Jump to content

Talk:List of religious sites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Most sacred sites)

Reverse the diagram

[edit]

The diagram should be reversed right-to-left, as the entrance to the tabernacle and temple faced to the east. I recognize that the diagram is not specifically drawn with compass directions specified, but I feel it would be better.

Unfortunately my HTML-fu is a little weak and rusty these days, or I'd do it myself. Maybe I'll come back. Jdavidb 15:21, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LDS Holy of Holies

[edit]

I believe that the Manti temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has a Holy of Holies off the celestial room, but it is not used as such - though it is not used for another purpose either. But this is just from memory - any other thoughts out there?

This might be an overly narrow view of what the Holy of Holies is for. Yes it's where the President of the High Priesthood (and of the Church) confers with the Lord, but it is also used for the ordinance called the "second anointing," and other temples have rooms specially set aside for that purpose. Furthermore, the Celestial room today fills a role analogous to the Holy of Holies during the presentation of the Endowment. Like I said, I think the definition used here is overly narrow.

I recommend splitting the article into two and adding a Most Holy Place (Latter Day Saints) article, as there are two different places as well as different religious traditions involved. --Shirahadasha 01:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article and created Most Holy Place (Latter Day Saints). --Shirahadasha 06:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the split in articles. Reworked wording; "a room that is believed to be a place where God dwelt"--in the past tense--is not fitting with LDS Theology or terminology.--Rojerts 02:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the article being reconfigured to encompass "multiple religious traditions," having a Most Holy Place(LDS) is now redundant. Keeping with the pluralism of this new configuration, I fleshed out the Latter-day Saints section.--Rojerts 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminated redirect and created stub for article Holy of Holies, of the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple in Jerusalem and thus a distinct article from this one on sanctuaries in various faiths. Will move details on Temple in Jerusalem to Holy of Holies and leave a summary with this article. --Shirahadasha 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without the redirect of Holy of Holies to Most Holy Place, it is incorrect to label the Salt Lake Temple, or the Holy of Holies within that temple, to be the Most Holy Place for Latter-day Saints. Removed. See Holy of Holies discussion.--Rojerts 00:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited LDS portion to reflect current Mormon thought.--Rojerts 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manti

[edit]

The Manti Temple's Holy of Holies is now being used as a sealing room.

Blasphemy?

[edit]

The sentence "The Jews consider this blasphemous" was recently added - is there a reference for this - as I have not heard of this before today? Trödel|talk 12:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Judaism to this day does not permit saying or writing the tetragrammaton in ordinary contexts. Accordingly, it would be appreciated if editors not use the name directly. --Shirahadasha 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Judaism is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedians are most certainly not prohibited from writing a word because it offends some religious sect. Childe Roland of Gilead 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must describe the subjects it covers accurately. When describing a religion, it shouldn't ascribe to the religion a claim that members of the religion wouldn't themselves use or agree with. Would you be equally ready to agree with a claim that, for example, the Pope worships the Buddha, on the similar grounds that Wikipedia isn't censored and what Catholics believe simply doesn't matter? The issue isn't whether or not Catholics would consider this sacriligious. The issue is whether the article would be accurate. Same here. --Shirahadasha 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location in Temple in Jerusalem

[edit]

Removed a claim in the article stating that the Holy of Holies was at the "center"e. The Talmud provides very precise dimensions, Tractate Yoma, for example, provides dimensions indicating a clear Jewish tradition that while it was centered North-South, it was placed significantly to the west on the East-West axis. In light of this tradion, a claim that it was at the center not only should not be taken as fact, in the absence of a source the claim should be deleted. Note that the diagram reflects this assymetry and shows a location which is clearly well to the west of center. --Shirahadasha 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Interpretation

[edit]

This article's religious POV appears to take a position based strictly on the Hebrew Bible, which provides for the building of a tabernacle in the Wilderness. But traditional Judiasm relies on an Oral Law, the foundation of the Talmud, which contains much more detailed directions about the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Orthodox Judaism, these instructions also came from God. I would suggest somewhat more careful language here. We could say things like "according to the Hebrew Bible, God said", which would then permit language like "according to the Talmud, this really meant..." --Shirahadasha 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Jewish synagogues

[edit]

Removed the following material, all of which appears to present a (non-Jewish) WP:OR perspectives that the Ark in a Jewish synagogue is comparable to the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. There are resemblances, but one just isn't the same as the other. No branch of Judaism would find the sort of analogy this article claims. Orthodox Judaism would say the Holy of Holies is irreplacable, while Reform Judaism would say it is no longer relevant. Sources need to be supplied to support these claims -- and I challenge anyone to find mainstream Jewish opinion that does so.

Within Judaism all synagogues are constructed in such a way that the most holy spot is the "Holy Ark" in the sanctuary. The place where the Torah scrolls or Sifre Tora (Biblical: סִפְרֵי תּוֹרָה Sip̄rê Tôrāh) are stored is known as the "Holy Ark" or Aron Qodesh (Biblical: אֲרוֹן קֹדֶשׁ ʼĂrôn Qṓḏeš). It is usually built along the wall of the synagogue closest in direction to Jerusalem. This spot is considered to be somewhat analogous to the original Tabernacle's and Temple in Jerusalem's Qodesh HaQodashim — the Holy of Holies. During all Jewish services in all synagogues, the worshipers face in the direction of the Holy Ark, which contains the holy Torah scrolls belonging to every Jewish congregation. When the Holy Ark is opened so that the Sefer Torah may be taken out for Torah reading, all worshippers (except the elderly or ill) usually rise as a mark of respect for its holiness and importance. In Orthodox Judaism, the Ark is regarded as being only a faint echo of the Holy of Holies in the Temple which is regarded as retaining a much higher degree of sanctity. Reform Judaism, which regards the Temple in Jerusalem as an archaism, sees synagogue Arks as largely or wholly replacing the reverence formally due the Temple.
detailed account of the service (avodah) of the High Priest in the Temple in Jerusalem is read on Yom Kippur in Orthodox Synagogues, and some Conservative synagogues (at least in part). In many Orthodox synagogues (and some traditionalist Conservative synagogues), worshippers recite and mime the act of sprinkling blood at each traditional sprinkling point, and postrate themselves fully on the floor at points in the service when the High Priest would mention the Tetragrammaton, the only time in Jewish services where Jews practice complete full-body postration. The service includes a poem about the radiance of the High Priest upon exit his successful exit from the Most Holy Place, which is compared to the beams of light the Bible ascribes to Moses' countenance upon his return from Mount Sinai. Orthodox services also add prayers lamenting the destruction of the Temple, and praying for the speedy rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of sacrificial worship.
Tnere are actually numerous mentions of the Holy of Holies in Jewish Services. There are references to it all over Psalms, for example. This material simply duplicates material covered in the Yom Kippur article -- can simply reference it.--Shirahadasha 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Holy Place

[edit]

The Church of the Holy Sepulcre (supposedly the location of the crucifixion of Jesus) was stated as the Holy of Holies for all Christians, whereas this is not necessarily the case, particularly with a large portion of Christianity that does revere any one location as a "Most Holy Place." Therefore I changed the wording to "some Christians." Soonercary 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I cut it completely. "Most Holy Place" in Christianity refers to the inner chamber of the Temple at Jerusalem, just as in Judaism. In churches with a liturgical tradition there may be a section of each church building that is believed to correspond with that part of the Temple, but it's practically never called "Most Holy Place".
While the Church of the Resurrection is the holiest shrine in Christianity for the vast majority of the world's Christians (so "some" is badly understating the case), it is never designated by this title and does not play a corresponding role in the life of the Church. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information the Schepulcher in the original Greek text is referred as Panagios Taphos, meaning Most Holy Tomb. From Greek it is translated to all other languages nonetheless the original text is dominant when comes to translation confusions. Same as the Creed or the Pater Noster Italiotis 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See your talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganization: Holy of Holies, Most Holy Place, and Holiest place

[edit]

It looks to me as if this article has gone off the rails. "Most Holy Place" is an English rendering of the Hebrew Kodesh Hakodashim, specifying the inner chamber of the Jerusalem Temple. As a translation it may or may not be very high quality: Holy of Holies is a more literal rendering of the phrase, and at least according to a comment on Talk:Holy of Holies it carries the meaning better too.

However, what we have here are not places bearing the either the name "Most Holy Place" or "Holy of Holies", but a collection of the holiest shrines or cities in a number of different religions. This is worth an article, but if that's what it's to be it's misnamed, and neither the chamber of the Jerusalem Temple nor its Mormon meaning belong here. I therefore propose the following reorganization:

  • Split most of the content of this article off to a new one, perhaps titled Holiest place for the extended list of holiest shrines and cities
  • To the extent that any religion does apply "Most Holy Place" or a phrase that is customarily translated that way, as a proper noun to any specific building or site (or class of buildings or sites), this should be the subject of the present article. In that case it should contain a either a hatnote or a brief section and main article link pointing the reader to Holy of Holies.
    • If there are no such places, this article should be a simple redirect to "Holy of Holies"
  • Holy of Holies should contain a collection of brief sections and main article redirects to the main articles on the places so called under their correctly transliterated native names such as the Kodesh Hakodashim where applicable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
I'm not sure I really like my proposed new title for the new article myself, and no doubt someone can come up with a better one.
My intention was to try to make some sense of of all this without starting a content dispute over the way "Holy of Holies" is defined in that article. On the whole I agree with you that a cite is desperately needed there, if it's correct. But if it is, it's not how the word is used that I have ever heard.
I agree mostly with the above. Maybe what's best is to to move most of this page's content to Holiest place and have a disambiguation page at Most Holy Place. On another note, while the term "Most Holy Place" does not appear in the literature of the Baha'i Faith, "Most Holy Shrine", referring to the Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh appears very regularly. I don't know if that deserves a mention or not. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That illustrates the mess nicely. One could justifiably make a redirect at Most Holy Shrine to Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh, and list Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh at Holiest place. If the Baha'i don't actually call the Shrine "Most Holy Place" there's no reason to associate it with that phrase at all -- unless you've mistaken "Most Holy Place" for a common noun instead of a proper noun. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what happened here; most of the sections are about the most holy place and not the proper noun 'Most Holy Place. A disambiguation at Most holy place (which currently is a redirect) to Most Holy Place will fix the problem. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of the above. In recognizing that more than one religion has an actual "Holy of Holies," the unintended consequence was that the KJV Biblical rendering Most Holy Place became a catch-all category for ANY "Most Holy Place," whether a sanctum sanctorum or not.
Holiest Place still captures what is present now in Most Holy Place but avoids the confusion inherent in the KJV rendition. I say move forward with renaming Most Holy Place.--Rojerts 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any (preferably citable) examples other than Judaism and LDS? And are they more or less loose renderings from their original languages? I'm not trying to argumentative; I'd like to find out. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TCC/Csernica, in your question, are you referring to other religions having Holy of Holies? If so, then yes--there are other examples besides Judaism and the LDS; in fact, each religion mentioned in Holy of Holies is appropriately placed there.
Fittingly, the Judaic Holy of Holies is often the source of the others, making each cognate, although it is important to note that the concept of a Holy of Holies even predates the Israelite "Tabernacle in the Wilderness." In the ancient world, temples were often oriented to a cardinal point of the compass, and priests entered therein as a symbolic cosmic journey which progressed, in linear manner, from the profane to increasing levels of sacred space, until the "most holy place" or "holy of holies" was reached (usually where the god of the temple {pantheism}, head god of the pantheon {henotheism}, or one and only God {monotheism} resided).
Of course, every religion has its holy places, and perhaps one place out of them all is considered the "most" holy, which is the issue with Most Holy Place because, as it stands, the KJV rendition of a Hebrew idiom has been overlaid with any "most holy place" and not necessarily those involving an actual "Holy of Holies." Regards, --Rojerts 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reasonably well-acquainted with ancient religions. Which of them called the innermost cult chamber of their temples the "Holy of Holies"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more item: the proposed article name of "Holiest Place" still allows for confusion. In some traditions, "holiest place" might be taken as a synonym to "holy of holies." Holiest place lends a superlative air to it that represents the original idiom.

Instead, how about a more pluralistic approach: Most Holy Places or Most Sacred Sites? Or both, one redirected to the other. By making "place" or "site" plural, it allows for a pluralistic approach to the article, and perhaps most importantly, it completely betrays the exclusive, superlative concept couched in a singular "Most Holy Place" or "Holy of Holies." Regards, --Rojerts 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Most sacred sites. (Note caps, or lack thereof: this is Wikipedia style, so title case really does mean a proper noun.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the discussion has reached general agreement that the article should be renamed and settled on Most sacred sites after discussing other alternatives, so I'm going to go ahead and move the article to Most sacred sites. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference to Holy of Holies was broken by editing there

[edit]

The heading of this article says: "For the term Most Holy Place as used in the King James Version of the Bible, see Holy of Holies."

But the term "Most Holy Place" no longer appears anywhere in the body of the Holy of Holies article.

And mention of the idiom was also removed from the Holy of Holies article in its 21:49, 14 October 2007 edit.

