Talk:Idolatry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I made three deletions: I changed "misinterpret" to "a partisan interpretation" because that is NPOV. I changed something similar to read "doesn't represent the point of view of..." again for NPOV reasons. I also deleted this, because it is wrong:

At its basic level, however, the taboo of "idolatry" represents a common (universal) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence or attachment to the material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite).

First, many religions (including Judaism) have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. There is of course a gnostic strain within Judaism, my point is that it is simply false to make this claim about all religions. Second, holy does not mean infinite. This may be someone's interpretation of holy" but it is not the mainstream one. It contradicts Otto and Kadushin. At the very least, it must be presented as one interpretation of "holy" and you need to explain whose view it is. But I like the way the article starts! Slrubenstein

I haven't read this article yet, but I agree with Slrubenstein's deletion. Orthodox Christianity also places great emphasis on the goodness of the material world, because it was (according to them) created by a good God. From this perspective, rejection of the material world is one of gnosticism's chief errors, shared by Hinduism, Buddhism and others I'm sure. Wesley

And yet every word of that paragraph remains true! In its basic essence, I mean... Not that it wasnt perhaps too "universalist"... I think it could still be there without being quite as sweeping -generalizing... In fact, your point, SL and Wes about "materialism" visaviz idolatry are probably worth mentioning:

"At its basic level, however, the taboo, "idolatry" represents a common (universalist) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence for material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite). This does not preclude materialistic "principles", and these generally fall into more practical aspects of religious doctrine."

-&#35918&#30505

Stevertigo, You seem to be equating the words "common" and "universalist". They are not the same in their everyday usage. Universalist or universal means all without exceptions. Common allows for exceptions. It only takes one notable exception for an idea to not be universal. Slrubenstein and I have asserted that Judaism and Christianity are both exceptions, and I don't think you disagree.

Also, regarding the word "holy" -- it seems that you thoroughly misunderstand the word. I've always been taught in the various Christian churches I grew up in that holy meant either "pure" or "set apart" depending on the context. I don't know who or what connects the word "holy" with "infinite" or even with "God", except as one of His divine attributes. For example, the altar and various vessels used by the Hebrew people in their Temple worship were called "holy" not because they were infinite, or because they were thought to contain "mana" or "power" or anything, but because they were set apart to be used only in connection with sacrifices being offered to God, and probably had been ritually purified. So in that case, both the "pure" and "set apart" meanings would be applicable. This is probably a much more common usage across religions and cultures; it has nothing to do with setting these things apart to be worshipped, even though the objects may be handled with some reverence and there may be strict guidelines as to who can touch them and when, and for what purpose.

I hope this helps. Wesley 17:31 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is true for Judaism as well. The only work of comparative religion I know of on "Holy" is Otto's classic, but I am sure there has more recent work by other scholars. In any event, I think Wesley is right on. Slrubenstein

I repeat: this paragraph is not true. Now you may disagree with me. You may say it is not true according to my point of view. Okay. But then we could say it is true according to your point of view. But these areicles are supposed to be NPOV! Included the views current in scholarship on religion. If there are debates among scholars of religion, provide an account of them. But let us not put in false or non-NPOV statements -- and either way, the paragraph in question is false or POV. Slrubenstein

I added text to represent at least one Buddhist view of things (there actually are a lot of different and conflicting Buddhist views toward things.) But the original text which implied that Buddhism was pantheistic was definitely wrong. I don't know enough about Hinduism to comment on that text. -RR

---

Hmm... ok lets break this down: My argument:

"At its basic level, however, the taboo, "idolatry" represents a common (universalist) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence for material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite). This does not preclude materialistic "principles", and these generally fall into more practical aspects of religious doctrine."

ISSUE: Status of idolatry as a universalist concept Point: IDOLATRY is: a common concept. Reason: The basic idea behind "idolaty as forbid" has a common theme namely: "Dont fuck with God's rules and go do this or that." Assumptions:

1. That there is a "basic idea" behind idolatry.
2. That all societies have similar rules.
3. That any common themes have a universal tranlation

Your argument:

"many religions (including Judaism) have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. There is of course a gnostic strain within Judaism, my point is that it is simply false to make this claim about all religions. Second, holy does not mean infinite. This may be someone's interpretation of holy" but it is not the mainstream one. It contradicts Otto and Kadushin. At the very least, it must be presented as one interpretation of "holy" and you need to explain whose view it is"

"I repeat: this paragraph is not true. Now you may disagree with me. You may say it is not true according to my point of view. Okay. But then we could say it is true according to your point of view. But these areicles are supposed to be NPOV! Included the views current in scholarship on religion. If there are debates among scholars of religion, provide an account of them. But let us not put in false or non-NPOV statements -- and either way, the paragraph in question is false or POV."

