Talk:Idolatry

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

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)

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

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

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)

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] (http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/trinity.html). 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

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Idolatry"