Talk:Idolatry

Was that redundant-repetitive? -&#35918&#30505

I made three deletions: I changed "misinterpret" to "a partisan interpretation" because that is NPOV. I changed something similar to read "doesn't represent the point of view of..." again for NPOV reasons. I also deleted this, because it is wrong:

At its basic level, however, the taboo of "idolatry" represents a common (universal) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence or attachment to the material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite).

First, many religions (including Judaism) have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. There is of course a gnostic strain within Judaism, my point is that it is simply false to make this claim about all religions. Second, holy does not mean infinite. This may be someone's interpretation of holy" but it is not the mainstream one. It contradicts Otto and Kadushin. At the very least, it must be presented as one interpretation of "holy" and you need to explain whose view it is. But I like the way the article starts! Slrubenstein

I haven't read this article yet, but I agree with Slrubenstein's deletion. Orthodox Christianity also places great emphasis on the goodness of the material world, because it was (according to them) created by a good God. From this perspective, rejection of the material world is one of gnosticism's chief errors, shared by Hinduism, Buddhism and others I'm sure. Wesley

And yet every word of that paragraph remains true! In its basic essence, I mean... Not that it wasnt perhaps too "universalist"... I think it could still be there without being quite as sweeping -generalizing... In fact, your point, SL and Wes about "materialism" visaviz idolatry are probably worth mentioning:

"At its basic level, however, the taboo, "idolatry" represents a common (universalist) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence for material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite). This does not preclude materialistic "principles", and these generally fall into more practical aspects of religious doctrine."

-&#35918&#30505

I repeat: this paragraph is not true. Now you may disagree with me. You may say it is not true according to my point of view. Okay. But then we could say it is true according to your point of view. But these areicles are supposed to be NPOV! Included the views current in scholarship on religion. If there are debates among scholars of religion, provide an account of them. But let us not put in false or non-NPOV statements -- and either way, the paragraph in question is false or POV. Slrubenstein

I added text to represent at least one Buddhist view of things (there actually are a lot of different and conflicting Buddhist views toward things.) But the original text which implied that Buddhism was pantheistic was definitely wrong. I don't know enough about Hinduism to comment on that text.

-RR

---

Hmm... ok lets break this down:

My argument:

"At its basic level, however, the taboo, "idolatry" represents a common (universalist) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence for material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite). This does not preclude materialistic "principles", and these generally fall into more practical aspects of religious doctrine."

ISSUE: Status of idolatry as a universalist concept Point: IDOLATRY is: a common concept. Reason: The basic idea behind "idolaty as forbid" has a common theme namely: "Dont fuck with God's rules and go do this or that." Assumptions:

1. That there is a "basic idea" behind idolatry.
2. That all societies have similar rules.
3. That any common themes have a universal tranlation

Your argument:

"many religions (including Judaism) have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. There is of course a gnostic strain within Judaism, my point is that it is simply false to make this claim about all religions. Second, holy does not mean infinite. This may be someone's interpretation of holy" but it is not the mainstream one. It contradicts Otto and Kadushin. At the very least, it must be presented as one interpretation of "holy" and you need to explain whose view it is"

"I repeat: this paragraph is not true. Now you may disagree with me. You may say it is not true according to my point of view. Okay. But then we could say it is true according to your point of view. But these areicles are supposed to be NPOV! Included the views current in scholarship on religion. If there are debates among scholars of religion, provide an account of them. But let us not put in false or non-NPOV statements -- and either way, the paragraph in question is false or POV."

ISSUE: Status of idolatry as a universalist concept Point: IDOLATRY is: not a common concept. Reasons::

1. many religions have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. With exceptions...
2. "holy does not mean infinite." Subjective. May be better written as POV.
3. point of view. Okay. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, Including the views current in scholarship on religion.

Assumptions:

1. That the universalist concept of idolatry is POV, i.e. "idolatry" cannot in any way be generalized.
2. That by "holy and infinite" one is implying that holy and infinite are the same,
3. That there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry vis a vis NPOV

Rebuttal: I do not make any claims about all religions, rather I imply a relationship across religions about idolatry as, in one form or another "a taboo, about X." Concession: "Universalist" may be a POV term, however as some read it. Concession: "holy" may be a POV term, however as some read it. Caveat: However, you assume that the wording implies that holy and infinite are the same, rather than illustrating a relationship between "unholy and finite" > "holy and infinite" You assume that there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry vis a vis NPOV - and yet offer no support for this, in itself, other than to say that any POV, including NPOV, is POV.... -&#35918&#30505

Sorry Sv, you seem to miss the point, whihc is not that "holy" is a point of view term -- the issue is not whether "idolatry" or "holy" are point of view terms, the issue is that how one defines and interprets these words is point of view. And that isn't even an argument -- it goes without saying. The point is this: A good article must

• identify whose point of view a particular approach to idolatry (or holy or whatever) is, and
• provide an account of other points of view about these terms (meaning, usage)

In other words, I am most definitely not asserting that "there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry." I am asserting that any definition of a concept (common or uncommon) of idolatry reflects a partricular scholars' point of view. You should name the scholar whose point of view you are representing. I am not insisting that you delete the analysis, only that you ascribe it to the people who promote it and acknowledge what, if any, debate there is. Slrubenstein

Issue: Steves use of universalism or generalizing as POV. Point: Steve is not NPOV, by generalizing. Reasons:

1. These are all POV and as such must be represented as POV1, POV2, etc...
2. Because how one defines and interprets these words is point of view.
3. The WP is exclusively for research of "scholars" POV"

Assumptions:

1. That there is some greater degree of control in how people interpret words, by refraining from generlizing about the classified POV1, POV2 etc.... -&#35918&#30505
2. That such generalization cannot be arrived at without attribution
3. That such analysis is not forthcoming of attribution %] Stevertigo

Is this latest comment a joke? This is really bizarre. Every week Stvertigo finds a new article to stuff with convoluted word-salad that has no purpose or meaningful content, and I am really concerned about this. He writes long-winded, grammatically nonsense phrases, and then gets angry at people when we can't follow his ranting. Talk pages are supposed about improving articles, not ghost-writing as therapy.