Talk:Idolatry

More discussion on this article may be found here: Talk:Idolatry/archive1, Talk:Idolatry/archive2, Talk:Idolatry/archive3

I had written "It is generally believed that idolatry is based on the worship of the idols themselves. Even though this belief persists to this today, it has long been known to be errorenous". This was then removed. I don't understand why this statement has been removed, nor do I understand why someone labeled it as POV. It is not biased to note that this historical information has long been known to some people. What POV is being pushed by noting this? I am merely pointing out that what your average person commonly believes is not the same as what scholars of religion may believe; that is true not only for today, but also for centuries ago. RK

According to Wikipedia policy, NPOV means that one should "present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree" and "fairly represent all sides of a dispute and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." These are quotes from the linked page. The plain meaning of "it has long been known to be errorenous [sic]," however, does not present ideas such a fashion that the person who believes that idolatry is the worship of idols (such as the OED, see below) can agree with. Furthermore, the statement clearly and unambiguously takes sides as to what opinion about the meaning of idolatry is correct. In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding why one would not see such a statement as POV. The defense that it "has long been to some people" is beside the point since the objectionable text failed to limit "known" to "some people".

No, that is not true. You have totally misunderstood what NPOV stands for. Historical facts and scientific facts are not to be presented as mere opinions, on the same level as proven mistakes and falsehoods. You really, really need to stop editing articles until you do more reading, and learn a bit more about science, history, archaeology, and about Wikipedia's own NPOV policy. The text, as written, was NPOV. RK

What is true is that a highly-respected dictionary gives a definition that is at variance with your understanding of the term. Either you are wrong, the dictionary is wrong, or there is a fair dispute over the meaning of word idolatry. A dispute over the proper definition of a word does not fall within the ambit of a historical or scientific fact, so it is POV to take sides by writing "it has long been known to be errorenous [sic]". SCCarlson

An even more serious problem with the statement is that my dictionary (an abridgment of the Oxford English Dictionary) explicitly defines idolatry as its first definition to be the worship of idols, supporting what the text asserted to be a long erroneous belief. If it is truly the case that "it has long been known to be errorenous [sic]," no one bothered to inform the editors of one of the most esteemed dictionaries of the English language of this supposedly well-known fact. If there is a debate about the meaning of idolatry, it is POV to take sides, especially in such absolute terms. SCCarlson

Um, this is a real problem. Since when is a one or two sentence definition from a dictionary the source for an encycloepdia article? How many books on this subject have you read? Have you ever actually spent a few weeks reading encyclopedia entries on this topic, and chapters of books on this topic? I have. So have many others. Please, please, do not write about topics of which you know very little. I cannot compromise if you insist on making claims which are definately false and unsupportable. As to the accuracy of your dictionary, you are simply wrong. Dictionary editors 'never intended their work to be a substitute for scholarship. They simply give common uses of a word. They never go into detail and explain things like an encyclopedia does. RK

Maybe you should take your complaint to the editors of the OED. While you are at it, maybe you should also complain to Mirriam-Webster which defines idolatry as "1. the worship of a physical object as a god." In fact, I'm really curious to learn which of your sources says otherwise. As great as Maimonides was, he lived and died a bit too soon to impart much insight on the meaning of modern English words. SCCarlson

Stephen, I will respect and agree with your argument and sources. Yet I note that what the dictionary says is different than what I have read. It seems that different people use this word in different ways. I have been pushing this article to follow the definition I am most familiar with, but I concur that isn't the only one. I appreciate the time and work you are putting into this article. RK

I am rewriting the following paragraph because, as it was written, it is confusing, and may lead readers to some rather erroneous conclusions.

Catholicism is a rather colorful example, which employs symbolic themes that many scholars of comparative religion see not only as similar but related to many Eastern religious symbols. In fact, such symbols were literally substituted upon occasion. For example, some Buddhists in the Far East to consider Catholic saints and Christ himself to be examples of bodhisattvas, and some early Catholic missionaries believed that the devotion to Guan Yin was in fact a Chinese version of the Virgin Mary.

