Talk:Christianity/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Religion, Religion, Religion; I hate that word.

Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Christ. User:Jim Bart

But which Christ are you referring to, there is more than one definition, many of which are not Christian in the slightest. Homestarmy 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the latest episode of "As the Article Turns..."

On today's episode of "As the Article Turns..." an edit war over whether Ba'hai is an Abrahamic religion or not has started. Will administrators lock the page? Will anyone ever take it to the talk page? Why am I asking you all these questions? No, seriously now, why would Ba'ahi be Abrahamic, as I understand it they consider Bahullah or however its accented to somehow be fulfilling some Islamic prophecy as I understand it, but other than that and I think having a favorable view of Jesus, I can't think of anything that directly ties them into another Abrahamic religion. So what's the dealio here? Homestarmy 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They believe Abraham was one of the manifestations of God along with Jesus and Muhammed, etc. --Oscillate 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds relatively Abrahamic to me, plus its listed as Abrahamic in the Abrahamic article, so what's the problem here? Homestarmy 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate over whether Baha'i is Abrahamic is irrelevent anyway. This article is about Christianity and the paragraph in question is discussing the similarities between Judaism and Christianity as Abrahamic faiths due to the fact that Christianity draws much from Judaism. It mentions Islam because (aside from having 1.3 billion followers) the Quran also draws much from both Judaism as well as Christianity and is generally regarded as an Abrahamic faith. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of Abrahamic faiths, but simply a couple examples of faiths with similair beliefs in order to provide reference to Christianity. The Baha'i faith is not a major world religion, having only about 7 million followers world-wide, listed as 13th by Adherents.com (below Juche even), and is not truly related to Christianity as Judaism and Islam are considered to be. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, we are not obligated to include every minority or non-prominent viewpoint. Including a religion most Christians probably know nothing about doesn't contribute to an article about Christianity. —Aiden 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a minority viewpoint Aiden...... that's a stated fact. It is related to Ba'hai like Teddy Roosevelt was related to FDR, it wasn't direct, but it was a notable relationship. To ignore Ba'hai as an Abrahamic religion, when it is, is a pure violation of NPOV policy.

KV(Talk) 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as a point of fact. There are other Abrahamic religions as well, such as Samaritanism, plus those whose identity with (though not descent from) one of the three mentioned is disputed, and arguably Mandaeism (though they consider Abraham to have been a false prophet.) The current "Like..." clause is meant only to briefly explain what's meant by Abrahamic religion, and as such serves its purpose. As a direct descendent of Islam, Baha'i's inclusion is implicit, as is Ahmadiyya and a few others. Not to say that Baha'i can't be added. I was only trying to get the point as simply as possible. This language is also found in Judaism and Islam.Timothy Usher 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Baha'i Faith needs to be mentioned in the lead, as there's no benefit to this article or the reader in understanding the sentence. I just want to clear up some points or misunderstandings regarding the Baha'i Faith that were mentioned above. Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah fullfilled both the Christian and Islamic prophecies regarding the Second Coming of Christ. Baha'is believe that the Bab fulfilled the Islamic prophecies of the Mahdi. Furthermore, Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is a descendent of Abraham. Now in regards to the prophets, Baha'is do believe that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, along with Baha'u'llah come from the same Abrahmic God. In this sense, the Baha'i Faith has been considered Abrahamic in many regards. Again I don't think the Baha'i Faith should be mentioned, just clearing up some points that were brought up. -- Jeff3000 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction--POV problems

I've attempted to change the intro because of NPOV problems. The original introduction favors the following POVs:

That Christianity is monotheistic. Most Muslims, many Jews, and some modern Christians, and many historic Christians would disagree, a constituency reaching into the tens of millions, which should not be ignored. You can't say, consistent with NPOV, that Christianity IS monotheistic. The best you can do is to say that its adherents generally consider it to be monotheistic.
That Christianity is centered around the New Testament. The New Testament was not compiled until centuries after Jesus. Certainly the Apostles, which had no New Testament, were Christians. Moreover, there are, and were, Christianities centered upon writings which are not part of the New Testament. These constituencies number in the tens of millions.

The fact that dictionaries favor these POVs doesn't make it appropriate to favor them here in Wikipedia. We can do better, folks. That's what makes Wikipedia unique, and according to Jimbo Wales, NPOV is NON-NEGOTIABLE. COGDEN 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been tried, but we lack acceptable sources for the statements. Perhaps you can help us here.

KV(Talk) 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the numerous archives of this very discussion. There has been provided numerous scholarly, historical, and dictionary sources that have confirmed that Christianity is monotheistic, not by POV, but by definition. Monotheism by definition is the belief or dogma that there exists one God. This definition rests solely on the belief of the person, not on a third parties views of that person's beliefs. If Christians believe their religion is monotheistic, they are by definition monotheists. You can also refer to virtually any Christian creed that will confirm that Christian dogma rests on the belief in one God. I'm not going to go through this debate again as every point that needs to be made has been in the past. Please see the archives before stirring this up again. —Aiden 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, please refer to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. This article generally reflects the beliefs of most Christians, and includes various subsections for differing views. According to Wikipedia policy, we are to describe the mainstream view, which rests on belief in the current canon and rejects the apocrypha, mentioning these less prominent views accordingly. —Aiden 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs can be false, even beliefs about belief. Consider that Mormons believe that they're Christian, yet this is controversial among many mainstream Christians. Likewise, Christians believe that they're monotheists, but this is controversial. Al 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Sure beliefs can be false, but the definition of monotheism rests solely on belief. Whether or not Christians are right about the Trinity, or even right about the existence of God is completely irrelevent. Monotheism is a belief not a fact, and if Christian dogma and belief says there is one God in three, they are by definition monotheistic, regardless of whether or not they are right. We have provided countless sources supporting this position as well as brought in several Muslim editors (including an administrator) who confirmed that although Islam does not agree with the concept of the Trinity, it is not a violation of NPOV and does not establish the Trinity as fact by saying that Christians are monotheistic. Again, I recommend you read the archives. —Aiden 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue Weight doesnt' say that we only describe the mainstream view, it says that we give less emphasis on the lesser views. The second we find a specific source that mentions that the Cainites believed in more than one god, that whole sentence has to be rewritten.

But, as for the scriptures, it is more accurate, closer to the ideal of NPOV as well, to include the fact that it's based off more than what is in the New Testament. See WP:NPOV#Religion

KV(Talk) 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

COgden, it may be easier in this article to expend effort in expanding the body of the article rather then attempting to change the introduction. It has been a long source of debate on this page. I don't disagree with your edits or your comments; rather I support them. However, I do believe historic Christian theology, which is a clear majority in the world, gets the limelight at the introduction. I do not feel that the body of the text becomes their sole domain. If the majority always ruled this would really be an article soley about Roman Catholic Christianity. If you are going to focus on something, focus on the body to ensure that a representation of diverse beliefs is present.

