Talk:Idolatry/Archive 1


 * SEE Talk:Idol worship archive

So how does one of them define the term idol? In the end, we are going to have to come to some sort of agreement, we can't hide behind reference forever, but if you have a reference you would like to quote, then please do so today sometime... Susan Mason

Well, I'm going to sit this one out until the storm dies down at least a bit. Just a couple questions:


 * While God the Father and God the Son are forbidden to be depicted in icons, it is acceptable to depict God the Son because he came in such a way that people could see, hear and touch him. (Wesley's, I assume)

This may need re-wording; it appears to my heretical mind to contradict itself. Also, doesn't the business about Protestantism and God's omnipotence belong with the Judaism/Christianity/Islam part? Even Roman Catholic missionaries have performed acts of iconoclasm on idols that aren't on their approved list -- IHCOYC 17:39 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * Doh! Yes, that's mine. It should read "While God the Father and God the Spirit are forbidden...".

Wesley

It seems to me that deletion of non-neutral material is better than insertion of rebuttal, so I did -- [[User:Williamv1138]

Yeah, well it seems that There is much disagreement about what Idolatry is.. and somehow the basic mistake is defining an idol as physical, rather than metaphorical. It was perhaps a poor move to change this to Idol worship, because idolatry is not separate, nor is it too specific a term to deal with in a secular way in the opening, and then later in detail. This whole nonsense began when Susan - Lir took it upon herself to argue that "idolatry was similar to fetishism" which is like saying pornography is similar to masturbation.  Stevertigo


 * Susan is not Lir. Stop your flame wars.

It continued when our esteemed colleague RK sought to add,(in his typical fashion) some of what he knows about Jewish charachterizations of Christianity as idolatric. And Susan and I objected to this, and so on.. and finally of course, it looks like Uncle Edward, in an (untypical) blaze maneouver changed this to idol worship. He is perhaps correct- however, because the content of this article seems to deal with the mamby pamby details - for which "debate" can go on forever...


 * Stevertigo is lying. I didn't write that material. That material came from multiple Wikipedia contributors in the Ten Commandments article. I find it shameful that Stevertigo is allowed to brazenly lie and start flame wars, and use someone's religion as flamebait. If this isn't an anti-Semitic ad homenin attack, nothing is. RK

I will rewrite the idolatry article.... contribute to it if you will, but for those of you who fail to understand it, I suggest you stay here in the minutiae, and leave the concept - idolatry to those of us who have a grasp of it (at this time)... I love you all, despite your despiteness. - &#35918&#30505


 * Idolatry is in fact very much connected to fetishism. As for an article on the the "concept" of idol and idolatry, I am all for that -- as long as the article provides a good account of changing scholarly debates over the term. Slrubenstein


 * Im starting to think maybe I should change my name to Susan-Lir since that is what all of you call me. I did not say idolatry was similar to masturbation. The article previously stated that idolatry was similar to fetishism, something you apparently think you know about (but don't), I did not add that, but of course it seems to be a traditional part of the wiki community standards to attack me.Susan Mason

All right, let's all take a deep breath and try to talk about the actual substance of the article, and what it should be. As far as people's names, I suggest we try to address people the way they sign their posts, as much as possible. Don't you agree &#35918&#30505? It should be possible to request or question supporting material without challenging or insulting anyone's academic integrity. It wouldn't hurt if we all hardened our skin a little, too.

As for the actual article, I'm waiting to see what happens... I'm frankly still a little stunned by that massive deletion. Wesley 18:27 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