This needs to be rewritten; the fact that modern day scholars of comparative religion have studied this issue in no way alters the past: The small number of Catholics who interpreted Guan Yin as Mary mother of Jesus did not do so as part of modern day comparative religion; they were simply pushing their belief system onto a people with a totally different belief system, and who probably would not even approve of this claim. Further, why was a rather significant point (i.e. that this idea was never accepted by the masses) removed? Seems important to me. I am not opposed to others rewriting this paragraph, but this must be done clearly and in a way that preserves historical context. The way it was written introduced a gross historical anachronism! RK

The Hebrew bible speaks of idol worshippers as worshipping gods made of wood and stone. It is not obvious to me, from reading those passages, that the claim was being made as anything other than a rhetorical ploy. They were attempting to portray as absurd the notion that a human being could sculpt a god-image using simple techniques, and then people would bow down and pay homage to that image as if it indeed represented a deity. They called attention to the fact that the idols were really physical objects; they did not speak, they could not move; they did not answer prayers. I am not at all certain that even these prophets imagined that the worshippers of these images thought that the idols could or should do any of those things, or were anything other than symbols. The idea was instead to poke fun at the very idea of a "symbol rich tradition" from the perspective of their ideal monotheism -- IHCOYC 02:16 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

That is great. However, it is not obvious to many other readers. In fact, the great majority of Bible readers have come to different conclusions. Again, let us remember NPOV. RK

Upon reading and rereading the paragraph, I do not see what can support the inference that those Catholics who interpreted Guan Yin as Mary mother of Jesus did so as part of modern-day comparative religion. The above text simply does not assert or imply that. In fact, the reasoning runs in the other direction. The reason why modern scholars of comparative believe the symbols to be such is because of the actions of those Catholics. Finally, the point about the equation being rejected was already covered quite well (and more specifically than a vague appeal to majority belief) in the immediately following paragraph. For these reasons and also because of the rather confusing changes introduced by Susan Mason you had to deal with, I'm reverting to article to before her edits where we can hopefully start over again if it is warrented. SCCarlson 02:45 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

No go. I explained why the paragraph was so confusing...and your solution was to insist on keeping it confusing, rather than rewriting it to make it clearer. That kind of hostility doesn't make me trust you much. RK

Were you confused by the paragraph, or do you feel that someone else might be confused? I addressed the latter point, to which I have not yet received a clear response. On the other hand, if the former is true, then we have a valid data point that it was confusing, and it should be rewritten more than I did. SCCarlson

Why would you revert my changes simply because u don't understand them? Wouldn't it be proper to ask for clarification first? Susan Mason

Upon further review, some of the changes were good, some helpful (linking), some innocuous, so I restored them. I do have a problem with the avoidance of the term Hebrew Bible, which in fact is the preferred bias-free term in the Society of Biblical Literature and other academic organizations. SCCarlson 03:06 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

What do Jews call it? In any case, its redirecting to Tanach and I think if u feel the name is inappropriate, the place to change it is at Tanach. Susan Mason

SBL includes as its members many of the best Jewish scholars in the world, who do use Hebrew Bible in academic publications. The hard part is getting Christian scholars to use Hebrew Bible instead of Old Testament. SCCarlson

Susan Mason seems to be bigoted against people who understand that the Jewish Bible and Christian Bible are not the same (they are, of course, related). She therefore tries to rewrite articles to hide this difference, or to ridicule it. For shame. RK

So do u want to change the Tanach article or is there some reason why the Idolatry article must use different wording than Tanach? Susan Mason

Actually, I think Hebrew Bible needs its own article, because the term only refers to the contents of the books and takes no position on their order, while the terms Tanach and Old Testament imply different orders pf the books. SCCarlson

Then make one. Susan Mason

Huh? The Hebrew Bible does have its own entry. It always has. What precisely is hard to understand about this? I even gave you the link for it. RK 14:43 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I just created an entry for Hebrew Bible to explain the position of the Society of Biblical Literature and how its meaning is subtly different from that of either Tanakh or Old Testament. SCCarlson 02:49 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think Stephen and Susan , and maybe RK need to recuse themselves from this article... Both have been doing a wonderful job in their own rights, but are polarized... and there is little fair solution other than to say "take a breath guys(girl)"...

Let it settle for a bit... I liked RK's initiative in reintegrating the split article (which came from here to begin with but some people (Susan) kept dragging the material into idol worship. Do you see, people why It was a decent solution to separate idolatry from idol worship?- at least from an editing perspective... I cant tell what Stephen is doing... Im havent even looked at the article....

But I cant argue with the sense of wanting it integrated. Sue, Id like to tell you alone to 'bugger off' for a while.. but that would single you out.. So I suggest everyone whose tinkered with this stupid thing more than ten times leave it the hell alone for a few days. Get a life. Do something else.. go to the beach. Get laid. Rest your eyes. -&#35918&#30505sv

uh, how am I dragging the article into idol worship? Susan Mason

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about Stevertigo and that may have something to do with not having "even looked at the article" but I've been reasonably satisfied with Mason's attempt at compromise for quite a while. SCCarlson

Perhaps... But maybe my message was pre-emptive.. in anticipation of a situation wherin polarization... aw fuck it... Miss a day, miss a lot, I guess. -&#35918&#30505sv

In that case, you were projecting... Slrubenstein

I removed two sections because I have a variety of problems with them. If we can addres them satisfactoraly, perhaps these sections can be reincorporated into the article -- but I think at the least they need some serious work.

