of their god - the effigy - for the god itself. Moreover, as mentioned previously, I personally consider such an identification with idolatry to be too restrictive, and not even particularly instructive to the devotee of YHVH. I am waffling...

Views of idolatry for non-Abrahamic audiences

In brief then, my approach in the extenstion of the article is to attempt to broaden the scope of understanding of idolatry in a short and simple manner for audiences who are external to the Abrahamic tradition, without attempting to detract from the gadzillion views and interpretations across the history of a large segment of mankind! Help and thoughts are welcome, as ever. (20040302)

Well, this is an encyclopedia not a place for primary research or personal essays -- so if you want to broaden the discussion of idolatry personally this is an inappropriate venue. If, on the other hand, you are familiar with discussions of idolatry other than the ones represented in this article, by all means add them -- but with correct attribution and adequate context. Exodus and other Biblical texts (e.g. Kings, Isaiah) provide specific accounts and critiques of "idolatry" and theologians and historians have debated what these accounts and critiques mean. My main concern is simply that we do not misrepresent them. There is no point in saying that "The Biblical view makes no sense " (I am not trying to criticize you, just to provide a hypothetical to illustrate my point); all we can say is "this is what scholars believe the Bible meant by 'idolatry' ... Here are other views of idolatry: ..." Slrubenstein

I sometimes feel we are on the same side in this discussion! Where we appear to differ is regarding the non-Abrahamic audience who wishes to know what is said about themselves. It is important for non-Abrahamics to understand that the Abrahamic view of idolatry cannot be merely delineated as being the worship of graven images, which is an understandable reaction given the prima facie etymology, and there is evidence for it- see the previous edits written by a Hindu). Moreover, such a reductive approach to the issue will miss the point in many ways. It is also understandable that few Hindus or Buddhists will wish to study the issue in great depth (as a demonstrable counter-case, I doubt there are many Jews, Muslims or Christians who are spiritually interested in the distinctions made by various scholars throughout history on the issue of Candrakirti's interpretation of Nagarjuna!); so it appears sensible, reasonable, and within context of the article to be able to talk reasonably (for Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) about the Abrahamic concepts of idolatry in a manner that distinguishes it from a simple or reductive view, but without expecting them to engage in a degree of scholarship that they are not willing to invest.

From the viewpoint of some Buddhists, for instance, one could argue that all Abrahamics are idolators - in that they create and worship representations (albeit mental) of the ineffable. If Abrahamics wished to change the viewpoints of those Buddhists, their responses would need to be defended on the grounds of the definition according to Buddhists, not their own. (This is an example only:- Because Buddhism is relatively new in English, the saliant terms are not normally translated as 'idolatry', but instead are translated into words like 'meditation with sign', which is considered to be a precursor to 'meditation without sign'. Also, most Buddhists do not see such attribution (idolatry) as inherently evil, wrong or mistaken, but instead recognise the Abrahamic traditions as being involved in legitimate spiritual activity. Further, Buddhists do their best to talk in the terms and languages of their audience, so they are unlikely to use terms that are considered highly pejorative when describing Abrahamics!)

In brief then, maybe another answer would be to say (with non-Abrahamic religious being the intended audience) "Some Abrahamics say Hindus, etc. are idolators, others say that they are not - there is not much point in getting involved with Abrahamics regarding the issue as in the first place there is no agreement within the Abrahamic community as to what is meant by the term, and secondly even the Abrahamic scriptures appear to have contradictory views. For those Abrahamics that do consider Hindus etc. to be idolators, their views are generally based upon one (or more) of sheer ignorance, a non-plural conviction regarding the identity of God, or a narrow idea about the legitimate methods of worshipping God." (20040302)

I respect all your opinions but you should consider my rebuttal as well.

Hindu Rebuttal From a Hindu point of view, Hindus would consider the Abrahmanic God (Yahweh) to be the same as Narayana or Shankara. Furthermore, Muslims, Christians and Jews all supposedly worship the same God yet Jews wouldn't consider Allah to be equivalent to Yahweh even though Muslims state that Yahweh and Allah are the same God. The same goes with Christians and Jews. All paths to God are different but equivalent. As the Vedas state, "Truth is one, the wise call by different names." Additionally, Sikhs are not idolators either as they have similarities with Abrahmanic religions as their religion has both Muslim and Hindu influences even though Sikhism is a separate and independent religion. This differences between Jews, Muslims and Christians are not that different from Vaishnavities and Shaivites (in Hinduism) who have differences. Vaishnvaites believe Vishnu is the supreme God while Shaivites believe Shiva is the supreme God even though both sectarian scriptures state that Shiva and Vishnu are the same God but different roles of God, one as Preserver and the Destroyer. Thank you for your respected criticism.

I do not see how this is either relevant or a rebuttal in that it does not seem to be much to do with idolatry - but rather a syncretic view held by some Hindus. So, though it is fair for you to assert that Hindus consider God to be cognate across all religions, that does not tell us much about the question at hand, which is the specific issue of idolatry. I suggest that the text would be better placed under religious pluralism (20040302)

I think we are getting off track. Remember, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss ways to improve the article. In this case, I think we need to keep two things in mind: NPOV policy, and the fact that encyclopedias are not the place for personal essays or conjecture. I think 2004... is indeed trying to adhere to NPOV but I have a problem with his/her comment. My main problem is that "Abrahamic Religion" is itself a POV term that in this context is I think anachronistic. Who represents "Abrahamic religions?" I know of no one. The term is merely a way to conflate three distinct religions. What Jewish, Christian, or Islamic authorities have specifically attacked Hinduism as idolatry? This is a sincere, not rhetorical, question. But if any authorities really have critiqued Hinuism this way, then cite them and provide the context -- certainly a Jewish authority is not speaking for all Muslims, and a Christian cannot speak for Jews! And if no authority has criticized Hinduism in this way, then do not speculate that they "would" critique Hinduism this way. Moreover, do not claim that the Bible criticizes Hinduism. The Bible was written long before Hebrews had any contact with Hindus (and, some historians would claim, long before Hinduism existed). The second, anonymous contributor seems to be clearly speculating when he/she writes "Hindus would ..." An Encyclopedia is about what is and what has been -- not what might be. The question is not whether Hindus "would" take a position; the only question is whether any Hindus have taken a position. And again, provide context: which Hindus, when, and under what circumstances? If no Hindo authority has spoken to this issue, it is not for Wikipedia to make a claim. By the way, I think this entire discussion, though interesting, has gotten far off the track of the comment that raised the question of semiotics. How is this connected? Slrubenstein

Mr. Rubenstein, Hinduism is the oldest religion in existence. So the claim that the Bible was written before Hinduism is not necessarily true as there is no historical evidence for either viewpoint. That alternative view note was added by 2004--- even though that would be the view of Hindus. Hindus were the only ancient peoples never to have persecuted Jews so the view is not really the alternative view. Please also see article on religious pluralism. (67.106.157.231) (Sign your work: use ~~~)

As I said, some historians argue that Hinduism is not the oldest religion in the world. This is a legitimate POV. The claim that Hinduism is the world's oldest religion is a different POV. I do not understand what "the view is not really the alternative view" means. In any event, this is a tangential issue that does not address the concerns I raise. Slrubenstein

Thanks for your considerations above. I agree that we need to keep on track, and I apologise for digression. Yes, I am indeed interested in NPOV- (I also split the topic at a rather arbitrary point.. Maybe we should archive some of this off). Back on topic, and to answer your questions.

• Yes, I agree that 'Abrahamic' is rather quaint - but it does group together those faiths that have a common heritage, that share views in the sense that idolatry is inherently bad one way or another, regardless of what it actually is. I totally agree that the three religions do not concur regarding the details of idolatry, but you must agree that all three have some strong views regarding it.

• • Jewish authority: "Hindu sects are pantheistic and idolatrous", from http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/idolatry.php Not every Jew's authority, but an authority.

• • Christian authority: (From the catholic encyclopedia - generally supported by the vatican) Lamaism is based on the Northern Buddhism of India, after it had become saturated with the disgusting elements of Siva worship. Its deities are innumerable, its idolatry unlimited. Not every Christian's authority, but an authority.

• • There are many Muslim authorities for this; An indication of the identification of Buddhism with idolatry is that the Persian and Urdu term for idol, but, is derived from ‘Buddha’; also recall the motives of the Taliban for the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, which have become near matyrs against the ignorant-led violence caused by anti-idolatry.

The more I find Abrahamic articles written for their own audiences, and not for general consumption, the more I find suggesting that there is still a major project by current Abrahamic authorities to smear 'foreign religions' as being idolators. There is definately a counter-trend found too - demonstrating a more liberal approach, e.g. the fight against carpet-bombing idolatry in articles such as http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=3658 , yet it is hard to deny that there are indeed plenty of modern authorities who brandish the idolatry label at Buddhism and Hinduism.