ISSUE: Status of idolatry as a universalist concept Point: IDOLATRY is: not a common concept. Reasons::

1. many religions have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. With exceptions...
2. "holy does not mean infinite." Subjective. May be better written as POV.
3. point of view. Okay. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, Including the views current in scholarship on religion.

Assumptions:

1. That the universalist concept of idolatry is POV, i.e. "idolatry" cannot in any way be generalized.
2. That by "holy and infinite" one is implying that holy and infinite are the same,
3. That there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry vis a vis NPOV

Rebuttal: I do not make any claims about all religions, rather I imply a relationship across religions about idolatry as, in one form or another "a taboo, about X." Concession: "Universalist" may be a POV term, however as some read it. Concession: "holy" may be a POV term, however as some read it. Caveat: However, you assume that the wording implies that holy and infinite are the same, rather than illustrating a relationship between "unholy and finite" > "holy and infinite" You assume that there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry vis a vis NPOV - and yet offer no support for this, in itself, other than to say that any POV, including NPOV, is POV.... -&#35918&#30505

Sorry Sv, you seem to miss the point, which is not that "holy" is a point of view term -- the issue is not whether "idolatry" or "holy" are point of view terms, the issue is that how one defines and interprets these words is point of view. And that isn't even an argument -- it goes without saying. The point is this: A good article must

• identify whose point of view a particular approach to idolatry (or holy or whatever) is, and
• provide an account of other points of view about these terms (meaning, usage)

In other words, I am most definitely not asserting that "there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry." I am asserting that any definition of a concept (common or uncommon) of idolatry reflects a partricular scholars' point of view. You should name the scholar whose point of view you are representing. I am not insisting that you delete the analysis, only that you ascribe it to the people who promote it and acknowledge what, if any, debate there is. Slrubenstein

Issue: Steves use of universalism or generalizing as POV. Point: Steve is not NPOV, by generalizing. Reasons:

1. These are all POV and as such must be represented as POV1, POV2, etc...
2. Because how one defines and interprets these words is point of view.
3. The WP is exclusively for research of "scholars" POV"

Assumptions:

1. That there is some greater degree of control in how people interpret words, by refraining from generlizing about the classified POV1, POV2 etc....
2. That such generalization cannot be arrived at without attribution
3. That such analysis is not forthcoming of attribution %] -&#35918&#30505

INTERRUPTING: &#35918&#30505, what point are you trying to make? I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty parsing these incomplete sentences. I think what Slrubenstein meant is that Points of View ought to be attributed to someone generally recognizable, such as a leading scholar; another example would be a recognized group, faction, tradition, or other... demographic segment for lack of a better word. As opposed to just my POV or just your POV. (See, I can use fragments too. ;-) One reason I contribute to wikipedia is because of the incentive it gives me to go learn more than I knew before, as well as what I learn fromother contributors. Wesley

ANSWERING INTERRUPT: Ah, but your learning should be done elsewhere, according to some... "That such is not forthcoming of attribution " was my point - Its easy to remove, things in the assumption that attibution is not forthcoming. Instead of removing, just say, 'I'd like to see this attributed. I can see a problem with that, however- and that is the quality of sources attributed are not all liked by everyone.. quote Campbell, and you piss off the literalists and the orthodox... Quote Eliade and you might miss the point altogether...

