Talk:Religious images in Christian theology

Nomination for Featured Article

Very well done, now in the FAC list. Thank you.

A. Shetsen 03:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool. What's the FAC list? RK

Tried to nominate for a featured article yesterday, but got no support after 24 hours. Too bad. Still think this is one fine job...A. Shetsen 06:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Title

The title of this article is very offending to the greatest part of the Christian believers. Therefore I've put the lable POV on the article. To be honest, I think the article should be completely removed.Liudger 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To the person above (Liudiger?): 1.) Please read the article obectively and the dictionary to understand the discussion. 2.) Often the Commandment regarding 'idols' is regarded as 'false idols' of other deities. Should it be insisted that all idols, depicting any religious figure (Christian or not) are against God's wishes, then every nativity scene and any picture of Jesus is violating this interpretation of God's law. 3.) I believe that the 'greatest part of the Christian believers' is Catholic, which is a sect largely tolerant of using material representations of God in their worship.

To the author of this entry: his article is well-written, concise and highly informational. Keep up the good work and don't let fundamentalism get in the way of objective research. EXCELLENT WORK!!!

Presenting the historical arguments of Christians is not "fundamentalism"; giving precedence to one argument is not objective.
(PS: please sign your posts) --MishaPan 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove the POV label. The title of any article is going to be a flag of convenience: its chief purpose is to enable people looking for a particular article to find it. The title "Idolatry in Christianity" does not accuse Christians specifically of practicing idolatry; it is instead a discussion of the various Christian views about idolatry. You could retitle it to something like "Christian views on idolatry" or "Idolatry according to Christianity" but those titles are only wordier and harder to type, while they do nothing to make the article easier to find, and make it likelier that people will get this article as a false positive while looking for something else. Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your argument, and the POV of the article itself, presumes that the veneration of icons is idolatry (as defined in the opening sentence of the article). The article assumes that this "idolatry" was defended by the post-Constantinian church. The reality is that the church has always opposed idolatry, and warned her members against it (please see entry below under "NPOV tag"). MishaPan 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove the NPOV tag. The article is well-written, informative, and (gasp!) thought-provoking. I can completely understand why some theists who have an affinity for both the 2nd commandment, and for their stained glass windows want to avoid the issue; it is hard to hold dear two mutually exclusive ideas. I will go this far on changes, though: I can see how the title could seem harsh to a born-and-bred theist. How about a name change? Like, "Idolotry Controversy within Christianity" or "Historical Christian Perspectives on Idols" or "Christian Views on Idolotry" or "Christian Idol Worship Through the Ages." Just kidding about that last one. Again, a fine article. Kjdamrau 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had any views/commets on Idolatry

Ever? And if so it should be edited into Idolatry in Christianity because of that (and I'm anyway a member too, but I still whata know the answer from you guys because I seem to never got an clear answer-especially from my father.) And do Latter-day Saints have similer views like the Protestants have on idolatry also (note that I found some simileries between the Mormon church and Protestant belief and/or pratices as I read on Wikipedia and within my church.) So I also like a Latter-day Saint member to also answer this question of mind for me, but I also allowing a non-member as well to answer this for me as well.Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by 206.180.135.43 (talk • contribs) .

Teachings by leaders of the LDS church on idolatry are very similar to american protestantism and traditional christianity. Worship of anything, or incorrect prioritization of something before worship of God would constitute idolatry. Thus, differing from the defintion on the main page, ("the worship of a created object"), Mormonism would include "activities" as well as objects. Thus, sporting events, addictions and obsessivness with sex would all be considered idols. It is a familiar twist that some american protestant pastors also share with believers.

However, to complicate the matter, the church has outlined a few priorities that they recommend to members (hense the term "family first"). Adults are commanded to love only two things with all of their "heart" - God and their spouse. So a relationship with a spouse should receive similar priority (not nessisarily the same, mind you, but similar) as a relationship with God. As a family in Mormonism is for eternity, a "one" relationship with a spouse is essential to exaltation. And mankind should be "one" with God as well. However, the relationship with a spouse should not take presedence over a relationship with God. If it does, it could be considered idolatry as well. -Visorstuff 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Guess that explains why there don't seem to be very many LDS monasteries. Wesley (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've restored the {{NPOV}} tag. The problem doesn't lie so much with the article's title as with the discussion. Based upon the opening sentence's definition: "Idolatry, in Christian theology, is 'the worship of a created object either made by human hands or created by God' rather than worship one would give to the true God Himself." Based on this definition, the discussion in the article points to iconodules as practitioners of idolatry. This perspective is based on ignorance and is not NPOV. It shows complete ignorace of the distinction made in historical Christianity between the veneration of images and the adoration of God. It shows ignorance even of the definition of the English word "worship" (which means to "hold worthy" and is not limited to divine woship, but means the honor given to kings, judges, etc.). Divine worship is referred to as "adoration", and is limited to God alone. While the article does give a very brief and incomplete description of the theological arguments in favour of the veneration of icons, it just as quickly dismisses them. The article, while it may be "well written" from an aesthetic point of view, is not written from a neutral point of view. It favors Protestant theology over Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox theology, which together constitute the majority of Christians (see Major religious groups). MishaPan 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The opening definition in the article is theologically defective: "Idolatry, in Christian theology, is 'the worship of a created object either made by human hands or created by God' rather than worship one would give to the true God Himself." Actually, in Christian Theology, Idolatry is the worship of a created object with the same worship (latria) one would give to the true God Himself. MishaPan 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MishaPan is absolutely right and the NPOV tag is completely justified. Jonathan A Jones 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to reword the opening sentence to address this concern. It now reads "Idolatry, in Christian theology, is "the worship of a created object either made by human hands or created by God" instead of, or in addition to, the worship due only to the true God." The purpose here was to accommodate those Christian groups who distinguish between degrees of worship, and permit the worship of images and beings other than God. I'll let this edit sit for a couple days to see if it solves the problem, and revisit to remove the tags unless someone objects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

too much Catholicism

This article has a dangerous veer towards pro-catholicism 'however veneration of a saint is NOT idol worship' from a scholarly stand point it IS idol worship. as it says in Leviticus 'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it.' 'sacred stone' refers to any material bound object. just walk into any catholic cathedral/monastery and you will see STONE or GOLD images. In a catholic website this would be fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a religious work. in wikipedias neutrality article 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.' is the summary provided.

Where do you find this "scholarly stand point" stated? Also, if you walked into the Temple of the Old Testament, you would find images of Cherubim on the doors, the walls, the curtains, in front of the Holy of Holies, and on the Ark and the furnishings of the Temple... and so according to the "scholarly stand point" would this not prove that the Israelites were idol worshippers? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry and the Arts

This article would benefit from a section on how the prohibition of idolatry has affected the Christian view of the arts and what is appropriate subject matter for the arts. Some of the material under the Protestant view could be moved to a new heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadaw (talk • contribs) 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no idolatry in Catholicism. We have 2000 years of Popes and Magisteriums, and just plain out written history proving that idols in the Catholic Church are lies. Why should we go along with a self-made historian who claims he knows more than 2000 years of Catholic history. I will prove, using references, that there is no idolatry in the Catholic Church. There is a lot of prejudices in this article and, for the most part, it comes from those who hate the Catholic Church. Anathasius (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

It is very important for this topic, since if it is genuine then all protestants are wrong. An imagery created by Father God himself, faithfully depicting Son Jesus Christ, would justify human-made icons and other paintings of religious topic. Definitely deserves a mention in the article. 91.83.10.88 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Move? (January 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry and Christianity → Idolatry in Christianity – User:Jarble 20:16, 23 January 2012‎ (UTC)

• Oppose Got any rationale? The idea that there is idolatry in Christianity is in itself very POV; no Christian group would so describe itself. Hence the present title. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnbod. Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Rename but to Christian attitude to images. As a Protestant, I disapprove of the use of statues, icons, etc in worship, due to the risk that the image rather than God himself should be the object of worship (not to mention the prohinbition of graven images in the 10 commandments). Nevertheless, icons are widely used in the orthodox church and statues in the Catholic church. Referring to these as idols makes them illegitimate per se under the 10 commandments. I have no doubt that both ancient churches rationalise this, as the article indicates. The present title was no doubt adopted for that reason, but I consider this not to be a WP:NPOV title. What is proposed is even worse. I am not sure my suggestion is quite right. Alternatively Images in Christian worship. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That is more like Aniconism in Christianity, and might redirect there. Both titles are part of sets covering different religions, and perhaps not ideally named individually. But why is is it not NPOV? It avoids the question, unlike the proposed new one. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (November 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After 7 days, there was no oppose vote, and all votes supported, hence conclusion was move, obviously. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry and Christianity → Religious images in Christian theology – The current name is highly POV. This defines the subject more closely, and distinguishes it from Aniconism in Christianity, which covers the history and art history. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Within the context of Church history, 'idolatry' is generally regarded as an inherently pejorative term. 'Religious imagery' is more netral, and also more likely to be understood as a title.Wedensambo (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• [Johnbod, Where does one find this template that sets the RM out like this? ]....as regards the RM, really don't know what to think, seems like 2 lousy mistitled articles that don't know what they want to be. I would have expected this article to give academic references to Christian treatment of ancient Greek or modern Hindu idols, not praying to Mary or Saints, but "Religious images in Christian theology" isn't what the article is trying to be about either, it would be PRAYING TO Religious images in Christian theology. I would close this and take it to the WP:CHRISTIANITY talk page for a thorough work out. Would value an editor like John Carter's view. The title here isn't the bigger problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The "like 2 lousy mistitled articles" is being too kind to the content, for it is almost all junk, unsourced and theologically confused. The Lewis poem at the end is just hopelss, etc. Since when is that theology? So the "title here isn't the bigger problem" comment is 100% right. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's gone now. I think the content is fundamentally ok, but the work of many hands & unevenly written in the usual WP way. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You may have read my talk page... I am not going to work on this, but just zap 80% of it and add a few correct paragraphs after the move. No one is even watching this, or knows what to type anyway, so you can jut do it if you have time. History2007 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