I put the article back to how it was just before User:Williamv1138]'s massive deletion. argument/rebuttal may not be ideal for wikipedia, but it should be possible to neutrally state two or more sides of a debate. This successfully been done in many other contentious articles. See [[Abortion for example. I don't consider this article finished. I think we can all keep working to improve it if we stick to facts, and carefully attribute opinions in a way that will be informative to someone investigating the topic. Wesley 19:04 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think you all have done an excellent job with this article... you have covered idol worship to a tee, - or are well on your way to... None of you seems to have a clue as to what idolatry is, however, and thats a discussion for another page. - &#35918&#30505 p.s, and Susan-Lir, If you read me correctly, I didnt say that you said "idolatry was similar to fetishism" I said your argument that "idolatry is similar to fetishism" is comparable to saying: "porn is similar to masturbation" - please dont misquote me. It reminds me of :"'a rose smells better than a cabbage, therefore it should make a better soup." Only in its most basic, vulgarized sense would "idolatry" be used in place of "fetishism. Ive seen it in SFBG ads, and I think of it as an aspect of deliberate but harmless misuse of the word "idolatry". "It wouldn't hurt if we all hardened our skin a little, too."? Wesley, I think what you mean, as I read between the lines, is: its not helpful to totally capitulate to particular POV on this. -- Sigh. All in the name of discourse... Well done people.:)- &#35918&#30505

Stevertigo-Zoe, let me quote the first line from fetishism:

Susan Mason
 * Fetishism most generally refers to the belief that natural objects have supernatural powers, or that something created by people has power over people.

And how is that related to holding the finite as if it were the infinite? - &#35918&#30505

Well, if you replace natural with finite and supernatural with infinite you would get:


 * Fetishism most generally refers to the belief that finite objects have infinite powers Susan Mason

- I don't know what idol worship is, but the first sentence in the article is "Idol worship is the use of physical representations or symbols as part of religious worship or practive" and it makes me wonder why anybody claims to not do so. By this definition, wouldn't any Christian who uses a rosary or wears a cross be an idol worshipper? Tuf-Kat

Well thats not how we were originally defining it, but either RK or Stevertigo-Zoe insists on the current version-it was discussing a belief that objects such as statues or pictures have supernatural powers. Susan Mason


 * Sue, I think it was Slrubenstein


 * I'll admit that theres some semantics involved, but Zoe.. I mean Lir... Susan... how is "supernatural" and "natural" any better in terms of semantics, where its to begin with a conceptual idea? Only afterwards comes the paganism and the fetishism and the new worldisms that you seem to be so nuts about. Whats wrong with working down from the general >Infinite/finite>supernatural/natural> - the problem I see here, now is that "supernatural" is a characterization of "the infinite" - it carries with it connotations of comic-book superpowers more than it does the holy mysterious unknown that the ancient Hebrews called "he which cannot be named" and the Buddhist refer to as "the aum" - the point is, in terms of what is idolatry - many people's very notions of what YHVH is - IS idolatry! Soak that in. &#35918&#30505


 * &#35918&#30505: Wesley suggested that you refer people as they identify themselves. Please be clear about who you are responding to (Zoe? or Lir (who hasn't made any contributions to this discussion), or Susan'')... otherwise it makes it hard to follow your comments.  And if you are deliberately suggesting that Zoe, Lir, and Susan are the same -- especially after Susan has expressed her irritation at this -- you are violating Wikipedia etiquette.  You have a point to make, above.  Please do not debase it by introducing it in a way that pisses people off unnecessarily. Slrubenstein


 * Understood - I did not mean it pejoratively, as Im sure you can gather. - &#35918&#30505


 * I assumed as much, but am glad you made it clear -- thanks! Slrubenstein

-

Just one comment. I dislike the way that the article refers to "some religions". There ought to be at least examples of the religions that are referred to. Roadrunner.

Actually I was refering to the last paragraph. It's far from clear what religions are being refered to as "generally considered by Christians etc.) as practicing idolatry. Since its not clear what religions are being referred to, it's not clear whose response it is.  I'm curious for example which religions explicitly state that they practice polytheisms.  Buddhists don't.


 * Ah. Well, I didn't write that part, and can't speak to it (good question, though -- by the way, could you check out Idolatry?).  Do you think I should delete the paranthetical I added to the first sentence? Slrubenstein


 * Many Buddhists are polytheists, and as such must be classified as such. It doesn't matter that they don't use that particular terminology. Similarly, most Christians and Jews are ethical monotheists'....yet most Chrisitans and Jews throughout history have never used that term to describe their faith. Wikipedia uses techincal and accurate terms to define and explain topics, even if these terms are not part of that religion's traditional vocabulary. RK

Hey, &#35918&#30505, what is this fetish you have with idolatry? I mean, like, dude!