=== As viewed in psychoanalysis ===

In a psychoanalytic sense, "idolatry" is conceptually similar to attachment, where something is valued beyond what others value it, or beyond a healty balance with other concerns. And like symbols, many concepts central to religion, if solidified into into literalities, lose their personal power.

I believe the above passage is vague, misleading and lacks NPOV. First, I am not sure if it represents [sychoanalysis clearly. Who, exactly. has cmpared idolatry to unhealthy atachments? I suspect Freud wrote something about idolatry in Moses and Monotheism but Freud did not really use the language of "attachment" theory. If there is a serious psychoanaltic analysis of idolatry, it belongs here -- but the above passage needs more detail, at least a citation.

I know that we normally do not need citations for every thing in an article. One reason I think we need a citation here is that this is a subsection that is about a particular group's view of idolatry (psychoanalysts'); in other words, the section reveals something not only about idolatry, but about psychology. In order to educate people (the task of an encyclpoedia) about psychology, this paragraph needs development: who made the argument, and why, and a citation so readers who want to learn more about this approach can.

But there is another reason I think citations are important. I think this psychoanalytic interpretation of idolatry -- if it really exists -- is ethnocentric. Psychoanalysis has been criticized by many. I personally think there is great value to psychoanalysis, and I certainly welcome its inclusion when appropriate in articles. But many critics question the scientific validity of psychoanalysis. When Freud wrote his case-studies, he derived arguments from a close examination of a person. That is a far cry from passing judgements on whole societies or civilizations. And in the 19th century one of the most common forms of Eurocentrism was the claim that we white guys are better at thinking abstractly than those wogs. And the passage above seems to echo that ethnocentric argument. The fact that psychoanalysis itself may lack NPOV or be ethnocentric is no surprise to critics of psychoanalysis -- and this is not enough eason to delete the passage, if a psychoanalyst really made the argument. But given that it is an example of Eurocentrism in psychonalysis, I think it is especially important to include the name(s) of the theorist, and some minimal context (when and where they practices).

I agree with Slr's comments. Is there any evidence that these claims are a mainstream belief within the psychiatric or psychoanalysts community? Or are these the lone views of one Wikipedia reader? RK

Slr removed the following:

Beliefs considered idolatrous: Polytheistic beliefs which the Abrahamic religions generally consider idolatrous include:

Multiple gods exist.
The gods can be appeased, and even have their minds changed, by setting one god against another.
Certain objects and places have supernatural power (see: mana)
Prayers in the presence of certain objects or places are likelier to be heard by the gods than elsewhere

These beliefs are at variance with the idea of monotheism, which holds that all power comes from God alone, and not from any other supernatural gods or agents. In such systems "God" at best would be the stronger of many other gods; this God then could not have omnipotence, God would not have an independent and sovereign will.

These beliefs may well be at odds with monotheism (except you can find plentifal examples of items 3 (the ark) and 4 (the holy of holies) in every monotheistic religion. Perhaps items 3 and 4 should be deleted or at least modified. Slrubenstein

I think they should still be included, but I agree with you that they should be modified. We may note that the [[Tanakh|Hebrew Bibl]e itself cautions against interpreting these symbols as objects with power independent from God, especially the later books of the Hebrew Bible. RK

But my main argument is that these, especially items 1 and 2, don't seem to be idolatry. I am not convinced that idolatry = polytheism. Prohibition of polytheism = don't have other gods before Me. Prohibition of idolatry = don't make graven images. Even if you believe in one God, you can still make an idol of Him, and that would be wrong. In short, I suspect that the above section belongs in an article on Monotheism versus Polytheism but are just not really germaine to this article. In short, the first two examples are true about polytheism, which is a separate issue than idolatry; the second two items can exist within monotheistic religions and not be considered idolatrous. Slrubenstein

I agree with you, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. In fact, throughout this article I have been trying to say the opposite: I have been trying to say that idolatry is not polytheism. Rather, idolatry is a term that many people simply attach to all polytheistic practices and beliefs, even if that term is not correct. I will attempt to rewrite these sections to make this cleaerer. I think you misread the text when you think I am discussing monotheism versus polytheism; I am not (although others are welcome to do so.) I am only saying that many monotheists use this word for a wide variety of situations, even when it is not called for. RK

