Jump to content

Talk:Christianity/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62

Etymology of the word "Christianity"

I wish a section on the etymology of the word "Christianity" for it is a striking difference with all the other religions, including Christian churches and denominations, that end in "-ism". The suffix "-ism"[1] has several meanings, the one regarding to religions is "set of beliefs, dogmas, doctrine". The suffix "-ty" or "-ity"[2] only means "state, quality or condition". According to the meaning of the Latin, ultimately Greek, words, the Christian religion should be called "Christianism" and the state of being a Christian should called "Christianity" as it happen in all the languages that borrow words from Latin and Greek. The fact that the Christian religion has something unique that makes it different from all the other religions is not told by the meaning of the suffixes mentioned. Moreover, it wouldn't explain why Catholicism, Protestantism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc. are not called Catholicity, Protestantity, Lutheranity, Calvinity, etc. Therefore, an explanation is mandatory. Visigodo Latino (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/-ism
  2. ^ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/-ity
Wikipedia is not here to make points about any given worldview. The etymology of Christianity is covered at Wiktionary. While forms comparable to "-ity" exist in many Latin languages, Christianity is also called Christianismo in Spanish, Christianisme in French, Cristianismo in Portuguese, Cristianisme in Catalan, and so on. Before the early modern era and its Latin-based spelling reforms, Christianity was referred to as Christendom. Religions ending in -ism occurred even later (heck, "Jewry" was still being used in place of "Judaism" even in some early 20th century works). It's not like the slight and millenia-later differences in the suffix has any sort of special meaning.
Besides, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It is an interesting difference, and the reasons for it aren't immediately apparent. While it's true that the answer doesn't really have a place in this article, it was a fair question to ask. Visigodo Latino, as Ian.thomson said other languages generally do use their equivalent of "-ism". English uses "-ity", and as far as I can tell this has more to do with the way in which the word reached early English speakers than with a distinction in meaning. -- LWG talk 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Lutheranism, the Swedish church must be seen as state religion, still? - Is state churches best to present this way?

Up to year 2000 the Swedish church was a department/authority of the Swedish governmental administration, own by the state and clerics on governmental payroll since 1536, the king/government is the top political instance.

However converted to a foundation makes no major change/difference in practice when there is the law of the Swedish church that defines it, its constitution (politically elected parish governments and parliaments that elects the hierarchy as previously) and de facto makes the government and the parliament the last say in everything. And in fact the government and the parliament do intervene in the Swedish church business in more or less the same as in the past. The major difference is that the Civil registry is transferred to the tax authority and the government do not have the last word in appointments of clergy. The tax authority still manages the church tax (paid only by its members and funeral fees for all Swedes are administrated by the Swedish church parishes still except in Stockholm town where it has this responsibility). 1951 the religion freedom act allowed citizens to exit the Swedish church and must seen as a more significant change.

In fact the 1776 royal contract of the Mosaic parish of Stockholm (Goteborg and Malmö) states about the same as the Swedish church before 2000 and in practice like after 2000, but unchanged the king has the last word (however never spoken yet).

Not listing the Swedish church as a state church is really doubtful. Also the Jewish parish should be seen as a state "church".

Question is if this topic rather should be put up under some kind of political perspective of Christianity instated? Because the issue is political control (especially from the Swedish parliament 1600 in Linköping) over religious institutions and has nothing to do with believes. And the issue is even today very interesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC) --Zzalpha (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The political perspective of Christianity should be chapter here or an own an article

I write this story as I can explain it, must certainly be written differently in a Wiki article, but I like to show another at least as important perspective on Christianity to be able to understand it and many historical and present political religious issues. The question is if ecumenical solutions are wanted for what use and if wars are religious or if the religion is just a political tool?

Christianity is about faith and the church as an organization and pretty well covered in the present Christianity article.

However political perspective of Christianity is to a large extent a much more important issue and left blank here in Wikipedia. Certainly it is possible to pretend that the political perspective of Christianity does not exist but a lot of the political history, many parts of Christianity and a lot of politics and news today would be illogic and not understandable without a political perspective of Christianity?

And the political perspective of Christianity might feel uncomfortable for some people with strong religious fundamentalist faith, but certainly not for all. It is also a factor to encourage a very Christian thing, empathy and make formalities less important, all believe in the same God.

The context

A very good start point is understanding Constantine the greats conversion to Christianity and the importance of the political importance First Council of Nicaea and the following conversion of Christianity to one unite state religion of the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire and the very hard view on deviants, like Arians and the importance of dogmas.

The issue is that previously the Roman army was a paid army of mercenaries funded mainly by robbery and governmental funding. In the beginning of the 4th century it was getting hard to fund the Roman army this way and it was a strong need to find other means of supplying the empire with a force keeping it running. The empire was also suffering from civil wars and needed a key factor of unifications of "us" in contrary to "them".

Christianity with its Jewish roots, that kept the Jewish nation together despite horrific hardships (that also was shown by early Christians meeting Roman oppression), most likely impressing the Roman leadership as a possible political tool to be tested and developed.

The key factor was that the Emperor was sent by God supported by the church, the Pope and the Patriarchs and denying the true faith meant denting the empire, being outcast, not belonging to the society the family of Christians and Romans. It created an army that to a large extent served a general public purpose rather than an army for money and an empire kept together by faith to church and Caesar. There were no need of ecumenism, rather a need to expel the unfaithful and beat them politically and militarily, the basic need was to have a strong opinion about any fundamental issues popping up defining "us" and "them".

The other side if you wanted independent from the empire you just can't have its faith, so when the Goths became Christian they become Arians just not having to swore to the Empire they opposed, and so on. And it meant war of course and the Byzantine view was that "the world was domestic" and everything else was "Heresy" and that is why this term is so politically important. It worked in 1150 years to keep the empire running, and some try it still.

For the Egyptians and the people in the Levant, politically and economically it were no good business on local level being more or less a colony of Constantinople and Christian mission in the Arab peninsula was not that smooth having to become subjects of Constantinople in the same breath. So the alternative was to invent the same but different Islam become a much better selling topic. Some even claim the Koran is written by a Christian clergy relative to Muhammad wife, and written to fit people of local political management for political control but imperial independence. Some of it looks even to be plausible and set up a quite different management style of Islamic empires but generally based on the same originally Jewish idea.

The rift between Rome and Constantinople became clear of the changed political situation in the west with Charlemagne popping up as a problem/opportunity for the Pope in Rome and Charlemagne was not Byzantine. By crowning Charlemagne as Caesar of the west in the end Rome and Constantinople couldn't stay the same relation and a theological dogmatic rift must be invented ending in 1054, clash (that is theologically for most hard to understand, but much easier to understand politically).

The Catholic political idea of the joint interests of kings and Pope creating kingdoms in Northern Europe was pretty successful. The Gregory VII idea of detailed control of every individual by the church as a reinvention of the Roman empire lead to a conflict with the Kings up to the 15th and 16th century when Martin Luther came. And Luther settled about outcome of the already ongoing late 15th century rift with the popes regarding appointments of Bishops. Making an opportunity for the kings to nationalize the churches in Northern Europe becoming Lutheran state churches, integrated in the government administration.

In between some kept the Catholic bonds being sandwiched between protestant and Russian orthodox neighbors, like Poland, needning the support of the Pope badly. The Catholic church has since ages been the factor keeping Poland alive over very bad times over and over again. Took the Poles 25 years to be deprogrammed after independence from Soviet rule, being very religious politically at start. The Irish were also not mainly Catholic by faith but rather by political necessity keeping independence from Britain, when England became Protestant, avoiding disappear under the English rule.

One of the most typical factors has been the conversion of England under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, many talking about needs of divorce by Henry VIII, but that is a very difficult explanation to believe in. Rather we have three major countries of power, France, Spain and England where the two first like to take control over England and the two latter competitors want control over America and the lands over seas. So both Henry VIII and Philip II of Spain need the support of the Pope to win the competition and the independence from each other. The Pope finally chose side for Philip II of Spain, so Henry must get ride of the Pope politically (and so his Aragon wife Catherine of Aragon) in order not having not to obey to the Popes demands. And because Henry to please the Pope wrote a negative book about Luther, England couldn't become Lutheran, and have to reinvent Lutheranism but differently again, the present Anglican church. And in this situation it was not hard to make anyone in England with any ambitions to follow. Being a Catholic meant being an enemy of the state, a spy and traitor. Some did not believe Henry would make it and the Spaniards would win, stayed Catholics secretly and were in fact enemies of the state, a spies and traitors and treated as such found out. It had nothing to do with faith or family law, but pure politics money and power. And Henry and Elizabeth made it in the end and made England a world power. Did William III of England have any problems being Anglican in England and Calvinist in Holland at the same time?

During the English civil war the main issue of Puritans as for the Continental Reformed church were religion by faith to a large extent a need of independence from kings and bishops (that were seen as expensive risk factors) and it turned out that the English American colonies and USA became the place in peace for them at end, and they mass emigrated. Their faith is also the insurance of independence from kings and bishops.

