Jump to content

Talk:Christianity/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

What is a Christian?

All of the current discussions bring a question to mind. What or who actually is a Christian? Most denominations believe that there is only one true Christian faith. At least the biggest do. (Catholic, Eastern orthodox) they say different in interfaith discussions but elsewhere the posture is so. Therefore the question in my mind is, Why the attack on small or unorthodox groups? Who really is a Christian? The harldiners here are sure JW's and mormons are not Christians because of the Trinity. Yet, each denomination and sects within each denomination have differing views on the trinity. Just google blogs for trinity. Everyone is a heretic because all these incorrect beliefs in the trinity are heresies. Since none completely agree on what the trinity actually, who really is a Christian if this is the measure of a true Christian? George 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest to you, that this question can lead to nothing but confusion, and has no place in this article. It is an unremarkable thing, to say that, to Trinitarians the Trinity is our faith, and our salvation. It is an unremarkable thing, if we say that those who dissent from this doctrine pursue a different idea of salvation. It is neither sinister, nor mean spirited to say that there can be no unity in faith with those who subscribe to a different faith. It is not some kind of insult, to invest in what is accepted as the truth - even if this means that some have a different idea of truth, or do not believe in truth at all. It is not somehow evidence of an unchristian spirit, if this insistence on agreement goes so far as to point out disagreement where it exists, and urges in the name of Christ, that we are to be of the same mind.
But all this is different from asking "what is a Christian?" - because your real question is, "what is not a Christian?". If it were possible to answer the first question, without answering the other, I would say that a Christian is one who seeks to be one, in thought, word and deed, with all those who believe in Jesus Christ in sincerity - to be one church, one soul resting in one truth, as the Father, Son and Spirit are one spirit. But there, you see, is the rub. So, I suggest that you leave this question alone - since we are all working with people who think they are the real Christians, and you are not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The confusion would not be my own. I brought up the questions because all there is among the differing sects is confusion. Especially where the trinity is concerned. Yet belief in it is held up as the standard for Christianess. God is a God not of disorder but of peace. We should give our worship with our power of reason. We should worship in unity and be of one mind and one faith. These are the requirements of being Christian. (It says so in the Bible anyway.) How can Christians be one of mind and faith if their faith is in disagreement over the elements of the most fundamental doctrine? I just want people to think. George 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"Yet, each denomination and sects within each denomination have differing views on the trinity."
Someone's gotta say it: you don't know what you're talking about. A.J.A. 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You need to read Trinity and [1]and[2]and[3]and...George 03:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not one supported your claim. A.J.A. 04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"How can Christians be one of mind and faith if their faith is in disagreement over the elements of the most fundamental doctrine?" I don't think anyone calling themselves Christian would say that their faith is in disagreement; we all proclaim that our faith is in God. As there does appear to be some disagreement regarding the nature of God (though not nearly as much as you seem to imply), it does appear that not all who call themselves Christian are one of mind and faith. As Mark said, there's nothing remarkable about this. Does it seem to you that the article doesn't already cover this adequately? Wesley 16:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wesley! I am disturbed by the attitude that JW's are not Christians. Your reply seems to affirm they are. George 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, this approach will bring only confusion, and the more clearly you understand what is being said, the more disturbed you would become. You can't put this in the article, without inventing a point of view for the article, through which you may channel your own point of view. So, the subject and question should be dropped. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I concede toyour logic. George 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is outlined in the Bible by Christ and by his inspired followers including Paul, John and James. These people warned that men would come in teaching false doctrine and bringing divisive sects. This has happened as Jesus said it would. Now there are thousands of sects and they disagree on the basics. Is God a Trinity? Is Jesus equal to his Father? is homosexuallity acceptable? some say it is because all sins are forgiven, while others point out the scriptural prohibition of it. The bottom line is a person can make any claim to be anything they want to be such as a claim of Christianness. Jesus will not be fooled by anyones claim. He said that those who do the will of his father are the ones who will inherit the Kingdom, while those who don't, won't. Kljenni 01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At least we agree on that. George 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

of course we agree.Kljenni 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify what a Christian truly is, if this is what all the debate is about. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, believes that He rose in three days, and trusts Him as their Lord. Tere may be other implications, but this is what has to be done: Acts 16:31 "They (Paul and Silas) said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.'" However, this does not mean that just because one person in a family becomes saved that all will. DebateKid 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to split hairs, but your phrasing implies a bias toward a literal and distinctly Protestant interpretation of scripture in reference to your statement "... this does not mean that just because one person in a family becomes saved that all will." Perhaps I am taking the wrong meaning from your words, but it would seem that you are saying that belief alone would save someone. Allow me to make clear I am not siding with any particular interpretation or understanding of scripture here, however one could make a strong case that the vast majority of Christians do not believe this (Catholicism in particuar, which makes up approximately 1/6 of the worlds population and is by far the largest Christian denomination). James 2:17-18 "So faith also, if it have not works is dead. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith." Also see James 2:24 "Do you see that by works man is justified, and not by faith only?" I suppose my point is that your response may be somewhat lopsided, and may not be an accurate account of "...what a Christian truly is..." if the majority of Christians would disagree with a portion of your definition (once again I may have incorrectly interpreted your post, and if so, I apologize) Guldenat 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Text Wrap

Do aesthetics matter where hordes tag templates of redundancy, ignore such voids as white space and work with primitive text tools because software is lacking. Where is the genius of open-source and if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, then let an old (April) fool who has only made one comment on this talk page (about Mary Magdalene), but watches the watchers who watch, put in his two cents. My only passion is the Wikibook Christianity, the road less taken, so far. Tried my hand at templates on my Wikiversity page. Discovered the possibility of scrolling templates which would lend itself to the aesthete and actually focus this page on the centrality of the Cross rather than that hideous space. What we would want to emulate is the magazine style page layout. Christianity should lead the way, let the words flow from this day forth. - Athrash | Talk 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, some have tried to hide the very contents, and if nobody cares or sees the light, then just shelf it. Christianity has its Brand X. Someone would have to prepare Christianity2 Template and all other related pages could display {{Christianity}}. The Pope is equally lacking good form, so where does it all end. - Athrash | Talk 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The simplest solution is to reduce the number of images, and left justify inline images. This does a lot for layout issues. Bytebear 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The real question should be, where does it begin. Lack of support from the programmers, BTW where do they reside? Search for whitespace management in WikiMedia and you get two sentences. Just seemed to me, Christianity was the poster page for whitespace, when the problem is obviously no text wrap around the TOC box in all large articles. It is eating people alive. Why did the Pope's image disappear? You can whitewash the Pope, but Hank Aaron, Jesus Christ! - Athrash | Talk 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of Jesus, what happened? to his template, that is. This is getting ugly and don't say I didn't warn you. One visitor to X Template (the experimental Christianity layout) labeled that page a sacrilege by removing Category:Christianity, so now the effort is also X-rated. Ok, I'll take all categories off to remain private until the unveiling. Wow, Jesus category is bound to Jesus template, so you can't even take Jesus out of Brand X. Yet, revisionists here have taken Jesus out of Christianity, the article is no longer listed under Jesus category, and somehow, the faithful patrol, fail to act. Since this discussion has not been archived, public airing will demonstrate this and other deficiencies in Christianity itself (the article). Though quite colorful, is the map now at the top worthy of lead, especially since one cannot read the percentages on thumbnail and it is available under Note 4. Playing the map game, X marks the spot under Ecumenical instead, then removes red links, takes out heretical under beliefs, keeps mainstream, puts portal under See Also, thinks the contents are rather important and the Christianity template somewhat redundant and gives the Quran one up, final sentence. - Athrash | Talk 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The last straw, CB took X (Template) out of main namespace by removing {{Jesus}} while this was the big question still under discussion. In the present article here, somebody removed the "Word of God," changed the Sabbath (red link misspell actually) and nobody cared. Revise the whole article, then maybe a consensus, form over substance this time around. Will follow-up with minute details. Stay tuned. - Athrash | Talk 04:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No {{unreferenced}} template on Ecumenism unless one is added to Christian Love, rather disruptive, love with no source. - Athrash | Talk 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not enough difference between 3rd and 4th level subheadings, therefore indentation and italics on 4th level. - Athrash | Talk 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (Beliefs) which include: this addition changes the outlook toward headings Sin and Salvation and Afterlife (first), a better read. - Athrash | Talk 07:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Brass serpent is much more elegant terminology than snake pole, lift it up.
  • Under The Trinity, trinitarian Christians was repeated when the footnote for the first referred to Reformed. - Athrash | Talk 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks DumbBot, your efficiency is dumbfounding. Give me time to get X Template out of namespace.
  • Why scroll Christianity template (which is not an official template). It was already hide/show part of the contents, evidently because the thing was too long, so what's the difference, nice centered cross, lift it up. - Athrash | Talk 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks SigPig, Darkeagle's last edit had basic structure link and I did not have time to follow all the odd ones. - Athrash | Talk 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Update, looks like the whole community went to sleep on 4-25-07. User A with "online link suggesting tool" added the "bs" that SigPig finally deleted above. At the same time BV deleted a whole sentence under Christian Life with the justification "fix link" which left Ten Commandments as the object of this "love" which would enable feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and other good works. Nobody even read it, just like the Sabbath glitch.
  • Jesus summarized the commandments in Matthew and that was relegated to a footnote. With all these (down) signs, I may post user box on my page "User interested in another Church." - Athrash | Talk 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This flight of fancy finally caught the attention of the right person, thanks, User:041744. Speaking of user boxes, one taken from that user's page is most appropriate —

This user likes to keep things organized.