At WP:RM. Theological discussion of images has always been centred on the "idolatery" issue, so I think the proposed name works. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Just do it, or add statues somewhere in the title.History2007 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- As a Protestant, the use of images is not part of my faith, and I am not clear what those who do use them have in mind. However, the worship of idols is prohibited by the Ten Commandments, and I find it hard to believe that any Christian actually worships an idol. Accordingly, I consider the propiosed title much nearer the mark. The article will probably need substantial editing to accord with the new title. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, and the terms latria, dulia etc. are mentioned in the article, but buried there and need better explanation. History2007 (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. After an admittedly cursory look, the article certainly seems to be about imagery in Christianity rather than idolatry. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Isn't the topic of this article, the worship or practices similar to worhsip of religious icons (and not images alone)? The aniconism article could not be a subarticle of this one if it only covered images and imagery. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point, but that is not the proposal anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If needed try "Religious images and statues in Christian theology" or even "Religious images and statues in Christianity". History2007 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A purported piece of the true cross being venerated by Christians is neither an image nor a statue, but can still be construed as idolatry. Same goes for mummified remains of saints. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Those have no theology and no place in liturgy but are devotional. With the exception of the Eucharist, generally if it has no shape, it has no theology, but don't ask me for a source, I could not be bothered. History2007 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It would greatly depend on the sect of Christianity. Praying to a Saint for a miracle in front of their mummified finger would, if it were not Christian, is greatly similar to praying to a idol for the same. The veneration of mummified remains as a source of miraculous energy is seen in the Christian community. Just look at people praying to burnt toast for miracles, when the burns look like Christ. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm References for that? If the toast looks like Christ, then its an image, isn't it? Relics are not, I accept. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean like Martin Luther or John Calvin, or would you like someone not a founder of Protestantism? [1] -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

References for anyone "praying to burnt toast for miracles", and any RC church pronouncement approving of same. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that 70.24.186.245 is not paying attention to the difference between liturgy, theology and actions by individuals. 10 Catholics somewhere may do whatever they like, they can pray to the wind if they like, but that does not make it Church approved, and if anything there are a number of items in several encyclicals that directly condemn that. Anyway, I have said enough. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why "in Christian theology"? Is only philosophical arguments and positions being discussed? Does it not cover plain usage as well? Walrasiad (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As you know, Christians are experts at disagreeing with each other. And whatever individual Christians do is so diverse and multi-directional (may I say confused) that it is hard to characterize it outside the main denominational teachings. In the Catholic case whenever enough Catholics wonder off to do "novel things" Rome puts out statements about it, rejecting them, e.g. see this one which rejects a whole range of prayers. So the type of toast some Catholic eat or pray to is not an indication of Catholicism. Furthermore, even for specific devotions (outside liturgy) acceptance without approval is often issued or declined, e.g. note that in 1563 the Council of Trent even declined to take a position on the Immaculate Conception, which was later accepted, etc. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is some overlap, but as the nom says, the proposed name "distinguishes it from Aniconism in Christianity, which covers the history and art history" & so the actual usage, or avoidance of usage. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If this article covered idolatry, I think it would cover the New Testament's extensive coverage of idolatry, including the idolatry warned against by Paul. That would include greed, lust, and a whole host of detestable things which idolaters do. And so I would agree that the article is about icons, images, and veneration. I would definitely call this idolatry in the historical sense because this is what the Reformers called it when they tore down the "idols" of Catholicism.

Really the debate is at its crux one of Christian liturgy and the formalities present among those who express or practice Christianity. It is the Christian equivalent of the debate in computer science over structured and unstructured languages. The article, and increasingly this talk page, is about the form. The Protestants prefer much less form and formalities than do the Orthodox, for example.

So in summary I think there is an article possible on idolatry and Christianity, but it has not been written, and the one that exists now is about Imagery in Christianity. I will leave on the table the fact that someone who meets the New Testament "greed" or "lust" criteria for idolatry could get there using imagery, but imagery is clearly not the focus of Paul's warnings.I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)