Today we see for instance many Islamic sects being extremely intolerant as a mean of political control in civil wars. Being extremely intolerant means not having to follow any orders from others that like to stop them from power in civil wars and keep the military force up cheap by faith. It worked in Massada, later in Mecca very long time ago and it still works. And the world is back on tracks. In between are those who wants independence and being a part of the peaceful society and it is not an easy issue.

I think we understand the world better this way.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) --Zzalpha (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

christianity was never a sect of judaism and its just a confusion. Khushalahmad1996 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was Jewish, for God's sake!

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

41.202.166.74 (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

Its main points include:

belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit the death, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension of Christ the holiness of the Church and the communion of saints Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful.

Please include The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ 117.223.242.156 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Roots in Judaism

I was reading the lede and rest of the introduction today, and wondered at the lack of mention of Judaism / Jewish tradition and its impact on Christianity. Given that Jesus was a Jew and that many of his teachings, quotations and parables are rooted either in the Tanakh aka Old Testament or in Jewish tradition, it seems that at least a brief mention should be made. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? If there is no opposition, or indeed even any conversation, on this, then I'll go ahead and add it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the first sentence that Christianity is a Abrahamic religion. That covers it. I guess people aren't commenting because it has been discussed to death. See the archives via the search tool at the top of this talk page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd really like to know how I missed the rather obvious "Abrahamic" statement - three times. Whoops. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

Please change the following sentence:

The 2,834 sees[261] are grouped into 23 particular rites, the largest being the Latin Church, each with distinct traditions regarding the liturgy and the administering the sacraments.[262]

to:

The 2,834 sees[261] are grouped into 24 particular rites, the largest being the Latin Church, each with distinct traditions regarding the liturgy and the administering the sacraments.[262]

I am requesting this because Pope Francis added a new particular rite (the Eritrean Catholic Church) in 2015, so there is now the Latin rite plus 23 Oriental rites, for a total of 24 particular rites. This fact is documented in the [1] page.

206.108.7.131 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Rick Lorenz

Done Stickee (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_iuris

Category:Christian denominational families

You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

jonestown massacres and other sects

Should sects like jonestown and unusal sects preaching the coming of jesus in the year 2000 , rapture sects be included— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.190.88 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia operates off of due weight. Most of those are blip in across the planet for the past two millennia. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ian.thomson...these are so tiny, they would be misguiding to include in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinerite (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There should be a section where recent tactics by christians to start new sects in other religions with the intention to mislead is sprouting up across the globe. For instance BAPS was declared the largest hindu templeby guiness world records a western controlled organization while this sect has clear non hindu values with god lineages. There also should be some info on acting , where non hindus pretend to be hindus and give false statements of salvation by christ. Also use of medical equipment to scare people into thinking they are in the presence of god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.175.65 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done That might be interesting if you had sources instead of unevidenced sectarian conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please check newspaper sources in suriname especially during 2007- 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.175.65 (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on you. You need to name which issues of which newspapers. If someone told you "check the newspapers in Japan from 1985-1990" would you believe them? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: Are Suriname newspapers in 2007 an approved resource? Iheartthestrals (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They could be, depending on the newspaper, what they're being cited for, and what other sources say (if they exist). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I will be adding resources and links soon of "possessions" in high schools in suriname during 2007-2010. they may have been acts or use of psychological manipulation devices to treat schizophrenic patients. suriname is known for proselytizing non christians by means of ridicule and force. jehovahs witnesses are actively involved in this and they should be scrutinized for all activities to make sure they are not brainwashing people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.211.124 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

christianity - polytheistic

if there are several gods mentioned in the bible then it is a polytheistic religion. also there should be mention in this article that jesus may be a manufactured crisis by the romans to distract common people from their religion. states may have adopted christianity to keep true religion and knowledge from common people as was practice during that time. the bible creation story has already been disproven by science and there should be mention of mormons and or jehovahs witnesses that have infiltrated the military to proselytize people not by reason but by psychological manipulation of minds and body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.211.124 (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. By your reasoning, monotheism and even atheism are impossible, because denying other gods would be mentioning them, and hence (according to your reasoning) polytheism.
As for your claims about Jesus, again, WP:No original research and WP:FRINGE. We cover that idea as much as it deserves in Christ myth theory.
As for your claims of "true religion," see WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY -- Wikipedia is secular and does not advocate any particular religious (or irreligious) belief as true.
As for your claims about the Bible, that's Young Earth Creationism, which is only one interpretation among many. Please actually learn about a topic before speaking on it.
As for your claims regarding Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (indeed, everything you've said), WP:Verifiability is a cornerstone of this site
In short: Wikipedia is probably not the site for you, as we stick to WP:Verifiability, use absolutely WP:No original research, and reject WP:Advocacy of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note:Move discussion

If anyone is interested for input, please participate in a relevant move discussion at James the Just's talk page, to help reach a consensus for the title of that article. Khestwol (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC) § purely amazing ust busialx simonoaزضه

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015

89.168.69.131 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC) no I lie this

This sentence

While Anglicans, Lutherans and the Reformed branches of Protestantism originated in the Magisterial Reformation, other Protestant groups such as the Anabaptists (which include the Mennonites and Hutterites, originated in the Radical Reformation and are distinguished by their belief in credobaptism.

This sentence does not need any examples. Anabaptists are such a small group that there is no point in mentioning Hutterites and Mennonites specifically. We could mention dozens of other distinguishable groups as well, but then what's the point again?Ernio48 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. There is nothing wrong with the examples and no reason to exclude them. I don't understand why you're edit warring over a few words that are accurate and informative. PepperBeast (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: The examples should stay. Most people don't know what an anabaptist is but the examples provide clarity. Taxee (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
So, again. What's the reason to include them? I don't see any.Ernio48 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Read the line above your comment-- "Most people don't know what an anabaptist is but the examples provide clarity". Seriously, it's so normal in almost any kind of writing to clarify with examples, I don't even understand why we need to have this discussion. Why is this bothering you so much? PepperBeast (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If someone doesn't know who an Anabaptist is, what's the probability that he/she knows about the Hutterites or the Mennonites? So, what clarity are you talking about? This is still a zero explanation.Ernio48 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a perfectly good sentence. You're the one who wants to change it, and you've provided no good explanation for why. (And I, personally, would have recognised the word Mennonite a long time before I knew anything about anabaptists in general.) PepperBeast (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It isn't because of the bracket in the middle of it. These examples were not there before. Someone added it completely without reason. You would recognize Mennonites personally just because you live in the Americas. For Europeans, for instance, the word Anabaptist is more recognizable and Mennonite/Hutterite doesn't ring a bell.Ernio48 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Without reason? I'm sure the person that added the examples thought the same way that i do - it improves the sentence. Taxee (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If Europeans recognise the word Anabaptist and people in the Americas find clarification in the examples, then the examples are working perfectly. Dismissing what works for North and South Americans cuts no ice. (Incidentally, I don't live in the Americas.) PepperBeast (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

I don't think there's any need to remove a picture of the Creation Museum. MagicatthemovieS's comment "Having a Creationist organization be the face of Christian apologetics on this page would misrepresent many Christians who aren't creationists." really isn't a sufficient justification for excluding it. The pictures on the page represent a range of Christians and Christian belief, and one small pic of a creationist institute is hardly an overrepresentation. PepperBeast (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the Summa Theologica page illustrates the section in question better. While creationists are a current nuisance, in particular in the US, their overall influence on Christianity and the world is quite limited, and certainly not in line with the impact of Aquinas. I would, however, update the caption to A page from the Summa Theologica, a famous apologetics work, because a) it's not a full copy and b) "Christian" is clear from the context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Differences Between Christianity and Catholicism

A common theme I see on Wikipedia is that Christianity based on the Bible and Catholicism are the same with minor discrepancies. This is not the case. While the Catholic church holds doctrine that lines up with the Bible, other doctrines held by the Catholic church so exceedingly differ from Scripture that Christianity and Catholicism can not be seen as the same with minor differences. For example, the infallibility of the pope while teaching, transubstantiation, and the rest of the sacraments ("rest" complementing transubstantiation; the infallibility of the pope while teaching is not a sacrament.)

I believe the difference needs to be expressed throughout when Catholicism is mentioned and a section about how Biblical Christianity and Catholicism differ is written. I can write this article, if need be.

