Talk:Religious images in Christian theology

message: Very well done, now in the FAC list. Thank you.
A. Shetsen 03:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nomination for Featured Article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article Title

message: 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)
replies: text:  Wow. Guess that explains why there don't seem to be very many LDS monasteries. Wesley (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] had any views/commets on [[Idolatry]]

message: I've restored the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  too much Catholicism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Idolatry and the Arts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shroud of Turin 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'm not sure I follow your point, but that is not the proposal anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you mean like Martin Luther or John Calvin, or would you like someone not a founder of Protestantism?  -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move (November 2012)

message: :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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow your point, but that is not the proposal anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you mean like Martin Luther or John Calvin, or would you like someone not a founder of Protestantism?  -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion