Talk:Idolatry/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Complete and utter mess

If this page is not about idolatry qua Abrahamic sin, cult image has no business existing. It is less WP:COMMON to the point of absurdity and was only ever created as an openly oikophobic WP:POVFORK. This is not a scholarly/pleb divide either: Google Scholar has 165 000 hits for "idol" and 90 000 for "idolatry" versus 3000-odd for "cult image". The cult image page is so little cared for that it currently belongs solely to WPCHRISTIANITY, where "cult images" are either idols or icons, which has its own page.

Are we going back to the biased editor's original plan to limit this page's WP:SCOPE to only the negative connotations of "idol"? or are we going to merge cult image back over here? The current idea, where we have duplicate articles dealing with precisely the same WP:SCOPE doesn't really fly. — LlywelynII 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My own take would be to correct the mistreatment at idol and accept that idolatry is simply the English term for the worship of deities and spirits by means of a physical form. That happens to be (mostly) taboo within Abrahamic religions (except for all the exceptions) but that taboo is not the entirety (or even majority) of the word's meaning. — LlywelynII 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely clear what your problems are here, and I doubt that others less familiar with the field will be. If you set up an Rfc you need to spell the issues out much more clearly. It's also a pity you haven't tried to raise any issues here before (that I can see). Idol (usages like "teen idol" apart) and idolatry are both clearly always pejorative terms, "the negative connotations" are all there is. Cult image should be more of an art history article, describing the actual objects in their great variety of traditions. It is edging that way already. It is a museum term - you won't find anything labelled an "idol" in modern museums. Idolatry should be the main theological article. Ghits are unhelpful here - remarkably few of those 90K hits for "idolatry" actually seem to relate to actual idolatry - by the bottom of the first page we are at vague metaphors like: "The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics., D LINDSEY - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 1980". The top hits for "idol" are all papers by one JR Idol, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The post above already clearly spelled out the issues. I'm sorry your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff, particularly since you seem to be on the side of cleaning up the current mess.
    
    The disambiguation page idol does treat idolatry as a pejorative term based on Abrahamic prohibitions. The actual article idolatry does not: it simply treats of statuary and other physical objects through which a god is worshipped. (The OED notes both senses: "idol" is primarily simply any image used in worship; the negative associations are noted but limited to scriptural language, which encyclopedias don't fall under.) As such, right now this article's WP:SCOPE completely overlaps cult image, which is supposed to be (but is not) the article for neutral treatment of idolatry. As noted above, it's all very well that you think "nothing" will be found labeled as an idol but the scholarship results above show that to be patently untrue by orders of magnitude. That some are off topic by no means suggests that cult image is anywhere near the COMMON name for the subject even in scholarly journals: limiting the search to "idol + worship" still has 67 000 hits to "cult image"'s 3k. (Incidentally, though, "ghits" are pretty worthless in discussions like this and shouldn't be conflated with Scholar results. Vanilla Google doesn't even attempt to provide accurate numbers for searches beyond a few hundred; Google Book results are only accurate for <1000 results and then only once you've clicked to the last page; Scholar, however, as far as I know, is completely accurate as to the precise number of papers with the given search term.) At the same time, I can understand a need to respect other traditions by deferring to a NPOVy term... except editors don't seem to use it. Instead, they come here and turn this article into a neutral treatment of idolatry in general rather than as an Abrahamic prohibition. That's also fine, but then we should fold the POVFORK at cult image back into this article.
    
    Fwiw, simply speaking in anecdotes, museums don't use "cult images": if they don't call something an idol, they tend to describe it by completely neutral terms such as "statue of an Assyrian god", "figure of the seated Sakyamuni Buddha", etc. Better yet, please provide facts. For example, searching www.metmuseum.org provides ~71 hits for "cult image" and ~101 for "idol". Searching www.louvre.fr/en/ gets ~29 hits for "cult image" and ~81 for "idol". (Both sites obviously have massive results for "statue", &c.) Even in a specialized environment, your gut feeling seems to be wrong and it is not the proscribed treatment; in general usage, which is what Wikipedia advocates using, there is no comparison whatever: the term for the actual objects is "idol". — LlywelynII 13:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