So, first came {{Jesus}} then came {{Christianity}} in the cosmic order of things, (right) down the line. Peace be with you!!

The {{Template:Christianity}} could be reprogrammed to permanently show the three hidden sections. - Athrash | Talk 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Christianity, multiple religions?

Formerly I posted saying that Christianity, as refered to by the world today, is really many diferent religions. There was a lot of input on the subject,but no final overwhelming opinion. Therefore I am taking a vote on my talk page (to conserve space here) EVERYONE VOTE, WE NEED TO BRING IT TO A CONCLUSION. Thank you! Zantaggerung 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Everyone please vote, I NEED EVERYONES OPINION ON IT!

I didn't find the vote on your Talk Page but, if I had found it there, I would have suggested that you move it here as this kind of vote/discussion should be held here. Any result will seem more legitimate if the vote/discussion is held on an article Talk Page rather than a user's Talk Page. Don't worry about "conserving space". There's plenty of space, we won't run out.  ;^) --Richard 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a vote to be any way to bring this to a conclusion as the facts of the matter are so glaringly pointing in one direction. Nevertheless, if it pleases Zantaggerung, so be it. I move the vote over here and also voiced my stance. Str1977 (smile back) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth by politics. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Absurd. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks Christianity is. Either find a source that says Christianity is multiple religions, and cite it, or else we can't say that. It's very simple. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is in English and often tend to denote the Anglo-American POV rather than a universal view. This is the case with this issue too. Since most of the west is Christian, a person who is enquired about his/her faith, replies with the denomination. Afterall if someone asks me where am from, I don't reply am from earth (unless I want to be sarcastic or funny), but would state my nationality. But in the East Christians hardly mention about the denomination. I think wikipedia should be rather considering universal concepts rather than Anglo-American bias. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote under the heading that you agree with. Only vote, no debate to be held here. Vote by putting a # sign and follow it with four tildes to sign and number your name. Thank you! Zantaggerung 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is original research. Refer yourself to wiki guidelines on that. There is enormous body of literature, popular and academic, that uses this convention. For your own personal advancement, i suggest you study more, and refrain from attempting to redefine this word, or find another pulpit. The Jackal God 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto that. LotR 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Christianity, as refered to by the world in general today is more than one religion

  1. Zantaggerung 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. A•N•N•A hi! 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Eldrichgaiman 16:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) - Ask a Lutheran what his religion is and you will hear "Lutheranism". Ask a Catholic, and you will hear "Catholicism". There are less-than-subtle differences in the way the followers of each form of Christianity live their lives. If you need a citation, you don't even need to go any further than a couple of titles, for instance: The religions of democracy;: Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism in creed and life, by Louis Finkelstein
  4. Philsgirl 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC) i dont agree with the above statement... i think you might have got confused with 'branches' of christianity, true you ask some christians what they follow and some will say the branch of christianity they follow, but at the end of the day it is all under the VERY broad heading of christianity
I've been asked to clarify this... i still disagree with the statment it's a bit like having non-fiction and fiction books... they are still books. Does this help??? personaly i don't think it is but i do belive the world sees it that way :) Philsgirl 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No I think Christianity is one religion

  1. Str1977 (smile back) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. ElinorD (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. A.J.A. 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. LotR 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) ...as per the standard, centuries-old definition
  5. Pastordavid 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) ... and this is not the place for the scholarly OR that would say otherwise
  6. Storm Rider (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Richard 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. DebateKid 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. DerMeister
  10. Wiki San Roze talk 12:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC) It can be concidered two religions only when the supreme God be seen as two different Gods, like seen within Hinduism in the middle ages.
  11. Brisvegas 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC) There is broad agreement amongst the groupings over the most important aspects of the religion - the importance of Jesus, loving others as oneself, the power of prayer etc. So generally speaking, it is one religion with a variety of interpretations.
  12. Philip Auguste 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Philip Auguste
  13. Scibah 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) We all belive in the Trinity, which makes Christianity one faith.

Voting is evil, decisions are made by consensus, not votes

Comment Voting is evil. Decisions should not be made by votes but by consensus. See WP:VIE. However, straw polls are useful for determining consensus (or lack thereof). --Richard 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. Born2x 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ian Goggin 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC), but saying that the convention is for Christianity be referred to as a religion.
  3. As my previous edit summary would show,[4] I agree with this too. ElinorD (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Str1977 (smile back) 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Pastordavid 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) yep.
  6. Pure evil and pointless Sophia 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Slac speak up! 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) such a pointless exercise.
  8. SavagePine voting is just as evil as christianity
So you do agree with WP:VINE then? Nice that some people aren't being so...mmph...DOGMATIC about WP:VIE! bwahahah.... Homestarmy 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Voting is stupid - which is why democracy is stupid - and wikipedia should not be ruined by voting, that's all I'm saying. Savagepine 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even having this poll?

We aren't religious scholars. We aren't qualified to vote. What do they have to say about this? Whatever happened to using scholarly sources and attributing statements about Christianity to the scholars who actually said them?

  1. Iamunknown 17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Jkelly 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. As my previous edit summary would show,[5] I agree with this too. ElinorD (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. A•N•N•A hi! 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. LotR 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Str1977 (smile back) 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. George 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Pastordavid 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC). Yeah, this too.
  9. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) - This is ridiculous. You can't decide a matter of fact by polling. What do sources say about the question? That's all that matters.
  11. Aaarrggghh. Sophia 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Vassyana 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Fishal 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Slac speak up! 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. MPS Dictionary.com: Chris·ti·an·i·ty = "the Christian religion"... but I don't invent the word meanings. see essay:WP:NOTLEX. MPS 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

People! Is Roman Catholascism christianity? ( as the world thinks of it) Is Lutheranism christianity? (as the world thinks of it)

Are they the same religion?

This is the question of the poll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the answer is yes. A.J.A. 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are all missing my point! We are humans living on earth! I am asking you, as ordinary, people whether or not you think Roman Catholoscism ( for example) and Mormonism ( for axample) are "christian"(as the world thinks of it) religion/s! If you think they are, do you think they are the same religion?!!! Come on people! The reason I think this is important should be obvious. I am trying to find out if the world thinks that christianity is more than one religion, for the purpose of finding out if the Christianity article is incorrect in its statement that christianity is a religion. Zantaggerung 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And again ... look at the consensus: that is not the definition of Christian provided by reliable sources. Our opinions are not what an encyclopedia is for. According to the definition that is documentably from reliable sources, Christianity is a religion (not religions). Roman Catholicism is, as the world thinks of it, is a denomination (or a communion, or a tradition, depending on your theological bent) within Christianity (Mormonism is one we debate here, reflecting the ongoing debate and disagreement in the scholarly community on that one). Bottom line: we don't decide the definition -- we describe definitions that are already in use by reliable, NPOV, sources. -- Pastordavid 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point again, but I can't explain it any better than I did. Sorry. Zantaggerung 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell why our opinions as individuals are relevant to the project of writing Wikipedia. Even if all of us happen to think that Christianity is multiple religions, we still can't include in unless we've got a reliable source saying so. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with GTBacchus. Consider a different example to make it more clear: If a poll of Wikipedia editors indicated that the majority of Wikipedians thought that, say, the moon was made of cheese, we would not include as fact in the article that the moon was made of cheese. We would instead look up the leading astrological sources, include the chemical composition in the article, and provide a citation. Essentially, what we as individuals think about the moon or, in this case, about Christianity, is irrelevant. What do a majority of scholars think about Christianity? That is the question we should be asking ourselves and we would not do that with a poll, but with a library and a notepad. --Iamunknown 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes a poll can be a useful shortcut to understanding what people know (and think). In this case, Zantaggerung can now tell that he is in a distinct minority. Presumably, all who have voted have considered his point and made their decision on what they know. I would think that, if there was any significant scholar who argued that Christianity should be considered "many religions", one of the editors of this wrticle would have cited that scholar by now. But, sometimes, it takes an overwhelming consensus to convince the minority that they are wrong. That's what this poll is doing. --Richard 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair assumption, but when dealing with esoteric or controversial topics, which Christianity could be considered, it would be an inadequate metric. What I would prefer to see is fact finding, book reading, and library searching like at Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. --Iamunknown 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a major difficulty here is that the world consensus is to call Christianity one religion despite Zantaggerung's valid arguments that it could also be considered to be many religions. Thus, it is almost impossible to find any reliable source who will even discuss why it is considered one religion and not many.
I did a Google search on "Christianity many religions" and came up with this...
TheologicalStudies.org] provides a list of the 12 major world religions and provides a list of criteria for determining whether something is a religion. We can quibble with the criteria, etc. but at least we have a starting point for discussing what is and is not a religion.
Googling for "Christianity multiple religions" turned up this...
An argument from a non-notable atheist that Christianity is really multiple religions. Is there a notable atheist that makes this argument?
Oh, I just remembered that, in addition to "denominations", the other word that is used for describing branches of Christianity is "traditions".
--Richard 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not impossible, IMO, but very difficult for the reasons you laid out. --Iamunknown 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Zantaggerung, I can see your point. In fact, it is because I could see your point when you made it that I encouraged this discussion. However, after mulling it over for a while, I have decided to "come off the fence" on the side of Christianity being "a religion" rather than a "set of closely related religons".

