Talk:Worship

Deleted reference
I have deleted a sentence early in the article that refers to cults, and to sociologists of religion. I have taught sociology and considered the sentence to be rather misguided and very misleading in its connotations. In sociology, a cult is a smaller-scale religious organization that is centered around a living person as its leader. "Cult" is far too specific a concept to be properly connected with an introductory explanation of the very general religious concept of "worship," so I took the liberty of simply deleting the entire sentence instead of bothering to try to rewrite it or pull out some redeemable aspect of the sentence for retention in the article MikeS
 * Your are mistaken. The sentence in question (not mine) refers to cultus rather than cults&mdash;not the same thing at all. I have accordingly reverted your edit. Wingspeed (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Problem in introduction
It seems to me that with this "...In others words, one is invited to honour God by the way you live your life", someone is pushing the same idea as was recently removed from the "Christian Worship" page - namely that "everything we do is worship". I cannot see how this belongs in either article unless just mentioned as a popular present-day teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisternz (talk • contribs) 06:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Child worship
Not listed, with no article, but it exists... Is there no studies on this recurrent theme? (Jesus is not the only religious figure to call forth children)...

many words
2/22/03 "At the level of folk religion, especially, the success of these denominations in putting this distinction into practice is open to question" hardly seems like a "restoration of NPOV." A more neutral phrasing of the case might read, "Protestant Christians, however, question whether such a distinction can be maintained in actual devotional practice."


 * Neither did the assertion of this distinction without a difference as established fact, which is how it read before. I have no problems with your change, but I did restore the link to folk religion, since this is where many of the problems seem to lie in practice.  The Roman Church may teach that the saints are not a pantheon of deities, but the several historical incidents of syncretism of the saints with a number of pagan traditions seems to underline the hazards of the practice.  ---User:Ihcoyc


 * It does not violate NPOV to report objectively what a particular church or denomination teaches, which is what I originally did, so long as it is made clear that it is the teaching of a particular group (in this case, the Catholics and Orthodox), and not presented as the belief of all Christians.


 * On what grounds to you call the Catholic/Orthodox teaching a "distinction without a difference"? I have yet to meet even a simple-minded Catholic or Orthodox Christian who worship Mary and the saints as gods and goddesses.


 * The fact that a teaching may be misunderstood, or a practice abused, does not in itself invalidate the teaching or the practice. Athanasius 11:21 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * An neutral outsider, seeing people praying to a supernatural being, lighting candles before a statue representing it, singing hymns to it, and conducting religious festivals in its honour, would rightly conclude that this being was a god or goddess, and that the participants were worshipping it. Even if some mental reservation required the believers to reserve the words "worship," "god," and "goddess" for some other being, the entity they actually pray to is obviously filling the role of a god or goddess.  ---User:Ihcoyc


 * A truly neutral observer will not assume that he knows what is going on in the minds and hearts of those he is observing. He might even take the trouble of asking them what they mean by their actions. You are assuming that certain external observances are ipso facto evidence of the worship of a deity.  That is a pre-judgment, not a neutral position.


 * You are incorrect. He is not assuming this; rather he is a stating a fact. It is easy to check for yourself: Ask Christians in prayer to saints who they are praying to. A huge number of Christians will tell you that they are praying directly to saints, and that they are asking the Saints themselves to reply to their prayers. This is identical to polytheism. Is this what the Catholic Church or Greek Orthodox church teaches? Maybe not, but this is what actually exists. You are confusing what is taught with what many people actually believe. RK


 * Try asking those same Christians the question, "Are the saints gods?" They may not be very sophisticated in their theological terminology, but they know the difference between a saint, who has power to answer prayer only because they have received that power from God, and God Himself, who owes His power to no-one.  Athanasius