2 eye idols

(ec) Well we'll see if others can work out what you are on about. The Met search actually demonstrates my point well - most of the hits are about a specific object "Eye idol. Date: ca. 3700–3500 B.C.. Medium: Gypsum alabaster. Accession Number: 51.59.11", using the word in a specific specialized term (which incidentally don't seem to be idols at all, but votives probably representing the donor not the god). Many others relate to paintings etc called The Golden Idol, or pick up 19th-century usage. Only a handful use the term as you say.Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks for adding to cult image's project listings, though that actual article doesn't discuss any of its sections in terms of visual arts (all of them deal with the cult nature of the images: i.e., with a repeat of the content here at idolatry) and "cult object" isn't really a separate field of that discipline. If you prefer to keep that page, probably better to add more religious projects. — LlywelynII 14:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I said "edging towards", but "The intensified pathos that informs the poem Stabat Mater takes corporeal form in the realism and sympathy-inducing sense of pain in the typical Western European corpus (the representation of Jesus' crucified body) from the mid-13th century onwards. "The theme of Christ's suffering on the cross was so important in Gothic art that the mid-thirteenth-century statute of the corporations of Paris provided for a guild dedicated to the carving of such images, including ones in ivory"" sounds like art history to me. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Idolatry" is a sin in Abrahamic religions (mostly, except insert Catholic crucifix and saint statuary, insert Orthodox ikons, etc.), and a [mostly^*] obsolete concept in the study of religions; even the early (Victorian) anthropological approach to the question was polluted with this prescriptivist view, and with a Western, industrial society superiority complex, etc., and viewed other religious with cult images as "idolatrous" and "primitive". This basically has nothing at all to do with a modern, descriptive, and respectful anthropological approach. These two articles are separate for a reason. [^* "Idolatry" could still be relevant in the study of Satanism and any other direct, negating offshoot of Christianity that intentionally inverted that religion's norms.] Adultery (which lingers as a legal as well as religious concept) is separate from extramarital sex for essentially the same reason. You can go down the list of Abrahamic sins and find this to be the case consistently here. Gluttony and overeating / obesity are separate articles, and so on. Even idolatry itself is a legal matter in some jurisdictions, so commingling of the religious and legal material is probably okay, at least for the short term (I'd rather see them split).

  This page, Idolatry, should not be limited to negative connotations (it has a positive one in the aforementioned Satanism, remember), but should be limited to an Abrahamic connection, and that necessarily means it will largely be a negative view (or WP reporting neutrally on a negative view, rather). The cult image page should probably be moved to ritual object, a less loaded and less limiting term (it's difficult in an encyclopedia for a general audience to get around the fact that "cult" means "weird little pseudo-religious group full of nutcases" to the typical reader, no matter how many times they're presented with an anthropological definition. Even real anthro. texts have been moving away from this word for the last generation or two. And "image" is too specific; objects of worship and other ritual use are often not images but other things. I agree that the Christian influence on the article presently at cult image is skewing it, but it's a stub, and there's plenty of time to develop it properly.

  PS: Insulting other editors' reading comprehension is the sort of thing that leads to ArbCom cases which leads to entire topic areas being under discretionary sanctions, which leads to a lot of people getting topic banned and blocked and so forth. Usually for saying things like "I'm sorry your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff". Just a word to the wise. ArbCom has no compunction at all against putting religion-related topics under DS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also a really effective way of putting further editors off from commenting on your prematurely-launched RFC, if in fact what you are after is not very clear! Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And when I read the insult, I made a note to give less weight to arguments made by the person because it gave me the impression he was driven more by emotion and competition than logic and improvement of Wikipedia. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• To me the main weakness of the article, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that it doesn't cover St Paul's bold extension of the term to cover attachment (as Buddhists would put it) to things completely other than images. Where the concept comes up in contemporary Christian discussion (outside the Evangelical churches) this sense is usually the one meant. Especially now that we have Religious images in Christian theology rather than Idolatry and Christianity as the main Xtian sub-article, that sense belongs here. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I came here because of an invitation to people interested in language and linguistics. But I shouldn't have been invited, because there's no issue of language and linguistics here and I don't actually have expertise or interest in the actual issue. At most, there is a question about the definition of one arcane word, which is a matter of the subject of that particular word, not language in general. Building on this point: the definition of "idolatry" should not be the heart of the question. Assuming "idolatry" refers to all worship of idols, sinful or not, that doesn't mean it can't be the title of an article specifically about the sin. Article titles are necessarily approximate.

But as long as I'm here, I'll give a couple of opinions on the question (though I find the question to be really vague, so maybe these aren't really germane).

It looks to me like a good idea to have an article about the Abrahamic sin of idolatry and one about cult images in general (what my dictionary gives as the primary definition of "idolatry"). The split effort problem of two articles about the same thing does not appear to exist here.

I have never heard "idol" as pejorative, except in concepts where "religion" might be as well. As for "idolatry", my mind does normally go to the thing prohibited by religions, but I never put a lot of thought into it, and it would not shock me to see it used just for the unjudged worshiping of idols. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"I have never heard "idol" as pejorative" - wow, that was unexpected, but I suppose California is like that! It is precisely in religious contexts that the word is almost always pejorative (except in Indian sources on Hinduism, which often don't seem to feel that). I suppose that by now, as opposed to 150 years ago, most people not interested in religion are mainly or only aware of the secondary metaphorical senses of the word, like pop idol. Still you are right that it is not really a linguistic issue, and the RFC was launched prematurely, with no prior discussion here. Your support for keeping a seperate cult image/idol article is welcome. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article Poles in mythology.

Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How scholars treat this subject

I'm pretty certain that "cult image" is the term most often used by scholars studying ancient religions today. It's universal in Egyptology. Two fairly recent books on ancient Near Eastern cult images use that phrase in their titles (Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, 1999, and Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East, 2005) and a third, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East, 2013, uses the phrase "cult image" many times and, according to a search of the Google Books preview, doesn't use "idol" even once. A very extensive general book on ancient Mediterranean religions, Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, 2003, covers cult images in the chapter on visual representations, where the entries on each culture just say "image" to refer to cult images.

The index for Religions of the Ancient World also has an entry for idolatry, which only appears in a couple of places when discussing Abrahamic attitudes. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth uses the word "idol" mainly when it discusses the negative treatment of cult images in the Jewish prophetic books. So having one article on cult images that describes them neutrally and an article on idolatry that discusses the attitude toward cult images in Abrahamic religions would fit with scholarly practice. A. Parrot (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mariolatry, Idolatry in Christianity

@98.157.230.86: Please do not remove sourced content and reliable scholarly sources. What are your concerns and what reliable sources support these concerns? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm very dubious about this article as it now is. It is always a difficult subject, as the term is always pejorative, except in India. There's no question that no major brand of Christians "worship" images - though they may sometimes be accused of doing so by other groups, including Christian ones. The lead sentence is highly POV & the reference seems most unlikely to support it as a general definition. At the very least "any" should be removed; how is that supported? Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The scholarly literature on the Protestants-Catholicism idolatry debate is extensive, cannot be ignored and must be summarized for NPOV. It is "accusation by the other side", a pejorative, no matter which combination you take. That "except in India" is strange, disputed by "western" scholars, and it is also "they may sometimes be accused of doing so by other groups (read: foreign missionaries who did in Africa, South America, India, southeast Asia, and Pacific Islands)". It is indeed a difficult subject, and we need to stick to what the scholarly sources are stating, as best as we can. Is there a specific source that is of concern, or additional sources you would like to be summarized? I welcome your edits, but it would weaken this article if we suppress 100s of reliable scholarly sources, and avoid summarizing the difficult debate therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be delighted if we could "summarize the difficult debate", but the lead as it is shows no sign of doing so. The only refs (one now removed) supporting the very broad definition are specialist ones dealing with the ancient world. I don't know if you have read discussions above here (rather confused and confusing, but there we go). It is an observable fact that only Indian sources (perhaps further East also) cheerfully describe images still in temples as "idols" or current practices as "idolatry". In fact actual idolatry or worship of images as spiritual forces in themselves, as it is defined by its critics, is extremely hard to find in any culture, including India and Africa. The image always turns out to represent something less immediately material. The debate above fizzled out, but it might still be better to rename the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Indeed, I read the archives and rest on this talk page a while ago. Unfortunately, it has been a lot of confused and confusing commentary as you write, forum-y, pov-y personal opinions, with little that is from reliable scholarly sources. We must ignore these generous blog-like wisdoms, prejudices and opinions, on Africa, India, etc. This "images as spiritual forces in themselves" is a POV that can be included only if scholarly sources state so, for any side against any side. Catholics and Protestants and Eastern Orthodox and Hindus and Buddhists and Jains and Africans and Native Americans and Pacific Islanders have all been accused of doing that by other groups. By foreign missionaries with an agenda, by religious warriors, by atheists, and the like. I don't need to state this to you, but I note for talk page watchers and IP editors here, we can't take sides in this article, must stick to the reliable scholarly sources to the best of our ability. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Agreed on the lead. The challenge is to keep it short, reasonable introduction and a summary of the article's most important contents. It is the "short" versus "reasonable summary of the difficult debate" that challenges. Different requirements!!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dubious About This Whole Subject

I have to question whether this is really a "thing" at all. Are there cases where an object is worshiped in and of itself? I'm aware of situations:

• An icon is used to represent the deity in question (e.g. a crucifix)
• An object is considered to dwell within the object, or to infuse the object (e.g. the host in a Catholic mass)

There are also cases where an object is venerated because it is associated with someone or something sacred (such as sacred relics), but that's distinct from actual worship.