[1]

FegelAntics (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


This is really dumb. Catholicism is not only a form of Christianity, it's the single largest form of Christianity. If your definition of Christianity does not include Catholicism, your definition of Christianity is wrong.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:d:6880:f580:3883:54dc:6bab:5a42 (talk)

References

  1. ^ "What is Roman Catholicism?" Got Questions Ministries, n.d. Web. [Accessed 7 Feb. 2015].
Wouldn't that go in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article? This article is about Christianity in the broadest terms. It is not about how anyone thinks Christianity is suppose to be, but how it is. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In one sense, I agree with FegelAntics that there are some tremendous theological differences between these two groups. Based on my understanding, the official Roman Catholic stance is that non-catholic Christians don't have salvation as the Catholic church is the only true church/religion AND there are many protestants who believe that Roman Catholics aren't Christians because of their beliefs. If we're discussing definitions, both could point to one another and say "you're not Christian, I am." I'm not going to dive into those specifics right in this discussion, but I use that to illustrate my point: there ARE huge fundamental differences between these groups that could be fleshed out more thoroughly. The differences are partially represented on this article, but more thorough explanation and clarification would be extremely helpful for people with no context to understand the differences between these groups. This isn't by any means saying that Catholics aren't Christians (I don't think that was FegelAntic's intent as the following comments assumed)...but rather an attempt to provide greater clarity and understanding between the two beliefs that manifest themselves in radically different lifestyles. There's nothing biased about that. Shinerite (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you go through the archives you'll see that this ridiculous topic has come up again and again since Wikipedia first went online. And every time it has been shot down, because it is is a fringe POV held only by extreme Protestants. According to such people, there were no 'True Christians' until the Protestant Reformation. This idea holds ZERO support from mainstream scholars, it therefore deserves zero mention in the article. Chick tracts and fundamentalist blogs are not valid sources so don't even try. As someone suggested, if there is any appropriate venu for this on Wikipedia, it's in Criticism of Catholicism, NOT here. Don't even try. Seriously. Trilobright (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture of creationist museum

Having a picture of a creationist museum in the section about Christian apologetics is incredibly misleading as most modern Christian apologists are not Christians. We should probably change that picture to something more credible related to Christian apologetics (perhaps a picture of a copy of Mere Christianity or the Summa Theologica). MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)

I suspect that "....most modern Christian apologists are not Christians..." should read "....most modern Christian apologists are not creationists..."? I'd agree with the second statement, but the first raises some eyebrows. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say that most modern Christian apologists are not creationists. I will change the photo as per our discussion.MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)
I'd let the discussion go for a while - at least give everybody in any timezone a chance to chime in. There is no deadline... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

Riddle me this - why is it alright that the Wiki articles on Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, LaVeyan Satanism and Wicca don't have "criticism" sections, and yet the Wiki articles on Christianity and Islam do have "criticism" sections. To be fair, either all articles on religions and other worldviews should have criticism sections or none of them should - and info criticizing a religion or other worldview should be relegated to a separate "Criticism of ___ " page. MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)

The short answer is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The longer answer is that the section is not about assorted general criticism, but historical criticism and in the sense of higher criticism, which either does not exist for all religious movements or is less prominent as a separate topic. And of course on Wikipedia there is always the issue that some topics are not treated properly because no-one has written about them (yet). That is not a reason to delete notable and referenced content, but rather a reason to add more to articles missing important aspects. In general, WP:SUMMARY strongly encourages the main article to contain a short summary of the topics of subordinate articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Schulz, not all of your assertions are correct. The "Criticism and apologetics" of this page does feature assorted criticism, not just higher criticism. As such, the Wiki article about every religion/worldview could have a "Criticism" section, regardless of whether or not higher criticism of that religion/worldview is extant.MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 October 2015‎ (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: Lots of topics on Wikipedia have "Criticism" sections - especially when there's a lot of criticism toward it. -_- The reason that Christianity and Islam have "Criticism" sections, is probably that, since their believers are the two most violent groups in the world, they've garnered a lot of attention, and therefore a lot of criticism. Since you bring it up, Judaism probably doesn't have a "Criticism" section, because since they've been a fairly peaceful group throughout history (despite their Torah myths of them being warriors and having armies), most people probably haven't cared enough to criticize them. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism certainly had a lot of criticism for the religion, enough to write a book called The Jews and their Lies. Thus, the entire Protestant cult is built around an intolerant religious jackass. And Jainism has a "Reception" section, consisting of both positive and negative criticisms.
-- Simply put, the squeaky wheel gets the criticism. Christians and Muslims have, historically, sucked at flying under the radar. Wiccans do a great job at flying under the radar, and interestingly, the only people who seem to raise any criticism toward them, are those pastors/etc who criticize Wiccans merely on religious grounds, and use their Bibles as the basis for their arguments. If, however, you can find non-religious sources for your basis of criticism - such as historians, or even religious people who decide to look at the religion logically (as opposed to seeing through the lens of their religion) - then by all means, add a "Criticism" section to the Wiki articles of Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, LaVeyan Satanism and Wicca. But if you're lame about it, by adding "Criticism" that says, "they're bad, because they don't worship our Godman", or "they suck, because they don't accept the final prophet(*profit)", then no, adding that kind of faith-based criticism won't fly. Reason over faith. Knowledge Battle 08:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
First please to keep respect here, and do use much better word's when you go in talk page.
I'm not here to go into argument but it's funny when called christians and muslims as the most violent groups, it's like other groups were so peacfull. Atheist been violent also during history and been when the advocacy of atheism by some of the more violent exponents of the French Revolution, the subsequent militancy of Marxist-Leninist atheism, and prominence of atheism in totalitarian states formed in the 20th century is often cited in critical assessments of the implications of atheism. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke railed against "atheistical fanaticism". The atheism of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, which was later influential in the establishment of state atheism across Eastern Europe and elsewhere, including Mao Zedong's China, Communist North Korea and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Critics of atheism often associate the actions of 20th-century state atheism with broader atheism in their critiques led to many violence and intolerant and discrimination and persecution policy agiant's people of faith. So since atheist been also one most violent groups in the world espeacially during the 20th century i think they need also "Criticism" sections. What about Hinduism? no section about Social structure (which keep povrety high in india) or discrimination against widows or Hindu nationalism and it's role in the sectarian violence in India. Or maybe we can add also section on Accusation of violence for Buddhism [Thailand during 1970, 2013 Burma anti-Muslimriotsm, The Ashokavadana Massacre, 1915 Ceylonese riots, Mawanella Riots and 2014 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka]. And since you talk about violnce have you heared about Jewish religious terrorism who can be added under section of Criticism i'm pretty sure historians don't consider Kingdom of Israel group, Terror Against Terror, Kach and Kahane Chai, Sikrikim or Price tag policy a fairly peaceful group's!. So every religious group and irrligious group include atheist done violence or been critized for several reasons beside the violence so it's nice when you select and inventory violence only for Christians and Muslims, !
@Jobas: You're right about a lot of stuff. First of all, as I already said, if you want to add "Criticisms" of other religions, then jump on it! I'm not saying that Jews and Hindus don't have anything to criticize, I'm just saying make sure that it's valid criticism, and not criticism based upon your own holy book.
Second, you're right, some "atheists" have done bad things.
1) Stalin: who, unfortunately, received a very religious upbringing). And, isn't it interesting that Stalin thought he "knew God", better than other people? If that's the case, then he must have believed in God, for Stalin to "know Him better". Stalin: "Следов не знают, не видят. Его для них нет." "Don‘t know traces, don‘t see. There is no Him for them." Stalin was a politician, and, as a politician would do, used the currents of the political winds to make his case. But why did he write a poem that said, "But people who forgot GOD, with darkness in their hearts, instead of wine served poison to him in the cup." (a reference to Socrates) Communism certainly was in favor of removing religious influence, I won't argue with you. But this man, who was training for the priesthood, and seemed to have his own belief in a god... it makes me wonder if he really was the atheist he proclaimed to be.
2)Mao Zedong: He might have been a bad person, but his quote "religion is poison" was certainly correct. Both Mao and 3) Pol Pot, believed in heaven. Despite being so-called "atheists", what kind of legitimate, rational atheists believe in a god and believe in heaven? Ultimately, it doesn't boil down to whether these people were atheists or not - they were clearly insane and irrational - much like the Catholic, Hitler, and many Catholic Popes.
Now when I point out that religion is the most violent, you are right to point out that, during the Communist wars, the Communists killed more people than all the religious people have, throughout history. That much is true. And what does that tell me? It tells me that Atheists are more efficient than religious people. It tells me that Atheists can play the religious man's game, better than the religious man can do it. But even blackbelts can be defeated, if a bunch of unskilled morons outnumber them. Religious people outnumber atheists on Earth, no doubt about it. The Communists lost, and I'm glad. Communism was at odds with State Socialism (such as Germany). Communism is violence-based, from it's core. I abhor violence, and so I'm glad Communism failed. Democratic (by the people) Socialism (for the people) is the better answer.
But let's look at why the French Revolutionists and the Russians hated religion so much? What did they despise about religion? It couldn't possibly be the fact that religion has had a constant need to battle and conquer, throughout history? Nah... it couldn't possibly be that kind of corruption that led to their disdain, and attempted removal, of religion, could it? Nah. If religious people have a history for being violent and disgusting, and Communists sought to remove religion through violent means... that's like shooting an trespasser in your house, and then the trespasser sues you for shooting him. Despite my disdain for Communism, the Communists had many historical reasons to disdain religion, and try to weed it out. Sure, Stalin was more successful at killing (by which he played the religious man's game), but as for that representing atheists? No. Religion offers constant war and hatred, based on mythological texts. It provides many more "soldiers" for "God's army", and even though religious people suck at the very massacres they delight in, religion has offered numerically higher amounts of violent people, than irreligion ever has. It's funny, when religious people want to accuse atheists, they always look at the Communists, and stuff that has happened in the last 200 years - it's only of recent times that atheists have really fought hard and sought to counter the religious poison of society. When atheists point out religious violence, we have thousands of years of history to draw from, too many people to use as examples, from all around the globe. Which is the bigger poison - the religions which have provided continuous mental disease for thousands of years for no reason, or the irreligion that has looked at the history of religion, and said, "We're tired of that poison"?
Atheists, as a whole, are far more peaceful than religious groups, probably because we have no religious books specifically telling us to kill certain people, and claiming to be from a Super Power Imaginary Friend. If you want to create a Criticism section for Atheism and throw Stalin in there, by all means, do it. However, I'd like to point out that atheists have been putting up with religious violence for thousands of years, atheists have been ex-communicated and burned at the stakes for thousands of years, atheists have been stoned to death because their Bibles told them so for thousands of years, and these days, atheists make up less than 0.209% of the US prison population - a nation where it's really easy to go to prison, and has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Are Atheists more moral than everyone else? I don't know. But we can follow the law a lot better. Knowledge Battle 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sir or madam, your rudeness is horribly unprofessional. Also, this is not the place for either of you to defend your worldviews.MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Renaming section "Criticism and apologetics" to simply "Criticism"?