Here is my reasoning...

You are trying to impose a very specific definition of the word "religion" which flies in the face of a very widespread popular usage. Both in the academic world and in the popular press, Christianity is generally referred to as "a religion" so as to distinguish it from other religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Now, every major religion has sects, denominations, whatever. Islam has Sunni vs. Shiite. Buddhism has Theraveda vs. Mahayana. The Buddhists argue over whether there is an "eternal Buddha". I forget at the moment which side believes there is such a thing and which side does not. Check out Buddha for the details.

My point is... should we call Sunni Islam a different religion from Shiite Islam? Should we then say that Islam is a set of closely related religions? Should we say that Buddhism is a set of closely related religions as well? We could. And, if we were defining a formal language such as a programming language, we might very well do so. But, this is not the standard usage of the word "religion" in natural language and we are obliged to follow standard usage. To depart from standard usage would be original research.

Natural language is different from formal language and this is one of the ways that it is different. Despite what adherents may think, Christians are more alike than they are different. The same holds true for Sunni/Shiite Muslims and Theraveda/Mahayana Buddhists. That's why each of these major religions is considered "a religion" instead of a "set of closely related religions". And yes, part of this issue is laziness and sloppiness on the part of people when they talk and write. But you won't change this and, even if you wanted to try, Wikipedia is not the place to start. Wikipedia will use characterize Christianity as "a set of closely related religions" when the rest of the world does.

--Richard 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that Lutherans are Roman Catholics are considered Christians, but that does not mean that they are different religions, they are simply different denominations of the same religion. Therefore, Christianity is one religion. And Mormons are not Christians, they are a cult, because they don't believe the basic doctrines of Christianity. DebateKid 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh Oh, I missed that in the Book. Where did Jesus say what the basis doctrines were of being a follower or disciple? That's right, those doctrines and parameters did not come until several hundred years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So the question is who gets to decide what a Christian is, Jesus Christ or men? As for me and my house, whether LDS or not, we will follow the Lord.
I generally detest this quality of discussion about Christianity. It is based more on emotional reaction. Zantanarung starts out painting Catholics and Mormons as nonChristian. Then we get to the point that Catholics are Christian but Mormons are not. Not once did anyone turn to what the Savior defined as a follower. We seek out the definitions of men first?! That makes little sense; from whence does wisdom flow?
Anyone that has ever studied Catholicism or its history must readily come to a conclusion that this is a believe that is deep and majestic. It is built firmly upon Jesus Christ and is most assuredly Christian. I likewise believe that anyone that studies The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would come to the conclusion that it is based upon their understanding of Jesus Christ. Do Catholics and LDS believe the same thing? Do the other 34,000 sects of Christianity believe the same thing? No they don't. There are wrinkles of differences in all of them. I love to talk about Christianity, but I still reject those petty conversations that amount to "my house is better than your house". --Storm Rider (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it of been easier to reject this formerly almost 2 month old conversation by ignoring it....? Homestarmy 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

collaboration

The collaborative environment on this page has collapsed. No profitable participation is possible - edits with reliable sources are reverted without discussion. Discussion is ignored, and obstinate misunderstanding trumps patient explanation. Votes are substituted for research. This page is a prime example of a broken process. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

go easy on the page, it only mirrors Christian unity. The Jackal God 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You have cynical wit; but you're not incapable of telling the truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been away from this page for a few days due to pollen counts over five thousand, but if you're talking about the "a religion/the religion" thing, I have found that it is often considered very bad to change things in an article that are under heavy debate on any article talk page concerning any topic. Of course, I don't know what you did, so I can't say whether or not the person who reverted you may of been justified or not. Homestarmy 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to basics

I understand some editors may disagree that Christianity is a religion. I understand some editors may object to certain terms becuase they perceive a potential problem with equivocation. I understand many people have many opinions regarding religion. However, Wikipedia articles are not the place for our personal opinions. We must rely on the common discourse when discussing such a broad topic as Christianity. We cannot build our own logical arguments or build an argument from Scripture to support our views. If most reliable sources use a particular term or frame Christianity in a particular fashion, that is what this article should reflect. If a dissenting view is to be presented, it needs to be given only a passing mention and it needs to be attributed to a verifiable reference. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything that is said here; however, simple sense should not be thrown out the window. Language requires context for its meaning. We must choose terms that make sense in their context: not invent terms, but choose terms that arise from a comparable context. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This may seem to be a hard thing, or too difficult for folk like us. But that's why we need to put our heads together, to think things through. When demonstration and good-will prevail, in making such subtle decisions, this is what makes the difference between a crap article, and a good article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Documenting consensus decisions.

I mentioned this on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and User:George m suggested that I mention it here as well so here goes...

The experience that I'm sharing comes from working on other articles such as Aztec and United States where there are repeated controversies and where it is easier to simply document the consensus and the rationale behind them. If the explanation is short, it is done as an "in-line" comment in the article itself. If it's long, it's done on a subpage of the Talk Page. Once that's done, it's easier to mention where to find the explanation than to re-explain things to every new editor that comes along.

--Richard 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen! -- Jonathan Swift 10 April 2007

Doubts on this article

The following sentence from the introduction gives a good example of some doubts I have with this article in general: Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

Amongst others: - It suggests that christianity is a single organisation/faith (and sort of contradicts with While there have been theological disputes over the nature of Jesus, most Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human). from a bit further down the article (under Jesus), instead of an umbrella of religions & cults with some related principles (this applies to article such as islam and buddhism, as well). I guess we've all seen some christian (religion) attacking another christ-following religion as not being 'christian'. - The overall traditional PoV in the article. Pointing back to my previous point: with such diversity within christianity it's hard to find out what the majority thinks. Even the largest christian organisation, the roman-catholic church, is very divided.

For an encyclopedia I think this article is not neutral enough. But considering this is subject is controversial and multi-faceted I doubt this will ever happen. Syrion 21:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are aiming for "objectivity", not neutrality. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A neutral point of view is not a point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, english is not my native language. And I'm wondering what you're meaning with the last remark. Syrion 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
When we speak of a neutral point of view, we mean that we are neither biased in favor of, nor against, any particular point of view - instead, we mean that we will use attributable, reliable sources in a non-argumentative manner. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In other words, we will put our emphasis on building content, instead of building arguments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Mark, this guy is making a great point and you are deliberately blocking it. Why? 213.140.6.119 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well sr., for the record I didn't "block" anything. Regardless, there is a difference between objectivity and neutrality, which I've simply pointed out. Pointing out what the rules are that govern editing is allowed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
He's certainly free to disagree; or to point out that I've misapplied the rule. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Significant overhaul of the subject is needed

This article is horribly unbalanced in terms of the amount of time given to various segments and the amount of time given to certain denominations.

I believe that we need a discussion of Jesus, who he was and what he espoused (in summary form) and then a much more focused discussion on the history and timeline of christianity and the various churches.

There are so many branches and sects of Christianity, that this can only be an overview. However, the history deserves more attention and the specific theologies deserve less attention. The current slant and terminologies used are far too heavily biased toward the Catholic church, for example. Liturgy, trinity, confessional, purgatory... are terminologies and doctrinal matters which many Christians do not even address as part of their faith.

My practical suggestion is that the major areas should be: - Christ (and His message and personal background) - the historical context of His life (the Roman Empire, the climate in Galilee/Judea, etc.) - the principal common beliefs in a much more abbreviated form (eg, addition of spiritual element without digressing into areas like the Trinity which many Christians do not accept) - the history after his death down to today (including splits in 1st C., patronage by the Roman Emperor, the various lineages from the 1st C. Churches to the modern day, etc.) - some attempt to classify groups beyond simply Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism (which has become the basket to toss anything in which can't be classified at Catholic or Orthodox). The Protestantism classification needs serious reconsidering here.

All other subjects such as Biblical scholarship, the detailed doctrines of major religions, the discussion of resurrection now or later, etc. need to be diverted to other pages.