At least some Christians subscribe to a doctrine of progressive revelation which leaves open the possibility that such things as animal sacrifice, a holy of holies, and an Ark of the Covenant might be superseded beliefs even if they were authorised by the Hebrew Bible. By this theory, objects of worship were authorised in the past, for primitive people, as a concession to human weakness and anthropomorphism. Now that people are ready to grasp a purer and more abstract monotheism, they are no longer appropriate, and potentially fall into the category of idolatry. The destruction of the Nehushtan, apparently a genuine relic of Moses, after it became an object of veneration is perhaps an example of this within the Hebrew Bible itself. The notions that certain objects have mana, or that prayers using the objects are likelier to be heard than otherwise, seem to me to be of the essence of idolatry, for the reasons stated. A truly omnipresent and almighty God finds any such objects irrelevant. -- IHCOYC 20:07 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Many Jews also have a view that may be termed progressive revelation. RK

Sure, God finds such objects irrelevant... they're for the benefit of us mortals, not God. Same was true of things like the Ark and Tabernacle. God was still omnipresent back then, but setting aside certain things and places helped the Israelites become cognizant of His presence with them. The idea of progressive revelation itself can cut either way. Either objects are no longer acceptable, or they are still acceptable and can even be used to depict God the Son because of the Incarnation. Eastern Orthodoxy accepts progressive revelation with the caveat that later revelations remain true to the foundation laid by earlier revelations; there can be more complete understanding, or new applications, but not contradictions of earlier fundamentals. In my experience, I don't think such objects help God hear my prayers, but they do encourage me to pray in various ways; Protestants use different kinds of prayer reminders as well, whether it's photos of missionary families on the fridge they want to remember in prayer, or wallet-sized cards with preprinted prayers or prayer outlines they carry in their wallet. It would be reasonable to keep both Points Of View in the article... haven't looked at it in a few days. Wesley 14:55 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Now, this part is factually wrong:

Polytheistic beliefs which the Abrahamic religions generally consider idolatrous include:

Multiple gods and/or deities exist.

These gods may work together or against each other; A person may even set one god against another for one's benefit.

Certain objects or places have supernatural power independent of God; they can be manipulated by a person through the proper ceremony or sacrifice to achieve a result without God's instruction or consent.

Prayer in the presence of certain objects or places are likelier to be heard by the gods than elsewhere. Modern biblical scholars hold that the early books of the Hebrew Bible were written as a reaction against this belief. The Torah instructs the Israelites to demolish all local places that are repupted to have such power; in their place the Israelites were instructed to offer sacrifices at only one location, the Temple in Jerusalem. Later books of the Hebrew Bible make clear that prayers to God could be offered anywhere.

These beliefs are at variance with the idea of monotheism, which holds that all power comes from God alone, and not from any other supernatural gods or agents. In such systems "God" at best would be the stronger of many other gods; this God then could not have omnipotenc, God would not have an independent and sovereign will.

It is wrong in several particulars. The earliest books of the Hebrew Bible show prayers and sacrifices being offered to God in several different places. The monopoly of the Temple in Jerusalem was a monopoly of sacrifice, not of prayer; it was not the earliest such situation in the Bible, since the Bible history shows that at one time the Jews did not control Jerusalem, but sacrifices were demanded of them even then. The monopoly of the Jerusalem temple became an issue after the breakup of Israel and Judah after the death of Solomon. Later books don't so much say that prayer can be offered anywhere --- there was never a Jerusalem monopoly on prayer --- as much as they seem to discount the sacrificial aspect of Jewish religion in favour of the more internal factors. IHCOYC

No, Ihcoyc, that paragraph is not wrong at all. In fact, it never denies that the early books of the Bible report the existence of multiple places of sacrifice. In fact, it does say that the Bible mentions these places! Allow me to state this important point again: If we read the early books of the Bible in order, we find a progression by which these places are destroyed and forbidden, until we are left with only one place that sacrifices are authorized to be held in. Further, I never said that the Temple in Jerusalm had a monopoly on prayer; in fact I wrote the precise opposite! Finally, later books of the Bible are absolutely clear that a person may offer a prayer to God even outside the Temple, and they may offer a prayer outside the context of sacrifices. Both ideas are in the Bible. I thus don't understand your claim of error, as you are not refuting what I wrote. RK