In lots of Wiki articles about ideological topics, there are "Criticism" sections. However, the Christianity page calls it's Criticism section, "Criticism and apologetics". The word "apologetics" already means "in defense of", since religions have to be reinterpreted by con artists religious scholars to make sure the religion doesn't die out. It seems as though throwing "and apologetics" into the title cancels out, from the beginning, the criticisms raised about the topic. Of course, to a con artist religious scholar, this could be a very manipulative beneficial tactic, as it disallows the reader to take the criticisms seriously, if they think the criticisms have all been truthfully handled. It would seem to me that apologetics should, certainly, be mentioned in the "Criticism" section, but that apologetics should be mentioned after the criticisms, to explain the "other side of the argument". The Islam page has simply a "Criticism" section, despite the fact that they have lots of their own apologetics. Vote? Agree or disagree, that "Criticism and apologetics" should read, simply, "Criticism", as to not be manipulative? Knowledge Battle 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with caveat. 1. Juxtaposing two opposite ideas in the same section is strange. 2. Juxtaposing ideas in the same sentence at Wikipedia can often be seen as interpreting the latter view as preferable. For example: "Britain has used British spelling conventions for thousands of years; however, in modern times the United States has moved away from it." These can be treated separately neutrally without juxtaposing them. And the section at hand should do the same. Just create a different section for Apologetics. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
In general, pure criticism sections are discouraged per Wikipedia:CSECTION. Moreover, at least to me this is a continuing debate with points and counterpoints - I don't think cutting it in half is a good idea. Maybe we can find a better title? "Historical debate"? "Critical debate"? I have to say that I'm not really a fan of the current section at all - it's very disjointed, jumping from the Pharisees at a time when there wasn't even a defined creed, but just an assembly of groups of "Jesus followers" to third century philosophers, then directly to medieval Jewish criticism, and then another 600 years to Nietzsche and Russell (skipping e.g. Voltaire, and Gibbon). It does not do justice to the fact that there was and is vigorous debate throughout the last 2000 years, and both within and outside Christianity - consider e.g. Iconoclasm and the Protestant Reformation, neither of which is mentioned in that section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If you read further into Wikipedia:CSECTION, you'll see the following where this very article is mentioned (emphasis mine):

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

The criticism section if fine but probably needs work as you mentioned. The apologetics should simply be split out. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hypostatic Trinity shouldn't be in the first paragraph

Or if it has to be (actually I think it might be better there, but I couldn't think of a better title), then there should be some indication that there exist nontrinitarian Christian groups, rather than just saying that 'Christians believe that Jesus... is fully human and fully divine'. That sentence erases the existence and beliefs of at least 30 million people, and probably many more. 2607:F470:6:5001:B82E:A95C:BA1A:4BBE (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You're mixing up concepts. There is no such thing as the Hypostatic Trinity in theology (or Wikipedia, hence the red link). That sentence does not mention the Trinity. The hypostatic union is the idea that Jesus is both human and divine. Even non-trinitarian sects believe that Jesus is divine in some way, whether it's as God's literal biological son or the first and only creation of God and the demiurge by which the rest of existence came into being. The sentence does not say that Jesus is the personality of the one God and not a separate entity, which would be what would exclude those non-trinitarian groups. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
A problem with "fully divine and fully human" is that Monophysites, who have been a distinct denomination since the fifth century, do not believe that Christ is fully human, do not believe in the hypostatic union. Perhaps the sentence should be qualified as "generally believe". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Seeing no response, and seeing that my own notion of inserting "generally" would require reworking of the whole sentence, I'm taking the bold step of simply removing "fully divine and fully human". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Angels and Jesus

No reference is made in this article of the visitation of angels to Jesus and the disciples in the Biblical accounts. Given the importance to the church and his branch of Judaism it seems the article could be improved under the Jesus heading by simply adding such a reference to this sentence "The Biblical accounts of Jesus' ministry include: his baptism, miracles, preaching, teaching, visitations of angelsand deeds." The sole mention of angels is the digressive reference to Zoroastrianism not Judaism or Christianity.Church of the Rain (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There are only two mentions of visitations of angels to Jesus in the Bible - at the end of the temptation in the desert and at the garden of Gethsemane, both times to minister to/strengthen. There are several more mentions of visit of angels to Jesus's followers where they mostly make announcements, but sometimes open prison doors, etc. Jesus talks about angels some other times. Not certain what "his branch of Judaism" refers to but it is noted in Acts it is noted that the Sadducees do not believe in angels. The question remains how important this is in an article of this scope. I believe that some mention should be made but do not agree with your suggested location. Rmhermen (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The NT has over 170 references to angels. Amy Jill-Levine notes the Lukan gospel opens with an angelic visitation. (Levine, Amy-Jill; Brettler, Marc Z. (2011-10-15). The Jewish Annotated New Testament (p. iii). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.) The parables of Jesus have repeated angelic references and the occasions of angelic visitations in his ministry. However, the Christian creeds are absent any reference to angels. According to a David Stern, a Messianic Jewish Bible scholar "In Jewish popular thought, angels are a Christian invention" but Stern notes in the OT angels are frequently mentioned. (Stern, David. (1992) Jewish New Testament Commentary: a companion to the Jewish New Testament p. 824). On the matter of their importance to Christianity I mention the Sadducee query to Jesus about the resurrected person's martal status. Jesus mentions 'the sons of the resurrection' as being 'equal to angels' (Luke xx, 36). Biblical scholars are not as interested in the topic as the rank and file of Christianity and Christian art. The dark side of the angels topic is 'evil spirits' which is central in the ministry of Jesus however neglected it may be in modern Biblical scholarship. The topic of both evil and angelic spirits are connected in the ministry of Jesus. The commencement of the ministry contains angelic help as well as the commencement of the Passion. Where do you suggest a placement of new language if not in the Biblical account of the ministry? Church of the Rain (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles regarding factually unverifiable beliefs have language to that effect

Other articles regarding unproven and/or factually unverifiable beliefs or systems have language stating this, typically in the introduction. See, for example, the astrology article, which states "However, with the onset of the scientific revolution astrology was called into question; it has been challenged successfully both on theoretical and experimental grounds, and has been shown to have no scientific validity or explanatory power." See also the acupuncture article, which states "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological evidence for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians, and acupuncture points, and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) flowing through meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems." Similar language appears in the homeopathy article. This article on Christianity should have similar disclaimer language. It would be easy to find authority to cite for the proposition that the belief systems in Christianity have no verifiable basis in fact.