What I am concerned with concerning this article is certainly not the historical development of the term, (and I agree it does not make sense to claim that the Bible directly criticizes Hinduism). However there are indeed modern authorities which actively point the finger at Hinduism and Buddhism. My interest isn't particularly in trying to obfuscate the fact, or deny it, but rather to make it clear that there isn't really much point for Hindus and Buddhists to attempt to counter the accusation as (certainly from the viewpoint of Buddhists and Hindus) the charge appears to be based on ignorance, etc.. as above. I am yet to be convinced either way regarding ancient sources - Buddhism was influential in hellenistic times, and some argue reasonably that the message of Christian compassion may well be derived from Buddhist sources or influences. The catholic Saints Barlaam and Josaphat (aka Buddha, see http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Barlaam/ ) entered into the Christian worldview around the 7th Century CE, but this is a complete digression, that serves only to show that 'modern' may not be so modern. (20040302)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am glad you provide more precise citations -- I think this is important. I don't deny that elements within these "monotheistic" religions (why use "Abrahamic?" The main distinction between Christianity and Judaism is that Christians do not define themselves as descendents of Abraham. By the way, Abraham predates the second commandment and stories of Abraham have him encountering God in person -- a very different view of God from that found in Exodus!) have been and may continue to be critical (fairly or unfairly) of Hinduism and other religions. But it is important to be clear that not all are. And it would be useful to provide context -- under what circumstances "monotheists" have criticized Hinduism, and why? Slrubenstein

No one has criticized Hinduism except the fringe elements. Buy yes, you have to mention Abrahamic religions as Hindu divisions, Vaishnavism and Shaivism are monotheistic traditions. User: 67.106.157.231

I do not feel that monotheism is cognate with the central thrust of the idolatry article, which is focused by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in that they share a common ground in their crusade through history against idolatry. Moreover there are many Hindu religions that are monotheistic including many followers of the singled-out Sivaites. Many Buddhists consider themselves to be monotheistic, at least by default, let alone Jains, Parsees, Sikhs, and so on. So 'monotheism' doesn't do it.

The term Abrahamic religion is still used, still has articles as referent, and clearly (see the monotheism article) identifies them as sharing a common disdain for 'idolatry'. I consider the problems concerning the patronage of Abraham to be beyond the scope of the idolatry article - and 'Abrahamic religion' does have some common useage. I also think that the choice of labeling Judaism/Christianity/Islam is possibly deviating from the purpose of our discussion; notwithstanding that there is space in Wikipedia for articles that deal with those issues.

Back to the point, to quote you: I don't deny that elements have been and may continue to be critical of Hinduism and other religions. But it is important to be clear that not all are. We need to be careful of the word 'elements' - it sounds like one may be attempting to say that the critics are on the sidelines; the citations above are from pretty central (the catholic encyclopedia is hardly a fringe element, afaik), if somewhat conservative sources. Of course, we must also remember that our purpose is not to rewrite the religious pluralism article, but to focus on the meaning and usage of idolatry itself, and to provide a useful article for those who would wish to read about it. My point is to make sure that there is a synopsis enough for Hindus and Buddhists not to fall for the reductive assumption that normally accompanies the term. (20040302)

Good point. Many Hindus may confuse idolatry in the traditional sense of worship supposedly criticized by the Abrahmanic traditions. Hindus use murti worship just as Christians use icon worship. User: 67.106.157.231

Views of idolatry for non-Abrahamic audiences cont.

I'm not sure that many of the explanations of icon/idol worship in the non-Abrahamic sections reflect reality. I'm particularly thinking of the Buddhist section and the Polytheism section: "Often Buddhists will bow before the statue, not as an act of literal worship for the carved image, but to evoke faith and respect in the individual towards what the statue symbolizes" Not wrong, but that's a very Theravada point of view. Visualization and faith in Pureland contexts can be much more than symbolism. As such, images are meant to be hyperreal and world-bending, as much as any mantra. Never mind the supramundane votive rites of Vajrayana and folk Buddhism.

"Polytheists generally do not believe that their statues (or other physical objects) are gods; rather, they are symbols of immaterial gods." and "Specifically, most polytheists hold that their idols or icons are only symbols of the gods they worship, and these idols or icons do not possess supernatural powers." Except for perhaps Western Neo-pagans, I must say this is contrary to anthropological experience. In Nepal, both Buddhists and Hindus maintain that ritually opened idols quite essentially are the god or buddha. In China, people will reverently chip pieces off of a god image for medicine and talismans, due to the inherent divine might. Virtually all polytheistic religions maintain a more "two-way" regard to images, where the god stares back through the image as much as recieves prayers through it. I need only say "mana" and "moaii" to sum up the dynamic for much of the "idolatrous" world. Such mythopoetic conceptions are not the materialism feared by the Abrahamites, but neither do they eschew the matierial as the above passages maintain.

I know the author is well-meant, meaning to chock up idolatry to differing understandings. But the fact is that most polytheists are 1. not necessarily monistic or panentheistic, 2. have real ritual relationships with images, 3. concieve of images/idols as literally being a god, in some concrete sense, and 4. consider images so invested to have supramundane powers. I guess I'd like to edit the passage with a view to such considerations...?--Aunty Entity 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, AuntyEntity. It would be good if you can provide source material for your arguments; my personal experience is with the relationship to the Rupa in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist culture, as well as some understanding of the Murti in the Bhakti traditions of Hinduism; that you recognise a similarity of opinion with the Theravadan tradition would seem to reinforce my earlier statements. I would argue that (1) None of the major world religions are truly polytheistic. (2) Most Christians have a real ritual relationship with images - most especially the cross, therefore 'ritual relationship with images' is not a distinguishing feature of idolatry. (3) That, contrary to your understanding, Buddhists (and Hindus) do not invest images with supramundane powers- certainly not in any manner more than statues of saints crying blood or whatever other miracles one finds in Roman Catholicism. In other words, the definition of Idolatry that you imply either include Catholicism (among many other Christian schools) as idolatry or exclude Hinduism (for the major part) and Buddhism.

However, the central thrust of most of what I have contributed here is that - even if these (or other) religious groups worship and concieve of images/idols as literally being a god - this is NOT what is meant by idolatry according to the Abrahamic traditions - certainly in the modern world. I argue that history shows us that the term was primarily used to sanction religious xenophopia, which is something that most modern religions would wish to do without in this modern, plural world.

Aunty Entity, I have to question your analysis of the events you describe.

"In Nepal, both Buddhists and Hindus maintain that ritually opened idols quite essentially are the god or buddha."

• I suspect that you'd find that they don't believe the object is the deity or buddha in question to the degree that destruction of the object would equate to destruction of the what it represents. I think it more likely that the deity is considered to be indwelling within the object. Can you document your assertion?

"In China, people will reverently chip pieces off of a god image for medicine and talismans, due to the inherent divine might."

• Certainly, but that's different from being the deity; it sounds more like the magical Law of Contagion (makes mental note to write Wikipedia article on Laws of Similarity and Contagion); the chip carries a certain holiness from having been part of an object in which the deity dwelt or because it was the focus of prayers.

"Virtually all polytheistic religions maintain a more "two-way" regard to images, where the god stares back through the image as much as recieves prayers through it."

• But again, that doesn't mean the object is the deity.

I have to question whether there is a documented case of literal "idol worship," where the object is given sole veneration and worship, without reference to a spiritual element within or "behind" it.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On Quotation

"Buddha was famously silent about the existence or non-existence of God, and asserted that worshipping God is not a method to achieve Nirvana".

As a Buddhist, I've never seen it in the Buddhist literature. Can the author please produce a reference regarding this?

See a general article at http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm (20040302)

Christian views regarding Buddhism->Confucianism as idolatry

The article stated "Buddhism" here, but go read Chinese Rites controversy. It seems that the issue was much more about Confucianism than Buddhism. (20040302 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC))

Definition of Idolatry

<Comment on the following phrase in Idolatry in Jewish Thought--Judaism holds that any beliefs or practices which significantly interferes with a Jew's relationship with God may, at some point, be deemed idolatry.>

Idolatry takes the infinite as finite.

Taking the finite as infinite is pantheism.

Idolatry (defining the finite) is taking an inseparable part of an infinite organism (G-D) as finite—and having it (the part, a mode) stand alone finite and supreme without interaction with the other parts; breaking down the organic interdependence of parts. (Money, slums, sex, substance abuse, etc.)

A part may be separated for analysis, study, and improvement purposes; much as a heart doctor studies the heart; but he is always conscious of the interaction of the heart with the rest of the body.

Yesselman 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

• how about adding a link to american idol in the see also section?