OK. I see what you are saying now. My understanding, though, is that the various shrines, altars, and "high places" that were destroyed in the chronicles of the Hebrew kings were places where other gods were worshipped. -- IHCOYC 21:01 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Bible isn't explicit about their early uses. Early Israelites seemed to have separate places of worship for monotheistic purposes; they may have had their own separate high places from the pagan ones. However, the way that the Israelites lasped back into polytheism on a number of occasions prompted the prophets to excorciate them loudly and often; we lack the details, but something allowed some of them to drift back into polytheism. I believe that the purpose of the one Temple in Jerusalem was part of a program to wean the Israelites away from polytheism. (In the minds of the average person 4000 years ago, separate places might mean separate gods; one place would mean one god.) RK

RK, why are you reverting my work without even bothering to discuss it? Susan Mason

I have a point to make concerning the above comments by RK and IHCOYC -- a point that I think is fairly reasonable and that I hope will guide both of you as you make more changes to the article. The point: there is a difference between change, which is an objective observable phenomenon, and progress, which is a a particular way of talking about change. It is true that Hebrew religion (and later, Judaism) has changed. Some people do beleive that these changes are progressive, meaning they represent incremental improvements in a generally positive direction. As RK says, there are Jews who hold a theory of "progressive revelation." The views of those Jews (or others) ought to be represented in this article. But I believe it is an ethnocentric view in that it implies that the revelation to people 2, 3, or 4,000 years ago was less complete, or less-fully realized. IHCOYC even refers to earlier monotheists as "primitive." If by "primitive" we just mean "first" or "prior" that is undeniable, but if by "primitive" we mean in some sense, inferior (IHCOYC uses the word weaker) -- well, that is ethhnocentric. I repeat: this view is a legitimate view among monothesists and should be represented in the article. But the other view should be represented as well. Slrubenstein

Points well worth considering; When they are discussed and wirtten up, I think they should be discussed in the article on revelation. I don't think they belong in this article. Too much of a side topic. RK

I think RK made this point, that the Bible itself provides multiple views towards sacred places. It is possible (as Wellhausen argued) that the people who edited the Torah and authorized the canon were of the belief that one place is holier than all others; but this does not mean that among ancient Hebrews, especially before the period of redaction and canonization, there weren't Hebrews -- still monotheists -- who held other views (such as the holiness of bamot). My point is, just as Judaism and Hebrew religion has changed, one can say that monotheism has changed, and any article that represents "monotheism" should:

strive to do justice to all its forms, not just synchronically (Judaism, Islam, Christiantity) but diachronically as well (monotheism today, 2, 3, 4,000 years ago) and
the article itself ought not claim that the monotheism of today is better, more evolved, truer, more legitimate, more authentically monotheistic, than the earlier forms of monotheism (although the article can of course explain that some monotheists believe this to be so). Slrubenstein

I agree; however I would suggest that this particular article makes no attempt to discuss the evolution of monotheism, except in the most tangential fashion. That subject is best discussed in the extant entry on monotheism. Also, when I was writing about the view expressed in the Hebrew Bible, I had intended to refer to the views that Israelites would have had some centuries after the time of Moses, when the biblical stories and books has started to exist as we know them today. I did not intend to imply that these views existed in the time of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, or even Moses's era. I was making a somewhat more limited claim then the issues you bring up. Your points, however, are well taken! RK

From the perspective of Christianity, the New Testament, specifically the Epistle to the Hebrews, explicitly teaches that the revelation contained in the Hebrew Bible is incomplete, and has been amended and in some respects superseded by the revelations from Jesus. There is a very definite notion of the primitive and imperfect being replaced by a more perfect and complete revelation from the Christian perspective. Christians, at least, tend to view the evolution that seems obvious, at least to non-fundamentalists, in the ideas of monotheism within the Hebrew Bible as a back-projection of their own belief in progressive revelation. In itself, it is not an unreasonable reading. Over the course of the Hebrew Bible, God seems to change from a tribal god who threw horse and rider into the sea, into the Creator of the Universe. It is not unreasonable to ask why the Creator of the Universe wants us to bring him a dead goat, and the prophets do seem to have asked that very question. For the literalist, who affirms that everyword of Scripture continues to mean what it says, it's a larger problem. This does belong somewhere other than the article on idolatry, but it is tangentially related if only that formerly worshipped and mana-containing objects like the Ark of the Covenant or the Nehushtan may seem idolatry to those with later perspectives -- IHCOYC 01:37 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

When, I don't have a problem with the above entering into any article, as long as it is explicit that it is (in your words above) a Christian (or NT) perspective -- and not a perspective of all monotheists, and not an "objective" perspective, that's all. Slrubenstein