Do we have a reliable source for a case where an object is actually worshiped per se? Or is this just an accusation thrown around by people who are unaware of the actual situation, deny the actual situation, or lie about the actual situation for purposes of their own?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It is typically used as an accusation against the beliefs of other people. How many people have you heard self-identifying as idolaters? Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is and has been a strong belief that idolatry (read "inappropriate use of cult images, and other stuff") exists, and that it should be discouraged, to put it mildly. The scriptures of Judaism & Islam are very much against it, as are many Early Christian writings. The complex history of that is what the subject of this article should be. Whether the actual practices are correctly interpreted by their opponents is only a part of the matter. At the moment a half-assed history of cult images takes up far too much of the article - most should be moved to cult image or elsewhere, or cut. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Johnbod; I think we as a culture give undue weight to the "accusers" and not nearly enough weight to the practitioners. Unfortunately, I think that move would a huge undertaking if it were to be done right, and I just don't have the time / energy to work on it at this time. I will ponder who might help.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed @Johnbod, @Dimadick and @Septegram. The cult image parts in Prehistory and other sections should be moved elsewhere. It has been in the article for a while, I added some to bring balance, but surgery may be the better way. On Johnbod's suggestion "The scriptures of Judaism & Islam are very much against it, as are many Early Christian writings. The complex history of that is what the subject of this article should be" part... I partially agree. Yes, that belongs in this article. Yet, so do summaries from the 100s of WP:RS on non-Abrahamic and inter-denominational religious practices that have been stereotyped, accused or discussed as idolatry by Christian and Muslim missionaries, rightly or wrongly, by scholars/historians/clergy. We shouldn't ignore the complex history on this topic related to Africa, Americas and Asia, for NPOV reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"We shouldn't ignore the complex history on this topic related to Africa, Americas and Asia"

Are you forgetting Europe? Ancient Greek religion, Religion in ancient Rome, Celtic polytheism, and Germanic paganism (among others) are typically described as the practices of idolaters, rather than studied as legitimate religious traditions. Dimadick (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"typically" by who? There is a vast literature on classical G/R religion, and a pretty big one on Germanic, considering the lack of sources. The literature on Celtic Iron Age religion is arguably too large and popular, considering we know almost nothing about it, including how they made use of images. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Awkward passage.

Re Orthodox Christianity: "The Eastern Orthodox Church has differentiated between latria and dulia. A latria is the veneration due God, and latria to anyone or anything other than God is doctrinally forbidden by the Orthodox Church; however dulia has been defined as veneration of religious images, statues or icons which is not only allowed but obligatory." That passage is very awkward, ambiguous, and hard to decipher. It should be rewritten, maybe using three or four separate sentences.77Mike77 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Idolatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410054934/http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/may2005/engpdf/mahima_dharma_bhima_bhoi_biswanathbaba.pdf to http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/may2005/engpdf/mahima_dharma_bhima_bhoi_biswanathbaba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Idolaters in Islam

There are three sources given for the following text:

In Islam, idolaters are called mushrikin, and idolatry in strict Sharia-based Islamic societies is punishable with the death penalty.

Zollner doesn't exactly say this, but rather "in case where a Muslim commits apostasy or idolatry, Islamic law foresees the death penalty". This is presumably referring to apostasy, since according to classical interpretations of Sharia, committing idolatry would be equivalent to leaving Islam. Zollner doesn't cite any specific sources or explain further, therefore it is impossible to ascertain this.

The Hawting source gives pages 1-6 and 80-86. I was unable to find the relevant passage. Please quote it below.

Valentine only says that it was the early 19th century Wahhabists that punished idolatry by death, and in fact notes that this punishment was "hitherto unknown", indicating this was an exception, not the rule. Such an exceptional circumstance does not belong in the lead.Bless sins (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism views

With all my respect but I think it's very stupid and not historical based to twke great philosophers such as Maimonides who were from late Middle Ages and deeply influenced by Islamic Kalam and copied a lot of their logic into it, to represent Judaism Views. But to represent Islamic views, you take mostly Islamic modernists views such as Wahhabis and Salafists but not logical Islamic philosophers from the Islamic Golden Age and their Kalam. The person who wrote the article it's clearly favouriting Judaism. Coyote7798 (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Maimonides was a very influential thinker in Judaism, and the article has exactly two sentences explaining Maimonides' thoughts on the subject. How is this "favouriting Judaism"? What would you propose to change? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Maimonides was clealy opposed in Judaism in his times...and Judaism before didn't have at all this sort of theology. However, this article is mentioning Maimonides as his doctrine was purely the best example for Judaism...and as for Islam, they give the most extremist example that were barely share by ANY medieval theologians, as well as any Shiite, Philosophical Kalam, Mutazili and even classical Sunni mysticism. Santiago —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No Original Sources

Virtually all the references in this article are books or papers written by American and European authors. But the subject matter relates specifically to religions. Why are the no references to original religious books or scriptures (in English translation)? Is this some sort of Wikipedia policy to rely exclusively on Europe and American scholarship?Sooku (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sooku: No, but religious scriptures are WP:Primary sources so we rely on reliably published secondary sources. Otherwise we'd have editors cherry-picking from religious texts or trying to use them to prove an argument. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)