Problems with this Article

I think that the Muslim section needs to be expanded, and I agree with previous contributors that there isn't enough coverage of what Eastern religions' views are about the issue. Parts of this article, such as the section about Eastern religions, seem to be an attack on what the author describes as "Abrahamics" and it uses a lot of arguments and assumptions to push a particular point of view. I have a problem with these passages in partucular:

So, though the Philonic interpretation of the Decalogue splits Exodus 20:3-4, the other standard interpretations do not do so. In this case, it seems just to say that the term idolatry is a misnomer (or blind) in that even a simple interpretation of Exodus makes it clear that it is not so much the graven image or idol, but the worship of anything other than YHVH which is condemned. In a broader sense, a reasonable interpretation of this portion of the Decalogue would be Do not be heterodox, or as mentioned in the etymology above, Do not practice "avodah zarah" (foreign worship), more simply, for Jews, idolatry is the worship of anything or being other than YHVH.

The original wording was for "Abrahamics, idolatory is blah blah blah", but I changed this, although it's still making a massive generalisation. They're saying "it seems". It seems that way to who?

It follows that the non-abrahamic religious (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Shinto and so on) are idolators (according to Abrahamics), not for having statues in their temples, but for worshipping or revering beings that are not YHVH. Likewise, many Hindus have mutual feeling and have a similar term by calling such followers of the Abrahamic religions as yavanas and mlecchas.

How does this "follow"?

Even Buddhists are deemed idolators (though they have no god to worship) not because they have statues in their temples, (which they do not worship, having no object of worship), but merely because Buddhism is heterodox to Abrahamics, and outside of the Abrahamic religious project.

Who says this, and when did they say it? Does it say so in the Bible, or the Koran? There are no references from Muslim books to back up this author's opinion, and isn't Islam one of the abrahamic faiths too? The person needs to put references, otherwise it just seems like they are putting across a religious attack and making generalisations.

Common responses to the idolatry badge are generally focused on the 'graven image' blind, rather than the more general instruction against foreign worship. Typically, the responses focus on the identification of representations of God within the Abrahamic traditions: in statue, painting, text, word, or thought. However, as it is quite apparent that Exodus 20:4 must be accepted interpretively, most responses are rendered inapplicable.

How is it "quite apparent"? I just think that some other views need to be put across, apart from a literalist approach which many religious people do not agree with, and the author of this seemingly doesn't agree with either. I could help rewrite it, and I've tried a little bit, but I'll need time...XYaAsehShalomX 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this portion of the general article is actually aimed at non-abrahamic audiences - who have been labelled idolators by the abrahamics. If you care to research, the general defence of the Dharma religions is based upon the assumption that the label of 'idolator' is indeed to be taken literally. The paragraphs that you find hard to understand point out that within Exodus (more or less common to Abrahamic faiths) there is evidence enough for non-abrahamics to identify that there is no sense in defending a literal position - moreover, such an interpretation is a 'blind' to the very real accusation that basically, the term idolator applies to anyone who has any views of a deity other than YHVH - in other words, avodah zarah. Therefore, there is no position that the Dharma religions can defend from, as they are always going to be guilty of avodah zarah. (20040302 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

• Yeah, but that's only according to one religion, (which I admit I know more about than many of the others) and one position within that religion, at that. I don't ascribe to that position. It only reflects one view, and there should be other views talked about and stated as well. It's a mistake to group every single one of the abrahamic religions together and ascribe the same position to each of them, as if they all, and all the believers in these faiths, thought the same stuff. You get me? XYaAsehShalomX 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You get me? Sort of - though I would say that the abrahamic religions all share a specific message about idolatry - and it is pretty clear what Exodus has to say. You yourself agree that the term is most meaningless when it is to be taken literally - and yet non-abrahamics almost always defend the attribution as if it was meant literally - so how best to redress that issue? Secondly, just as a special place is most normally reserved for Abrahamics regarding Monotheism, the same must also go with Idolatry - not because it doesn't exist outside of the abhrahamic sphere, but because it plays a far more central role within the abrahamic sphere - to my knowledge no other religious group places such a completely negative stance against 'idolatry' - though of course we can find religious supremacism elsewhere. Lastly, I understand that you do not ascribe to that position yourself - there are many liberals in the world nowadays - but the accusation of idolatry towards the Dharma religions (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs) and Parsees is pretty central to all of the Abrahamic religions in general. See my discussion (Views of idolatry for non-Abrahamic audiences) above for sources. (20040302 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

I am quite certain that the three Abrahamic religions do not share a definition of "idolatry." Many people claim that it is pretty clear what Exodus means, and we call those people "fundamentalists." What they claim Exodus means is of course one point of view that ought to be represented in this article. But we should strive to represent all points of view. Bu this I do not just mean Jewish versus Christian versus Islam. Within Judaism, at least, the meaning of "idolatry" and the ban against it has certainly changed over time, as any good commentary (I am thinking specifically of the Anchor Bible) on Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy would reveal. This was also a major issue for Kaufman. What the pre-monarchy Hebrews, monarchy Hebrews, Babylonian Exile Jews, Hellenistic Jews, and Rabbinic Jews meant by "idolatry" are different. To some, the differences may seem trivial. But for Jews and secular historians alike, they are not. Now, I do not have the means at hand to clarify this mess. But it is pretty clear to me that aside from seeking out more points of view, what this article needs, desperately, is more verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this - as soon as one starts looking at any social group with millions of followers and thousands of years, there are too many different views and directions to be able to generalise at all. However, I stand by the assertion that it is definitely necessary for this article to include an introduction for followers of Dharma religions to understand that Judaism/Christianity/Islam do not solely or even generally indicate idolatry through the presence or absence of physical statues. This is necessary because repeatedly we find defences of this nature - which serves no purpose, but to demonstrate a lack of understanding between faiths. (20040302 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Lastly, I understand that you do not ascribe to that position yourself - there are many liberals in the world nowadays - but the accusation of idolatry towards the Dharma religions (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs) and Parsees is pretty central to all of the Abrahamic religions in general.

If there are many liberals in the world, shouldn't their views be reflected in this article too?

And how is it "central"? Judaism, Islam and Christianity developed in an entirely different region to Hinduism et al, there is no mention of these religions in the bible or the Koran, and in fact Sikhism is a monotheistic religion heavily influenced by Islam.

SL - I agree about the sources thing. At the moment there's all sorts of unattributed facts and assertions that some people think things, without anything to back it up. XYaAsehShalomX 14:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are many liberals in the world, shouldn't their views be reflected in this article too?

Well sure - I am just not able to speak on behalf of liberals, and their interpretation of idolatry within their respective religions. I have merely pointed out that there remains a solid, conservative population within Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that still hold others to be idolators - merely for being different to themselves. I personally find such conservative ideas repugnant - but they seem to be quite happy with those views.

And how is it "central"?

Central, in that it is a conservative view that is not discouraged by the relevant authorities. We don't need to look for mention of specific religions in source material - there is plenty of evidence from subsequent centuries, and interpretations. So, central sources would be e.g. the Vatican, Mullas with regional power, and similar Jewish authorities.

Sources from pretty 'central' authorities are provided above, but for the sake of clarity, I repeat them here:

• Jewish authority: "Hindu sects are pantheistic and idolatrous", from http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/idolatry.php Not every Jew's authority, but an authority, and indicative of the central conservatives.

No it isn't - that website represents an extreme minority view, even among orthodox and even Chassidim, these guys believe that a rabbi who lived during the last century died and is now the messiah, and in fact this belief caused the already small sect they belonged to to split, so they're a minority of a minority and regarded as such by almost everyone. they are no more mainstream jews as christian identity are mainstream christians.

Well - go read Jewish views of religious pluralism - especially the comments concerning Demarcation as authored by Rabbi Norman Solomon. I'm not going to deny a shift in attitudes during the 20th Century - but IIRC wikipedia is here to represent the history of ideas as well as the current state of affairs. 20040302

you're missing the point - these are a MINORITY of people and they are portrayed as being a "Jewish authority" as if anyone apart from themselves actually believed anything they said.

I know there are some Jews, who unfortunately believe such things, but it needs to be made clear that those thoughts and ideas are not common place within Judaism.

• Christian authority: (Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm) - generally supported by the vatican Lamaism is based on the Northern Buddhism of India, after it had become saturated with the disgusting elements of Siva worship. Its deities are innumerable, its idolatry unlimited. Not every Christian's authority, but an authority. Admittedly this is from 1910 sources, but it wasn't until 1965 that the Vatican took a more liberal approach to other faiths. There are plenty of Baptists and other groups, such as the Jehovah Witnesses, who consider the Dharma religions to be works of the devil: idolatry.

Exactly, so the Catholic church took a more liberal approach in 1965. Liberal Christians such as Anglicans don't take this approach, and they're one of the largest denominations in the world, and Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses hardly represent mainstream Christian opinion outside the US.

I'm not going to deny a shift in attitudes during the 20th Century - but IIRC wikipedia is here to represent the history of ideas as well as the current state of affairs. 20040302

Oh sure, I agree - but differing views need to be presented.

• Islam: Recall the motives of the Taliban for the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, which have become near matyrs against the ignorant-led violence caused by anti-idolatry.

Again, the Wahhabis and Taliban represent a minority sect within Islam. It's fine to note all this stuff down within the article, but some more mainstream stuff needs to be written as well.