I note that the Christianity article refers to the religion article, but that article does not contain any disclaimer language regarding religions more generally, which perhaps makes sense since religions are a more general concept, and it's not immediately evident that they all necessarily feature unverified belief systems. Therefore, in all fairness and to be consistent with, for example, the astrology, acupuncture, and homeopathy articles, some of these articles regarding specific religions, certainly including this one, should get the disclaimer language. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoDilettante (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. Religions, by their very definition, are neither provable nor unprovable via scientific or other methods. (At best, we can verify or disprove some of the historical statements or events posited by a religion.) In other words, they are de facto, and intended to be, "unverified belief systems". That is clearly implicit in this article's text, via multiple statements such as "believe that", "hold that", "think that", etc. I see several other articles on major religions with similar phraseology. Further, there is no need to be "fair" to articles such as acupuncture or astrology that are not religions. In my opinion, then, such a statement is superfluous and already understood, and thus would detract. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Religions should not get a pass that other systems do not. Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia. The other systems of belief in which people believe things that are supposedly not subject to evidentiary challenge (like astrology) are noted as such very clearly in the introduction. These religions, and specifically Christianity, should be treated the same way. The fact that it has not previously been treated like the other factually unverified systems is bias. My edits eliminate this bias in favor of, e.g., Christianity and restore neutrality.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, the introductory paragraph of this article states "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity...." This is an extraordinary claim, and there is no evidence anywhere in this article that Christians have presented evidence to back it up. In the other articles regarding belief systems that make unverified beliefs (astrology and the others), these types of claims are clearly identified as unverified in the introduction to the article.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with the statement "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity"? That is a factual, verifiable, statement. The article isn't stating that it's true; the article is stating that Christians believe it's true. Huge difference. And religions are not "getting a pass", as you put it. Anyone with even the most fundamental understanding of what a religion entails already understands the statement you want to add. And if they do not, they are welcome to visit the Religion article this one links to. It would add nothing other than useless clutter to the article, thereby reducing its quality. Of course, if you still disagree with this, you're welcome to take up the same argument on every one of the hundreds of religion articles on Wikipedia; I assume that you would think it would be necessary to change every last one of them to add this self-evident statement.

Finally, it's bad form to revert someone else's additions to a Talk Page; please don't do so again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about the other religion articles on Wikipedia. We're talking about this one, which is the one I decided to start with. Here is the point: religions ARE getting a pass. Please take a moment to look at the articles on astrology, acupuncture, and homeopathy. They very clearly indicate, in the introductory section, that the beliefs of the practitioners are not factually verified. To date, Christianity (and most of the other religions) have been treated differently. It is time, in the interest of neutrality and eliminating bias, for this to end. Encyclopedic articles regarding unproven belief systems should state this lack of evidence up front.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
And please look at my earlier comments. I already covered why you should not use astrology, acupuncture, etc. as justification in this case. You are not presenting a new argument. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that this is only my opinion. Other editors may disagree, in which case - provided similar edits are made to other religion articles - it can stand. But it's best to gain consensus on the Talk page before adding such a change to the main article's text. Until then, multiple authors will continue to revert you, as that's standard practice regarding undiscussed changes on pages such as this one. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you did not address my previous comment regarding astrology, acupuncture, and homeopathy. All you said is that there is no need to be "fair" to them, but it's not being fair to them that I suggested is the issue. Rather, it's treating Christianity the same way as they and the other unproven belief systems are treated. In fact, this article defines Christianity as a religion, but the religion article does not make clear that religions are fact-free. I suspect the reason for this is that not all religions are necessarily fact-free (for example, Unitarianism may not be). Therefore, it makes more sense to put the disclaimer language in the articles regarding specific religions that do happen to be fact-free (and by "fact-free," I mean based on unverified or unverifiable assertions), including Christianity. That would treat the fact-free religions the same way that astrology, acupuncture, and homeopathy are treated. Moreover, I included a citation for my edit (which you rolled back).
Additionally, there is no need to include the disclaimer language in the articles on all of the other religions, as a condition precedent for including it in the Christianity article. The problem is that it's also currently lacking in the other "fact-free" religion articles, even though it should be there as well. I am only starting with the Christianity article, because I have to start somewhere. ChicagoDilettante (talk)
In addition, yes, I would like the input of some other editors, but this has not happened as of yet.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I did address it. Look again. And look at the authors below who are making exactly the same points I did when I rebuffed your parallel to those articles. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

While I am not exactly a fan of Christianity and I thinks it has a record of misalodoxy (hostility to foreign beliefs), I will try to point something about the other articles with "unverifiable beliefs or systems" that have been pointed above.

  • Astrology is clearly stated to be a pseudoscience. The body of the article explains why: "Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics. Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterised as doing so "...in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary." "
  • acupuncture is also covered as a pseudoscience and its supposed effectiveness is measured by medical research. "A 2014 Nature Reviews Cancer review article found that "contrary to the claimed mechanism of redirecting the flow of qi through meridians, researchers usually find that it generally does not matter where the needles are inserted, how often (that is, no dose-response effect is observed), or even if needles are actually inserted. In other words, 'sham' or 'placebo' acupuncture generally produces the same effects as 'real' acupuncture and, in some cases, does better." "
  • "homeopathy" is also covered as a pseudoscience. Its very foundation in theoretic mechanisms is stated to be unscientific. "The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are precluded from having any effect by the laws of physics and physical chemistry. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the original substance in the final product. ... Existence of a pharmacological effect in the absence of any true active ingredient is inconsistent with the law of mass action and the observed dose-response relationships characteristic of therapeutic drugs (whereas placebo effects are non-specific and unrelated to pharmacological activity)."

Religions in general can make unscientific and pseudoscientific claims but do not generally fall within the definition of pseudoscience themselves. They do not follow or pretend to follow the scientific method ("a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.") They do not contact empirical research to support their believes, nor do they rely on empirical evidence. Christianity and its fellow religions tend to rely on revelation, strict belief in the supposed truth and wisdom of religious texts, and various forms of traditional knowledge.

I am not certain that all Christians necessarily believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as the term is less often used than God the Son which insists on Jesus' own divinity. But this belief is not something that can be proven, disproven, or even commented on by the scientific method. What evidence would they use to test it as hypothesis? Dimadick (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick, I understand what you're saying. However, here is the problem. Unlike with the pseudoscience reference in the astrology article, a reader of the article on Christianity (or some of the other religions) cannot easily learn that the beliefs of the religions (for example, that Jesus is the savior) are not factually verified. Originally, I tried to make an edit to the religion article stating that the beliefs held by religions are not factually verified. An editor of the religion article then pointed out that unverifiability is not necessarily an inherent feature of all religions so should not be addressed there. I think that's possibly correct. The Church of Satan, for example, is a religion that does not seem to make factually unverified claims, and other such religions (Deism, possibly) may exist. Therefore, it seems to make sense to put the disclaimer language (i.e. that the belief system does not have a proven factual basis) in the articles on those specific religions that DO make factually unverified claims (and I just started with Christianity, as the first one such to address). Bottom line: the fact that this belief system has no factually verified basis needs to be stated somewhere, if not in this article, then in the religion article, but I think it makes more sense to put it here in Christianity. Otherwise, we continue to do a disservice to readers by stating the claims of these religions without stating that there is no verifiable basis for these claims. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In addition, the troll, fairy, and leprechaun articles all specifically state that the subject matter is mythical, by referring to the mythology article or, in the case of leprechauns, by referring to the fairy article which, in turn, refers to the mythology article. So, the articles on astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, and leprechaun all, in one way or the other, indicate to the reader that the subject matter is something that either is not factually verified or not proven to exist. This is as it should be. Wikipedia is an evidence-based source of knowledge and information. However, unfortunately, right now, Christianity and the other religions are getting special treatment to the detriment of readers, in that nowhere is it stated, not in the Christianity article, or in the referenced religion article, that the belief system is not factually based. I can see no logical reason that this would be the case and believe that it is likely bias. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viewpoint-neutral source of information, and I believe that my edit stating that Christianity does not have a verified, factual basis is necessary to remove the bias form this article.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This article should contain a statement that the assertions of its adherents are not factually verified or supportable

Other articles, generally outside the context of recognized religions, that involve belief systems which have not been factually verified make this clear either in the text of the article (usually in the introductory section) or by referencing articles that make this clear. So far, Christianity (and, I believe, many of its fellow religions) have gotten special treatment in this regard. It is time, in my opinion, for this to end, which would make the Christianity article consistent with the other articles regarding unverified claims. For example, the following articles all make it clear that the views of the adherents, or the beings in questions, have no confirmed factual basis: astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, leprechaun. The first three of these (astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy) state flatly in the introduction section that the claims have no verified factual basis. The latter three of these (troll, fairy, leprechaun) refer, directly or indirectly, to the mythology article which makes clear that the beings have no verified factual basis. This is not the case with this article, which states various claims by adherents, including stating that "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity," but does not tell the reader that Christians have not backed up these claims with evidence. This article does reference the religion article, but that article does not make clear that the claims of various of the religions are not factually verified, nor, I think should it because not all religions necessarily make claims with no verified factual basis.

The fact that Christianity and some of the other specific religions do not have the same type of disclaimer language, stating that the adherents believe things that they cannot back up with evidence, as is found in the other similar types of articles (astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, leprechaun) is misleading and a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia entries, who are not put on notice that the claims and assertions are not backed up with any evidence. There is no reason NOT to put the reader on notice of this when reading this material, and the failure to do so heretofore is, I suspect, an example of bias in favor of Christianity (and its fellow religions). I decided to start with this article, since Christianity is the most popular religion worldwide, but my edit was reverted.