213.140.6.119 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

that seems a rather poor response and doesn't fit with the Wikipedia official encouragement to be bold!!!
The point is that this page has been hijacked and is not really about Christianity or the history of Christianity. As it is a central page it would be better to reorganise and reduce discussion to historical aspects and direct detailed discussion on the various theologies to other pages. I really think this should be pursued and we are not talking about the page on how to preserve butterflies.  :) 213.140.6.119 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You have me on some of this stuff. We don't want to get too specific into individual theologies that only certain sects hold - e.g., ideas about transsubstantiation, yada yada. But you lost me when you started saying we shouldn't include doctrines like the the trinity. There has been much discussion on this page on this subject, and it's been generally agreed that the trinity is nearly a universal Christian understanding. It is agreed that, because 99% of Christians fit into a sect that preaches trinitarianism, and because it's a key doctrine to these sects (if not the key doctrine), that it ought to be included.
Also, if you can find any groups that don't fit into the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant fitting, I would be surprised. There are some groups which are borderline Protestant - Mormonism being probably the head of these groups. I cannot think of anyone that altogether falls outside this grouping, though. Traditionally, people that identified with other religions are not considered Christian. One cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at once, or a Buddhist and Christian at once.
However, on the rest of your comments, I agree. The person of Christ and his history would be very fitting and encyclopedic; it is strangely muted from this article. A discussion of common beliefs is necessary, but should be more condensed than it is now - not so much about liturgies and the like. Following that, then, a history of the church. The only part we might run into trouble is categorizations - I agree they could use a change, but please understand there are politics to all of this.
Hope this answer helps. Patstuarttalk·edits 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
that there are politics I have no doubt. That is my central point.
The consensus that the trinity is a widely held belief is not the concensus of those who widely hold beliefs, if you see my point. I am astounded by the lack of understanding that there is an entire Christian world which shares little or no doctrinal beliefs with Catholicism and little or no common history. Protestantism is a Catholic centred definition of those who came out of Catholicism. An Anglican or a Lutheran is a protestant...but come on...American Baptist's share a common text with Catholics and little else. They are not "protestants". They are Baptists.

Baptists are Protestants. They actually have a lot in common with Anglicans.

Anyway, for your other comments I thank you. The balance of treatment needs a significant overhaul and the prevailing POV...or, rather, the POV of the self-appointed "guardians" of the page is seriously in question. I think that the main tenets of Catholocism, for example, are better dealt with on the page dealing with the history of the Catholic church. 213.140.6.119 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As an actual Baptist, I find that highly offensive: we most certainly are Trinitarians. A.J.A. 16:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be great to open this page up and clean it the logic and the biases. Why was it blocked? 213.140.6.119 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some things to consider.

If this article was being written in 800 AD, what groups would not be listed here?
Christianity has existed for some 2000 years. For the first 1500 years, liturgy was a common tenet among them all. Maybe in the last 400-500 years some Christians have diminished their practice of liturgy, but they are a miniscule part of the entire group referred to as Christians.
Esa made a great point. Notice how you all rose up in defense of the meaning of Christianity - it's common tenets - when he suggested his new Church is Christian, but it doesn't adhere to the body of Christian tenets passed down over the ages, since the first millennium in increasingly fragmented form. There's a stark contrast between esa's pop-up Church, and the long-standing Churches, referred to as Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - branches of the same tree (Christianity), whereas esa's Church had nothing to do with those Churches, or their common predecessor.
The same applies to other Churches that claim to be Christian, start-ups that have nothing to do with the C/O/P Churches, yet claim to be Christian. This is known in today's capitalist society as piracy, copyright infringement, and false advertising, and in some cases, creative accounting.
Hence, if this article was being written in 1880, or in 1840, certain other claimants would receive similar treatment.
For some reason, a few persons think when it comes to the definition of religion and Christianity, it's a free-for-all, and everyone's personal interpretation matters (Thank you, ML).
This is not the case. We need to cite sources, reliable sources. Reliable sources can and does include religious sources.

maybe like: http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm very informative of LDS The Jackal God 01:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is proper balance between a free-for-all (no one is suggesting giving free time to all sects on this central page) and the rigid 3-branch classification. Your comments show that you are not very familiar with the period 0-500 A.D. Protestantism is a Catholic-centric definition. As Catholicism itself was being established, which undoubtedly did not occur overnight, it was only one branch of Christianity existing at the time. This article entirely ignores the other branches of Christianity which were contemporary to Catholicism in its infancy, as has been pointed out. Due to the political support and patronage it acquired, this branch became a dominant branch.
The putative "common beliefs" on this page need to be reduced both in the assertions of what beliefs are common and the length of time devoted to each. Other major doctrines of major religions or faith-specific interpretations of these doctrines or beliefs (there is a difference) need to be expanded on other pages. As one writer points out above, Catholicism itself has various schools of thought on major doctrinal issues. One only needs to examine the doctrines upheld by the Catholic churches in America and those emanating from Rome.
This page really should be a spring board to the detailed links. In its current form, it is a patchwork of thoughts with many assumptions that Catholic tenets are widely held tenets. Catholicism is the single largest denomination and certainly deserves adequate inclusion on the merit of dominance alone, but other central issues (theological and historical have been ignored. Osh'b'gosh 07:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Due to political support and patronage? Are those the only reasons some of the crazies didn't take over? Sociologists never give Divine Providence and common sense enough credit. Plz teach me about 0-500 AD. (STR - aren't you policing personal attacks?)
If you want to throw in all the heresies that didn't make it - go for it, just make sure you correctly assert that the ideas were repudiated and rejected. (no need to provide rationale, as that's entering into POV territory - like for instance, some note that since they did die out, obviously they were not the One, but that goes way o'er the top of some things.) anyways, I thought the heresies have their own pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Also reducing the explanations sounds fine, but should stick to what is officially expounded as doctrine, not individual members' personal beliefs; for instance, Catholic doctrine as expounded by the Vatican - that way American Catholics can find out what Catholicism is all about. Doctrine vs. dissent. Springboard for links sounds great.
Protestantism has been in use 500 years, and it has a nice ring to it. If you don't like the way it's Catholic-centric, write a book and change the world, don't use wikipedia. The Jackal God 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I read this section a few points come to mind. It seems there is some confusion over the topic. This is not the Jesus article, but is more focused upon those who follow Him in an organized manner. Attempting to focus the article more on the first 500 years would fail the purpose of the article and its application to readers today. Those topics are valid and of strong interest, but they have their own subarticles. However, (and as an aside) I reject the logic that because they "failed" they were wrong or false.

I think the article appropriately focuses on majority views or beliefs. We are striving to describe Christianity and when the majority of Christians, Catholics, have a uniform belief system this article should reflect that. The article currently is written in such a way as to be focused on majority, but not to the exclusion of others groups.

One suggestion above is to review some of the terminology that is used because it is too "Catholic". That may have value and should be looked at by the group. As we write for the average reader, does the description of worship, etc. in the article give the impression that anything that does not follow exactly equate to being nonChristian? Many Protestants do not use the terminology used nor do they follow worship in the manner described. Today, I haven't made up my mind and would like to hear from other editors. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that the article digress into a free-for-all. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite. 1) that the debate on theologies be reduced and those subjects addressed on other pages (the life of Jesus can also be addressed further on other pages, but - as He is the founder or inspiration for the entire movement - more adequate treatment of the historical context of this new religion and the main pillars of His philosophy/theology/teachings is pretty fundamental), 2) that the 0-500 AD period be given more flesh (not that it be the focal point) as this is a critical formation period in Christianity (although perhaps less well studied) and, 3) that the entire article be less biased in terminologies used which I find overly Catholic-centric (no slight to the Catholic church or the scholars within it who have been responsible for preserving significant portions of Christian history).
Thank you Storm Rider for your comments because they show a moderating approach to the subject. I have been a bit controversial in some of my comments, in this and other sections of discussion, for the purpose of getting attention (one arrives and makes edits to a living encyclopedia and finds that it is not open to contribution as advertised). If people are willing to rethink, that would be a positive result and would, in my view, produce an article which is much more informative and can serve as a significantly more coherent springboard to the many sub-articles which this subject deserves. Osh'b'gosh 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you give any specific examples of what in the article is Catholic-centric? A.J.A. 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Does something seem like its missing from the lead?

After reverting some terribly blatant POV pushing about circumcision which was placed in the lead, I noticed that it seems far shorter than it was a few days ago, but I can't seem to figure out what's missing....and even if nothing is missing, this is certainly much too short of a lead for an article this long. Homestarmy 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems User:Philosopher1 is quite adament about this Circumcision thing, and I think it might be useful to give a little bit of effort to dismiss it. Makes Christianity of note according to whom? Is a heinous crime according to whom? You? Invisible human rights organizations of compleatly unknown notability? And it's not just WHO anymore, those recent studies in Africa seem to of changed the tide of medical opinion compleatly in Circumcision's favor, if the news isn't misleading me terribly of course. Then, there's the stylistic problems. A Lead is supposed to summarize the article. I don't even think this one discusses Circumcision at all, making the bloating of the lead with the improperly capitalized use of "Christianity" and totally undue weight insertion of this content very contradictory with the facts, with Wikipedia policy, and with an interest in mind for our readers, who will have to stop and wonder why Wikipedia could be so sloppy as to go off on random, mis-capitalized tangents about circumcision, which doesn't even have any references for the side it seems to be trying to POV-push to the max in favor of. Homestarmy 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph needs to be simply reverted as it is a total falsehood. There is no sect of Christianity anywhere that makes circumcision a 'requirement', and the Bible / New Testament explicitly states that it is NOT a requirement for Christians. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think there's something missing from the lead, how could it possibly be this short? Homestarmy 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go back a few weeks it looks the same but the pictures have been messed up so it does look different. maybe someone who is better at aligning them than me can sort it out. Sophia 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Quakers/Friends