There is a very long, traditional history concering Islamic views of idolatry - there are statues all across India that have been defaced over the centuries. It may make us feel uncomfortable now, but there is a substantial history of attack by Muslims against supposed idolators, especially in the Indian sub-continent; defacement of statues is a legacy of their Jihad. Once again, I'm not going to deny a shift in attitudes during the 20th Century, but we cannot ignore history, merely because we feel uncomfortable with it. 20040302

No we can't, and i'm not saying this shouldnt be presented within the article, but we need to find some muslim scholars who have argued differently. I dont know of any, i dont really know a great deal about Islam but I could try and find some.

Don't mistake this as some sly attack against these faiths. My entire basis has been to attempt to point out to followers of Dharmic religions (and Sikhs are at least as much Hindu as they are Islam - and plenty of Hindus are monotheists also) - that worship of graven images is not the central issue to Idolatry.

OK then.

The fact that I find the whole concept of idolatry repugnant is merely because I have extreme views in favour of religious tolerance, which is (unsurprisingly) a tenet of my own religion. (20040302 14:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

I'm glad to hear that, it's a tenent of mine too. XYaAsehShalomX 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Good to hear it - I'm curious though, how you reconcile your assertion (that your religion finds the accusation of idolatry repugnant and has extreme views in favour of religious tolerance) with the 3rd Noahide Law - in fact, as I understand it the current article states that the 'basis of Judaism's strict monotheism' is the prohibition of 'the use of idols in the worship of God' - which would indicate the exact opposite - that in fact the notion of idolatry is a defining tenet of Judaism, in that such practice denies the monotheistic nature of God. Moreover, I suggest you read Jewish views of religious pluralism for further exegisis concerning the ideas of idolatry within Judaism, especially in classical times. (20040302 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

No the prohibition is simply against idolatry or worshipping a false god such as money or possessions, or putting men above God. hindus worship G-d so the prohibition doesn't apply in their case. all the benovelent religions like buddhism, islam, sikhism, hinduism etc basically lead to the same thing, and the noahide laws allow all christianity, as well as islam, and statues and stuff are frequently used in christian worship. It's when people worship something ELSE other than G-d that it becomes a problem, such as a cult leader or if they put their own possessions and things above Him. XYaAsehShalomX 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, my question to you is - your definition of idolatry as 'worshipping money or possessions' - do all mainstream jews believe that this is the original, and definitive meaning of "avodah zarah" ?

I don't know what "all" mainstream Jews believe, but this is a pretty widespread view.

This essentially would mean that ambitious people are idolators, and all religions are legitimate?

Uh, no. Being ambitious doesn't mean you "worship money or possessions," does it??!

Also, when you are saying 'putting men above God' - do you mean men in general, or even a specific man, in which case, one could argue that Islam and Christianity engage in idolatry to some level or another?

One COULD argue it, but they're both worshipping God, no matter what they call Him, and this is accepted by the vast majority of Jews.

I understand your issues - and the concerns of modern, liberal Judaism - but we also need to think about history - and place things into context.

well its not placing things into context to try and generalise based on a few things and a few obsolete opinions in history, and make inferences from the bible which might not even be true. We're meant to be dealing with facts and not subjective opinions.

I would be very interested to hear your points of view regarding how to address non-Abrahimics concerning their defence - which would basically be to point out (with substantive evidence) that worshipping the divine, regardless of the presence of an image, is not at all what is meant by idolatry by the Abrahamic faiths. (20040302)

The purpose of wikipedia is simply to describe facts, it is not to "address" people or push a certain point of view. I'll be quite happy to write an article, containing my own opinions about it and then put it on your talk page or email you or something, but I don't think it belongs in this article. :) XYaAsehShalomX 14:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - Right - so the facts are that (1) there are many different interpretations of the term 'idolatry'.

• Yep.

(2) Regardless of interpretation, the issue of idolatry is especially central to the ethics (see the 3rd Noahide Law, etc) of the Abrahamic relgions.

• I wouldn't say it was "central" - it's just something which we are forbidden from doing. Unfortunately, people from all religions have misinterpreted the prohibition, so that people who belonged to another religion got persecuted and stigmatised. It's not about that at all - it's about keeping away from false prophets, worshipping objects, ideologies or even people, and not slavishly following any teaching which would be contrary to what G-d would say would be an ethical way to treat others - religious fundamentalism would be a good example. However, Jews should not follow other religions apart from Judaism as the commandments of the Torah apply to them from birth, and I'm not sure how it works in other religions but I'm pretty sure the original prohibitions referred to either what I've just described or people who left the faith for whatever reason.

(3) Any reductive interpretation by the religious who feel that they have been subjected to the label of 'idolatry' will not necessarily effectively represent why they have been labelled that way.

• No, it won't.

(4) Defending their activities based upon the existence of graven images will probably not affect their status as idolators by those who accuse them of idolatry - basically, their minds are made up.

• No, it won't - it's extremely difficult to get rid of someone's prejudices, unfortunately.

(5) Many modern Abrahamics reject the older/conservative/restricted views of idolatry and feel a great sense of kinship with other world religions;

• Well, Judaism has always accepted that Christianity and Islam are legitimate religions and that ALL righteous gentiles will get a place in the world to come. Traditional Islam regarded Jews and Christians as "people of the book" and had a similar attitude to them. I think, tbh, Christianity was historically the most intolerant of the three, and it's only in the last two hundred years or so that they've began to accept other interpretations, while, unfortunately, there's been an alarming growth in Islamic fundamentalism, and Jewish fundamentalists, while always small in number, have got a lot more vocal.

(6) in the modern, liberal world, the identity of any religious movement as being guilty of idolatry is rejected.

• I don't think so - I think political correctness does have a lot to do with it, so people are unwilling to cause offence. However, I think as people have come to realise that certain attitudes are unacceptable, they're a lot less willing to believe that religions which are different to their own are idolatrous. However, most people wouldn't have any hesitation in condemning, say, Christian Identity as an idolatrous cult, and people use their own discretion and are unwilling to follow what their leaders tell them - because if there's a religion in which your leader tells you what to think and feel about certain things, you lose sight of G-d and end up serving them instead - and that is idolatry.

So which of these points 1 through 6 do you accept as fact, and which do you reject? I am trying to get away from some argument about what 'most people believe' - because although you cite the conservatives as being either antique or marginal, it is those voices that are most often heard by members of the Dharma religions.

• Well, make sure you don't commit the same errors as the fundamentalists do.

I guess you've never had someone turn up on your doorstep and then subsequently tell you you worship the devil, and will be spending the rest of your life in eternal damnation? I have, and it affects my opinions, I am sure you can understand that.

• Actually I have had some bad experiences with fundie Christians, which if you want, I will tell you about in private.

Up until very recently, the article on the Catholic Encyclopedia (mentioned above) did not state that those views were out-dated, and I am glad to see that the editors recently decided to attempt to redress the balance of vitriol found in that article. (20040302 14:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

• Yep...sadly, there is still a lot of that kind of stuff going around in the Catholic church. XYaAsehShalomX 18:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Henotheism Section

I removed the henotheism segment of this article, my apologies. The segment hung its hat on a particular evaluation of Genesis--as a work that shifts tone between henotheism and monotheism. This is because most scholars have come to the conclusion that Genesis is a postexilic combination of literature (David M. Carr, Oxford Annotated Bible). In other words, it may come at the beginning of the pentateuch, but it is not a pre-exilic piece of writing. If one looks at pre-exilic material (1st Isaiah, for example) there is a clear henotheistic slant. Genesis, as a product of post-exilic editing of earlier material, would have one foot on either side of the exile. Before the exile, the Hebrews were henotheistic, after it, they were monotheists. 150.199.110.146 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Image worship

I'm not a big contributor to this site, so I don't really know all the channels to go through for this, but can someone please tell me I'm not crazy when I say that the "Image worship" page needs to go away? It has serious bias issues (likely because it's based on 1911 Britannica), and even links to Iconoclasm (!!??) for more information on the history of Christian iconography. It's already been tagged for merging into the Idolatry page, but I really think it needs to go away. I mean, it actually refers to animism as childish.24.12.195.37 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to your case. I see someone has already suggested it be merged with this article. I suggest you go through it and edit it (on your own sub-page, not to the article itself) into what you consider an NPOV form and then bring it here and see if anyone objects to your then merging it. Assuming no one objects - give it a few days - and you merge the NPOV/useful content here, then propose that "image worship" be deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Idol worship