Some people worship idols 'cause their religion's all into that and stuff, like Shinto and remote African tribes in those old Tarzan movies. And some people are like how idol worship is all idolatrous 'cause their stodgy old Bible class says its, like, against the Ten Commandments. So, why is it such a big deal? I mean, each to his own, right? -- Surfer Dude

Dude! Im like totally down with your 'tude, man.. but im just trying to get to the the diff 'tween idol worship and idolatrinistzm. Theres a diff, man, not to bitch toom ucha bout it. Fly, dude.- &#35918&#30505

Right on, bro! I really idolize your symbol, it's like Prince except you could pronounce it if you were Japanese like those Shinto idol worshippers and all! And check out those Hare Krishnas with their life-size dolls: is that a trip or what? -- Surfer Dude

Are you a hairy fishnut? It aint cool to make fun of hairy fishnuts, if youre not a hairy fishnut! Dude, you gotta watch how you might hurt peepulz feelingz. - &#35918&#30505


 * Uh, with all due respect, Ed and Sv, can you take this to your talk pages? I don't want to censor you, but this exchange is not relevant to impfoving the contents of the article and I think is more appropriate to your talk pages.  Thanks, Slrubenstein


 * Way uncool, man! We're not down with your bitchin' an dissin' tude -- but thass all right cuz your good peepul anyway!! I'm really trying to get into, like, what makes idolatry and idol worship completely different when it all kinda seems the same to me. Is, like, idolatry coming from a bad place while idol worship can be cool sometimes, or what? -- Surfer Dude


 * I don't know either. The distinction is still lost on me. I figured it was just me. Maybe some etymology of "idolatry" would help. Wesley


 * Wesley is corrent. There is no difference at all between "Idolatry" and "Idol worship". Among English speakers (and remember, this is the English Wikipedia) they are used to describe the same thing. These two articles should be merged. RK

Look, if you have a problem with the term "supernatural" being used in a religious sense, because it is too "comic-bookish", then maybe u read too many comic books. Susan Mason

Ah, just saw your comeback Susan. Nice. Very nice. Ill admit only to smoking too little dope and watching way too much infotainment. Which is about as close to comicbookdom as one can get. - &#35918&#30505

Point of information regarding the following paragraph:
 * Orthodox Christians have criticized the Roman Catholic use of decorative statues; Roman Catholics have criticized the Orthodox veneration of icons; some Protestant groups have criticized the use of stained-glass windows by many other denominations, and Jehovah's Witnesses criticize the use of all of the above, as well as the use of a cross. No Christian groups forbids the use of images in secular life.

I know that Orthodox Christians don't use statues because some canon of some council forbade the use of statues, or any engraving more than a few inches deep, which basically allows for bas-reliefs at most. (Sorry I don't remember which one or when.) What is the Catholic critique of Orthodox icons? I also know that the local Roman Catholic bookstore also carries a few Orthodox icons, produced at Orthodox monasteries, and the associated Catholic radio station generally seems fairly conservative. Also, my wife and a Catholic friend of hers have exchanged icons and rosaries as gifts, and neither took offense at the other's gift. Wesley

Ah, details... - &#35918&#30505


 * Stevertigo, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese one. Sign your contributions with English letters. You are violating Wikipedia protocol. RK

We need to merge the article on Idol Worship and Idolatry; these are two terms for precisely the same topic. It makes no sense at all to split them up. We should move the content from one article to the other, and then turn the first article into a redirect. RK

Rk-you are violating protocol by attacking Stevertigo's signature. Susan Mason


 * Susan, I am really having it up to her with your nonsense. It is bad enough that you (A) make up false content and try to insert it into articles, (B) make up positions about other people that they don't have, and then attack them for it, but now now (C) support nonsense language? This is the English language Wikipedia, and our content and discussion must be in English. Hiding one's name with non-English characters - which many computers do not display (such as mine) - makes it difficult to follow a conversation thread. It is simply a matter of common courtesy. If you cannot understand this, go away. We have had enough of your disruptions and trolling. RK

I'm not having any difficulty following the conversation thread. I have inserted no material into this article. You need to mellow out. Susan Mason