Thanks for asking for comments. Religions aren't pseudoscience. They aren't science, either. We should not try to debunk them since they are not in the sphere of science or fact-based logic. YoPienso (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line: specific religions, including Christianity, that make factual claims with no verifiable basis should be treated the same way as the other belief systems (astrology, etc.) that make these types of claims, and should no longer be given special treatment. I have tried engaging on this with other editors but have not had much success with this obvious point so am submitting this RFC. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reason, based on policy, to make this change? A religion is a whole lot different sort of belief system than something like pyramid power. Calling them the same doesn't make them the same. Maybe you haven't gotten anywhere with other editors because you're clearly wrong. Has that occurred to you?Farsight001 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This RFC considers content added to the lead section. According to the Manual of Style: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". It goes on to say that "If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy".
Now, the body of the article discusses the issue in the Criticism and apologetics section, but only briefly. Given this, I think it would be undue weight to dwell on the subject in the lead. The additions by ChicagoDilettante also introduced the issue to the lead in the context of Enlightenment and modern views on science, which the relevant section doesn't mention. It is inadvisable to introduce things in the lead if they are not covered by the rest of the article.
With regard to "disclaimers", there is no policy to support that we should make them. We should write a good article in a neutral fashion based on reliable sources. From that, a good lead will automatically follow if we summarize. Any additional "disclaimers", even if sourced, to the lead are not in the spirit of neutral point of view.
I think this article neither states opinions as facts nor facts as opinions ("Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God"). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (modified Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC))
Farsight001, I disagree with your assertion that "A religion is a whole lot different sort of belief system than something like pyramid power." In fact, it is EXACTLY the same type of belief system. Someone just says the stuff is true, with no ability to back up the claims. This would be immediately evident to any objective observer, who wasn't already emotionally invested in these religions. If you feel there is really a difference, I'd be curious to hear what you think that difference is. However, I believe that I am the one here who is seeing this clearly and objectively, and that it is time to move Wikipedia into the realm of content neutrality and treat all of these unverified belief systems the same way. No special deference should be given to the systems traditionally referred to as "religions." Now, as to your pyramid power example, that article is a perfect illustration of my point. The lead specifically refers to the "alleged" paranormal properties of pyramids. To make this article consistent, it should state in the lead that Christianity is the belief that Jesus is "allegedly" the savior of humanity. Then, later in the pyramid power article, there is a statement that "There is no scientific evidence that pyramid power exists." This article should have a similar statement regarding Jesus being the savior of humanity, etc. Again, it is simply a historical accident that religions, which are holdovers from the pre-scientific age, are commonly treated differently from the other unverifiable belief systems. Looking at it objectively, this should not be the case. Wikipedia is a fact-based source of information, and neutrality would mean ending this artificial distinction which gives religions a free pass on evidence. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
One other thought, which I think is a useful way to frame this discussion: Why does Wikipedia treat Christianity, and the unverified claims made by its adherents, differently from pyramid power, and the unverified claims made by its adherents? If the only answer is that "religions" such as Christianity have a longer historical tradition and a greater number of adherents, then it's clear that this special treatment should end. ChicagoDilettante (talk)
Well, one of the biggest differences is that its a flipping RELIGION. If you honestly don't know the difference, then you really shouldn't be editing religion articles. Believe what you want, but without verifiable RS's utilized to the proper weight of scholars (which INCLUDES BELIEVERS) to support your notion, this article has no need to change in the way you propose and, in fact, doing so would be against policy.Farsight001 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous authorities I could cite for the proposition that the claims of Christianity are unverified in the same way that the claims of, e.g., pyramid power are unverified. There is no requirement that the cited authorities be what you refer to as "believers," only that they be third-party and knowledgeable about the subject matter. In fact, requiring the cited authorities to be "believers" in Christianity would be like saying that authorities cited in the pyramid power article must be adherents or practitioners of pyramid power, which would obviously be ridiculous. Personally, I haven't read anything by the popular atheist (i.e. non-believer) scholars like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc., but I have seen a couple of them interviewed on news shows. One of them (I forget which) wrote a book called the God Delusion, as I recall, which I suspect has the citations. Those people are esteemed scholars and professors but are certainly not "believers." In fact, I think any author who made the point that the claims of Christianity are unverified in exactly the same way as the claims of pyramid power would, inherently, not be a "believer."
Also, I note that you have not really answered my question regarding the difference between the assertions of adherents of pyramid power and Christianity. Instead, you simply said the difference is that Christianity is a religion, which of course begs the question. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said the cited authorities had to be believers. My point was that you must weigh the article according to the preponderence of sources, INCLUDING the believers. And since the preponderance of sources are weighted in accord with the article currently, I find it unlikely that you will be able to come up with something to shatter and overturn consensus.
I might also take the opportunity to point out that scholars are qualified experts on the subject in which they have studied or are well respected. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and Dawkins a biologist. Neither of them are qualified experts on the subject of theology, so we can't really use them as sources for claims other than things like "notable atheists have criticized..."Farsight001 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Most believers won't contest the statement that most of theology consists of subjective beliefs. That's fairly basic stuff, and repeating it in all religion articles would make them look dumb. People are expected to understand this as teenagers, when they notice there is more than one religion and different religions make different claims, which other religions choose to disbelieve. They might still subjectively believe that their religion got it right, but they understand this isn't an objective truth. The comparison with pyramid power misses the point, since pyramid power claims objective effects which can be studied empirically by science. So, the claims of pyramid power are falsifiable, the claim that Jesus is God isn't falsifiable.Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Tgeorgescu, now you're getting to the heart of the issue, which is that theology consists of subjective (i.e. not factually verifiable) beliefs. Maybe that's a feature of most of the religious systems, though I'm not sure it's a feature of all of them. See, for example, the Church of Satan, which is a religious belief system that I don't think makes factually unverifiable claims. Possibly also Deism is like this. In any case, Christianity and many of the other more common systems do make factually unverifiable claims. I disagree with you on this being something so obvious to people, beginning as teenagers, that it's unnecessary to be explicit about it in Wikipedia. I'd rather include it somewhere that's easy to find when someone reads this article on Christianity. Otherwise, the readers are potentially being misled to possibly think that these claims are based on something factual. However, maybe you're right: perhaps it's too cumbersome to put the same disclaimer language regarding unverifiabilty in each of the articles on the separate religions. So then maybe it should go in the religion article, since the various religion articles, including Christianity, reference the religion article. However, the problem is that when I tried to add disclaimer language to the religion article, an editor pointed out that factual unverifiability is not necessarily a feature of ALL religions, just some of them (and I think that editor is probably right). So, what do you think? If the disclaimer is not in the Christianity article, should it then be in the referenced religion article. I think it's got to be somewhere. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would it need to be anywhere? Faith, which is simply, belief without proof, is the entire point of many religions. They are SUPPOSED to be unverifiable. Adding a "disclaimer" to remind people of this seems to serve no other purpose than to try to cast doubt on it.Farsight001 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If by "cast doubt on it," you mean put the reader on fair notice that, unlike most of the other topics covered in Wikipedia, the claims by the adherents stated in the article are not factually verifiable, then yes, I think the POV neutral, and objectively fair, thing to do is to "cast doubt on it." This is the approach taken with the other, similar topics that are not factually verifiable, like astrology, pyramid power, and the rest. The fact that "religions" have, up until now, been treated differently is, I submit, purely a matter of tradition, historical accident, and bias. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, why would you need a disclaimer? All the adherents of religion and any atheist or agnostic with a lick of sense knows its a faith, not a fact. Adding such a disclaimer would be the pov problem here, imo. And again, religion is far and wide different from pyramid power. This has been reiterated to you and explained to you multiple times already, so please stop repeating that crap. The only reason to say something like that is to insult people who believe, which is just uncalled for here. If your purpose to be here is to get under the skin of people who believe in God, please stop wasting everyone's time and go somewhere else. If your purpose here is genuine improvement of the article, then try suggesting a specific change here (as in an exact statement and exactly where you think it should go) and an appropriate citation for that change and we'll see where we can go from there. Though frankly, based on how other encyclopedias are set up and there rather obvious lack of disclaimer statements like this, and the rather small smattering of sources that would back up such a suggested change, I find your chances better to get such disclaimers removed from articles like astrology, instead of getting them added here. In addition, I also can't help but notice that you're only suggesting this change on the Christianity article and haven't made this suggestion for any other religion yet. Why might that be?Farsight001 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As I noted, I started with Christianity, not to single out that particular religion (as you are obviously implying), but because I had to start somewhere, and Christianity is the most popular religion worldwide, so it was the obvious choice. I don't have any dog in the fight as to one religion versus another. Also, whatever you might think, the belief systems in astrology and pyramid power are EXACTLY the same, in their nature though obviously not in their content, as those in Christianity. This is obvious to any objective observer who has not already bought into one of the unverified belief systems. You have not offered any distinction except the question-begging one that Christianity is a religion. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you want specific language, it could be something like "Christianity, as a religion, is an example of a faith-based belief system in that many of its core claims have not been objectively verified." I would put this in the lead and add a citation, which shouldn't be hard to find. Feel free to tweak the language as you wish. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's like labeling bottles of Coca Cola with the warning that "This product makes no claim of curing cancer or any other deadly disease. If sick, consult a physician." Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
What Tgeorgescu said. I must also point out that the lede is just supposed to be a summary of the article, so we can't really add it to the lede without its presence in the body.Farsight001 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there any disadvantage to including a statement that the claims are not verified, even if you think it's obvious? In fact, this article documents numerous claims made by believers in Christianity, such as that "Jesus is the savior of humanity," without any discussion of truth, falsehood, or verifiability. This is bad form, in my opinion. I think we should make it clear to anyone reading this article, even someone without previous knowledge of religions (for example, readers in countries like Taiwan where religions are not common), that the believers have not verified the claims, and that they do not feel the need to do so. I see no reason not to do so. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, here is Søren Kierkegaard's take:

Kierkegaard on Subjective Truth. Lecture 8. The subject of truth is a complicated notion, but the first thing to say about it is that it is a quite conscientious slap in the face of philosophers. For a philosopher, truth, whatever else it might be, is objective. The central concept of Kierkegaard’s philosophy is “subjective truth”: making a commitment, making the leap of faith to believe. Kierkegaard allows that objectivity is fine in its place (e.g., in science). Kierkegaard is happy to say, “all power to the sciences, but… .” Questions concerning God and religion are not objective questions.

— Robert C. Solomon, No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life. Course Guidebook. p. 31
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Other avenues to explore: it is a crude argument that logical positivism would be the only game in town, see [1] and [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
When discussing other topics, such as astrology and pyramid power, or the existence of other hypothesized beings, such as Bigfoot, it is not necessary to invoke a more elaborate definition of truth such as that proposed by Søren Kierkegaard to discuss whether the asserted claims or beings are true or false. It is somehow a much simpler notion of truth that everyone clearly understands in articles regarding those topics. It is only when the topic strays to the longer-standing unverified claims which are called "religions" that these types of philosophical questions about "truth" are invoked, I suspect to give these types of unverified claims a more distinguished image. I think that's another example of bias, and the POV neutral approach would be to use the more commonplace, straightforward definition of truth for all topics, whether astrology, Bigfoot, or the various religions. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The difference between faith and science has been discussed to death by philosophers and theologians. You champion a view which is based upon logical positivism, as if that would be the only philosophy known to mankind. No, it is just a philosophy among many others. It has no special status inside Wikipedia. Inside Wikipedia, upon which is the best philosophy we have agreed to disagree. What we follow here is verifiable information, wherein verification is done according to reliable sources, not according to logical positivism. In fact, logical positivism failed to meaningfully define verification and so rendered its own enterprise moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have read the article on logical positivism and see your point that what I call simply verified versus unverified claims may actually be endorsing the view of logical positivism. Therefore, and since I am getting no support here, I am going to discontinue my attempt to get a disclaimer put into this article. However, I am going to try to address this in the religion article, which I believe should have a section added stating that religions, in general, are faith-based systems which may include unverified claims, and noting that religions do not necessarily adhere to logical positivism. That will also avoid me having to fight this battle separately in the articles for the various specific religions, and will in that way be more efficient. In any event, I am going to discontinue this attempt at this time in this article, and this RFC should be considered, for all practical purposes, resolved. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to "Jesus is the Saviour of mankind", according to WP:NPOV it has to be stated as belief, not as objective fact. It can be believed or disbelieved, but not verified or (dis)proven scientifically (at least while we are alive upon Earth). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

rfc comment: So far when I read this article, It's basically explains what the fundamental beliefs of what Christianity is, ideology systems, differences in worship from multiple branches, etc. So far, I see no claim of religious dominacence over non-Christian views. However, there are no opposing views for the existence of Christianity such as key points Jesus being the Messiah or did God really happen/Christianity vs Judaism/Christianity vs Scientology. ChicagoDilettante, all I can say you're wrong and right/The article dosnt make a claim that Christianity is right or better, but the article neither expresses opposing views from other religious or non-religious views. Overall, the article meets key points without any POV claims. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: The bot sent me. I've looked over the article and the comments above. Firstly, I don't see a clearly defined question here for a proper RfC. Secondly, the MOS on WP is that we use secondary sources and the truth of something is not the issue, but rather that the sources can be determined to be reliable. Thirdly, in terms of beliefs, we know some facts already. Jesus did live, just as Mohammad lived. Whether or not both of them were prophets or received direct communication from God, comes down to what the followers believe. This article is about Christianity. I don't see a place here for arguments about pyramid power or some other belief system. Christianity involves beliefs about Jesus that his followers recognize and believe. Same with Islam and Mohammad. I don't see a place for trying to refute these beliefs. This is an encyclopedia. It's not a forum for debating the religious belief systems of people. There's no WP policy that calls for hard science evidence to prove that what Christians believe about Jesus is true or not. Same with Islam, or Mormonism, or Swedenborgian, or any other faith. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
From the perspective of the ideology that ChicagoDilettante evidently espouses, there is no difference between pyramid power and Christianity. From the perspective of an adherent of another religion, the difference might be that pyramid power is a silly pseudoscience while Chrisitanity is a dangerous heresy. From the perspective of a Christian the difference might be that Christianity is true, while pyramid power is false. From the perspective of Antoine Bovis the difference might be that pyramid power is cutting edge and revolutionary while Christianity is old fashioned and outdated. I am not condemning any of those perspectives here. But none of those perspectives are acceptable ways to guide editing on wikipedia, because wikipedia attempts as much as possible to be neutral and simply report what reliable sources state about a given topic.

As far as wikipedia is concerned, there is a big difference between Christianity (or any other major religion) and pyramid power - the difference is that the major religions possess much broader bodies of reliable sources, and the majority of these sources, including those written by authors who do not subscribe to the religion they are discussing, take these beliefs seriously, while virtually all of the available sources for pyramid power do not take it seriously.

Failing to describe pyramid power as pseudoscience in the lede would be giving undue weight to the tiny number of reliable sources which treat pyramid power as a serious science. Describing Christianity the way you wish to describe it would be giving undue weight to the small number of reliable sources which describe in in that way.

If you disagree with my assessment of the situation, what you need to do is not to demonstrate that Christianity and pyramid power are identical, but that the due weight of reliable sources treats it so. It's completely ok for you to believe that the available sources are incorrect or biased, or that this article does not appropriately reflect the available sources, but only in the second case does your belief translate to a need for changes to this article. -- LWG talk 00:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I second LWG's points; unless the article does not proportionately reflect the viewpoints among reliable sources, it does not need changing. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment/observation:
Hello ChicagoDilettante.
 I agree with you 100%. I too would like to see articles about religion handled no differently than articles about pyramid power. However there is (IMO) unfortunately a deeply entrenched respect for religious beliefs, and I seriously doubt you will get the consensus you would need to make the change(s) you would like to make.
 Also I would (respectfully) suggest you read over Wikipedia:Requests for comment, particularly the parts about neutrality. Your RfC (especially the section title of the RfC) (IMO) seems to fall somewhat short of neutral.
Richard27182 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It was only a correction

    Earlier today I corrected something that was I thought was wrong. I think the editing of topic Christianity should be left for Christians.
Most certainly not. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. I have reverted your edit, as it was a flagrant WP:POV violation. Jeppiz (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it's possible that when Natethegreat2002 wrote "I think the editing of topic Christianity should be left for Christians," he was either joking or simply expressing frustration. In any case (with rare exceptions such as banned or blocked users and protected articles) Jeppiz is absolutely correct. Any editor may edit on any topic. The only requirement is knowing and respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To impose any kind of religious (or other) test or requirement would result in a very biased encyclopedia indeed. Not to mention the fact that it would be virtually impossible to enforce.
Richard27182 (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Any difference?

Should the stub Passion Week (which has no counterpart on other language wikis) be mergerd/redirected to Holy Week? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

Please change the following as it is biased. "Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the Levant of the middle east in the mid-1st century. Other than Second Temple Judaism, the primary religious influences of early Christianity are Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism.[note 3][10][11] John Bowker states that Christian ideas such as "angels, the end of the world, a final judgment, the resurrection, and heaven and hell received form and substance from ... Zoroastrian beliefs".[129] Its earliest development took place under the leadership of the Twelve Apostles, particularly Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle, followed by the early bishops, whom Christians consider the successors of the Apostles."