While I agree with IHCOYC that, from Christianity's perspective, the New Testament represents a more complete revelation, I think it is going too far to suggest that the Israelites worshipped the Ark. That would suggest that when Moses received the Law on Mt. Sinai, God commanded Moses both to not worship graven images, and also commanded him to make an Ark and to worship it. I don't think this notion is found explicitly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and instead seems to be an anachronistic superimposing of modern anthropologists' ideas about 'mana' onto what was happening there. Wesley 14:02 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

re: the ark. I do think one can say that the ark had "mana" -- if the wrong people touched it, they died. Of course, "mana" does not equal "worship" and the appropriate articles must be clear about the difference. It is a similar difference that is at stake here. I agree with Wesley that there is no evidence that the Hebrews ever worshipped the ark. But clearly, they considered it sacred. This distinction is clear to anyone who is or has be religious. But I think the challenge for us, writing an encyclopedia article, is how to explain the difference in terms comprehensible to anyone -- someone of a non-Abrahamic religion, or an atheist, for example? We have to start with the possibility that some people might not understand the difference, or might think it is "semantics." I see one of the tasks of an article on idolatry to be to provide an explanation that a secular person would find intelligible (and frankly, I am not sure how to do it), Slrubenstein

As I understand it, the question of whether the Ark had mana would depend on whether one thinks its power operated independently of God, or if God Himself caused the deaths and other misfortunes when it was mistreated or stolen. Maybe that's irrelevant; I may be misunderstanding what is meant by mana.

Unfortunately, I don't think the distinction is between sacred object and object of worship is universally clear even to the current editors of this article. I agree, there is a fundamental distinction between veneration and worship that needs to be spelled out, perhaps with the caveat that some (who exactly?) do not recognize any such distinction. Do we have an article yet on what religions mean when they say something, someone or some place is holy? This seems to be a related concept. Wesley

My understanding of mana is that it is some invisible force that makes an object potent, powerful, magical, or holy. It may be bestowed by a deity, but it seems more likely that mana is a sort of side-effect of a deity's presence. The ark definitely is treated in the Hebrew Bible in a way that's indistinguishable from mana. It is a source of dangerous power that may not be theologically independent of God's will, but acts as if it is nonetheless. It brings death to Uzzah and prosperity to Obed-Edom, seemingly by its mere presence. (1 Chron. XIII). The various Levitical rules that say priests who had witnessed particularly holy ceremonies retained a dangerous power map easily into the concept of mana. "Mana" is used by anthropologists as a sort of "neutral" term that covers all instances of these kinds of behaviour; not to see it in there because the Hebrew Bible is in "our" tradition seems to me to be what we are trying to avoid here. -- IHCOYC 20:09 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I removed these again. We have been covering many issues today, and I am sorry but still not convinced -- perhaps now that we are focussing on jsut these two, it will be easier for you to convince me?

Multiple gods and/or deities exist.

These gods may work together or against each other; A person may even set one god against another for one's benefit.

First, number one practically defines polytheism. But this is under a header, "poytheistic beliefs that Abrahamic Religions generally consider idolatrous." Do you see it? This is not a particular polytheistic belief, it is poytheism itself! The header suggests that there are certain beliefs of polytheists that are idolatrous -- which implies that there may be some beliefs held by polytheism that are not idolatrous. Yet this bullet point seems to suggest that all polytheism is by its nature idolatrous. At the very least, this point does not belong under the current header. If you believe it belongs in the article, why not incorporate it into the next section as part of a more general discussion: are "polytheism" and "idolatry" the same thing?

I agree; I am trying to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam view all forms of polytheism as idolatry. These three Abrahamic religions do not view any aprticular polytheistic beliefs as idolatry; they view all polytheism as idolatry (incorrectly, I think.) However, this is no problem as the article isn't saying that these beliefs are idolatrous; rather, they are only saying that they are viewed as idolatrous. So I am in agreement with you. RK

Second, I still do not think that Judaism equates the sin of polytheism with the sin of idolatry (which the following section's mention of Rambam practically affirms). So isn't it factually incorrect to state that an Ambrahamic religion geenrally believes a belief in multiple gods to be idolatry? Can you give me a prooftext from the Bible or Talmud that states "belief in multiple gods = idolatry?" That would satisfy me.