And if the argument that each point needs attribution is to be a litmus test, then this article as well as countless others need to be purged entirely. The notion of attribution is necessary, but is not viable as a concrete rule here - particularly when specic points can be debated regardless of attribution, as anyone can edit and contest a piece of material - this is what was done here, but my point is that a better faith effort could be made to moderate the language used. Clearly the point is contentious, and assuming - that all people's religion is based in common ideas, alone is hard to argue for, let alone a specific notion such as idolatry being in some way or language applicable to all faiths. To me, it seems axiomatic - it may be based on Campbellian idea I once read, which would be tied with a Jungian concept... note that all the "paramount" thinkers of the last century have had one theme, which is namely universality - applying the common themes underlying myth to all people. But religion is not myth, many say... you see... thats where blanket criticism often coming from, hence my skepticism for playing by such rules. In fact, the only argument against this (my) notion as expessed that I can see is that that its too sweeping and general; the fuzzy-finite boundary of generalization. But alot of this is semantics as well.. I dont care how its phrased, I just want an echo of the first paragraph with an emphasis on the commonality of idolatry (regardless of how its phrased) as a concept. If this particular point was never made by any established reputability, then perhaps I ought research it on my own... as if I had the resources. - But such is the thrill of academic accomplishment - to fill a hole in the gaps of man's understanding... nevertheless, its still fixing a hole. SLr's criticism is nonetheless valid, albeit only on its surface, and it will have to sit where it sits for now, until "attribution" (perhaps "connection with" is proper ) can be made. I do caution, of course, the use of assumed limits as they carry over into the discourse. -Stevertigo

Quoting Campbell or whoever is fine, just so it's someone relatively well known and half way authoritative or at least influential regarding the subject the quote is being applied to. Personally, I think that if all the "paramount" thinkers of the last century think there's a universality to everything, there's not a reason to assume they're right. I might also ask whether they meant that thought to be applied to religious themes like idolatry or worship. You can however say something as broad as "according to all the paramount thinkers of the 20th century, idolatry is a universal theme running through all religions" or something like that. In my mind, even that would count as attribution. The reader can decide how much weight to give to such 20th century thinkers. Or to Campbell or whoever. Wesley

Is Stevertigo's latest comment a joke? This is really bizarre. Every week Stvertigo finds a new article to stuff with convoluted word-salad that has no purpose or meaningful content, and I am really concerned about this. He writes long-winded, grammatically nonsense phrases, and then gets angry at people when we can't follow his ranting. Talk pages are supposed about improving articles, not ghost-writing as therapy. - RK

RK please try to work on your insulting behavior... Susan Mason

---

slr--if you made a habit of frequently and clearly quoting published material (and not merely dropping names and reading lists) I'm sure other people would start doing the same. Susan Mason

Susan, everytime I contribute to an article and draw on the work of a recognized scholar, I provide the name of the author and book or article. But I think you miss the point: I contribute to articles having done research; you do not. When someone asks me what my sources are, I provide them; when I ask you what your sources are, you evade, evade, and evade -- as you do here. People like you should start providing sources not because I do, but because they have sources. To suggest that you do not do the right thing simply because I do not do it is childish. Slrubenstein

SLR-What you do is insult people. Citing sources involves quoting a passage with page, author, and publication. You do not do that, you simply go around insulting. You are not providing sources. I have not been providing sources to you because I have no respect for you, all you do is insult. Susan Mason

I think you're both straying off topic here. These remarks have nothing to do with improving the Idolatry article. Personal comments can go on each other's Talk pages, especially if they're constructive. There may be a general Wikipedia topic for attributions or something similar where this has been discussed (I'd be surprised if it hasn't), or in meta, which might be a better place for all of us to resolve the dispute over what needs attribution and how detailed it ought to be.

In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for individual research or personal essays. Where possible, it should document well known and agreed upon facts. Where there is broad disagreement, it should outline the various sides of the agreement, who the main persons or groups are that represent each side, what evidence is available (if that applies), who cares about the debate or is affected by it, and so on. This shouldn't be that difficult or controversial, should it? Wesley

Except he finds it appropriate to harrass and insult me with every post he makes-and that is controversial. Susan Mason

Despite my respect for Susan's youth and energy, her course of action tends towards the inflamatory instead of the reconciliatory... I dont endorse Susan's escalation of SLr's rude commentary, to the realm of insults. The fundamental disagreement here is as to whether NPOV is applied equally, Wesley -fortunately the contention is limited to only the contentious points... (that happen to arise) and we deal with them as best we can. What Susan and I (object to is the superficial claim of authoritativeness, being unequally applied...

Valid questions do deserve answers however; I may be St. Stephen, but I'm not the answer man. -&#35918&#30505