If you observe a Chinese person lighting candles or incense by their ancestors' tombs or by their pictures, are they praying to their ancestors? Worshiping them? Do they generally believe that their ancestors are actually gods? When a psychic medium attempts to speak to departed spirits through a seance and perhaps relays a message from the "other side", is the medium praying? Does she think the departed spirits are gods? Belief that communication of some sort with the dead is possible, is clearly not equivalent to believing that some or all dead people are gods. A typical brief prayer to a saint might be "Save us, by your holy prayers." If this is shortened to "Save us", I would expect that the "by your prayers" portion is still implied in the minds of most people who offer these sorts of prayers; it is clear that if the prayer is answered, God will be the one answering the prayer, through the intercession of the saint(s) as well as through the intercession of any living persons who may have also prayed the same petition. Wesley


 * By your criteria, what would a "neutral observer" make of the rituals around the American flag? People make symbolic gestures of respect to it, sing to it, parade behind it, and even light candles in front of it.  How about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?  The elaborate daily parade, the "eternal flame"... Then there are the Kennedy Tomb, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial (identical in structure to a Greek temple), each the site of great shows of reverence. I'm afraid a "neutral observer" would have to conclude that Americans worship their flag, the remains of dead soldiers, and certain deceased presidents as some kind of deities.  Athanasius


 * I disagree. Again, all we need to do is ask Americans what they are thinking when they engage in these activities. Very few, probably none, would say that they worship the flag. RK


 * The very point I was making about prayer to saints. Athanasius


 * I might suggest that some Americans do, in fact, worship the flag. Again, a hypothetical innocent stranger, without the benefit or hindrance of ideologies or belief systems, may well conclude that such things as the pledge of allegiance ritual are religious or quasi-religious, and that the flag is a holy totem, at least to some.  The rituals involving the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier seem even more clearly religious: God is mentioned on the Tomb, and the government has undertaken the religious function of conducting rituals to honour the dead.  If some doctrine prevents people from calling it religion, it does not mean that it isn't fulfilling a religious function: in other words, it is religion whether people recognise the fact or not.  Words are not things.  This is one of the reasons why the concept of civil religion exists.  The vehemence with which people speak of the flag, war casualties, and so forth, tends to undermine the claim that the flag is not worshipped by some. --Ihcoyc


 * I would argue that the people who treat the flag with great respect are venerating the flag, not worshiping it. They know perfectly well that the flag is just a piece of colored cloth, and don't believe it possesses any intrinsic magical powers. The respect they show for the flag is a way to outwardly express the way they feel about the nation represented by the flag, and the lofty ideals that the nation and flag represent. Anti-war demonstrators burn flags in order to show the low opinion they have of the nation or government represented by the flag. Sociologically speaking, there may be some religious functions going on in the events you describe, but I don't think you really want to equate everything that's given some amount of religious respect with an object of worship, do you? If so, then many Protestants are also guilty of "worshiping" their Bibles, crosses, church buildings and other religious items and places. Wesley


 * Of course, the relation between the human symbol and the deity is complicated. Intelligent pagans never imagined that Zeus was a marble statue.  The way flag worshippers treat the flag is rather animistic; it suggests that they imagine that the flag does indeed somehow embody mana of a sort, that is increased by acts of reverence, and decreased by irreverence.
 * Civil War stories are full of tales of soldiers who braved enemy fire to recover a fallen flag, as opposed to saving their courage for some more sensible military objective. Yes, indeed, some Protestants worship Bibles, crosses, and church buildings.  Monotheism is not easy, and humans are weak and fallible.  The temptations of idolatry, fetishism, and polytheism are always there, even among the theologically sophisticated.
 * If it is in fact possible to distinguish veneration and worship in a way that clearly distinguishes between the two in human ethology, so that our hypothetical observer could tell them apart without regard to the doctrines of any particular faith, I'd be happy to see it tried. I am sceptical. --Ihcoyc


 * I won't deny that some Orthodox and Catholic Christians may very well worship icons, just as some Protestants worship their Bibles and so forth. I don't think this is the norm though. Would you trust the words of the prayers that are prayed and the hymns that are sung during a typical 'worship service' or liturgy? If so, just visit the nearest Eastern Orthodox church that prays in a language you understand. The distinction is made constantly in the prayers and the hymns; part of the reason for this (I suspect) is to guard against the lay people developing a misunderstanding on the 'folk religion' level. The hymns scheduled to be sung on the "Triumph of Orthodoxy", which commemorates the Seventh Ecumenical Council, treat this subject in greater depth than some. If you're going by what the external actions look like to you, then what you're dealing with is a simple case of cross-cultural miscommunication. In that case, you might be better served by an introductory course in cultural anthropology. Wesley