Perhaps you are right. However, the Rambam (aka Maimonides) doesn't seem to represent the mainstream classical rabbinic view on this issue. I realize that the Bible doesn't say that "belief in multiple gods = idolatry", and in fact, I specifically mentioned that this was a later belief, and probably not a correct when, especially when one considers the polytheistic religions outside the knowledge of the near-eastern Israelites. As for the Talmud, I do think that it views all polytheism as idolatry. We should, of course, look into this point, and not blindly assert it. However, every reference to polytheism I have come across in the Talmud refers to it as idolatrous or something equivalent. RK

Third, in any event I think the second bullet-point is redunant. If belief in many gods=idolatry, all beliefs that follow from this belief (that gods may be in conflict, that people can take sides) are of course idolatrous. I just do not see why there is a need for bullet point two IF bullet point one goes. To conclude: one or both of these bullet points should go. If one of them stays, I think it may be more appropriate in another section. Slrubenstein

That is true, however this is not what I meant. If you are referring to the two bullet points above, they are meant to be distinct. (If they are not, that would be my fault!) The first one only states that multiple gods and/or deities exist. This doesn't say anything about the relationship between the gods and mankind. The second point says that "These gods may work together or against each other; A person may even set one god against another for one's benefit." This is meant to discuss a different issue; this point means that people effectively have some power over the gods, in much the same way that people use magic to achieve their goals. In fact, a sufficiently robust polytheistic pantheon that responds to prayer or sacrifice effectively is a magical belief system. There is no fine line between belief in magic and belief in a religion. (There is, of course, a distinct difference between most forms of magic, and most forms of religion. However, there exist gray areas in which they merge; this would be one of them.) RK

Oka, RK: to summarize: I do not feel comfortable making the claim that a belief in many gods is itself idolatrous, unless we have some prooftext. If you provide a prooftext, and we keep the first claim, then I think the second claim is redundant -- I agree it is a different point, but it is obviated by the first claim, if the first claim stands. If you decide that there is no prooftext for the first claim, and we delete it (or replace it with a more nuanced discussion on monotheistic views of polytheism, maybe even for anoterh article), then the second claim may stand, although again I'd like to see prooftexts.

To be crystal clear: I am NOT challenging you on NPOV; you have made it clear that this is a particular view and I do not question that. I am, however, challenging you on accuracy and precision. I have no doubt that Judaism rejects polytheism and attempts to manipulate other gods. I do, however, have doubts that Judaism identifies these specific crimes as "idolatry." I'd like to see evidence. Slrubenstein

SLR, I do wish you would try and communicate with me more and work on the versions which I have produced, rather than continue bickering with RK whilst ignoring me. Susan Mason

RK, why are you reverting my work without even bothering to discuss it? Susan Mason

General comment, but I am especially interested in RK and Welsey's thoughts. This comment was inspired by Wesley's most recent contribution to the talk page. It is also motivated by the fact that after a lot of heavy work on the article, it is now far more accurate and NPOV but has lost some focus. I wonder whether it is worth reflecting on some general thesmes -- which may then guide us in reorganizing the article. Here is what I think. In the first version of the article, and in many ways since then, we focused on "idolatry" as a problem in the relationship between the human and the divine: can the divine take material form?/some say yes/some say that the answer "yes" is wrong and call it idolatry.

But now I think there is a more general issue at stake, which is, what is the place of "the world" in religion? A long time ago I was taught that all religions deal with relationships between the universe, God, and humanity, and that what makes different religions different is the way they sort out these relationships (but this may just come from Rosenzweig). But the implication is this: all religions, including monotheistic ones, must have some attitude towards, and make some use of, the material world. I find this observation useful because it means that there is necessarily going to be a fine line between sacred objects and idols. In other words: we must have a relationship with the material world, because God has a relationship with the material world; but we must not let our relationship with the material world compete with or get in the way of our relationship with God.

I fear that I am starting to sound like some others here who are prone to BS. But my intention is this: if well-informed contributors can reflect a little on what is "at stake" in the issue of idolatry, it might lead one of us to write a much more informative introduction to the article and might help us reorganize it in a more logical way. What do you think? Slrubenstein