I am also not interested in the silly edit wars about who is Christian and who is not. Religionists, all of us, are too prone to think we must protect our ""own"" turf and seldom realize that we have far more in common than what separates us. It is not pretty as the history of this article will attest, but it is reality. Saul was convinced of the rightness of his cause as he was involved in stoning Christians. Funny that he could not have been more wrong, but he was convinced until he heard that Voice. I digress, for now please review the body and expand as you think best. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The question as to whether or not Mormons are Christian depends on what exactly you have to believe in order to be a Christian. There is a valid difference of opinion over that. Dictionaries won't say whether or not you have to believe that Jesus was eternally begotten, or that he was consubstantial with the Father, or that he had two natures but was only one person, or that he really performed miracles. However, dictionaries do tell us that monotheism means the belief that there is one God. (Note that they don't say that it means that that belief must be perceived by others as reasonable or logical.) Anyway, as Aiden points out, we've been through all that, so let's hope the edit war doesn't start again. AnnH ♫ 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In NPoV fashion, we report that Christians believe their belief is monothestic. I believe the sentence in the intro captures this. Likewise, if Mormons believe they are Christian, we report that they believe that. As for the NT sentence, the intro does not say that the NT is a sacred text, or that it is the only sacred text in Christianity. Detailed points on this are appropriate in the article body, where at least one text considered sacred by some Christians is not even mentioned. Gimmetrow 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"we report that Christians believe their belief is monothestic." You're going way out on a limb there. Surely we can only say that some authors say most people who self-identify as Christians claim to believe their belief is monothestic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion" does not capture that? Gimmetrow 03:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the plain statement, "Christianity is a monotheistic religion, centered on the life and teachings, etc." If the reader wants to know more about monotheism in particular, or religion in general, they can follow the links. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet, we apparently report in POV fashion that Muslims are monotheistic in Islam. On the Islam talk page, the only discussion about monotheism was somebody asking whether most Muslims accept the Christian claim that we are monotheistic, and an editor answered yes. So it seems either Wikipedia has been compleatly hijacked by anti-NPOV warriors, or saying that religions are or are not monotheistic is simply a matter of verifiability.... Homestarmy 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the real issue is that people like to argue about religion as a pastime. This is a non-issue. Belief is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception - thus if a movement builds itself around "belief x," by definition it believes what it claims to believe. This isn't a POV: It's a definition of the movement itself, which by its nature is constructed on an articulated POV. Again, if one wishes to highlight equally unverifiable criticisms of Christianity's construction of monotheism, take it to Criticism of Christianity or to Trinitarianism or monotheism, not an article which actually describes Christian belief, history, and praxis. Fishhead64 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's not a matter of fact, what in tarnation are all those references doing about Christianity being monotheistic? Apparently they didn't get the message....Homestarmy 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"In NPoV fashion, we report that Christians believe their belief is monothestic." The definition of monotheism is the belief. You're proposing we basically say "Christians believe that they believe in one God", which as MonkeySage put it, is nothing but verbal tautology. —Aiden 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion" does not capture that? Gimmetrow 03:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Aiden, this is most unusal for you, and is presumably only a slip, but you've fallen into the Drogo/Giovanni definition of monotheism. It means the belief that there is one God, not the belief in one God. So what's being proposed is "Christians believe that they believe that there is one God", which either, as you say, is tautological, or carries an implication that they don't really believe that — they only think they believe that. I remember a priest telling me that he didn't believe there was such a thing as an atheist, as the so-called atheists he knew were obsessed with God, and talked about Him all the time, in a sense "protesting too much". Should we all charge over to the article on atheism and say that atheists believe that they believe that there is no God? AnnH ♫ 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since comments are still mocking my statement, but seem to be ignoring my very next sentence, again let me say that the intro line "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" captures the essense well enough. The issue that some critics do not consider Christian belief monotheistic, or that some Christian theology may have been bitheistic or tritheistic, may merit some place in the article body. Gimmetrow 20:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Haven't we already inserted material about the dispute in the trinity section or the criticisms thing somewhere? Homestarmy 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mention of bahai.

Should bahai be mentioned? it's as much related to christianity as islam is. Pure inuyasha 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See the above section, On the latest episode of "As the Article Turns...". —Aiden 20:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Should mushroom omelette be mentioned? It's as much related to Christianity as a lot of the stuff people here seem to be obsessed with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopic Bookworm (talk • contribs)

i'm sorry, but bahai has much more related to christianity than a mushroom omlette. Pure inuyasha 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Divisions?

How has christianity divided into so many denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.133.194 (talk • contribs)

Much of it had to do with disagreements over the councils that took place in the early Church. —Aiden 14:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it has to do with the nature of religion itself and in particular of Christianity. It's open to a wide area interpretation and thus given to an an almost infinite number of variations, even among basic doctrines once held to be sacrosant. This combined with a tendency for sectarianism and dogmatism yields bitter splits, each grou and version delcaring that they are the only one "true" Church. This tendency for intolerance also helps to explain the great bloodshed that accompanies Christianity thoughrought its history.Professor33 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I notice I am not allowed to edit the main article. Its a pity its closed off to new editors. The article could benefit from the imput of a greater diversity of thought. How long would someone need to be a member in order to edit?Professor33 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many of the denominations split precisely because they did not want to be dogmatic whatever-negative-word-your-using whoevers, and especially to protray the "virtues" of tolerance (And I use the term virtues very lightly) and whatnot, see Unitarianism. Homestarmy 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but these are the exceptions to the rule. A good example is unitarianism, which is notable for its large degree of tolerance, a minimizing of essentials, and a repugnance to formulated doctrine. They are more in line with the humanism and freethinking of anti-religionists. However, Christianity in the main has as it dominant character historically, as s I have described. Even the puritans arriving in the US and setting up a settlement, fleeing from persecution, were particularly intolerant.Professor33 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add on to my reply, but we edit conflicted :/. On the One true church thing, im fairly certain several more mainline protestant denominations do not specifically refer to themselves as the "one true church", but rather take a position that all who belong to the Body of Christ are part of the "One true church", which is even more fundamentalist really than churches which claim that only they are the way. Furthermore, then there's non-denominational churches which have risen about 1,000 percent in population lately, (0.1 percent to 1.7 percent of the population or something, weee! :D) which of course by definition can't be the "one true church" when they don't even align themselves with a church in the first place. Nextly, i'd like to use an analogy on this whole "Christians through history did some bad things" argument, let's say your standing in front of two people who are friends with each other. One of them punches you in the face. Do you punch the other person in the face and say "Your friend punched me in the face, that's your fault!"? Homestarmy 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah but we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about an ideology so the analogy is flawed. Christians may like to separate themselves from their conduct and past but they tied to it by the adherence to the nature of their religious ideology. This helps explain their behavior for both past and present as a religous movement. Do you doubt that any ideology which is embraced by a group is a major factor in understanding its historical actors? People act according to their world outlook. If the ideology tells them that those who differ from you are incarnations of the devil, then you literally dehumanize your opponents and this allows you to gleefully engage in all these "bad things," which are pretty horrible when you look at the specifics. Also, other aspects of religion allow for great manipulation, hence it has always been at the service of one or another political interest or movement, under the banner and justification of their conception of God. Professor33 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But the mainstream churches and ideologies that behave in this way ignore the real teachings of Christianity like love and peace (John 13:35). Let's not paint with too broad a brush here. Jesus said people would recognize his followers by their "fruit". --Oscillate 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And they would say you ignore the real teachings, which may not emphasis the same points or interpretation of "love and peace." The religion has made peace with notions violence and war. The point is that it's almost anything you want it to be, anything can be justified by refenced to an interpretation of it religious texts, esp. the Bible. It's just a matter of what the society allows in terms of its current political and social climate, and the variety of the sect which represents a specific orientation. In this way, we can understand religion as a certain type of vehical through which different agendas can thrive. Its the nature of this vehicle which allows these political and social movements to indeed thrive and mobilize in a why it may not be able to without a religious ideology hence its inherent danger, leaving notions like "love and peace" as merely lofty sounding rhetoric. This is true for just about everything and anything else which always attribute altruistic goals to itself as part of its propaganda, despite the reality of its practice. Professor33 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, if you judge the entire religion as such, or imply that all members of Christianity are bloodthirsty hypocrits or that none live up to the standards in the texts they live by, you are being far too broad. --Oscillate 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse no one is saying that. That would be absurd. But Christianity certainly has proven itself fully capable and compatible with such behavior. And, that is due to the nature of the ideology, which lends itself into whatever purpose that is needed given the variables that I mentioned.Professor33 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point you are making, Prof33? Replace religion with almost any social construct and the same would hold true throughout history. We are human and we like us'ins and we don't like those'uns. Has it not always been the case with humanity? I am not sure there is a group that lasted for any extended period that did not fight to "protect" it self.

I agree that religion in general has also exhibited the characteristics that you describe. However, you conveniently leave out all of the good that religion has done throughout history. Is it evil? Of course not. Can it be used for evil purposes? Of course, but trying to make religion "tied to it by the adherence to the nature of their religious ideology" is stretching. It is a nice conversation, but I don't know where you are trying to end up...religion did bad things becuase you think it teaches adherents to be bad and thus all religion, Christianity in particular, should be stamped out as a social evil. I know it started out to be an answer to a question about why so many denominations, but it has morphed into something else.

BTW, the answer to the question could easily be tied to everyone having one sacred book, but having different interpretations of that same book of scripture. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is true. Not all social constructs, i.e. ideologies are equal for their accomodation to being highjacked by different radically different adgendas. I think the professor has a valid point that is particular to religious ideology in general and Christianity in particular-- hence its great diversity ranging from all ends of the political, social, and economic spectrum. Even Hitler could adopt it as a successful vehical for fascism. So even if other ideologies can posses similar characterisitics, none does it easier than a religious one given its method of authority, lack of verifiablity, faith, blind obedience, and irrationality in general. If you can get people to believe in absurdities with a religious mindset, you can get them to commit atrocities with great glee and ferver. This is an argument of anti-religionists who do say that all religion is evil, because no religion is based on knowledge, they are all based entirely on beliefs arising from and out of, superstitions and ignorance. That statement is true of every single religion, but some are more so than others. The worst problem with religion is that Religion, and the Religious, claim to irrefutably know, what cannot be known, usually on the basis of "Divine Revelation" , which thing, of course, is neither provable nor disprovable. The very worst feature of these claims is how very many of the religions and their adherents will gladly kill you if you question either their statements or their authority to make them. So its this dogmatism, lack of doubt, and its twin, intolerance together with being able to mold it for any purpose that gives it its particularly dangerous social character. Does this mean it can do not good? Ofcourse not. Does this mean we ought to try to wipe it out? Well, while that might be desirable as an outcome it would be oppressive as a direct goal. Instead it should be attacked at its root: education and alientation. As Marx said, its an opiate of the people, symptmatic of a psychological need that is lacking. To quote him, "To demand that people abandon illusions of their condition is to demand that conditions that need illusions should itself be abandoneded."Giovanni33 23:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, let's look at it. Political groups have been every bit as bad as any religion for destroying the preceding group in power and those who reject their ideologies. Marx and his philosophical offspring, communism, has a particularly bad history of literally destroying all who oppose their "liberation" of the proletariat. Let's look at sovereign nations; they too have been pretty good throughout history of destroying everyone not like them. Tribal affiliation, family groups, etc. fall into the same category and all have been equally as bad throughout history. Economic confederacies have been particularly bad when threatened or as a method of expanding their base of operations. Can you think of one social construct that has been completely benign throughout history? I can't, but I might be missing something.

I like what you said first, "ideologies are equal for their accommodation to being high jacked by different radically different agendas." Attempting to make it particularly facile for religionists is just trying to find a scapegoat for the radical, power hungry individuals. You name the construct and you will find a radical that has abused it to allow "him/her/them" to be in power and lard it over their fellow man. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my sentence is missing a comma, note that it should be "Not all social constructs, i.e. ideologies, are equal for their accomodation to being highjacked by different radically different adgendas." My point was that they were not all equal. Some are more suited than others for being molded with all the worst features that allow the worst in us, and to take advantage of this. Marxism is a good example of my same point: turning Marxism into a religion, or treating it as a religion. This is what caused Marx to once say, "I am no Marxist!" Infact, these so-called Marxists did treat the ideology as a dogma esp. when they treated it as a State-religion, much like Constantine did with Christianity with he adopted it as the ruling ideology for the empire. But, unlike what Constatine did with Christianity, which can be said to be the main and dominant form consitent a valid interpretation given the texts and nature of the ideology, the same can not be said for Marxism, which can clearly be shown to be a perversion of the world view. In otherwords, since it is not a religion it should not be treated as a religion. My contention is that the elements in any religion that define it as such is part of the problem with the nature of the ideology and that is an inherent part of it, without which it ceases to be a religion. Any social construct that emphasises blind faith and disregards critical thinking, valid and sound reasoning (logic), and standards of evidence, is likewise guilty of an equal failings. It is just that religion makes for an esp. useful and successul means to effect such evils on a mass scale--not that other ideologies, in particular nationalist ideologies (which are more often than not merged with religious ideology), can not do the very same. As for another world outlook which does not and is far less likely to lend itself to such evil is Secular humanism based on a scientific world view. Not that they can not be abused. Anything can, potencially. But what is interesting is that when it is abused and corrupted its done so in a manner that clearly refutes not just its ideals, and doctrines, but goes counter to its own methodology as well. This is not the case with relgion. Its the religious method itself that is idenfitied with the corruption of the other social constructs, because its precisely such a world view and method that is needed in order to get people to do the great harm that we have witnesses unleased against our fellow man: unreason, dogmatism, intolerance, blind obedience, lack of critical thinking, acceptance of propositions without adequate evidence. These are the necessary ingredients for any recipe designed to do these things that most of us consider to be great social evils.Giovanni33 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well when you put it that way, its a really good thing all religions aren't the same, whew.... Homestarmy 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure you and I GIO disagree with history, but we do disagree on our deductions. Religion can be manipulated and has been. However, I would contend that religion is misused by individuals and their followers who misunderstand relgion; Christianity in particular. You are more prone to paint faith with an evil brush. You contend that religion can be abused more easily than other other social constructs; however, that is not a proven fact, but a belief you have created with many others that are suspicious of relgion. Regardless, just because something can be abused does not make it evil. You are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I happen to believe that the baby is worth keeping. There is truth in almost all religions (I am not familiar with one that does not have some truth, but there could be one).

Relgionists crucified Christ; it would not surprise me today if he were to come among us again as a mortal that religionists would not again crucify him. In truth, I don't think we are so differnent today than we were 2000 years ago. In the name of religion many are persecuted, held in disdain, and cast out from different societies. However, I would contend that these are not true followers of Christ. They may know the name, but their hearts are far from the gospel of the Savior. I also have hope and know there are many, in different religions, that do much good. I hope that is a good is something you come to recognize and appreciate. ALso, they are good because of their relgion and not in spite of it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's call the No True Scotsman fallacy. Look it up. Oh, and if you read what Gio's saying, you'll see that what sets religion apart in terms of potential for abuse is its reliance on faith and rejection of logic and evidence. This unique feature allows religions to be unencumbered by the distractions of truth. Anyhow, that's what Gio appears to be saying. Al 05:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and to answer Strom, above, I'll try to make myself more clear. Religion is dogma and contains features which predispose it to abuse in a way that other social constructs without these failings (its defning methodology) do not. Note that this does not mean that they can not be also abused. They can. Its a question of looking at the respective ideology and method, and seeing what part of that core element is to be blamed for how it can be used or abused. I argue it has a great deal to do with it, that it lends itself to it. Also, note that it does not mean good can not be done, either under its influence. I recognize that potencial for good, too. This is not my argument, nor affects it. But my argument is not that its just a matter of bad leaders who can abuse a doctrine-- its that the "baby" is the core of what makes a religion religious that is the problem, the danger inherent to the nature of the thinking. That is not just the water, which can be thrown out to save what is the core. No, the core is part of the problem that you can't get rid of without changing what it means to employ a religious mind-set since that religious method (with its attributes asexplained before) constitute an essential defining character of the ideology. In order to effectively thow out the water but save the baby it would need to test all its beliefs under the rigors of the scientific method and reject those beliefs that are not warrented, i.e. what a rational mind would do adhering to logical methods of investigatng reality. It would have to adopt a conviction that its dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. It must be ready to declar itself fundamentally wrong, and flawed. Claims must be able to be verified. It must be supported by logic and rationality. Indeed, it must place reason, evidence, and the scientific method as a central commitment--to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism in seeking understandings of reality, solutions to human problems and answers to importantquestions. It just have a constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. I suggest that to do all this, we end up with something that can not be called religious by nature. Therefore, since this is what I think need to be thrown it, it IS the baby that needs to be thrown out and only some of the water is good to be saved.Giovanni33 09:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I believe I understand your point, I just diagree with it. The scientific method, just saying makes one feel a superior intelligence. "I have determined this is true by scientific deduction." The problem Gio is man's ability to think what he thinks is true by scientific deduction is limited by his own finite understanding. Looking back on science it is quite funny how completely backwards they have got things...I suspect they still do in many areas. Do not get me wrong, logic, reason, even scientific deduction have a place; but it is not the end all of things. I acknowledge that many of the things you are stating about religion are true, but we will have to agree to disagree on other points. Religion and faith has a place in the world. Let's move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Monotheistic Religion

I noticed there was some debate whether or not Christianity should be described as a monotheistic religion because some think the Trinity is contrary to monotheistic theology. A simple solution would be to write to the effect of "Christianity professes monotheism", because that won't be contested by anyone, or at least I hope it wouldn't be contested. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That is what I and other editors argued, or the alternative "self-defined," but those who have a certain POV that it IS monothesistic want to state it as a fact in the article, not that it is a POV of the adherents, hence, "professed monotheism," which would open the possiblity that there are other legitimate POV's on the nature of the belief. In order to make this NPOV edit stick we would have to get maybe at least 5 more editors here to balance the other side, or else all this debate will go around and around on the talk pages only.Giovanni33 02:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedic task is to define persons, places, and things as objectively as possible. Monotheism is the exclusive belief in one God. For Christians there is no God but one (1 Cor. 8:4). That is sufficient to classify Christianity objectively as a monotheistic religion. The Christian God is "simple" and "uncompounded" in his essence. To say that Christianity is anything other than a monotheistic religion is to make it into another religion. The only requirement is the belief and worship of but one God alone, and that is what Christianity does.--Drboisclair 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Were it so simple. That problem is that "one God" comes out looking more like three gods than one. If I were to say I believe in one color, the color Red. But then I also say I also believe in Blue and Orange, but this is just a version of Red--I only believe in one color! An outsider can look at that and say, ok, they profess uni-color belief, but I can see how others might look at those sets of beliefs and come to a conclusion that they are multi- or tri-colored in their beliefs. Since Wikipedia must be NPOV it should simply report what each signifiant group says: what Christians say about themselves and how others outside the faith look at it. What makes Christianity the religion it is might very well be, as you say--the professed belief in one god, but this does not stop it from at the same time professing belief in more than one god in other manners. The two are not mutually exclusive in a religious body of beliefs that are largely contradictory anyway. Such is the nature of the beast.Giovanni33 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Giovanni, is is that simple, except for those who are trying to dispute that Christianity is monotheistic. The reason it is that simple is, as I have explained again and again and again and again on this talk page, that the standard dictionary definition of monotheism is "THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS ONE GOD" not "the worship of one God". I don't know whether you keep forgetting this or whether you are deliberately ignoring it. If the definition of monocolourism is believing that red, blue, and orange are one colour, and I believe that they are one colour, then you can't say that I'm a tricolourist based on the fact that you think I'm looking at three colours. AnnH ♫ 09:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that argument. But things are not always as simple or clear cut as a dictionary definition provides. Also, we only know that the stated beliefs are, we don't know what is really believed (since we can't read people's minds). But looking at the beliefs, if one part says one god, but other parts suggest more than one god also as a stated belief, then does not the plural understanding have any weight or value, if not take over the singular pronouncement? Is monothesism merely the dogmatic assertion of a stated belief irespective of other stated, professed beliefs that could negate it? Is it possible to negate it if Christians openly say there are many gods at the same time they say there is one god? If not then the label monotheism just beomes another dogmatic assertion independant of the truth of the matter: is it a real belief in one god within the whole body of religious beliefs for the respective religion simply on the basis of an assertion that it is? This seems to just be saying that if Christians say its monotheistic then it MUST be so no matter what the reality is. For the reality is what they say it is despite the evidence to the contrary. Is that part of the definition, also?Giovanni33 09:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So there's a massive Christian global conspiracy to misconstrue what is inside a Christian's head?

Why not stop at monotheism? Maybe Christians "really" believe that the moon is green cheese - but they never tell anyone else, or for that matter, each other. Maybe Jews "really" are Christians and everything they state and profess to the contrary is an elaborate (albeit convincing) self-deception. I'm tempted to state that Giovanni "really" believes that Christians are trinitarian himself - he seems to have stated otherwise, but I choose to remain unconvinced by his assertion.

On a more serious note, the "reality" is that monotheism is the belief in one God. The evidence to the contrary would be belief in more (or less) than one god. And unless we have a "secret hidden beliefs extractor", we'll have to take the lake of professed belief in more than one god as evidence of lack of actual belief in more one God.Slac speak up! 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the professed beliefs are contradictory on this point as in many instances the professed beliefs are in other gods or god-like creatures. Just taking the professed beliefs--all of them on face value--its hard to say that there is only belief in one god objectively speaking. I agree it doesnt have to make sense, but to call soemthing objectively a belief in one god as a religion in whole seems to me to be taking just one interpretation of the Christian belief---those of the Christians themselves---and saying that other interpretations by outside parities are wrong. Should wikipedia take such a stance? WOuldnt it be both more accurate and NPOV to simply stated "professed monoth...?" After all that is still accurate and not controversial since that is exactly the case: Christians professed or self define as monotheistic.Giovanni33 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Contradictory" is a POV. I see it very difficult to, for example, say of an agnostic "although they are a professed atheist, it's pretty clear from their beliefs that they believe in God". And anyway, do such contradictions exist in Islam? How is it NPOV to state of Islam "Islam is a monotheistic religion" and of Christianity "is professed to be monotheistic"? That implies a value judgement right there. And this could not logically end with monotheism. Do we have to state that scientists believe that Ockham's razor eliminates creationism? Or must we say that scientists state that they believe that (since some are of the view that anti-creationism is a Satanic conspiracy?) The hedges under this proposal must be multiplied indefinitely. Slac speak up! 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory could be a POV for some matters where there are grey areas and matters for inperpretation. One god vs. more than one may be one of those grey areas, where it is a matter of POV. This is all the more reason not to take any one POV as the truth on the question. Certainly there are many things in the bible which are outright contradictions and this is not POV but fact. I don't know enough about Islam to make any arguments about how its represented on that article. But if they suffer from the same problem then it should also be corrected. Two wrongs don't make a right. I do know that Muslims dispute the notion that Christianity is monothesisitc, while they say they are. Should Wikipedia be in the possition to say Muslims are wrong and Christians are right? Ofcourse not. Dont mix up religion and science. The two are totally different animals. Ockhams razor is not a matter of subjective belief, its a logical principal, a tool for choosing one theory over another. And, with science we can dismiss those scientists who are creationists since creationism is not science, its not a scientific theory, and it is contrary to the scientific method and principal in every way. No serious scientist would take such a religious belief seriously on the same level as they would a scientific theory. With science it all about the objective evidence and peer review, verifiablility. Either the evidence fits or it doesn't. If it doesn't then throw it out for the one that makes the best sense and strongest case given all the data that is known. This is why the majority of scientists can agree on things. Those "scientists" who hold to creationist ideas are the extreme lunatic fringe and they are not taken seriously at all within the scientific community. With religion it is about a stated belief, its not about truth. With science is is about finding the truth, however much our conciousness always lags behind it.Giovanni33 10:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio don't bash your head against this wall any more. We have a classic religious vs humanistic definition clash. You and I have a humanistic out look and define people by what they do not what they say - ie they may say they believe in one God but they have what we could consider a contradictory way of defining this. Religious people tend to define someone by what they profess to believe in even if they then act in an incompatible way. According to Christian teaching you and I are destined for hell and no amount of being a good person or helping old ladies across the road will change this. Only changing what we believe will improve our eternal prospects. Sophia 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While it would seem fair that having more good points than bad points means we deserve to go to heaven; unfortunately God requires perfection. If we can't make ourselves perfect, we must find a way to be declared perfect in God's sight. Jesus took the punishment for our sins. If we believe this, that is good, but intellectual assent is not enough. We must put our trust/faith/committment in Him. (i.e. He must own us). I think many people forget this second part. They think, now that I've recited the special prayer I have a free ticket to heaven and can now go and do whatever I want for the rest of my life. ^ross ^nixon 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who do not believe that Christianity is monotheistic to show how it is not monotheistic. It is that simple. To those alleging that Christianity is not monotheistic, da, your POV is showing. According to the dictionary definition of monotheism Christianity is monotheistic. Talking about colors you can see that white light can be refracted into Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet, so it appears that one color is seven colors. All this is is an attempt to bash Christianity. Here is a good comparision: those disputing that Christianity is monotheistic are like those who dispute that an elephant isn't a mammal.--Drboisclair 13:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And those who know nothing about physics should avoid using the properties of light as an example. Actually what we call light is just the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the unaided human eye. What we really see is a continuum of spectra not discrete colours - we just identify the ones that the we can see the clearest. Now there's a great pantheistic analogy! To go completely off topic - there are actually only 6 colours but as 6 is the number of the devil Newton had to throw in indigo to bring it to a godly 7.

Back to the article - no this is not a bash at Christianity - it is a reasoned observation by people who do not accept the definition of the trinity as compatible with monotheism - something some Christians also struggle with. To me (and many Muslims) your theology is internally inconsistent. I assume this is recognised by the church powers that be which is why they make it a central tenet of faith. If you don't have faith then we have no reason to believe that 1+1+1=1. We are talking across each other as usual so I'm advising Gio to drop this as it's pointless - we're using the same words but talking a different language. Sophia 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What Muslims rightly challenge is whether (Trinitarian) Christianity conforms to Tawhid. This is not just that there is only one God, but that he is unified in nature, is absolutely above and is nothing like his creations, etc. It has always been understood that Christianity fails these strict requirements. The word "monotheism", on the other hand, was coined by Christians and has always been understood to include Christianity in its definition, in contrast not to Islam or Judaism but to paganism.

Giovanni's criticism, whatever its merit, is best aimed at the sources which have been restored (minus a few Christian websites and History for Kids) to support the word "monotheism"; ugly as they are, they're again proven necessary. What is needed is not for us to debate the reality of the situation on the talk page, but for Giovanni (or anyone else) to produce a reliable source which states otherwise. At that point, we may say there is a dispute, and discuss how best to characterize the opposing views. Until then, it's all original research.Timothy Usher 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is on those who do not believe that Christianity is monotheistic to show how it is not monotheistic." Why? I'm not saying whether or not I believe Christianity is monotheistic, but I do believe this conflict can be avoided altogether by just saying what I suggested above. This is not the place for discussions on the Trinity so no one really has to prove whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. It is, however, the place for reporting others findings about it. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source that says Christianity's definition of monotheism is unique. [1] Sophia 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some books: [2], [3], [4]. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my multiple Gods. How many times are we going to have this debate??? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

He who must not be named, I guess this an important topic to discuss. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have shown befeore with sources that it is disputed, so the POV should not be stated as if it were fact universally held to be true, but a POV where there are other legitimate interpretations for. For a more scholarly source here is the Oxford Journal of Theological Studies on the question of Polytheism and Christian Belief; by Michael C. Rea, University of Notre Dame, Indiana; Online ISSN 1477-4607 - Print ISSN 0022-5185 Copyright © 2006 Oxford University Press http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/57/1/133 I quote (to read the full article, you need a subscription):

"Christian philosophers and theologians have long been concerned with the question of how to reconcile their belief in three fully divine Persons with their commitment to monotheism. The most popular strategy for doing this—the Social Trinitarian strategy—argues that, though the divine Persons are in no sense the same God, monotheism is secured by certain relations (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) that obtain among them. It is argued that if the Social Trinitarian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then Christianity is not interestingly different from the polytheistic Amun-Re theology of Egypt's New Kingdom period. Thus, Social Trinitarianism should be classified as a version of polytheism rather than monotheism."Giovanni33 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash - Gio you beat me to it!) The paper from the Journal of Theological Studies (April 2006) is a very good Rs. [5] In fact KV will enjoy that one as it links to the egyptian polytheism. Sophia 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So you all are saying that I can believe in one God, but not be monotheistic (believing in one god)? I'll have whatever you're having, please. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. :) Would it be ok to post the full article? I don't because AnnH would consider it abuse of talk page, but my main concern is that its a pay per view article and so it might violate terms of use--but the abstract is freely available to see thta it is indeed a scholarly POV.Giovanni33 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We're saying that you can believe that you believe in one god, but you might be wrong. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that others who think you are wrong are not necessarily wrong themselves in thinking your wrong. The solution to fix this ongoing issue is incredibly simple, which is why NPOV guidelines exist.Giovanni33 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So if I'm not a Christian (which I never said I was :-)), believe in one God, you would say that I am not monotheistic? I'm so confused. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are not a Christian we don't know what you are so we don't know if your beliefs are more consistent with a concept of monotheism or polytheism.Giovanni33 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it's cute you think you know what I believe. Not quite. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I never assumed to know what you believe. I used "you" in a general sense; plus I don't think he who must not be named ever declares a religion for himself in the movies. If "you" (again - general sense) said that you were monotheistic and also believed in the Trinity, then some people would say you're not monotheistic. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the right link Gio the browser downloads the whole paper for free. LV remember that self definitions are fraught with dangers otherwise all the nutters who say they arewould be Jesus. Sophia 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So we couldn't say "this dude believes he is Jesus"? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course we can, in the same way we can say "Christianity believes itself to be monotheistic", but I would rather not phrase it that way. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so while of course we wouldn't say, "this dude is Jesus", we could certainly say "this dude believes he is Jesus". But we wouldn't say "this dude believes he believes he is Jesus", right, because we can't define other people's beliefs for them, right? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically what we are showing is that belief in the trinity and monotheism are considered mutually exclusive by some. As can be seen above some Christian editors consider this an attack on their faith in which they are not completely wrong as they are required to not doubt or question these things - otherwise it's a ticket next to me and Gio on the bus to hell. How to deal with this is currently one of wikipedia's very weak points. Sophia 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we could say "this dude believes he believes he is Jesus", but it would be unnecesary, because other people agree with him (so we could also say that other people believe that this dude believes he is Jesus). In the case of the Trinity and monotheism, we can't do that. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When we began to discuss this, several weeks ago, I pointed out that the definition of montheism is not "the worship of one God", or "the worship of one God in a way that non-believers find logical", or even (and this is important) "the belief in one God," but simply "the belief that there is one God". I'd type up a post stating that, and quoting the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary, and a smaller Oxford Dictionary of Modern English. Other dictionaries were quoted as well. Despite that, every time someone in favour of the "allegedly, so-called, self-professed monotheistic" argument would post something about how it's not clear that Christianity is monotheistic because other people don't find their belief in the Trinity consistent with monotheism. I would post again that monotheism does not mean the belief in one God, but the belief that there is one God. I'd go off and have dinner, and when I came back, I'd find another half dozen posts saying that since Christians believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they can't really worship one God. I'd explain the definition again, and within minutes, there'd be another post saying that belief in the Trinity wasn't consistent with worshipping one God. In desperation, I began to use ''''' so that the dictionary definition "belief that there is one God" would appear in bold and italics. I'd go off again, and when I came back, it would be as if I hadn't bothered to provide the definition. On one occasion, I even wrote, after I had posted the definition for the umpteenth time, that I knew that when I came back, the definition would have been completely ignored — as if it didn't exist. (And it turned out that I was right.) It wasn't that people were deciding that they knew better than the dictionary what monotheism meant; it was just that they didn't acknowledge that the dictionary said that, or even that I said that the dictionary said it.

I don't mind if people haven't been part of this talk page and they don't know about the dictionary definition that I provided again and again and again. But it gets a bit boring read the same "Christianity isn't monotheistic because even though they say they believe in one God, they seem to worship three" argument from people who were part of the original argument. This morning, when I saw the dictionary definition being ignored again, and the familiar argument was being made, I decided that I wouldn't just do bold and italics. So I did bold, italics, upper case and large font, and I explained that the standard dictionary definition of monotheism is "THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS ONE GOD" not "the worship of one God". Based on that, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but I'm beginning to wonder what size font I should use so that people will stop arguing from the position that monotheism means something different. Or maybe I should use different colours. Any suggestions? AnnH ♫ 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we ourselves conclude here; we're not supposed to do original research. It matters what people in other sources conclude, and you can't change those sources that say Christianity's claim to monotheism is questionable. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We're back to wikipedia's weak point - we have conflicting sources but one group of editors will admit no controversy. What do we do? I've opted for "give up" as I can't see a way round that doesn't involve a lot of bad feeling.

As an aside to this I would note that "NPOV" doesn't exist outside of what the consensus of editors defines it as. Slac speak up! 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup - wikipedia's weak point - a self selecting sample of editors are unlikely to hit NPOV on controversial subjects. Sophia 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the structure of this argument you'll see a particular theme. First we're asked to provide reliable sources which we have. The argument then changes to (basically) "it doesn't matter what they say as they are wrong". So I repeat - what do we do?? Answer - Give up and go edit something less controversial instead. Sophia 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say read WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Contrary to popular belief, we do include the fact that some critics disagree with the term "monotheism". And this is enough. We do not want to give undue weight to the minority that claim Christianity is not monotheistic. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But what we have is so contorted it does not conform to NPOV. Sophia 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But what is the less contorted alternative? The thing to stress is that the article can and should and does cite people and viewpoints that portray Christianity as not (properly) monotheistic. The expository problem is that diving into a theological car crash in the first half-sentence of the article is undue weight, and is what is given rise to this contorted debate. Slac speak up! 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the monotheism section of this article - it works so hard to not say some people think Christianity is not monotheistic - hence the NPOV problems. Sophia 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would vote, Sophia, that the article's subsection be edited to reflect the real conflict as seen by opposing scholars. It should be stated bluntly, boldly, and with references. I am against changing the intro in any way to accomodate this disagreement for the reasons stated by AnnH. As long as your edit is well written it will stick and it will not be deleted.

As a LDS I constantly and consistently contend with other Christians (newbie editors mostly, but not always) telling me what I believe; however, they do it with "references", some trivial, some complete falsehoods. It is not that big of a deal, but it does get tiring.

I do not know a single, sholarly Christian that with a straight face can say that the concept of the Trinity is perfectly understandable. It is not understandable, it is contradictory; but remember that it is also a mystery. Mysteries can not be understood by the majority of people, they must be accepted on faith.

Sophia, you are sadly accurate. Christian history has shown that Christians are vastly more concerned with what one believes than with one's actions. There is great wisdom in the simple statement, "by their fruits you shall know them". We are far more prone to condemn another for their beliefs regardless of the evidence of their good heart manifested by their actions. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be about trying to tell people what they believe. An encyclopedia should report all issues without bias - ie if you don't accept the mystery of the trinity then its claim of monotheism is defined in what is considered by some a unique and contradictory way. I haven't edited the paragraph yet as I can't think of a way to explain this without offense. I keep hoping a more knowledgeable editor add this written in a better way than I could!

On the wall of the church where the kids sing in the choir (a very nice no pressure open minded church!) is the quote "God wants spiritual fruits - not religious nuts." I like that alot. Sophia 09:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to some of the reactions of my comments above. 1) I do not appreciate the ad hominem snipe that I should not speak about physics: white light being refracted by glass prisms. 2) The definition of Monotheism is: ""the doctrine or belief that there is but one God." This is from Webster's Dictionary. Christianity confesses in its Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God ..." and there is volumes of explanations about the Christian doctrine of God that conforms with God's revelation of Himself in the New Testament. Any fair and impartial encyclopedia would allow an expert on Christianity to define what it is. Now we are told that Encarta or Grolier or Britannica does not have Wikipedia's sterling standard of NPOV, but by insisting that opponents of Christianity define it according to their bias is hypoctitical if it is called NPOV. Only Christianity nowadays has to suffer itself to be ridiculed, lampooned, and degraded. Let someone try to do the same to Islam or Judaism or Buddhism. Of course, I can see that editors have the NPOV sense to leave the article as it stands that Christianity is a MONOTHEISTIC religion like all other encyclopedias have it. Even though they do not have such an admirable standard of NPOV as Wikipedia. This argument is pointless because no amount of rhetoric will convince those who are set in their own POV.--Drboisclair 13:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Drdoisclair, your forte is not in science, as I've corrected you before when you asserted that atoms were only theoretical and we have not been able to see them yet. :) With color, it's not true that seven colors equal one color. White and Black are not really colors at all in the technical sense. White is somtimes described as an achromatic "color" because it contains all the different and real colors of the visible spectrum, which together are percieved as "white." But each color has a distinct energy frequency. In this analogy 'white light" is polytheism--it has many colors combined with it--NOT ONE. So if someone believed in white light they believed in the many different and distinct colors in the specturum. Hence they would be believers in poly-colorism, not mono-colorism.Giovanni33 20:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "I can see that editors have the NPOV sense to leave the article as it stands that Christianity is a MONOTHEISTIC religion like all other encyclopedias have it." Actually, Encarta does not label Christianity as monotheistic. I don't have access to Brittanica, but I would like to see how they deal with this issue. You also say "Only Christianity nowadays has to suffer itself to be ridiculed, lampooned, and degraded." I think that makes it clear that you haven't edited Islam-related articles. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

People, I think we have agreed to a solution...leave the intro to read Christainity is a monotheistic religion and then later in the controversy section. I think this proposal takes care of everyone's objectives. Sophia, please take an initial stab at it and then we will pitch in to assist and refine. Is that acceptable? Let's not continue to beat this horse. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, I understand what you mean about articles on Islam. I appreciate the civility with which you and Giovanni33 respond. I can see that you want to tackle this issue objectively; however, you do not see that it is a minority opinion that Christian monotheism is not monotheism per se. I wonder, respectfully, if either of you is trained in theology. I think, Giovanni, that you are well trained in philosophy. There is some difference to theology. I have 10 post graduate years in theology with a graduate masters, so I am not a "layman" when it comes to theology. Christians take the New Testament very seriously. It is not a matter of thinking out the doctrine of the Trinity out of our heads. Since we believe that the New Testament comes from God as, BhaiSaab, you believe that the Qu'ran comes complete as your miracle from Allah, so we are compelled to make sense of what God says in his word. As pointed out Christians began as a sect of Judaism, our Lord was Jewish. They took seriously the holy Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Adoschem is our G-d, Adoschem alone", or "is one." The New Testament reveals that there are one, another, and another who share deity. The Father is usually called God, the Son is called Lord, but sometimes God, and the Spirit is called both God and Lord. They are three distinguishable suppostita (subjects). They share together their reality or their being: you cannot have one without the other two. They are one: Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and "You, Father, are in me and I in you." This is unity of essence or being. The three of us as people BhaiSaab, Giovanni, and Drboisclair are perfectly three persons with essences completely separate from each other. This is not true of the God of the New Testament. We have tried to describe the teaching as one God in three Persons and three Persons in one God, but as you can see comparing it to what we commonly say is a person is a problem. Some of our theologians like Karl Barth and Karl Rahner have pointed out that sometimes our talk about the Trinity borders on believing in three gods instead of one. Much of the time we have an easier time in saying what God is not rather than what he is. This is called "Apophatic Theology." Suffice it to say that Christians try to speak as clearly about God as they can but sometimes language fails them. Read the Athanasian Creed. It gives you a clear understanding of what we say about the Trinity. Each of the three Persons of God cannot be spoken of as separate in being from the other two, so however we may be permitted to speak about the Persons it may not be in any way that denies the perfect Unity, which is God.--Drboisclair 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will have a go at adding to the section later but it requires a little work as I want to make sure my refs are good. In brief I feel the section needs to show that some Christians also reject the idea of the trinity, that the Christian definition of monotheism is considered unique, and that Christianity is considered polytheistic by some - not just tritheistic due to the concept of a supernatural evil (the devil) and saints/angels etc. I intend to be as succinct as possible to not give these views undue weight but for completeness they do deserve mention and links where appropriate. I won't sulk if anyone beats me to it! Sophia 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about POVs, it is about definition. As Musical linguist has stated, the definition of monotheism rests solely on belief, not on fact. Saying that Christianity is monotheistic does not imply that any doctrine or Christian belief is true; it does not imply that the Trinity is one God and not three. No, it only states that Christians believe there is one God. Now, regardless of whether the Trinity is one God, three, or ten, all that monotheism hinges on is belief. The Trinity could be 1,000 gods, but if Christians believe there is only one there, they are by definition monotheistic. Requiring that we state Christians believe they are monotheistic is like saying Christians believe that they believe there is one God. That (as Monkeysage said) is verbal tautology. Monotheism is the belief. It is in no way a violation of NPOV to say Christians believe there is one God--that is standard X believes/say Y. —Aiden 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And others believe the way Christians define their religion is wrong. We can and should quote that for NPOV. Sophia 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by that: that some think that the Christian religion is wrong (which is a truism not worth mentioning) or that Christians define their religion in a wrong way (which IMHO is not includable either, since a belief is what it is - it can be factually incorrect, it can be illogical, but saying that a belief is not that belief amounts to saying "No, you're not!") Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Christianity and all the issues within and without it. It is not quick guide to what Christians have to say about their religion. So yes - disagreements by others with how core beliefs such as monotheism are defined are relevant and should be included. Sophia 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, stating Christianity is monothestic does not say that it is right nor does it convey a POV. Let's assume that the Trinity is in fact 3 gods and Christians are wrong. Let's say that is a FACT. However, at the same time Christians believe the Trinity is actually one God (even though we know they are wrong). Do they worship one God? No. They only believe there is one God. Are they monotheistic? Yes. Belief is all the definition of monotheism hinges on. It is not concerned with practice or actuality. Whether or not they are right is irrelevent. —Aiden 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, Aiden. People have been trying to explain the difference between belief and worship for a long while, but no one seems to listen. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the great sacred cows of Christianity; there is one God and no other God. I can understand how people are getting rather "taxed" by the issue. However, we, as in everyone, have already agreed to state that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Continuing to defend or argue that it really is monotheistic seems pointless. Call the troops home the war has been conceded, there is no further conflict.

It is appropriate to do just as Sophia has stated; to give a countering viewpoint in the controversy section. It does not matter what other people think about your religion; you know what you believe. It is okay that others feel differently. Believe me, I know just how difficult this is. I deal with other people telling me what I believe and how wrong I am to do so weekly if not daily. It is okay that others think and feel differently. The fact that others think Jesus Christ was simply a nice man in no way diminishes the fact that he is the Savior of all. Let's pull back, give Sophia some time to edit and leave this alone for a while. I know Sophia seems like she would prefer others to write it, but I know that she is estatic, overjoyed even, to expend the effort to do so. I just feel off my chair laughing Sophia. I do appreciate that you are willing. Let's move forward now; there is nothing to defend. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are being ironic Storm Rider as believe it or not really I don't like conflict. I always hope that when I've explained my position others will understand even if they don't agree. I completely get the point that a Christian believes in one god but also maintain that in an article about Christianity all significant views should be included. I haven't edited yet as I've been busy in real life and I need some undisturbed time to think about this - something most editors will relate to I'm sure. And yes - I really would be more than happy to let someone else up their edit count with this hot potato. Sophia 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To be ironic would require a degree of intelligence beyond me. I was merely trying to introduce a bit of levity at the end. However, I also acknowledge that for historical Christianity this conversation is sacrosanct. As can be seen by the continued conversation this is very dear to denominational and individual theologies. I do not believe the Nicene Creed just developed out of thin air, but was a reaction to many influences, not least among them the simple question "How do you believe in one God and yet have a Son of God who is not God?" This question of the singleness of God has cost the lives of untold numbers of people who dared to dipute it.

At times I play martyr a Latter-day Saint. It is a rare Christian who does not begin by condemning my beliefs rather than attempting to uncover how much we have in common. I find this particular topic of great interest; I have never thought of myself as anything but a monotheist. However, this causes a great many other Christians to want to debate the issue. It is interesting because now the shoe is on the other foot and historical Christianity is being accused of not being monotheistic. Their reaction is very similar to my own; few things cause me more anquish than to have another person tell me what I believe and then condemn me for what they have projected upon me as my beliefs. I am not stating that that is what you are doing or proposing to do, but rather the effect may be the same.

Sophia, I value your comments and your participation. I first asked you to do these edits becuase I honestly believe you were the best person to do the job. I would encourage you not to be too concerned with being too offensive as you mentioned above. Be bold in this matter and state the counter point strongly.

My personal belief is that Christianity, in all its diversity, can be incomprehensible at times. It can be illogical; sometimes it is based upon the mere fantasy of its adherents. Regardless, the first thing that Christians are supposed to be are seekers of truth. Once having found those truths they need to take up their cross, not so the world sees, but that their Father in Heaven will see, and live a life in union with the Holy Spirit. It is something that all Christians fail at to one degree or another, but that should never provide an excuse for ceasing to try.

I truthfully look forward to your comments and I will support you in this endeavor completely. If you desire to work in unison, just email me and we can work together. All of our lives are busy and we should be able to help one another. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I just have to say I was amused by the 'great sacred cows of Christianity' reference, seeing how it stems from Hinduism. :-) Wesley 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I saw you smile when you wrote that. I was being more than just a little irreverent, but not malicious. We take ourselves too seriously sometimes on this page and I hope my levity, though misguided possibly, did not offend. Your comment made me laugh. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppose I belong to a religion that features numerous supernatural beings. Of these, several are or in the past have been worshiped by fellow members of my faith. Our holy scriptures clearly refer explicitly to different deities. Many members of of my faith pray to supernatural beings for their direct unmediated assistance. Despite this I claim that I belong to a monotheistic faith. Am I necessarily right in my claim? Am I justified in getting annoyed and offended if other people question my claim? (I'm sure everyone will catch the significance of these questions)

Many Hindus claim to be monotheistic. Does that claim settle all argument for Hinduism too?

The fact that I describe myself as something is not necessarlity good evidence that the description is objectively accurate, however much I believe it. Suppose I genuinely believe myself to be God: does that settle the question of whether I am or not? Nostick 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't settle it. But if I find a plethora of good references from reputable sources which state you are God, then it does settle it. As I think many people are fond of saying about the NPOV thing, "Wikipedia looks for verifiability, not truth". Now, the truth is that Christianity is monotheistic, it is quite verifiable that it is monotheistic, it has been verified to be monotheistic with a plethora of references. I think it quite nice that both truth and verifiability match up with each other quite nicely in this instance. Homestarmy 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But if good sources exist that disagree with your self definition then in an article about Christianity they also should be included. The biggest joke in all of this is that the obsession with being defined as monotheistic is caused by the demonizing of pagan religions by Christianity. Why should believing in one god make your religion better than others. Why is it considered an attack to be called polytheistic? I've been told that as an atheist I have a faith and belief system and although I disagree it doesn't make me feel attacked (misunderstood maybe) nor do I think these views should not be in the article on atheism as they are verifiable and significant. Sophia 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is the nature of the statement in question.

If Nostick claimed to be God and that claim would be spraypainted on every hill and roof top on the American contintent, it still wouldn't be true.

However, the term monotheism is clearly defined as the belief in one God. And since Christians state their belief in one God (excluding the theory that they are lying, which no one here is claiming) their religion is ipso facto monotheistic. Others might contest the logic or the coherence of their monotheism and for this we have the controversy section.

As for Hindus: if Hindus at the same time state to belief in a plurality of gods and to belief in one god, we have two contradicting statements and hence no clear profession of monotheism (though there is a way to included those Hindu monotheists in the respective article). Also, there are Hindus that do not make such monotheist statements.

Finally, Sophia, where is anyone demonizing someone or thinking themselves better. I believe Christianity is a better religion than Hinduism not because it is monotheistic but because it is true. If there indeed were many gods, monotheism would not only not be better but blasphemy.

The "attack" character lies in two aspects:

1) The insinuation that Christianity is not what it says it is. It is like, on a different level, an altercation. A: "I like strawberries" - B: "No, you don't"

2) The issue is used by Muslims as an attack on Christianity, as Islam stresses more than any other religion the oneness of God. So, Sophia, your complaint should be directed to the Muslims making that point, not to the Christians responding to it.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest joke in all of this is that the obsession with being defined as monotheistic is caused by the demonizing of pagan religions by Christianity. This is patently false. Christianity 'inherited' or continued the belief in one God that began in Judaism (meaning the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses et. al.). While Abraham affirmed belief in one supreme God as opposed to belief in various local gods (poly- or henotheism), early Christians believed in one God as opposed to the Roman pantheon or as opposed to the Gnostic system of various aeons and other spiritual beings. When some Gnostics tried to make their belief system compatible with Christianity, making out the 'Father', 'Holy Spirit', 'Jesus' and 'Christ' to be different aeons, Christians contradicted them saying they believed in just one God. This wasn't for the sake of "demonizing" the pagans, but for the sake of clarifying what Christians do and do not believe, and of course Christians think this is the truth, else they wouldn't believe it. If anyone is demonized in the process, it's a side effect, not the goal. Wesley 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the extra material discussed above. I hope it doesn't offend anyone as this truely is not my intention. I just want to see the article balanced and complete - maybe broadening sections such as this is what's needed to get it to FA status. Sophia 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Persecution

Whilst I thank LV for the citations (even though some don't exactly pass the RS test) I was actually looking for a quote saying that anti abortion violence and the troubles in Northern Itreland are persecution by Christians. Certainly the NI claim I have never seen - I live in the Uk so we do see the local news on issues there. This quote starts with the weasley "some people" - always a bad sign for NPOV and reliability. Sophia 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism refs

The point of me finding all those refs was that nobody could use the excuse "Well, the statement isn't backed up that thoroughly, that's an excuse to edit war over it because its not very verifiable!". I know of no reference policy which discourages or outlaws heavy referencing for obviously contentious statements. Most of the books I added because they were used as references in other references, so I went on the assumption that they back up the claim of the sentence, that and they have "monotheism" in the title and apparently involve Christianity. The "History for Kids" site I put in because it was apparently written by some collage history professor, but if people think its too immature or something I won't complain much. Homestarmy 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV pushing I removed

Okay, since my dear friend Gio chose to revert my removal of blatant POV pushing that had slipped in during the last few days, I will explain. The passage is:

"Scholars differ on the extent to which the developing Christian faith adopted identifiably pagan beliefs, such as the date for Christmas, the Sol Invictus cult, the Labarum, and ritual and priesthood of the Ancient Roman religion such as the Pontifex Maximus.^[1]"

There is no problem about the first part (not bolded), and the date for Christmas could be acceptable. However, the following (all of them recent additions) are sheer nonsense:

the Sol Invictus cult: Christianity has not adopted a Sol Invictus cult - it may have adopted certain symbols and other elements (one of them arguably the Christmas date), but that's not quite the same
the Labarum: is not in any way pagan but a field sign made by Emperor Cosntantine the day he converted to Chrsitianity. It doesn't contain pagan iconography but the two Greek letters Chi and Rho. Hardly pagan!
the priesthood of the Ancient Roman religion: was not adopted Christianity, as we don't see any Salii or Flamen moving around in churches. Instead we have bishops, presbyters and deacons - offices that existed since the first century. It was Paganism under Emperor Julian taht adopted the organisation of the church - but that attempt was short-lived.
Pontifex Maximus: yes, after the Emperor had resigned that title it gradually was adopted as referring to bishops and most of all, the Roman Pope. But that's a mere archaism that got stuck. There is not continuity of the office, as the PM had quite a different job from the Pope.

As a sign of good-will I (and because I did not intend to remove it) I will not re-delete the passage about "only legal religion" that Gio appearently loves so much.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like problems to me, what does Gio say about all this? Homestarmy 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the only real reason that I reverted was because I saw Str1977 also removed the part "I love so much," which was not mentioned in the edit summary. I know he has removed that part before on occassion, so when I saw he did it again, the result was my revert in whole including the other removals which, I am ok with either way at this point (leaving in with some minor corrections, per above, or taking out, also per Str's explanation)--as long as the part that I love so much is not removed. Giovanni33 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, Gio, case closed. Let me assure you that this time it was unintentionally. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of Christianity

Would it be possible for someone to create a map similar to this one representing distributions of Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians worldwide? —Cuivi é nen 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If the CIA factbook thing the picture mentions give information on Christianity I suppose it's possible.... Homestarmy 21:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

History section paragraph

Str, I did cease to participate in mediation, true. But you never did participate, instead you refused to make any compromise and ignored the mediator's request to formulate a compromise version. I made several concessions, even if small, and you made none. Bigger concessions from me may have followed if you would have actually worked with me in mediation. My version is superior as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, all of which override even editor consensus. It will remain until something better comes along. And without you actually compromising, that will probably not be happening any time soon.

KV(Talk) 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for thinking that you didn't post here (as I wrote in my edit summary).

But still, KV, my point stands. You completely ceased to participate in mediation but before that you didn't actually interact with my proposals. I never saw you making real concessions or aiming at a compromise. Your only concessions were first: to include statements "Some believe otherwise" or "Some disagree" with "your" version, and second: after much, much bickering to leave out irrelevant details. However, double mentioning of certain things and chronological nonsense still persist (and don't tell me that you book says so, because a) it surely doesn't and b) if it does, it is still wrong).

Nonetheless, I am still open to compromise. Please include a short treatment of Nicea in the proper place, if you will (Though personally I think that's overdoing one event).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching this slow edit war between you two over the last few days and would ask you both to iron out your differences here if possible as if an admin catches sight of this the chances are the article will get locked again - something we all wish to avoid I'm sure. Sophia 10:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand and agree, Sophia. I wish he would have been constructive during mediation and I still wish he would be so now. I am open for compromise. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it to arbitration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Christianity

KV(Talk) 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound overly blunt, but it seems KV is done with trying to be constructive with you Str :/. But just to add, I think you both should remember, the Arbitration Comittee doesn't like interfering in content disputes, only the conduct of editors and whatnot can be decided on, they won't stop any of the rest of us from changing the section to say something else if we don't do it while breaking civility and whatnot regardless of how anybody feels about their preferred version.Homestarmy 17:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a real stand off between these two so anything to break that will be good. If the Arbcom won't interfere I'm sure they will suggest a way forward. Sophia 20:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, it appears that the case will be rejected as a content dispute. Homestarmy 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

^ Pagan context (Christianity) Religionfacts.com. URL accessed on July 3 2006.

[1] Pagan context (Christianity) Religionfacts.com. URL accessed on July 3 2006.

[1]