A question--shouldn't Quakers/Friends be mentioned at greater length in the article aside from the sole reference in regard to personal religious experience? I'm thinking it could me mentioned among, or as being similar to, groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, whose doctrines are at greater or lesser variance with the majority of other Christian groups. Does anyone think this would be appropriate/beneficial? Thank you. --Dpr 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; are they as different from orthodoxy as Mormons and JWs? A.J.A. 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In some ways, yes and in other ways, no. I think the main problem is that they are non-creedal and so it is really difficult to figure out what a Quaker believes. (See the article on Quakers) Apparently, you don't even have to be Christian to be a Quaker. I think they should be mentioned in no more than a sentence or two. I'm just trying where to put them. I figure they should be described in the "Christian divisions" section just below the Restorationists. --Richard 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to open a can of worms, but this opens the door to adding them to the Christianity Template, which I think did mention them at one time. Bytebear 06:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim to know a lot about the Quakers. Most of what I know I learned an hour ago when I read the Wikipedia article on them. However, if the Wikipedia article is accurate, some Quakers are far less Christian than Mormons or JWs. This has probably become more true in the last 50-60 years than it was 400 years ago. So... should they be added to the Christianity template? I don't know.... --Richard 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If they are so non-creedal that its difficult to define them, I don't think it would really be possible to summarize them in the article in a manner short enough to be a good summary yet still remain accurate :/. . Homestarmy 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Having perused the article on the Society of Friends it looks like they probably don't merit a lot of space on a list of Christian groups. Because they (according to the article)are made up of atheists, mystics and pagans, and do not regard the bible as the word of God. but if they want to call themselves christians.... ok. Kljenni 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they(we as it happens, but that irrelevant) merit a proper mention, due to their lack of creed as mentioned by others. Certain sections of Quakerism (such as the orthodox and evangelicals) can be defined as definitely Christian, but Quakerism as a whole cannot. Some Quakers identify with Buddhism, are agnostic or atheist, or simply spiritual. Doesn't merit a mention here as a result. Ian Goggin 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
as has been stated Quakers don't always identify as being chrisitians (though they did start of as Christians) while they may hold christian values, the two are very different, there is a seperate page for Quakers prehaps there should be a note like 'for more info see Quakers page' ....???Philsgirl 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Borrowed Symbols, Icons, Customs and Rituals

I believe this article should have a section on things borrowed from other religions. The christian traditions of today and the symbols have in large part been taken from non christian religions. things like Easter, Christmas, Rosary beads, the cross The Mary/Jesus image, all existed before and were adopted. Please discuss. Kljenni 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Any such section will be unmanageable, because every crank will want to advocate his crackpot theories. For example, [this], or this.
For that matter, where do you think Easter was borrowed from? A.J.A. 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There will be cranks and crackpots of course, but that is no reason to avoid the inclusion in the article of the reality of the origins of many christian things. The catholic Encyclopedia gives the pre-christian origins of many current christian customs and celebrations, see Easterin the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line at NewAdvent.orgKljenni 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What specific language would you like to add about Easter? A.J.A. 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to think these types of things would make better subarticles; however, they would add nothing to the current article. I know of not one Christian at Easter, Christmas or any other holiday that does not understand the purpose of the holiday being celebrated. If there was confusion, then there would be merit. My recommendation is write a subarticle and be clear in your references. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
well I had this long well written explanation which was lost in an editing conflict. Oh well live and learn.
Kljenni 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to lose text in an "edit conflict". Your text is still in the browser window at the bottom of the page. You can still retrieve it and re-insert it. If this isn't clear, drop a mesage on my Talk Page and I'll explain it further. --Richard 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I do know people who are catholics, lutherans, pentacostals and others who don't know why they bring decorated trees into their houses, or that Jesus was probably not born in winter but the date was decided on because it was already an important date to the potential pagan converts. They don't know the cross the Prayer beads, the Mary&Jesus image, the eggs and rabbits were all religious symbols adopted from non christians. Some people do but the majority of those celebrating don't know what or why. Ask them who St. Patrick was, or St. Nicklaus. ask them what all hollows eve is or Dia De Los Muertos. hardly anyone at any holiday gathering I have ever been to wanted to talk about Jesus. They wanted to watch football, thats fine. They wanted to eat and drink, that too is fine, but why were they there? because they wanted to talk about Jesus? no. Because Jesus told them to? no. maybe they were there to open presents and to give gifts as well. maybe they were guilted into coming or because of the free beer. whatever the reason it was certainly almost never about Jesus or Christianity.Kljenni 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You raise two separate issues. Taking the second one first, yes there is a problem with the secularization of Christian holidays. That is not a problem that Wikipedia can do anything about. That is a "real life" problem. Now as to the first issue, yes it's true that many people are unaware of the pagan roots of certain holiday customs such as Xmas trees, Easter eggs, etc. This topic is encyclopedic but probably does not belong in this particular article. I could imagine an article along the lines of Pagan influences on Christianity or Pagan influences on Christian customs. We could maybe put a sentence or two here with a link to the main article. --Richard 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not only will 'every crank want to advocate his crackpot theory' but legitimate information will be argued away by zealots who will not accept the revealing of the pagan origins of these customs. You might get away with an article on the subjcet though. Be prepared for the information to be relegated to "theory" status even though it is fact. George 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard you have done a better job than I did. It is without question that religious holidays have become secularized; however, I do not think there is any confusion about the purpose of the respective holidays. I reject the title proposed; what Pagan influences can been seen today on Christian holidays? I find they are nil; those influences, if they existed, were felt hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Still support a subarticle, but recommend focusing on customs. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard I like the idea, and the title Pagan influences on Christianity Kljenni 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
George, what sort of text would you add about Easter? A.J.A. 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with George that my proposals, if implemented, are likely to lead to lots of controversy (and, sigh, probably POV-pushing and edit warring). Nonetheless, I think the points are worth making. --Richard 05:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be of interest. Not the best written of articles but it may give you a few ideas on how to format the new one. Sophia 07:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as part of Christian evangelization, certain symbols, rituals, customs, now identified with Christianity, had evolved from pre-existing pagan counterparts. One notable example was the morphing of St. Nicholas (a historical clerical figure from antiquity) into a paganized Santa Claus (which actually translates as "Saint Nick"). However, paganism could not have influenced Christianity itself, which is, by definition, a unique belief system, quite distinct from pagan belief systems. Otherwise, I suppose we would have to have other such articles as well (Pagan Influences on Islam, Pagan Influences on Buddhism, Pagan Influences on Planetary Science, etc.) LotR 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and so the first salvo has been fired. LotR's comment suggests that only the symbols, rituals and customs evolved from pre-existing pagan counterparts but certainly not any of the "core beliefs" of the unique belief system which is called Christianity. This suggests that Hellenism, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, etc. either did not influence the Christianity which we have received from the Apostles or influenced Christians to espouse heresies which have since been stamped out as anathema.
This is certainly one POV which we we can expect to see argued quite a bit and quite ardently and even vehemently in the future. However, we should recognize that it is but one POV and not necessarily "THE TRUTH".
--Richard 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Salvo? You flatter me. Let's put it another way: Practicing Christians, by and large, do not consider their revealed belief system to be "influenced" by anything other than God. Is it not also POV (and possibly WP:OR) to suggest subtly that Christianity (but, notably, not the other monotheistic belief systems) is actually a dressed-up amalgamation of pre-existing pagan belief systems? LotR 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course both sides of the debate are POVs and NEITHER is "THE TRUTH", at least not from Wikipedia's NPOV stance. WP:NPOV policy suggests that we must present all significant sides of this debate without giving undue weight to any of them. I've tried to do that in my intro to Pagan influences on Christianity. Time will tell whether this NPOV stance will be able to withstand future edits of editors with a Christian or non-Christian agenda. --Richard 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me is that some of the "new" aspects of Christianity are argued not to have been "new" to Christianity but, in fact, to have been part of evolving ideas in the Judaism of the time. This line of argument builds on the idea that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. For example, the original concept of the afterlife in Judaism was "Sheol", a sort of limbo in which you were certainly not alive but you had not completely ceased to exist either. This evolved into a "life after death" which forms the basis of Christian belief in the after life. Similarly, baptism and other ritual cleansing rites were practiced by a number of Jewish sects including the Essenes.

I don't think that this is the place to discuss the details of the above-mentioned points but the question that I want to ask is... Should we have an article titled Pagan influences on Christianity or should it be a title that allows us to discuss these kinds of influences from Judaism as well. Influences on Christianity doesn't sound right. The alternative would be to add a separate article titled Judaic influences on Christianity.