 * Kontakion of the Holy Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council
 * How the Son proceeded from the Father our words cannot express;
 * but having two natures, He was born of a woman.
 * We do not reject His image when we behold it,
 * but in faith we venerate and honor it.
 * And the Church professes it as true belief
 * when she honors the image of Christ's incarnation.
 * from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom Athanasius

Ok, that hymn just ties the veneration of icons to the doctrine of the incarnation; by venerating the icon of Christ (who himself is the Image of the invisible God according to scripture), we affirm the incarnation. Among the more common prayers is this one to the Theotokos that begins, "It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos..." while many prayers to God are concluded with the phrase "For unto you is deserved all                         glory, honor and worship...". These both occur in the standard Great Vespers prayers, and probably in the Divine Liturgy as well (I'm working from memory). Words like bless, praise and honor will be used in connection with Mary or one of the other saints, but the word "worship" is only ever used in connection with God. The theology of the Orthodox Church is really in its prayers; you have to pray with the church through the church year to grasp its theology. Just one reason why for the Orthodox, a "theologian" is "one who truly prays". Wesley

Someone suggested that this page be deleted. I tried to make it slightly more useful. Not at all sure if the bit about dog worship belongs here, especially not linked with goddess worship, but it was here before so I left it for now. ---User:Ihcoyc

Shouldn't this page be redirected to the entry on prayer? I get the feeling that this stub was written by someone who didn't know we already had an excellent article on this topic. RK


 * There is more to worship than prayer. Worship is the most general term as far as I can tell; it may be useful to have the page, if only to redirect people to more specific kinds of worship.  ---User:Ihcoyc

A note about icons: when icons are written properly, they are written by monks after much prayer and fasting, etc., and writing such an icon could possibly be considered by some to be an act of prayer itself. Great care is taken in part to ensure that the icon conveys the correct theology and meaning, as intended. Even if a lay person writes an icon, it would normally be under the supervision of a priest or bishop; therefore, it is unlikely that the actual creating or writing of an icon would be so misunderstood or mispracticed as to be an act of worship, although it is still reasonably possible that the icon may be later misunderstood or misused. Wesley 19:36 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

A user identified only by a digit address added the word "SATIN" before the Eastern Orthodox here. I'm a bit uncertain what this edit was meant to achieve. I was under the impression that the Orthodox were mostly polyester in any case. I am removing it, but preserving a record of its presence here. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:19, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Disambiguation page necessary
Is it worth starting a disambig page? As well as the two options at the top of the main page, I can think of a play with this name, and a couple more books --TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Worship is not the same as Catholic Worship
I was browsing through this page for research and wanted to check out a source (it looked promising from what was said) source 5 leads to a Catholic study on what devotion to the virgin Mary looks like in a daily life. This article was used to explain the Christian worship philosophy and ethic, neither of which match that of the Catholic church. I did not delete the article, since it does use some terms which are important, but I did add a disclaimer just before the block quote to ensure that nobody assumes this article to be talking about Christian worship. I assume the author of the wiki page here intended to use it as a guide or help to explain the point made later... if not it needs to be deleted...

since i am not logged in-- I am user Benito Burrito (just to clarify)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.192.66 (talk)


 * First of all, no such user exists on English Wikipedia. Secondly, Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, so to say that Catholic worship is not Christian worship is absurd and violates WP:NPOV. Thirdly, the source and context are already explicitly mentioned. Fourthly, you inserted that clarification in the middle of a blockquote. Fifthly, nobody is going to delete anything. If you blank the page you will be reported to an administrator for blocking.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 17:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RE
Why people worship 96.43.175.100 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Worship
Worship 2402:B400:41C0:8A3F:0:0:90E2:1668 (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)