The first sentence is POV. I just searched "idol worship", got redirected here and the first line tells me it's a sin - which is *only* the opinion of a few religions. Shouldn't it be a discussion of idol worship in general rather than a discussion of it as a sin? Totnesmartin 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading. The third sentence says, "In religions where such activity is not considered as sin, the term "idolatry" itself is absent." So religions that have a more positive, or at least less negative, view of such practices, don't use the word. It's only used in a negative sense, so that's what we have here. Defense of idol worship generally means saying "but this isn't idol worship" for one reason or another; veneration of icons would be one such example, where critics consider such veneration to be idol worship, but those who practice it say what they're doing isn't idol worship at all. Make sense? Wesley 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant that calling it a sin (in some eyes) belongs further into the article, rather than being the first phrase. That's the POV part. Totnesmartin 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I must agree. The introductory sentence should strive to be neutral. To present the perspective of the three major religions that view it as a sin before the perspective of the three major ones and many minor ones that very certainly do not is somewhat of a violation of NPOV. Frankly, it also makes for a bad introduction. Hornplease 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we put up a POV warning, or just fiddle with the intro? Totnesmartin 22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Having resurrected Idol worship, it then got redirected back to here. I have now rerdirected it to Cult image, a neutrally-titled article. Totnesmartin 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed opinion section

I've removed this section from the article, because it seems to be nothing but uncited opinions --FOo 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry in many forms

{{NPOV-section}} If the purpose of worship is to bring one into connection with divinity, then any set of beliefs or practices which significantly interferes with this may, at some point, be termed idolatry. Examples might include:

• Postrating before or worshipping any creature (sun, moon, water, cow, sheep, king, teacher, celebrity) instead of the One Being who transcends them.
• Directing the aim of one's devotion to a holy book itself, or to a religious practice or item, instead of directing one's devotion to the Being for whose sake that religious practice is to be done and those things exist.
• A very strong attachment to one's country that a religion considers inappropriate. In this case nationalism could be considered a form of idolatry.
• A very strong desire to gain sex and wealth that a religion considers inappropriate. In this case greed could be considered a form of idolatry.
• A very strong desire to gain fame or recognition that a religion considers inappropriate. In this case egocentrism could be considered a form of idolatry.
• An obsessive desire to earn money could be classified as idolatry.
• Pilgrimage to shrines of ancestors or saints e.g. dargahs

Looks more like something from The Watchtower than an encyclopedia entry! Totnesmartin 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

wat is this

"Orestes Brownson ([????] 2004: 116) affirms that the pagans in the Hebrew Bible did not literally worship the objects themselves, so that the issue of idolatry is really whether one is pursuing a false god or the true God."

who is orestes brown and wat is the brackets meant to do?

Do Idolators Really Worship Idols?

This section contains the following passage:

Orestes Brownson asserts that the pagans in the Hebrew Bible did not literally worship the 
objects themselves, so that the issue of idolatry is really whether one is pursuing a false 
god or the true God. However, this idea is clearly refuted by Daniel 14:1-28, in 
which the king of the Babylonians worships a deity named Bel, whom some of the Babylonians 
literally believed to be a living god: 

The Bible passage does not "refute" the claim by any means. First, it's a case of outsiders (and pretty POV ones) speaking of another's beliefs. Second, it is by no means proof that the Babylonians considered the physical object to be the subject of their worship and veneration, as opposed to the deity represented thereby (and possibly indwelling).

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your assertion, but I don't follow your reasoning. First, regarding the interpretation of outsiders, the king himself states that he believes that the god is eating the food provided it. The rest of the story evidences this. Second, Daniel's statement--AND THE WAY THE KING RESPONDS TO DANIEL--refutes the idea that the king believes in an indwelling.LCP 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about your assertion. And I think that you are correct to say that the passage does not "refute" Brownson. There is not formal argument in the section in question. Consequently, I've changed "clearly refutes" with "contradicts".LCP 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm much more comfortable with "contradicts."

Personally, I'm still inclined to think that the deity is "eating" the food in the same sense that deities "eat" any other sacrifice. When burnt offerings are made, or libations are poured, the food is given to Them and They partake in whatever fashion deities consume offerings. That still doesn't indicate that the statue itself is more than a vessel for the deity. I believe some Hindus pour milk on statues of Hindu deities, but recognize the statue as a vessel or symbol, rather than the deity Itself.

I must also point out that the Bible is not exactly an NPOV source. It's entirely reasonable, from a Neutral Point Of View, to question whether the Bible gives a completely unbiased account of events, just as one may reasonably question, say, Gaius Julius Caesar's assertions about the druids burning people in wicker figures. These are cases where the reporting party has a vested interest in presenting the other side in the worst possible light.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know how can we "reasonably question" Julius Caesar's assertion that the druids burned people in wicker figures when the Druidical tradition was entirely oral, leaving behind not even a single line of information. Without any idea whatsoever of how the Druids themselves understood what they were doing, how could we say JC was even mistaken let alone intentionally misleading?LCP 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because JC had a vested interest in making the druids look as bad as possible. He was in the process of invading Britain, and the druids were apparently influential in stiffening the resistance of the locals. Demonizing the enemy is an old standard technique in warfare. As far as I know, Gaius Julius' writing is the only mention of this claim.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are again using broad generalizations (e.g., "Demonizing the enemy is an old standard technique in warfare"). I agree, “Demonizing the enemy is an old standard technique in warfare,” but that and the fact that no one else reports on the Druidical practice in question does not give us warrant to seriously doubt what JC reported. Did anyone else who was in JC’s position, being in first-hand contact with the Druids, write anything at all about the Druids? Now, don’t get me wrong, you may be right about JC and what he claimed about the Druids. I just feel that I have to point out that even if you are right to doubt JC (for example), it has little to do with the type of generalizations you are using here. General skepticism is just a starting point. If you can’t follow it up with anything concrete, then it is not even worth mentioning.LCP 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unindent
Skepticism is an entirely valid starting point, and that's where I'm starting. Given the lack (in my experience--if you have other references, please don't hesitate to point them out) of any cases where the object itself rather than the deity either represented or indwelling was worshiped, I think we should be looking for at least another reliable source.
If you're not comfortable with my Caesar analogy, by all means forget it. The fact remains that a single source from several thousand years ago is hardly definitive.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't know what it means to quote a book of the Bible on its own. Don't we need a reliable source that so that we can say something like "Biblical expert Foo argues that Daniel 14 counters..."?--0rrAvenger 23:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the clarity of the meaning and significance of the content. If we were discussing the significance of the Levitical prohibition against eating shellfish, then scholarly input would probably be essential. In this case, however, the meaning of the text appears to be very clear. Why not see for yourself: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2014:1-28&version=63.

Actually, from my admittedly non-Abrahamic POV, I think the prohibition on eating shellfish is less ambiguous and less likely to be tainted by other interests than a report about people who were the admitted enemies of the Israelites.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general maxim (beware of partisan histories), but perhaps you are forgetting something about the Jews. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but to my understanding the Ancient Hebrews were exceptionally interested in truth, and they were explicitly prohibited, by God, from "bearing false witness." Does that mean that they never did bear false witness? I don't think so. However, it does mean that before you can impugn a text, you need to have more warrant than just the prejudice of a general maxim. The prohibition against shellfish probably isn’t the best example. However, shellfish might be a lot harder if you think of it in terms of why, in modernity, some Levitical prohibitions have been kept while others have been discarded by even some sects of Jews.LCP 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not impugning, I'm simply saying that they may not have been the most reliable sources. I'm aware of the requirements for accuracy in copying the Torah, but (without wishing to offend any Jews) I don't know that the requirement for accuracy is verified through the entire history of the document. From a purely historical POV, there are undeniably questions about the accuracy of some events recorded in the OT.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, and I think there are very good reasons for including the text. While (like you?) I find it personally very difficult to believe that anyone could think that a statue could be animated by or synonymous with a god, the texts we have from antiquity appear to attest to exactly that. In this case, when Daniel says to the king, “I worship the living God,” the king does not respond, “so do I, and the statue is just a representation of the god”; or, “the god indwells the statue similar to the way your god appears to your people as a pillar of fire.” Had he said that, there would not have been a conflict worth reporting. In other words, there would not have been an ideological conflict between the Hebrews and Babylonians, and we wouldn’t have the story. Instead, the king states, “Doth not Bel seem to thee to be a living god?” And while it is a Hebrew text that reports the story, we have no reason to doubt that the king believed Bel to be a living god, since king himself would not have had any reason to be wary of what the Hebrews understood by their First Commandment. The idea that worshipping idols is a bad thing would have been unknown (and probably uninteresting) to the Babylonian king. At the end of the story of Bel, he is not angry or chagrined that he had put faith in an idol. He is angry that he has been deceived.

Contemporarily, some Protestants accuse Catholics of idolatry. However, in response to these accusations, Catholic respond by pointing out that Catholics do not worship statues or believe that there is a divine (or any other) presence in statues. Instead, Catholics claim that the statues are merely reminders. In the present case, the king makes no such disavowal. Nevertheless, even grated that, if better references could be had, they would be welcome.