I think comparing different religions' attitudes to the material world can certainly make an interesting study of itself, and yes it does relate to how material objects are treated and how they are permitted to be treated. Some related questions for comparative purposes: Is the created world inherently good or evil? orderly or chaotic? permanent or transient (and destined to "go away" one way or another)? That last question touches on the religion's eschatology. An example application might be to look at Buddhism, which I think believes the material world is transient or an "illusion" in the long run; if they think matter is transient, how could they truly worship a graven image, which is implicitly transient along with everything else? I'm not a Buddhist expert by any means, so that example may be misleading, but I hope it at least suggests the sorts of relationships that can exist between a religion's attitude towards the material world and its attitude towards sacred objects and "idols". I'm not sure if this should be part of the idolatry article or some other article that idolatry cross references. (BTW, Great Lent is all about not letting the material world compete with our relationship with God; one of the main reasons behind fasting. That was a very timely remark, as today begins Great Lent at least in the U.S.) Wesley 16:53 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I have ever understood it as one of the central truths of Christianity, that not only human beings, but the whole of the material world, was corrupted by the fall of man. Not only humans, but all life, is subject to death, decay, disease, and other misfortunes; the entire cosmos groans waiting to be delivered. All that is flesh is "carnal," tainted by sin. In this body, we can never be truly good. (See, e.g. Romans VIII - VIII). The original creation made by God was good, but we don't live there anymore. We live in a world subject to the laws of scarcity and work, the consequences of sin, where life itself is a burden to endure. Evil is written into the very laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

Christ's suffering is not limited to the Cross; Christ suffered because he had to come here, had to be born in human flesh, had to suffer its trials and temptations. We are told otherwise that He had to divest Himself of His true nature, of His glory, in order to suffer incarnation and death. (Philippians II:5-11)

It seems to follow logically that nothing "flesh," that is, nothing that is made of matter, can ever be holy. To worship anything here is a blasphemy against the utter otherness of God, against His holy purpose to sweep this degraded earth away and replace it with a better one. This is the real indictment of idolatry, as I see it. Called to worship "in Spirit and in truth," we are called out of this world, to cultivate indifference to it. -- IHCOYC 03:55 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

I recognize that this is not the place for extended theological debate, but feel obliged to point out that if you believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully Man, then at the very least his own physical body had to have been holy. If you believe in Christ's physical resurrection, and bodily ascension, then you are left to explain why he did not leave his body in the ground and merely ascend in spiritual form like any ghost. Your position is at odds with the likes of Irenaeus of Lyons and Athanasius of Alexandria, and in some ways closer to that of Marcion of Sinope and to Zoroastrianism, which taught that all matter is evil. I just added a link to a work by Athanasius called On the Incarnation to the Incarnation article; it has an introduction by C.S. Lewis. It discusses the implications of the Incarnation in depth and is worth a careful reading, even if you don't find Athanasius authoritative. (BTW he's also the same one who first put forth the list of New Testament books that we use today; if you don't trust him, you may have bigger problems.) Athanasius' work on this subject is also reasonably representative of how Christianity has historically viewed the Incarnation of Jesus. Wesley 13:52 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

My understanding is that Christ's risen body, and Adam's pre-Fall body, were somehow perfected in ways we have no direct experience of. Christ was not a ghost, he could be touched, but his resurrection body was not like ours. We know, for instance, that there were no carnivorous animals in Eden; that was a world whose biology and geography can't be seen from here. More than that, I cannot say -- IHCOYC 20:09 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Please read Athanasius' On the Incarnation, linked from the Incarnation article. You agree that Christ's resurrection body was not a ghost, but don't seem to see why that matters or how it affects this discussion. I assume you agree that his pre-resurrection, pre-death body was also a real, physical body. Aside from Christ's resurrection body, Christ's body pre-death and pre-resurrection was holy. When Philip asked to see the Father, Jesus said "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." This alone contradicts your statement that "To worship anything here is a blasphemy against the utter otherness of God." The whole point of the Incarnation is that Jesus was Immanuel, God with us, no longer completely other but also imminent, uniting our human nature with his own divine nature in his person and thereby beginning the healing of our human nature. Peter, James and John caught a glimpse of Christ's unconcealed glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. He did not divest himself of his divinity when he became man; as Athanasius explains, if he had, then his death would have accomplished no more than any other man's death. (The Philippians passage does not reject or refute this, or rather has not in the historical reading of the church.) Such a change would also render the Trinity divisible, and God changeable, both ideas which are repeatedly rejected by Christian writers and theologians through the centuries, as well as in some of the oldest prayers prayed in the Orthodox church. This is not just my understanding. This is the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers of the church, from the New Testament to the interpretation of the Church of that scripture handed down through the centuries. The Good News is actually Good News for all of creation, not even just for all humanity, as the corruption of all creation is being healed. Athanasius also argues that for God to leave His creation in a fallen, corrupted state would be an admission of failure, so of course He would do something to redeem it and heal it. Hence, matter is not evil but is in need of "saving" or "healing", like us people, and is also considered worth "saving".

Getting back to the article at hand and Slrubenstein's original suggestion, would it be helpful to compare the attitude of different religions to the material world? ;-) Wesley 05:01 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)