--Richard 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, as I have practically no time:
Re the "pagan influences ..." - one can create such an article but it must be NPOV, i.e. the alleged nature of these influences must be clear. Another problem is how to define "pagan".
Re the "Judaic influences ..." - such an article is pointless: Judaism and Christianity share their origin, so a practice present in both is not an influence on one or the other. There may be small occurences (both ways: consider "Chanukkageld") but I don't think they warrant an article. Str1977 (smile back) 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I might wind up agreeing with you about the need for a separate article but I think you are missing my point.
I'm not interested in minor practices that the two religions share in common. I'm interested in core beliefs and practices.
Did baptism originate with Christianity? I don't think it did but the water cleansing mitzvot is not as prominent in modern-day Judaism as it is in Christianity. And yet we know that some Jewish sects such as the Essenes had water cleansing as a central part of their sacred ritual. This linkage is the subject of much scholarly speculation.
Did belief in the afterlife originate with Christianity or was it emerging as a Judaic belief before the time of Jesus?
I don't know enough to discuss these topics adequately but it seems that there is something worth presenting here.
--Richard 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would thnk an article discussing the Judaic origins of Christianity might be a better title? [[Judaic influences on modern Christianity]] might be another article? George 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I don't want a debate but please read my posting more carefully: I wrote that since the two share the origin a sharing of core doctrines is not an influence of one on the other.
George, that would be "Jewish origins of Christianity". Judaism is the other of the surviving branches of the old Jewish religion. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Easter BTW is one of those things Christianity and Judaism have in common, any supposed pagan origin is, well, nonsense. Of course, nonsense has its place on WP. Str1977 (smile back) 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Str1977, but *I* DO want a debate because it is by discussing that we learn things and develop consensus. What you say about "since the two share the origin a sharing of core doctrines is not an influence of one on the other" would be true if we were talking about Judaism and Hinduism since these two religions developed independently of each other. However, when we talk about Judaism and Christianity, it is clear that much of Christianity developed from Judaism. In other words, Judaism and Christianity do not "share an origin". Christianity and Islam share an origin (i.e. Judaism). Judaism IS the origin of Christianity as well as the origin of Islam (well, sort of, detailed debate of that assertion is getting off topic). I mean, no one doubts that the Ten Commandments came from the Pentateuch. That's a clear influence. No dispute whatsover.

What is far less clear is which portions of later Judaism influenced early Christianity as opposed to the other way around. Is there evidence that water cleansing rituals like those of the Essenes predated Jesus and John the Baptist? Is the Christian notion of resurrection of the dead uniquely Christian or did it come from Judaism? I don't know the answers to these questions but what little I know leads me to believe that these are valid questions which should be raised and addressed as being encyclopedic.

--Richard 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But you can't have a debate with me, since I don't have time. Anyway, the issue is whether you use the term "Judaism" to refer to the ancient Jewish religion or to that branch which developed around Rabbis and the Talmud. (I prefer to clarify the distinction between the two.) This Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity both developed from a shared origin, the ancient Jewish religion. Whether Islam developed from Judaism is very difficult question. It might also have developed from heretical Christianity.
So, you are completely mistaken if you think the Ten Commandments a influence of Judaism on Christianity. Christians have always, from day one, adhered to the Ten Commandments. Of course, the Commandments are Jewish but they were also Christian from the beginning. Which perfectly illustrates the wrongheadedness of your endeavour.
"Is there evidence that water cleansing rituals like those of the Essenes predated Jesus and John the Baptist?"
- That's not the point. The Essenes clearly predated Jesus. The issue is whether these rituals have had any informing role on baptism. I think that's possibly, though the nature of that ritual of course changes from repeated cleansings to the Christian "one baptism". But still, this is not surprising given that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, as explained above. Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You know that and I know that. But what you know and what I know are not the same as what the average reader knows. Most people are not aware that water cleansing rituals predated John the Baptist. It's one of those "revelations" that we got from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. Now does discussion of this belong in Christianity, History of Christianity, Early Christianity or somewhere else? That's the question that I'm asking. --Richard 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"Is the Christian notion of resurrection of the dead uniquely Christian or did it come from Judaism?" (Richardshusr)
- Why should it be uniquely Christian? Whatever fool said it was? Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, that fool would be me.  ;^o I think I'll drop this line of argument as I'm sure we can find references to the resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament although it was an evolving concept in Judaism. --Richard 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Among the Jews, Pharisees (Zealots included) and Essenes and Christians also believed in the resurrection. Str1977

- Phariseeism largely developed into Rabbinical Judaism.
So the question might be valid but not as you pose them. Everything (referring to the core beliefs) in Christianity is Jewish (but not necessarily Judaistic) because Christianity started as a Jewish sect. Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should the "Christianity" page talk about supposed pagan influences on Christianity? Do any reasonable scholars believe that any form of paganism has had a substantial influence on Christianity? If this is just some tiny minority viewpoint with nothing informative or worthwhile to say about the Christian religion, then it has no place here. On the other hand, if there's a noteworthy viewpoint that paganism had a substantial effect on Christianity, then we should include it. If it's only of historical or local interest, it can get just one paragraph. Jonathan Tweet 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, there are two threads going on here. One is about Jewish influences on Christianity. As Str1977 correctly asserts, Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. However, the Judaism of the time is neither the Judaism of the early Hebrews or modern-day Judaism. Thus, Christianity looks more like a revolutionary religion which is dramatically different from Judaism when, in fact, some of the core concepts and rituals were part of the evolving Judaism of the time. Christian apologists would prefer to portray Christianity as unique and revolutionary. Some scholars such as Elaine Pagels would prefer to portray Christianity as more like the other sects that were extant at the time.
The second thread is about supposed "pagan influences" on Christianity. This is sort of related to the first thread but not exactly as the assertion is quite different. As Str 1977 asserts, it's quite reasonable to expect that as Christianity evolved from Judaism, it incorporated not just the standard "cult of the Temple of Jerusalem" but also evolving beliefs such as those of the Pharisees and the Essenes. It's also plausible to believe that Christianity might have borrowed beliefs from pagan influences but this is a bit more of a stretch.
I would guess that it warrants at most a paragraph in this article with a link to the main article Pagan influences on Christianity. --Richard 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Been away as I've been stretched for time as of late. I am with the program regarding WP:NPOV. I am well aware that there may be a secular-materialist POV that regards Christianity a priori as a mythological fantasy, and therefore assumes it must have evolved from Pagan religions preceding it. The proposition that Paganism has influenced Christian practices, customs, rituals, etc. is generally accepted -- it would be a minority viewpoint to deny this. But to claim Pagan influences on the belief system itself is to deny that belief system. I, for one, am highly skeptical of such a claim. This certainly isn't the view of the billion or so practicing Christians worldwide, both past and present (not to mention orthodox Jews and Muslims -- all 3 monotheistic religions have overlapping aspects in their core beliefs). I have issues with the article "Pagan influences on Christianity" (at least in its present incarnation -- perhaps it can be restructured and modified in an acceptable manner). First, it relegates the undisputed claims that I mentioned twice above to the third bullet -- these should be front and center, as they are not a minority POV. The remaining controversial and questionable material (the secular-materialist POV that Christianity is a myth that evolved from Pagan religions) then needs to be clearly presented as such, and citations everywhere will be necessary to satisfy WP:OR. LotR 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your help in addressing these issues in the Pagan influences on Christianity article would be much appreciated.
I am a little concerned about including the pagan influences on Judaism as I'm concerned about managing the scope of the article. Clearly a pagan influence on Judaism has the potential to have also influenced Christianity and Islam as well if that influence was carried forward into those religions. We need to come up with a framework for describing all of these influences i.e. Pagan influences on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They could all be thrown into one big article with a title like Pagan influences on the Abrahamic religions or we could have separate articles on the pagan influences on each religion with links from the influences on Christianity and influences on Islam articles to the influences on Judaism article. \
--Richard 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Either creating separate articles or making a single article Pagan influences on the Abrahamic religions would certainly address one of the concerns I raised, namely the singling out of Christianity, which is but one of three monotheistic belief systems that would have been influenced. At some point I hope to find some spare time to address some of my remaining concerns on the Pagan influences on Christianity page. LotR 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagan influences on Christianity

Well, being an impatient sort of fellow, I decided not to wait for a resolution to my last question but to plunge ahead and create Pagan influences on Christianity. I'm still interested in figuring out what to do about the "Impact of evolving trends in Judaism on Christianity" question but I didn't think it was worth holding up the parade to resolve that question.

My suggestion is that further discussion of pagan influences on Christianity be held on the Talk Page of that article. See you there.