LCP 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unindent
I don't have a problem with people thinking the statue was animated by the deity at all. I do have a problem believing that someone could think that the object itself was divine, having been made by human hands, unless there was some kind of ritual that conferred divinity upon it or installed the deity within it.
When the king said "Doth not Bel seem to thee to be a living god?", I don't know how we can say that he didn't mean the indwelling deity. If the deity enters into the statue, the two could be said to be one, just as the soul dwells within the body.
There would still have been a conflict over who was the "real deal."
I don't know the story, so I'm not sure what you mean about the king having been "deceived."
I should also point out that this is a single questionable example of alleged "idolatry." As the saying goes, "the singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'" <grin>
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a pretty big, blunt example, and it is a question of "questionable to whom". In this case, the burden of proof lay on those who would deny the accuracy of the text, and generalizations and maxims don't carry much weight.LCP 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a single example; in what way is it particularly "big?" I'm not denying the accuracy of the text, I'm questioning the accuracy of the text. I'm not sure the Bible qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies, especially given that the writers thereof were not exactly neutral observers in the events described.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do see the difference between “deny” and “question.” Sorry that I misquoted you.

The example is "big" in the sense of being clear, explicit, ancient, and from the most read, studied, and venerated text in recorded human history.

If you want to eliminate the Bible--as I have used it here--as a reliable source under Wikipedia rules, then the entire article on idolatry needs to go since, as stated in the lead, idolatry is an idea that comes to us ultimately only from the Abrahamic religions. Many other “Bibliocentric” articles in Wikipedia will also have to go.

Regarding the modern idea of “neutral observers,” we know of no such thing in antiquity. In fact, there is arguably no such thing even in modernity. Everyone is biased. However, biased does not necessarily mean unreliable. I can talk accurately about the how the Third Reich helped German nationalism though I despise and reject racism and fascism. So the question remains; are there any concrete and specific reason to doubt the reporting of events in Daniel 14?

I need to point out, again, that you are appealing solely to speculative and theoretical objections and fail completely to give concrete evidence as to why those objections apply in the use of this text in this particular case. Yes, we know Daniel was a Hebrew in captivity and that the Hebrews didn’t have fond feelings for their Babylonian captors and oppressors. That generalization, however, proves nothing about the text in question.

LCP 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The degree to which the Bible has been read, studied and venerated is completely meaningless in this context, as none of those attributes make it a reliable source.

I don't want to eliminate the Bible as an appropriate reference, I merely question whether it is an appropriate reference in this case. The Biblical concept of "idolatry" is a perfectly legitimate subject: my question is whether "idolatry" as described actually existed.

The very concept of a "neutral observer" is a relatively recent one. I'm not saying the text is false, I'm merely pointing out that one incident, thousands of years ago, subject to errors of translation, misinterpretation by the reporter, and/or deliberate slanting, may not qualify as a reliable source. I'm not asserting that it is false, merely that its reliability is questionable. Surely you will not deny that.

I'm aware of no case where a manufactured object is considered divine in and of itself, which is why I question whether such alleged "idolatry" has ever actually taken place. Given that, the single countervailing example is subject to doubt, especially given the lack of corroborative evidence for the claim.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you really mean to say that the degree to which the Bible is studied is not relevant? I was taking about scholarly Bible study, not Billy and Sally’s neighborhood “Bible study.”

I too wonder if idolatry could have existed as it was described. As I illustrate above, however, the text seems to indicate that it did.

Regarding translation errors, I do not know of any Biblical scholars that would take that idea seriously. I think you have a stronger argument with misinterpretation by the reporter. However, as I have demonstrated, it is reasonable to believe that the events happened as reported.

You state, “I'm aware of no case where a manufactured object is considered divine.” I don’t think this is the issue. The issue is more specific than that. It is that, for whatever reason, objects are worshipped as if they are divine or, through whatever means, contain the divine--and that in the view of the Hebrews, the divinity is non-existent.

You state, “I question whether such alleged ‘idolatry’ has ever actually taken place. Given that, the single countervailing example is subject to doubt, especially given the lack of corroborative evidence for the claim.” What we are talking about here is not just one single instance. Throughout the Bible, one can find examples of exactly the same type of idolatry described in Daniel 14. I just happened to use Daniel 14. The upshot of what you suggest is, (1) the Hebrews were completely mistaken in their understanding of the religious practices they encountered; (2) the First Commandment was written in vain as there never was such a thing as the type if idolatry that it prohibits; (3) we moderns have a more privileged perspective and better understanding of ancient religious practices than those who were contemporary with and actually observed those practices. All of these claims are untenable.

At this point, instead of repeating the same general scepticism, it would be good if you could produces sources that demonstrate why the history in Daniel 14 or even the Book of Daniel in general is unreliable.

LCP 01:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I need to make two changes at this point. First, the text of Bel and the Dragon states the events occur under Cyrus, king of the Persians, not the king I listed. Second, and more importantly, I need to amend the entire introduction to the quote from the Book of Daniel. The only thing that it proves is the way Hebrews perceived Idolatry. Contrary to my earlier arguments, and as Septegram has argued, the text itself is not strong enough to support an argument regarding what the Babylonians actually believed. See, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/bel.html.LCP 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are around, Septegram, please take a look at the changes that I've made, and please let me know if you would suggest anything different.LCP 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. I think this is a fine update, and sprinkle more kudos in your direction.

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Accordingly, I have removed the section related to Hinduism as it was unsourced, citing only one web link to a site which would fail the tests for WP:EL. Buddhipriya 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your edit was over zealous, so I have reverted and revised the troubling lead sentence. By talking about "material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged," Wikipedia:Verifiability refers to material that is controversial, such as whether abortion is murder. In contrast, that Hinduism is pantheistic and polytheistic and that the gods are believed to take on or animate various forms in the Veil of Maya is an incontrovertible fact. And that, be definition, is "idolatry." However, if you have problems with other parts of the Hindu section, please talk about problematic sections here.LCP 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Worshipping idols, idolatry, or even worshiping non-false gods is definitely not the 'core pillar of Hinduism'. That's really quite an absurd statement, and that's why there is no reference to support it. Please read the Hinduism article to learn about Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope, then, that you will revise the problematic statement. Deleting the entire section is not a good solution since what the Abrahamic religions would call "idolatry," the subject of the article, is practiced in Hinduism.LCP 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this issue is resolved with the most recent edit. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry is not synonymous with iconography. Prostrating before living creatures (in flesh and blood) are covered by idolatry not iconography/murti. I hope this resolves the confusion.

Also, it would be a good idea if you could refrain from revert warring before understanding the appropriate usage of English words. Anwar 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Iconography is a term from art history, not the study of religious practices; it should not be used in this article in the way it has been. It does not just cover religious images, but all images. The article on it begins:"Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images". For a neutral academic term equivalent to Idol, I recommend cult image. I will revert the insertion of an incorrect use of the word again Johnbod 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people would provide WP:RS for any use of terminology. Is the phrase "cult image", for example, specifically used in any WP:RS that you would like to cite? Buddhipriya 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in editing this article, other than correcting misuse of "iconography". For a wide range of uses of "cult image" which is a term that does not pre-judge the nature of the relationship between the individual, the image, and the divine, see here Johnbod 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for examples of specific references of the phrase "cult image" in books that would be considered WP:RS for Indology or Hinduism. I am aware that the phrase "cult image" is widely used in comparative religion. I am trying to determine if Indologists writing about Hinduism in particular ever use that phrase to describe Hindu practices. Offhand I do not recall seeing it, but perhaps someone has used it. We need to get the debates off of what terms editors like and onto what published WP:RS actually use when discussing Hinduism in particular. Buddhipriya 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic is quite dependable.Anwar 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not using it re Hinduism. I have substituted "murti" here for an incorrect use of "iconography", which obviously is a term very often used in discussing Hinduism, but was used incorrectly here. I think I added the term at the top of the article, obviously not specifically re Hinduism. There do indeed seem to be surprising few academic uses of the term in a specific Hindu context - only 1,370 ghits for "Hindu "cult image"" which doesn't seem many [2]. It is favoured by Britannica and academic articles. Johnbod 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion Talk:Hinduism#Free_speech. Idolatry is defined by M-W and American Heriatage as a negative term used by Abrahamic religions to define the "sinners" that existed before those religions were formed. Hindus do not worship the murti (the implication of merriam webster's definition), they worship a higher power. Muhammad "smashed the idols in Mecca", etc. The section on the page is total anwar-cruft, discredited by everyone, true only in his mind. As for sikhism, it "prohibits idolatry". There is no need for religions that are not Abrahamic to have a place on this page, and no amount of trolling and admin misjudgment will change that.Bakaman 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is that simple, and I am struggling with the same issue. On one hand, I tend to agree with what you suggest. On the other hand, because Christianity and Islam interface with other world religions and have a strongly evangelical ethos, it could be considered a gross oversight to neglect how Abrahamic religions view the practices of idol worship in other religions. This is a VERY important world issue. As you may recall, as recently as 2001 the Afghan Taliban destroyed ancient Buddha statues across Afghanistan. Instead of removing information about non-Abrahamic religions, perhaps it should be made clear that when speaking of "idolatry," one is speaking from an Abrahamic POV. Along the lines of the comment I made below regarding perspective, I wonder if the practices non-Abrahamic religions shouldn't be called "worship of idols" or "idol worship" since "idolatry" has a negative denotation.LCP 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on Abrahamic views on idolatry (since Christian and Islamic views do have common ground) is needed. That may be a workable solution. However that section would need to have Sikh (idolatry prohibited), Hindu (doesnt fit the definition of idolatry) and other rebuttals. I think we are on the same page LCP.Bakaman 00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should only be concerned with Abrahamic opposition to the use of cult images; that is the only acceptable subject for an article called "idolatry". Cult image, which is the proper, academic, neutral term, should be greatly improved & expanded into a general article on the subject across all religions and periods. Johnbod 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, writing only about Abrhamic POV is not NPOV. A reader will not understand what is black without a discussion of what is white. The article will be balanced and comprehensive if it includes creeds and castes that prohibit idolatry as well as those that still encourage idolatry.Anwar 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry is an inherently and inescapably POV term. It includes the automatic idea that use of cult images is bad, and in fact a sin. Idolatry needs an article, but that should not be the main article on the use of cult images. Johnbod 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be suitable to write Abrahamic religions claiming there is Idoltry in Hinduism as long as it is backed up by sources. Whatever the religion discussed on this page, the perspective must clearly be stated. In most cases, it would be Abrahamic because idoltry is part of their set of terminology. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult Image