I have heard that the repetition of a word in Hebrew is intended to be an emphasis of the word. The following repetitions appear to have that intent ( http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter5.html ):

  • servant of servants (Gen 9:25)
  • Holy of Holies (Ex 26:33)
  • Heaven of heavens (Deut 10:14)
  • God of gods (Deut 10:17)
  • Lord of lords (Deut 10:17)
  • Vanity of vanities (Eccl 1:2)
  • Song of songs (Song of Solomon 1:1)
  • Prince of princes (Dan. 8:25)

The emphasis on the degree of superlative intended by the Hebrew construction may be missed by those who are unaware of the idiom.

Perhaps the "of" in these translations is a concession to ease of reading in English? Might they also be translated, "Holiest holy [place]", "Vainest vanity", etc.? "Songiest song" doesn't flow at all in English, but would that convey the intention of the Hebrew construction?

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm

they are not only vanity but vanity of vanities, the vainest vanity, vanity in the highest degree.

http://bible.cc/songs/1-1.htm

This title denotes its superior excellence, according to the Hebrew idiom; so holy of holies, equivalent to "most holy" (Ex 29:37); the heaven of heavens, equivalent to the highest heavens (De 10:14)

Discussion of the King James translation as "Most Holy Place" and the idiom could be helpful somewhere. Both were mentioned in the Holy of Holies article at one time, but they were removed during restructuring of that article. -Ac44ck (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a subsection to the Judaism section in the Holy of Holies article. I had reservations about mentioning the KJV Bible in the section on Judaism. Maybe that statement would fit better elsewhere in the article, though it is quite relevant in the subsection where the idiom is discussed. -Ac44ck (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

[edit]

I think the mention of Varanasi as the holiest place in Hinduism is plainly wrong. Hinduism doesnt have one holiest place but consider many. One thing about Hinduism is freedom of choice and there are many holy sites equaly 'holy' if you have to say. I recommend that we remove the mention of Varanasi. Abhask (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic/Orthodox Christianity Section: '25% of Mankind' statement

[edit]

In this section, we have the statement that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre represents over 1.5 billion Christians or 25% of mankind. 'Mankind' is estimated to have around 6.7 billion people (POPClock). This means that 1.5 billion, give or take, actually represents 22% of the world's population. I understand that there's a certain interesting point in thinking that almost a quarter of the world is comprised of Catholics/Orthodox Christians, so I left the 25% in the paragraph. But because it is isn't quite 25%, I modified the statement by adding 'almost'. This preserves the notion of 'a quarter of the population' but adds that it isn't quite a quarter of the population. Ultatri (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Major Religions

[edit]

What about the many indigenous groups out there, many of which have sacred sites of their own? Take, for example, Crater Lake in Oregon which is considered the most sacred site of the Klamath people. Shouldn't they be considered, too?--174.59.220.52 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notability guidelines as long as there is significant, independent, reliable secondary-source coverage of the subject there is no reason why you cannot cite sources and add this in. Peter Deer (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for NPOV?

[edit]

"List of significant religious sites"? Wikipedia calling anything "sacred" seems like a bad idea to me. --82.152.179.249 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity bias

[edit]

The article seemed to be too biased towards Christianity, with reference to the amount of information available on the topic. I propose moving all the information on Christianity in a separate article titled "List of significant religious sites in Christianity" and having only a transcribed version of the same in the current topic to protect it from being too biased towards any religious faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.102.49 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trees in the Sacred Grove.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Trees in the Sacred Grove.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackstone.JPG Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Blackstone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blackstone.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent undoing ot the 2:09 April 10, 2012 update

[edit]

The information provided on the most recent edition of this article concerning the LDS church provides a more basic Christian perspective on the LDS church. As well, the addition of the Sistine Chapel to the secton on Roman Catholic religious sites is to emphasize the importance of the Holy See in Catholicism, not to mention the fact that the Papal conclave occurs here.

--108.207.218.55 (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African religious sites anyone?

[edit]

It would be nice to add some African religious sites like those of the Oromo people of Ethiopia, Lake Hora. Many exist, just want to remind editors here that to not forget poor old Africa. And there are those in Islam like Toubaa, Senegal. I would love to help but let me start by suggesting. --Inayity (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of religious sites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of religious sites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem

[edit]

Bethlehem is a sacred place in Christianity. It is where Mary, the mother of Jesus was born. 65.78.2.156 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_religious_sites&oldid=1213290518"