--Richard 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Christian with this article

At the Christian page it says that this is the place to discuss merging it into this article. Seeing no such discussion here, I'll start one. I support the merge. It is already so difficult to define exactly what "Christian" really means. It is therefore even harder to do so consistently for two articles, namely this one and Christian. I think the fact that they have persisted as separate articles is a result either of inertia or of blatant POV-pushers who want to use the Christian article as a platform for their personal points of view. Merging the articles will make it much easier to maintain a consistent, quality article on this key topic. Fishal 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Fishal 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    Richard 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. -Sicamous 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Part Deux 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I already expressed my support on that talk page. Or I think I did. Same article.
  4. WikiDragon
  5. 60.240.85.65 08:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Bytebear 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Richard 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fishhead64 19:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. DebateKid 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Brisvegas 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The Christian article is pretty lightweight compared to this one and should definitely be merged into this article. There may not be much that is worth merging. For example, the history section is adequately covered by this article and History of Christianity. --Richard 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bytebear and Ian Goggin and have changed my vote accordingly. --Richard 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you why I opposed the merger. The term "Christian" as a label is what the that article should focus on. It should be a short article with a brief history of the term and how it is used. All doctrinal issues, beliefs and practices should be directed to this page. In other words, have the Christian article focus on the term and its use, but not on the theology. See Mormon for an example of this approach (Note that I oppose the "Basic beliefs" section in that article, but you can't win all your battles.)Bytebear 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In its current state the Christian article is useless and is not fit to be an article. However I don't think it should be merged into Christianity, but rather all content deleted and the article rewritten with a focus on the history and the controversy surrounding the term. Were the article rewritten like that, I would oppose a merger. Ian Goggin 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands is pretty blantant POV pushing, constituting basically a POV fork of Christianity. I agree, content should be deleted and the article should be rewritten. Fishhead64 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the general consensus seems to be that the Christian article that was proposed for merging was basically POV-pushing and thus a POV fork of this article. There was some sentiment that the article should exist to describe the term "Christian" separate from the description of the religion that is in this article.
I have been bold and deleted the previous content of the article and replaced it with a stub describing the term "Christian". Your help in expanding the article will be welcomed and appreciated. --Richard 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I already spelt out my reasoning on that talk page. There's nothing in that article that isn't already in this one, or couldn't be. A Christian, by definition, is a follower of Christianity. We do the same thing with nationalities: French politician becomes French politician. Part Deux 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Richard, youll get a better knowledge if it is merged with Christian STING86.154.85.58 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, that is indeed very bold. You deleted a whole lot of content, and I'm reverting the edit. However, the material currently there will fit in nicely with "Christian" as an adjective. And since Part Deux's definition is a lousy one - there's more to being a Christian that that - it would be a mistake to merge the two articles. StAnselm 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Part Deux was bold and redirected Christian to Christianity. I thought that was too bold and reverted him in favor of my proposed rewrite (which is a work in progress).
See my comments over on Talk:Christian about the admittedly bold edits that I have made to that article. I am willing to believe that there is more to say about the word/concept "Christian" than simply "a Christian is a follower of Christ". However, the revision of the article that existed this morning did not come close to doing an adequate job of covering the topic.
A major piece of the previous revision of the Christian article was the "History" section which frankly did a poor job of discussing history. It meandered around and talked about the word "church". That discussion belongs in the Church article. Then it went off on a very skimpy overview of history of Christianity. That discussion either belongs here in the "History" section of this article or in the History of Christianity article. But frankly, there is nothing in the "History" of the Christian article that isn't already covered in greater detail in the History of Christianity article. Overview of history here; more in-depth overview in History of Christianity and detailed discussions of individual topics in subsidiary articles.
--Richard 00:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The Christian article is much better with the new focus. I did add a very brief history section, but it will soon be expanded I hope (with references, of course). Bytebear 03:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A Christian is a person whose faith is Christianity. People and their faith are two different things. In the Christian article, the people should be talked about. In Christianity, the faith itself should be explained. I hope this helps to settle the argument. ;) DebateKid 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ichtys

Shouldn't the mention of ichtys include a link to the concerning article? CubOfJudahsLion 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Monotheism?

Christianity encompasses a lot of differenct belief systems, most of which hold to the concept of a supreme trinity. Additionally, consider the worship and prayer some followers direct towards the virgin Mary, angels, and demons including Lucifer, and the diverse pantheon of saints. Even if most Christians acknowledge these entities while insisting that their religion is a monotheism, strictly referring to Christianity as a monotheism seems misleading if not actually erroneous. Given the diverse attitudes and behaviors of those who are considered to be Christians, I would probably use the modified description "nominally monotheistic" in the introductory paragraph. ~ Eldrichgaiman 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 

Catholism worships angels, saints, and the trinity. Catholisim and (maybe) orthodoxy, is a part of christianity, but not the only denomonation. That is the only part of christianity that does that sort of worship. Protstantism does not allow that, AT ALL.

And even those two denomonations have only one God. The trinity is apart of God, the father, the son, and holy spirit. It is like a clover, its three parts aren't 3 different leaves, but the same leaf. 

No part of Christianity worships demons, NONE AT ALL. That is somehow occasionally confused with Christianity


(edit conflict)
No, not in the lead of this article. Christianity self-identifies as monotheistic (except for a few offshoots which are generally considered to be heretical). The fact that this claim to monotheism can be challenged does not belong in the lead. It can be discussed later in the article provided it is sourced to a WP:RS. Challenges to the monotheism of the Trinity should be discussed in that article. As stated by Fishhead64 below, the Catholic Church does not consider the virgin Mary, angels, demons or saints to be divine. However, there are certainly non-Catholics who criticize the Catholic Church for its veneration of Mary, angels and saints. Challenges to the claims to monotheism made by the Roman Catholic Church should be made in that article or in Criticism of the Catholic Church.
--Richard 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the creeds, which are the single unifying doctrinal statement of the Christian faith. The affirmation is that "We believe in one God..." The Holy Trinity is defined typically as three persons, modes, or dimensions of a single divine entity. As for prayer vis-a-vis holy figures, typically Christians beseech the holy figures to pray or intercede on their behalf with God. To the extent that saints are attributed supernatural power, it is power delegated from and delimited by God, not the power of a god, per se. To my knowledge, there is no mainstream Christian movement which would define itself as anything other than strictly monotheistic. Fishhead64 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it is irrelevant how any religious movement might describe itself. What should be represented is the most precise and accurate classification that can be offered from an uninvolved perspective. It is true, however, that most Christian faiths place absolute power in the Trinity as a single entity, and only lesser power in the control of the other figures that I mentioned. I'm not sure that that makes those entities any less divine. I'm also still not sure that we're not avoiding what would be a more accurate representation for one that offers less friction against popular regard, but such is the nature of Wikipedia. ~ Eldrichgaiman 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I would agree that there are strong arguments against most Christian sects being monotheistic, these probably should be presented lower in the text, and not in the LEAD. --Filll 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Such as what? What do you want? If it is not clear to you that there are strong arguments against most of Christian sects being monotheistic, then it is probably pointless to discuss it. But I would suggest you read about unitarianism and arianism and the Muslim view of the trinity to understand some of the objections.--Filll 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind Richard's comment above, criticism of it (or more broadly, outlining theological differences with it) are not arguments for the nature of its intrinsic beliefs. And (to other users) as to this whole saints/angels/etc thing, which part of Christianity deems them divine (as opposed to perhaps supernatural)?
Eldrech, I believe what you were looking for is here santeria. The Jackal God 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's really quite irrelevant for us to argue whether Christianity is or is not monotheistic.

I think Christianity is monotheistic.

For better or worse, Christianity has re-defined monotheism so that it is included within the new definition of the word. This "new" definition is almost 2000 years old so it's not exactly a "new" concept.

Yes, there are those (Jews, Muslims, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses among them) who might dispute this new definition. Nonetheless, in common parlance and in the academic community, this new definition is considered to be at least one of the acceptable definitions of monotheism.

It may be a POV to assert that Christianity is monotheistic but it is equally POV to assert that it is not. For the most part, the view that it is not monotheistic is a minority viewpoint.

Wikipedia is not about "THE TRUTH". It is about representing the "sum of human knowledge" even when human knowledge is fractured about what is true. Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to present all POVs without giving undue weight to any POV.

--Richard 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a point I read someone make the last time around in answer to a similar argument: "monotheism" was coined considerably later than the foundation of Christianity, by Christians who included themselves. A.J.A. 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV in this case for the article to call Christianity monotheistic, as the many, many, many reliable sources (Several of which are not listed in the note, because they are in the general references sections) ranging from books to scholarly articles to other encyclopedias to a whole bunch of other things call it monotheistic, and the usage of the term in the lead here (without any qualifications) fully complies with the Verifiability standards. I'd know, I referenced the thing to start with, and when the opposing side could come up with 0 useful references, (Even when they could of been found easily methinks, I don't remember a single link being provided, even to a Muslim apologetics site or something) that pretty much closed the debate. To write the supposed controversy into the intro or relegate it to the bottom with the unreferenced qualification "self-identifies" (Almost none of the references use that wording.) would be like writing in Islams intro "Although it considers itself an Abrahamic religion, many people from Christianity and Judaism consider Islam's claim of lineage questionable", and I don't think that would go over so well either. Homestarmy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, to claim that there are Christian sects which are not monotheistic beg a citation. I am sure, if they exist, they are marginal - because I'm a theologian, and I've not heard of them. Second, to claim that saints and other holy figures are in some sense lesser deities represents the very definition of original research. Third, while other religious groups may interpret Christianity as believing something Christians themselves are at pains to point out they explicitly do not believe, that is why we have articles such as Islam and Christianity, Criticisms of Christianity, and Holy Trinity. Broadening the discussion in these three articles would be welcome. Fishhead64 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Every Christian Creed asserts belief in the One God (the overlooked Athanasian Creed even more throughly than the others). Its all that needs to be said, I think. Lostcaesar 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lostcaesar there, and I would like to add thet you can't truly be a Christian without being monotheistic, but just because you are monotheistic doesn't mean you are a Christian! DebateKid 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good grief... I could remake the Hindu religion by arguing that all their gods are just manifestations of a single god (in fact, I think some Hindus do argue that all the Hindu gods are manifestations of Krishna). Would that make my version of Hinduism a monotheistic religion? It's not enough for a religion to assert that it is monotheistic for us to conclude that it is incontrovertibly monotheistic. It is also a bit tautological to claim that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christian scholars consider mainstream Christianity to be monotheistic.