The new section looks nice and it needs citations. One other problem is the omission of "cult image." Shouldn't it mention "cult image", "a man-made object that is venerated for the deity, spirit or daemon that it embodies or represents"?LCP 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with WP:EL

It appears that some web sites that do not meet the tests of WP:EL are being used in the article. Please note that according to WP:EL and WP:CITE, links must meet tests as WP:RS. Also see: WP:SPAM for guidance on reduction of linkspam in articles. Buddhipriya 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of a self-published web site being used as a source: [3]. This site, which cites no WP:RS, clearly fails the tests of WP:EL so I will remove it from the article. Buddhipriya 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A problem with perspective

A problem that this article appears to run into frequently is that readers forget that “idolatry” is an idea of the Abrahamic religions; and furthermore, the Abrahamic religions consider idolatry to be one of the gravest of sins. Consequently, when someone writes that, say, Hinduism is essentially idolatrous, it seems that some people respond as if that is necessarily a bad thing rather than merely a descriptive statement from an Abrahamic perspective, to which Hindus might be indifferent. I wonder how this idea can be made more clear so that readers understand that while condemnation is connoted, this is merely because the idea of idolatry itself is inexorably Abrahamic.LCP 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this issue is resolved with the most recent edit. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry is not synonymous with iconography. Prostrating before living creatures (in flesh and blood) are covered by idolatry not iconography/murti. I hope this resolves the confusion.

Also, it would be a good idea if you could refrain from revert warring before understanding the appropriate usage of English words. Anwar 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Iconography is a term from art history, not the study of religious practices; it should not be used in this article in the way it has been. It does not just cover religious images, but all images. The article on it begins:"Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images". For a neutral academic term equivalent to Idol, I recommend cult image. I will revert the insertion of an incorrect use of the word again Johnbod 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, I seem to have been unclear. I used Hinduism only as an example. The problem I am talking about in this Talk section has to do with the entire article, not just Hinduism. I am going to copy the current thread to the "Hinduism" section above. Can you guys pick it up there?LCP 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the comments regarding this article here. There is a problem with forking on the discussions and I think we need to get some of the ideas actually on the talk pages for the articles that are impacted by the debates. Buddhipriya 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability

As a method for working out of the POV issues on the article, perhaps enforcing compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability would be one tool. If we could work together to identify any statements that are not sourced by strong WP:RS, those statements could then be removed. This would make the article much shorter, but it would be well-sourced. Buddhipriya 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protected?

{{editprotected}}

This article has been edit-protected, but there's nothing in the Talk page about this. I haven't noticed any edit or revert wars going on, nor anything else that I would think warranted an edit-protect.

Why was the "Protect" placed, and can we discuss this?

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, apparently there has been some misbehavior in the section on Hinduism as it relates to idolatry. Could the people who are engaged in it please conduct their pissing match here rather than on the article's mainspace?

If the parties can't be sufficiently grown-up to do that, is it possible to simply edit-protect that section? I don't know if this is within Wikipedia's capabilities, but if so, somebody please make it so.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit war that led to full protection of the page until June 6. If there are specific edits that you'd like, please feel free to re-enable the editprotected tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

merge from false idol

I propose merging false idol into this article. Please make a notice in the article as soon as it is unlocked. Andries 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hindus' view of Idol worship

In the first place, it is not idol. It is the Deity that is being worshipped.

It is incorrect to state that "ISKCON would only consent to worship of idols that they consider the supreme God (i.e. Vishnu or Shiva)". ISKCON stands for Krishna Consciousness, the teachings of ISKCON or based on Bhagavad Gita, spoken by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battlefield Kurukshetra. Sri Krishna is God and Shiva is a demogod. Shiva is one of the greatest devotees of Sri Krishna.

Can you please explicate for us the relationship between the statue or image and God or the god in question? Thanks.LCP 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, idols are not worshipped, but, the Deities are.

The teachings of ISKCON are based on Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battlefield Kurukshetra. Sri Krishna is God and Shiva is a demi-God. Shiva is one of the greatest devotees of Sri Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Supreme Lord in the Bhagavad Gita instructs not to worship anyone other than Himself.

It is evident from the Ten Commandments that the instructions are very basic - because, the targeted recipients were very primitive. It is said in the Vedas that messages reached people based on Time, People's ability to understand, and Person delivering.

The civilization in the East could receive and understand how the soul transforms from different bodies; the availability of 8,400,000 species of bodies for this purpose; the process of creation, maintenance, and annihilation; the cycle of birth - old age - disease - and death and so on.

It is evident from the Vedic Scriptures and Bhagavad Gita that every living entity (soul) takes birth in this material-world as long as the soul desires to 'enjoy' the material world; as long as the soul is forgetful of its position as the servant of the Supreme Person.

When the soul realizes its original identity as 'Soul and not the body', it desires to go back to Home back to Godhead. It then searches out for salvation. The soul then gets direction from God through the Vedas. The soul understands that the way to salvation is to understand that it has to develop attachment to God. It also understands that it has to detach itself from the material desires. When this is successful, the soul is God conscious and at the time of death, gets back to the Supreme Abode, called Vaikunta. If it is still attached to this material world, the soul gets another body and lives through birth - death - disease - old age.

Vaikunta means 'the Place without anxiety'. Vaikunta is the Spiritual World, the Supreme Abode of Lord Krishna. As stated in Bhagavad Gita, the soul upon reaching the Spiritual World, doesn't fall down to the material world again.

The process to go back to home back to Godhead is to chant 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare; Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare' and eat Krishna Prasadam. For more details, read books from Srila Prabhupada, or visit the nearest ISKCON temple.

Chant and Be Happy.

Hare Krishna.

Can you please explicate for us the relationship between the statue or image and God or the god in question? Thanks.LCP 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits?

The following material is again being involved in a back and forth edits: [4]. The same edits by this editor are also being made on Hinduism where his behavior is being discussed on the talk page. Instead of just repeating the same edit over and over, can you please address the problems with WP:RS and take the issues up one by one rather than via wholesale edits? For detailed review of the content issues please refer to: [5] If the editor persists in making these sorts of edits without engaging in productive dialog, I think it would be helpful to request an RfC on the issue and/or on the editor's behavior. Buddhipriya 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop revert warring here? This article is about idolatry, not Hinduism per se. Also see WP:OWN. Anwar 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That section is about Hinduism. Anwar, you please stop! Why do you keep calling your own reverts "cleanups"?

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Exodus 20:4

This article seems to be missing a very blatant passage on idolatry: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:4 This passage is easily interpreted as a ban on creating all forms of images-not just interpreting god through image. The Taliban banned movie theatres because of this. Idolatry does not just have to mean false representation of God, it can just mean false representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJEverall (talk • contribs) 04:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Amish are the only Christian group I know of to interpret it that way. Have any Jewish groups adopted such an interpretation? Wesley (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hindu views of idolatry - Linguistic Symbols as Idols of Divine

The opening paragraphs of this section are IMO very badly written. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Idolatry in the Bible...bad?!

If that were true, Biblical/Christian art would resemble designs from Islamic art; which uses geometric shapes. There would be no painting of the Cistine Chapel, or Jesus crowned and bleeding on the cross. For that matter, use of symbols to worship God, would include the cross its self!

No insult intended, merely an observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.211.8 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Intro

Just stumbled upon this article; I don't have the time to cite my sources (which are academic in nature), but I must confess I cannot agree with the impression that the first sentence gives to the reader, albeit cites Miriam Webster! Idolatry is far more complex than simply worshiping a physical object; rather, the images are not exactly "inanimate object", because they are the vessels of the deities in which their "essence" is housed when they come to Earth for their worshipers. An analogy might be that an idol is akin to a physical body for a soul. In fact, in nearly every western/ Indo-European and Middle-easter religion there are rituals for quickening the image and instilling it with the god, itself. To the Egyptians this involved the mouth, while to the Greeks and the Buddhists, the eyes seem to have been important for establishing a god within it's image. Anyway, I thought that this might be something worth reflecting on, and discussing for this article. At the very least, the opening sentence shows a rather gross misunderstanding of idolatry as it was and is practiced throughout the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.68 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Idolatry of The Cross

I've removed the statement, «Ironically enough, the usage and repetitive appearance of the Cross in modern culture bears perfect example of a graven image.» Principally because it was in the 'etymology' section and was apparently slapped onto the article in order to create an argument. Nevertheless, one can place this back into the article after a legitimate discussion, thinking before placing it in the etymology section, etc. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some corrections on Vedic perspectives

A text in the Shukla Yajur-veda (32.3) reads, “Of Him there is no likeness (pratima), whose glory is infinite”. The Upanishads, which form the philosophical ‘conclusions’ (vedAnta) of the Vedas, repeatedly stress the formlessness (nirākāra, no material form) and unimaginable nature of God, and advise the aspirant to realise the divine presence inwardly. Bhagavata Purana recommends meditation on and worship of pratima (murti) with the understanding that it is not an ordinary material object.Bh.P. 10.12.39, 11.27.12,15

---

A quote from the Hinduism section of artcile is given above for your reference. However I would like to correct some errors in the article.

1. A text in the Shukla Yajur-veda (32.3) reads, “Of Him there is no likeness (pratima), whose glory is infinite”.

The above verse is taken from Madhyandina Shaka of Shukla yajut Veda. It is used to explain that Vedas were against idolatry by Arya Samajis (a 19th centiru Hindu movement). Some use this verse to prove Vedas speak of formless God. However this view cannot be supported by at the least one another Vedic statement which I quote below.

pusannekarse yama surya prajapatya vyuha rasmin | samuha tejah yat te rupam kalyanatamam tat te pasyami (16) (Shukla Yajur Veda, Kanwa Shaka, 40-16)

O Pusan the Omniscient, Ekarsi the Supreme Knowable, Yama the controller of all, Surya the effulgent and a destination for even the deities, Prajapatya a special destination for Brahma; extend the knowledge that is of my true nature, and also knowledge extrinsic to me, so that I may perceive that most auspicious (kalyanatamam) form (rupam) of yours.

The above verse is taken from Kanwa recension of Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita. The same recension also contains the verse 32:3 cited above, although I do not remember the chapter and verse number from this recension.

Consequently the word "pratima" in verse 32:3 has to be interpreted correctly as "copy" or "imitator" and NOT "FORM" or "idol".

2. The Upanishads, which form the philosophical ‘conclusions’ (vedAnta) of the Vedas, repeatedly stress the formlessness (nirākāra, no material form) and unimaginable nature of God, and advise the aspirant to realise the divine presence inwardly.

This statement is also factually wrong say the least. I have given word for word translation for one of the references from Upanishads which show that God has infinite spiritual Forms.

eko vaśī sarvabʰūtāntarātmā ekaṃ rūpaṃ bahudʰā yaḥ karoti tam ātmastʰaṃ ye ʼnupaśyanti dʰīrāḥ teṣāṃ sukʰaṃ śāśvataṃ netareṣām ( Katha Upanishad 2.2.9)

sarvabʰūtāntarātmā eko = The immanent God of all living beings is only ONE or only independent being, because HE is the ruler of all.

vaśī = Everything is under HIS control

ekaṃ rūpaṃ bahudʰā yaḥ karoti = HIS ONE Form (rūpaṃ), HE (yaḥ) makes into infinitely many (bahudʰā), i.e. these are Forms of paramAtmA as Antaryamin, immanent Form of BhagavAn).

tam ātmastʰaṃ = That paramAtmA or God (who is in the heart)

ye ʼnupaśyanti dʰīrāḥ = Those wise men who see such paramAtmA

teṣāṃ = for them only

sukʰaṃ śāśvataṃ = there will be permanent happiness

netareṣām = not for others.

---

The following verse again uses the word "rūpaṃ" whic has the meaning "Form" and nothing else.

http://www.shaivam.org/ssushvetashvatara.htm

na sa.ndR^ishe tishhThati ruupamasya na chaxushhaa pashyati kashchanainam.h . hR^idaa hR^idisthaM manasaa ya ena\- meva.n viduramR^itaaste bhavanti .. Shvetasvatara Upanishad 4:20..

His form is not an object of vision; no one beholds Him with the eyes. They who, through pure intellect and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection, realize Him as abiding in the heart become immortal.

---

3. Bhagavata Purana recommends meditation on and worship of pratima (murti) with the understanding that it is not an ordinary material object.Bh.P. 10.12.39, 11.27.12,15

This statement is ambiguous. What does the word murti mean here ? Is it an external material object or is it the Form of God within devotee's mind or is it talking about True Form of God within one's heart which is completely spiritual ?

Verse 10:12:39 talks about Form of God within devotee's mind which is material and NOT about material objects like murtis/statues in temples. Refer http://vedabase.net/sb/10/12/39/en

verse 11:27:12 does talk about material statues or representations of God. Even the Forms the devotee imagines in his mind for meditation is considered material. Refer http://vedabase.net/sb/11/27/12/en

The True Form of God is completely spiritual in Puranas, upanishads and Samhitas. Vedas or Puranas do not talk about a Formless God.

I just wanted some corrections to be made known here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockh12 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Christian views of idolatry" section needs work

That entire section was clearly written by a Catholic, and drones on and on in defense of the Catholic (and Orthodox) position, with barely any explanation of the reasoning behind the Protestant position. As a result it effectively implies that the Protestant position has no real reasoning and is nutty. As such this is clear bias and undue weight toward one side of a dispute. Disclaimer, of sorts: I am not even a Christian of any kind at all, so I have no position to push on the issue. I am just disappointed in the article's treatment, as it (or, rather that section) appears designed to forcibly lead me to a conclusion rather than providing a balanced view of the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The opposite problem has now happened. There is no explanation of the Catholic/Orthodox position. In reality they only need one or two lines to sum up their position. They cite the graven cherubims in Solomon's temple (Exodus 25:18–20)which was required "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," (1 Chronicles 28:18–19) and the bronze serpent God commanded Moses to make (Numbers 21:8–9) to say graven images are only bad when they are themselves worshiped, as in thought of as a deity. They think graven images are like photographs and can be used for remembrance of holy things and people. I don't want to go sower for a non-primary source so I can add this to the article just to have it removed by someone. Anyone else have the extra time? ConservGal (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry in Jewish thought

If creations of God are not to be worshipped along with God, and other objects not worshipped either, then why do some Jewish services involve bowing to the Torah? Isn't that making an idol out of a book? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Jewish belief. The ark where the Torah is stored i mimetic of the Holy of Holies of the Temple, where the High Priest would enter once a year to pronounce God's name. We do not remember how to pronounce God's name, and we do not have a Holy of Holies in a Temple. But this aspect of lsynagogue design provides us with an echo of that. When we bow at the ark, and before the Torah, they are standing in for God. The Torah, for Jews, is not just the scroll that is visible. It includes an oral supplement wich was revealed at Sinai (some of which has been written down in the Talmud), but the written Torah (what you see) has within it marks that represent, iconically, the oral tradition. Moreover, Jews believe that the Torah is eternal, that it existed before God created the universe and was God's plan - lueprint if you like - fo he universe. And of course, the Torah is the record of our covenant with God. It is, if you like, our marriage liscence. When Jews bow down before it, they are bowing down something that symbolizes every dimension of our relationship with God. It is God who is being worshiped through the Torah that he used as a blueprint for our existence and as a contract for our marriage to him. This may not make sense to outsiders, but i think this is what most observant Jews believe. From a Jewish point of view, Shristains are cannibals when they drink the blood of Christ. But I have taled to educated Catholics and they have explanations for why this is not so. I do not entirely understand their explanations, but their explanations sound sophisticated and I know they sinceely believe them. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism section full of original research

The section entitled "Hindu views of idolatry — linguistic symbols as idols of divine" can be deleted and replaced with a link to the article on murti. The section is full of WP:OR, and the article would be improved by its removal. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity

The Christianity section should be divided into subsections: the catholic/orthodox and the protestant. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Idolatry in the Bible

This entire section has the feel of an idiosyncratic bible commentary rather than an encyclopedic entry. But if it's not completely redone (which would be best, ideally with references to modern philology and archaeology), it should at least be made clear that the quotations are from different translations. E.g., the quote from Jeremiah 2:28 appears to be from the King James Version (although capitalization is wrong); the quote from Hosea 12:10 is from the singular Young's Literal Translation. Using different translations without explaining why, opens whoever wrote this to the charge of cherry-picking, especially when he resorts (without explanation) to an autodidact's version produced in the 1860s.AnthroMimus (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)