Talk:Christianity/Archive 53

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

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Lets finish this

We all know (come on, we really do) that all religions are rubbish.

Christianity is just another one. Zero credible evidence. Belief for belief's sake. A trap for the weak minded. A justification for evil deeds.

We could solve a lot of problems and have a lot more resources if only we could put the religions in their place.

Wikipedia is the logical place for witnessing the final stand of the medieval religions. Religions have no place here, except as a historical footnote on how we came to be in our current state.

This main article on Christianity would be a particularly good place to start the vinegar stroke. I propose we start the article with an opening paragraph like:

"Christianity is one religion among many, however it played an important role in the development of western civilisation as we currently know it. There is no scientific evidence to support the major Christian beliefs. It is likely that modern Christianity is now harming the progress of the world by misguiding people on reality, causing them to make bad decisions which affect others. With this in mind, the specifics of the Christian faith are..."

Or anything along these lines. We should be assisting the millions of people who were effectively brainwashed into "belief" at a very early age by parents who had been similarly conditioned. At the very least, we need to prevent them brainwashing the next generation.

Generally speaking, we need to stamp out superstitious beliefs from the world. Christianity is an obvious place to start.

I would like to formally request that the introduction to Christianity be changed to acknowledge its lack of evidence and the high probability of being a false belief. I think we owe the Christians that much - we can't let them stay deluded forever, its dangerous and wasteful.

124.170.133.234 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Marty

Well, despite the fact that what you have written is trash it does suggest changes to the article, so is relevant. However, Wiki is not a soapbox for you to push your opinions. Thus your suggestions which are highly Point of view biased have no real merit for the project. Now, be gone with you sir and may your god go with you. Gavin (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gavin. The soapbox link probably applies - depending on your point of view. 124.170.133.234 (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Marty

Well you see, Wiki is Neutral, to insert the POV claim that Christianity is untrue or does more harm than good would fail to meet standards. You will also need to provide evidence for your claims in the form of viable citations. So feel free to have a go, you may want to check out the Criticism of Christianity page, Be Bold Gavin (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If your concern is with religion in general (" . . . all religions are rubbish. Christianity is just another one."), then you might also want to check out the article on Criticism of religion. EastTN (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Gavin. I'm working on it. This might take some time ;) Marty-was-here (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Marty

However, Gavin, if you pursue that logical path, I could sincerely ask that the assertions that the earth is a sphere be removed from the article about Earth, because though my (hypothetical) belief that the earth is flat may be wrong it is also sincere. We cannot entertain every belief simply because someone is sincere about it. I recommend that we treat this article just as we would an article about Roman, Greek, or Norse mythology: as a piece of history with no logical or scientific foundation that still maintains an influence in the modern world. --scochran4 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

biased

This article is biased from a christian's bpoint of view........ 71.10.88.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Then so are all other religous articles. Ludicrous! Philippe Auguste (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with Christian heresy and List of Christian heresies

I have done a major rework of Christian heresy and, as part of that effort, I extracted the "List of Christian heresies" section and created the List of Christian heresies article.

I recognize that both articles still need a lot of work. I invite you to review these two articles and give me your feedback on their respective Talk Pages. I have already indicated Talk:List of Christian heresies some areas where I need some help.

Thank you.

--Richard (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Henotheism v. Monotheism

It has come to my attention that Christianity may be considered, at least in some traditions and denominations, to be a henotheistic religion as opposed to a monotheistic religion. The Decalogue itself states "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3), implying that there are other gods. Does this classification refer to the existence of other gods within a religious framework, or is the classification based on what deity(ies) are actually worshipped? --scochran4 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's monotheistic. And we've been through this before. Check the talk page archives. Recently, I know you can look at 45-47; and before that: 2, 4, 5, 19-22, 32, 41, and likely others. 20:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have checked the archives first. My fault. --scochran4 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no problem. Easy mistake. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Monotheism again

I read the archives and I still have to insist that the main issue of calling Christianity monotheistic has not been addressed. Forget about the holy trinity and the uncountable manouvers that apologetics have gone through to ensure a "one god" impression to the christian god.

One has to mention all the other deities that exist within christianity; that is, beings that exist in a supernatural realm and are capable of suprahuman achievements. If you start with Catholicism you have legions upon legions of "Saints" that are frequent objects of prayers and deliver miracles by themselves, and you also have the virgin Mary, which is a goddess in her own right, manifesting herself frequently to believers.