The fact remains that many groups outside mainstream Christianity accuse Christianity of not being monotheistic. This starts with nonTrinitarians. Cf the Wikipedia article on Nontrinitarianism.

[[The teaching is also pivotal to inter-religious disagreements with two of the other major faiths, Judaism and Islam; the former reject Jesus' divine mission entirely, the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet just like Muhammad but rejects altogether the deity of Jesus. Many within Judaism and Islam also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism, of believing in three gods rather than just one. Islam holds that because Allah is unique and absolute (the concept of tawhid) the Trinity is impossible and has even been condemned as polytheistic. This is emphasized in the Qur'an which states "He (Allah) does not beget, nor is He begotten, And (there is) none like Him." (Qur'an, 112:3-4)


The Jehovah's Witnesses are the most notable "Christian" group that attacks mainstream Christianity as being non-monotheistic.

O.K., I think that Jehovah Witnesses aren't Christians. Their beliefs are not Christian. Yes similar, close but no cigar. They do not believe in the Bible, but two magazines(Awake! and Watchtower). Christians follow holidays, they do not. They have often tried to predict the end times when in the holy bible it says that no one knows the day or hour of christs return. Not even the angels or the saints know(and you thought the government had secrets lol). They don't believe Christ is God(and he is according to the holy bible) and instead is a mere man who basically is a prophet. They claim that he was torchered on a stake, when clearly in the bible it says he was crucified ("pierced through the hands and feet").

That said, if there is a POV (albeit a minority POV) that mainstream Christianity is not monotheistic then it logically follows that there is a majority POV that mainstream Christianity is monotheistic. Put another way, we cannot assert it as incontrovertible truth that mainstream Christianity is monotheistic if there are reliable sources that dispute the assertion. Thus, under Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we must present all POVs although we are not required to give minority POVs undue weight.

--Richard 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, Richard, I don't think that's the point. Christianity itself is a POV, and every assertion of the Nicene Creed will find objection by non-Christians. For example, non-Christians will as forcefully claim that Jesus is not the son of God as they do that Christianity is polytheistic. My understanding of the main article for world religions is that they describe the beliefs of the religion, not the beliefs about the religion by others. I think that material is more appropriate to other articles, as I mentioned above, specifically Criticisms of Christianity. Therein, the objections to Christianity's professed monotheism can be noted - at the moment, they aren't.
Considering that some nontrinitarian and some restorationist Christians dispute the monotheism of more mainstream Christians does in fact argue for the essential monotheism of the faith tradition - the objection being, one supposes, that some mainstream Christians are not sufficiently monotheistic to be called "Christian." My concern here is in muddying the waters. No Christian claims to be anything other than monotheistic: It is an essential precept of the faith. Whether the doctrine itself is sufficiently clear or not is a legitimate Criticism of Christianity. Fishhead64 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh. Thanks Fishhead. The problem with trying to be NPOV is that sometimes you can wind up defending against both sides of a POV dispute at the same time. I point to my first posting in this thread where I said "Christianity self-identifies as monotheistic (except for a few offshoots which are generally considered to be heretical)." My little rant above was in response to those who assert that "Christianity IS monotheistic" as opposed to "Christianity claims to be monotheistic under its definition of monotheism". If we all agree that this article is about what Christianity claims to be without a detailed discussion of disputes about "what it is vs. what it claims to be" then we should move on.
I appreciate your pointing out that this "not monotheistic" charge is not covered in Criticisms of Christianity. I think we are all in agreement that this is where the discussion should be and I will undertake to do put it there in the coming days if no one else beats me to it.
--Richard 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
continuing Fishhead's line of reasoning, which I agree with, what is considered Christian by the predominant majority of Christians is what this article should espouse - likewise, what the vast majority of Christians do not consider Christian, and arguably are not Christian, like the JW's, should not be included on this page, but on another which would include the likes of Santeria. Call it Christian-inspired religions or something to that effect. The Jackal God 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. That revives the old argument of whether Mormons and JW's are Christian or not. I think that dispute has been settled and we should leave it alone. I know you disagree with the consensus decision but I don't think there is value in reviving old disputes just because you disagreed with the result.
--Richard 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe that's because the consensus of this individual wiki page doesn't correspond to the consensus of the world at large. The Jackal God 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The consensus of "the world at large" is non-Christian. So what's your point? --Richard 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we nip this discussion in the bud? We've had it before. We'll have it again. The shorter it is, the better. We refer to JWs and Mormons as Christians whether they "really" are or not. Jonathan Tweet 17:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That was my point. --Richard 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I had never read the Monotheism article which does a pretty good job of covering the topic.

Here is the "Christian view" section of that article...

Christians profess belief in one God. Historically, most Christian churches have taught that the nature of God is something of a mystery: while being a unity, God also manifests as three entities: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (collectively called the Trinity), the classic Christian "three becomes one" formula. Typically, Christian orthodoxy holds that these three entities are not independent but are homoousios (a Hellenistic Greek transliteration), meaning sharing the same essence or substance of divinity. The true nature of the Trinity is held to be an inexplicable mystery, deduced from New Testament but developmentally is the result of theological debate in the Council of Nicea in 325, codified in 381, and reached its full development through the work of the Cappadocian Fathers.
However, some critics consider that Christianity is a form of Tritheism. While this might be true in some instances, Christianity is properly understood as Tripartite monotheism. [1] For Jews and Muslims, the idea of God as a trinity is heretical - it is considered akin to polytheism.
Christians overwhelmingly assert that monotheism is central to the Christian faith; "I believe in one God" is a key statement in the most widely used Christian creeds. Moreover, some Christian groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals, do not teach the doctrine of the Trinity at all, while many individual Christians formulate their own opinions on the matter which may or may not follow the doctrine of their tradition. Other small Christian groups have their own unique viewpoint. For example, the Rastafarians, like many Christians, hold that God is both a unity and a trinity, in their case God being Haile Selassie.

Some Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church practice Veneration of Saints, which critics claim is a form of polytheism. However, Roman Catholic teaching regards veneration of saints and prayers to saints as no different from petitioning a living person to pray to God on behalf of the petitioner.

Since Monotheism is linked to in the first sentence of the lead, I think that's all the treatment that is necessary. If someone really wants to understand about the monotheistic nature of Christianity, they can click on the Wikilink.

--Richard 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to have this discussion deal with the Mormon perspective or Jehovah's Witness perspective at all, this is supposed to be about the monotheistic status of Christianity, and since I presume that the Watchtower would refer itself as Christian anyway, (Indeed, probably referring to themselves as the only Christians) if the Watchtower criticizes "Christianity" as being polytheistic, that means they are accusing themselves of being polytheistic as well. Therefore, I seriously doubt their literature refers to Christianity as a polytheistic religion, more likely its something like "The apostates formerly known as Christians whom we have supplanted" or something like that. Besides, none of the references for the fact in question currently refer to Christianities monotheism as a self-identification, it is simply stated as fact that Christianity is monotheistic in all of the references if I remember it right, so the phrasing "self-identifies as monotheistic" isn't even referenced at all, neutrality and verifiability are not contradictory goals, if something is well verified, and something else isn't well verified but represents an opposing view to the verified side, that doesn't mean the verified side gets second fiddle. Homestarmy 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm done with this discussion so I won't respond point-by-point even though I don't agree completely with the points made by Homestarmy. We have a resolution (to put the "non-monotheistic" stuff in Criticisms of Christianity). I say we move on.
As a side note about the JW's... they refer to mainstream Christianity as having fallen into a Great Apostasy. Here's the JW entry in that article...
Like many Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses strive to reflect Christianity as they believe it was practiced in the first century. The organization to which Witnesses belong has some connection to Adventism, and considers the Great Apostasy to have properly begun after the death of the last Apostle, although there were warning signs and precursors starting shortly after Jesus' ascension. Witnesses consider adoption of the Trinity--which they allege is based on a specious application of Greek Platonic and sophistical philosophy--as the prime indicator of apostasy. Jehovah's Witnesses consider that the falling away from faithfulness became complete and total with the Council of Nicaea, when the Nicene Creed was adopted, enshrining the Trinity doctrine as the central tenet of Christian Orthodoxy. This group also strictly abstains from political involvement and military service, for reasons similar to those cited by earlier Anabaptists, and they point to such entanglements as another aspect of the Great Apostasy. They cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3 [see discussion above] as reflecting the apostasy introduced by Jesus' disciple Judas Iscariot and David's counselor Ahithophel.
--Richard 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
JWs and Mormons both identify as monotheistic, but not trinitarian, so is the issue with the trinity doctrine? It seems any references to a polytheistic view of Christianity are attacks on trinitarianism, as I doubt any issues would be directed toward Mormons or JWs specifically (other than by trinitarians, ironically). Bytebear 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. period. We had such pointless discussions before ... there is absolutely no need to discuss this any further. Str1977 (smile back) 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ For Muslim critiques, see Allah Almighty's Response to pagan and trinitarian polytheism; Miller, Dr. Gary, A concise reply to Christianity.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_43&oldid=1092050670"