Catholicism aside, all Christians believe in legions of Angels, Archangels and above all, their very own god of evil. So there you have it, whoever dares to call Christianism a monotheistic religions is certainly fooling himself. I have had enough run ins with christians watchdogging these pages to try to change it, but it certainly takes a lot away from wikipedia not to take other arguments more seriously. 189.138.239.216 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are very serious allegations, all totally unfounded on paper. Now, we can have a very involved time trying to work out, for instance, whether all those billions of Catholics really do pray to saints, but there has never been any stance from theologians, the Church, and pastors that prayer is other than through saints, not to. The saints have never, I hope, been claimed to be a source of miracles of themselves either, even from Catholics. The accusation that the virgin Mary has ever been correctly regarded as a God is also extremely offensive; people have been misguided enough to try it in the past, but it has never been sanctioned or officially accepted.
Again, Satan has never been described as a 'god of evil', and is not regarded as such by church leaders, nor in my experience by more than perhaps an insignificant number of believers. I am afraid to say that you will find it nigh-on impossible to find any record of church councils, decree, or standard practice reflecting any of the things you mention, let alone scripture (to qualify slightly: you are right that it is claimed that beings exist with 'suprahuman' abilities, but even there, the orthodox hierarchy places men in ultimate judgement over angels, as well as putting the prototypical Man himself over all things, so it is still a bit off to think of them as 'above' man in some way). Sorry, but we should be clear on this one: Christianity is monotheistic and Trinitarian (though the discussion over correct terminology for, say, the JWs, is admittedly non-trivial).— Kan8eDie (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, when asking about Christianity, we must ask the Christians. Their theology is what goes and they claim to be monotheistic. If you can find a Christian organization or individual (who is also a reliable source) who claims that Christianity is other than monotheistic, present it here. --scochran4 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Corinthians 4:4 does indeed describe Satan as the "god of this world," but to infer from this verse that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion is to stretch the meaning of this verse not only out of its context, but to the breaking point. In context, the Apostle Paul is not placing Satan on a level with God (the Bible quite clearly teaches that Satan was created by God) but rather is insinuating that Satan holds an inordinate sway over the affairs of this world. As for the allegation that belief in demons, angels, and saints dilutes the monotheistic nature of Christianity, that is obviously preposterous on its face. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon, your position is really that of the critic. Critics would contend that Christianity "really" does pray to saints, Mary, etc., but as Scochran has stated Christians, not even Catholics, would support your position. There is a difference between praying to a holy person or asking a holy person to interceded on your behalf to God. There is no problem in citing criticism in the article, but understand that it is not the position of Christians or what they teach. Cheers. --^StormRider 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

High and Late Middle Ages

"following the crusade brought about by the Cathar heresy", sourced by Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, pp. 300, 304–05. [is this really from a neutral source?]

Under the article for Catharism, there are several articles that contradict this, such as: "Suppression", "Albigensian crusade", "Massacre" and "Treaty and persecution". Someone should fix the misinformation in the "High and Late Middle Ages" article of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.107.225 (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done; good catch. The crusade was against the Cathar heresy; just poor wording. --^StormRider 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem in sidebar

My sincerest apologies for not putting this in the proper place on the talk pages, but as it is I am inexperienced at wiki'ing and am pressed for time to learn at this moment.

I notice that an atheist added a rather out-of-place tract entitled "Nothingness" in the left sidebar. I would simply remove it myself, but the Christianity article is protected. This philosophical piece does not conform to Christian beliefs and its placement - personal comments in summary boxes - is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Thank you. Pottersson (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Registered users can edit it. I don't see the text you're referring to. Is it still there for you? Ilkali (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It seemsto be gone now, thanks. --Hojimachong^talk 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Put denominations into intro

Most of the other articles on major religions have a paragraph on the major religious divisions, e.g. Islam mentions Shia and Sunni, together with information on the approximate propotion of adherents, while Buddhism mentions Mahayana and Theravada. I don't see why this article shouldn't have a similar one. Offhand, I'd say that on first reference we want to mention Catholicism, the Protestant denominations as a whole, Orthodoxy and maybe a word on the reconstructionist denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc).--Pyroclastic (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)