Have a look at this web-page: http://www.gotquestions.org/Zoroastrianism.html It covers the fact that the Bible was developed for over 1,600 years which evidently shows that Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism do not inherit Christian values and they were simply inherited from Judaism along with Christianity.

There was no evidence what so ever that Christianity inherited Zoroastrian values, so please remove this information from the page.

More source: https://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it Olidev (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

While I would generally agree, as it seems like the source used for claiming Christianity rose out of Zoroastrianism is certainly in the minority in that view, gotquestions is not a reliable source that we can use here.Farsight001 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I added another citation to this sentence that supports it; a paper by Professor Bryan Rennie entitled "Zoroastrianism: The Iranian Roots of Christianity." I hope this helps.TheCensorFencer (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

use of castrated males in the church and chinese churches

A section would be useful on use of castrated males in the church as priests. And adoption of the church as a tool to keep control on people. Use of female psychology in the bible vs earlier religious texts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.221.147 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. See WP:No original research, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX for why that's probably not going to be added. All we do is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources, without additional elaboration or interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
See Eunuch#Religious castration for castrated males in the church. I do not see any reason to include it anything about it in this article. A "tool to keep control on people" could be said of any organization practically by definition. (See Organization.) I have nothing on "female psychology". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware that there were some in the early Church, but after the first Nicene council, voluntary non-medical castration was forbidden. I'm wondering if the OP simply had celibacy and castration confused. The female psychology bit vaguely Nietzschean. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Going by some of his other contributions, I'm pretty sure OP is just trolling. PepperBeast (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Stuff like this makes me think some form of Hindutva conspiracy theorist, though Poe's law is possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Funny how trolls get you looking at interesting things sometimes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Christianity in Japan

it is also reported that Christianity is popular among people of different backgrounds in .....Japan....

there is no Japanese Christians. they are all people from China. please delete Japan. Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The claim in the article cites a reliable source. The claim you have made does not. Furthermore, [http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35319/ the source in question is discussing the results of the largest poll of religion in Japan]. Also, your claim that there are no Japanese Christians is rather plainly contradicted by the sources in the Christianity in Japan article. Just a few years ago, one of them was prime minister, and he was far from the first. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This editor seems to be a troll. She's posting weird comments like this on multiple talk pages. It's probably making her not Japanese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Early Church and Christological Councils

I changed "Its earliest development took place under the leadership of the Twelve Apostles, particularly Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle," because

Is the setup that was there in the early church concerning leadership still possible now T.B Man-G (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. Talk pages are for article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

Could someone explain why Biblical inspiration was recently removed in this edit? Baron d'Holbach II (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nillurcheier's given reason was "book was missing, Inspiration is not generally accepted." I would say that inspiration is not a universal doctrine, rather. Still, it is common and historical (with mainly a modernist minority arguing against it), though the previous sentence's phrasing was inadequate. "The Bible is Christianity's sacred text, considered to be the inspired word of God by many Christians" would probably be more accurate. (I'm aware someone might complain about "Christianity's sacred text," but it's no different than saying that the Quran is Islam's sacred text or the Principia Discordia is Discordianism's sacred text). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see that Biblical inspiration was only added to the caption less than a week ago. If anything, the edit you cited was not the anomalous change, but was restoring normality. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am flexible, if the caption text is not a Christianity insider perspective. The only thing, I liked to stress is that articles on religious topics have to take special care to keep religious beliefs apart from encyclopedic knowledge. Let's be careful with that. BR --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to either, though the "considered... by many Christians" version because that explains how most Christians regard it as sacred without saying that it's necessarily objective. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The text of the article, of the section that the photo is in, addresses inspiration and inerrancy; therefore, I don't see any reason to gunk up the image's caption with redundancies to the article's text. If anything, I'd move to reduce the length of the caption so it fits on a single line or, otherwise, reduce the size of the image. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Descriptivism vs Prescriptivism

This article seems to do a good job of describing how academics with theology degrees think about Christianity, but does it describe Christianity as it is actually practiced? In the United States, which is the most populous Christian country in the world, Christianity is a highly political religion. That often manifests itself in Christianity's activist approach to abortion and homosexuality. Obviously, the US is not alone in that regard. Yet, neither abortion nor homosexuality appear in this article. How is that even possible? Dansan99 (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely sticks to what mainstream academic and journalistic sources describe. There are 2.4 billion Christians on the planet, and only about 0.2 billion of them are in America. About 8%. What a disproportionately vocal minority in American Christianity does and encourages other nations to do is not necessarily representative of the rest of the Christian world (half of which is Catholic, not Conservative Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant).
As it is, the article takes a descriptive approach. Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:NOTHOWTO, Wikipedia does not take prescriptive approaches. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The are separate articles about Christianity and abortion, Christianity and homosexuality, Christianity in the United States and Christianity and politics. So each of the mentioned topics are covered, just not in this article. Goto Category:Christianity to browse more. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fivefold Ministry

I have heard many people say the Fivefold Ministry found in Ephesians 4vs 111 ceased how true is this?? T.B Man-G (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. Talk pages are for article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Descended into Hell?

Hey I think the intro is a little biased when it says that Christ descended into hell. I honestly don't know whose doctrine that is, but it is wrong by the way. Christ is no demon, and so there was no need for him to go to hell. So try to be mindful of Christian beliefs that don't fit your brand of Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to post a comment contradicting your statement based on the Apostles' Creed, but discovered in some quick research that the statement "He descended into hell" was not in the earliest version of the Creed. Furthermore, while the Bible unequivocally states that Jesus went into the afterlife ("sheol" or "hades", which in Christian theology encompasses both "heaven" and "hell"), there is little support for the idea he went to hell. See for example [[3]] and [[4]] - not academic sources to be sure but they are adequate for a theological question.
Therefore I recommend changing the lede from "descended into hell" to "entered into the afterlife", or similar. Note that I do NOT recommend changing the Apostles' Creed section as it is accurate. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Please look at the articles for "Harrowing of Hell" and "Holy Saturday" to see that this is believed by most Christians that the concept has been around since at least the second century. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Links: Harrowing of Hell, Holy Saturday Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Both articles support my position. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh??? They both contradict your position other than acknowledging that a few Christians reject the doctrine (Harrowing_of_Hell#Rejection_of_the_doctrine) which is a very small section in the article! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh?? Did you actually read "Harrowing of Hell"? Specifically, and I quote, "After his death, the soul of Jesus was supposed to have descended into the realm of the dead, which the Apostles' Creed calls "hell" in the old English usage. The realm into which Jesus descended is called Sheol or Limbo by some Christian theologians to distinguish it from the hell of the damned". That is exactly my point - he is NOT believed to have descended into hell; he is believed to have gone to Sheol, aka the afterlife, which encompasses both heaven and hell in theology. It even addresses the Apostles' Creeds' misuse of the term "hell". In short, the article makes clear, right in the lede, that it is in agreement with my position. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

[…] not academic sources to be sure but they are adequate for a theological question.

Why would theological questions have a lower standard with respect to WP:V and WP:RS? Graham (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are reputable theological sources not adequate for the addressing of theological questions? I just pulled the first two Google hits but, as I hinted, a more thorough search shows literally hundreds of sites and articles, many more reputable than the two I posted, supporting my position. In fact, I haven't yet found a single reputable article that claims Christ actually descended into Hell (aka the realm of the punished); they all clearly state he went to the afterlife, aka Sheol, aka both heaven and hell.
This comment was an attempt to defuse the inevitable conversation along the lines of "you must have secular sources; theological sources are not appropriate for WP". I have debated that issue ad nauseum with other editors; despite showing their position conflicts with WP policy they have refused to budge on multiple occasions. So I am sick of that debate. A reputable theological scholar is more than sufficient for addressing a theological question. Sure, the first two sources I picked probably don't qualify as "reputable theological scholars", and I acknowledge that. But I just picked the first two Google links; I'm sure some of the hundreds of others come from good sources.Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't suggest they were inadequate (nor am I saying the reverse, for that matter). I just don't understand what is meant by "adequate for a theological question". Does that mean you have different, higher standards for non-theological questions? Graham (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not at all...I just didn't want to have the discussion I've had half a dozen times before about "this person is a theologic scholar...you can't use him as a source, even for theological questions". :) I apologize for assuming that's where we were going this time. BTW I did a bit more reading, and found a quote from AT Robertson (a noted scholar) who sheds more light on this. He said (and I quote): "Hades is the unseen world, Hebrew Sheol [...] It does not mean the place of punishment, though both heaven and the place of torment are in Hades (Luke 16:23). Death and Hades are strictly parallel terms: he who is dead is in Hades." (Word Pictures in the New Testament III, 1930). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, Sinebot is FAST! I tried to fix my missing sig 15 seconds after making the above edit but it was edit-conflicted out. Oh well. Anyway, rereading my opening comment here, I can see how I caused so much confusion - it was very poorly worded and I apologize for that. Again, I merely was trying to state that authoritative theological sources should be sufficient for addressing theological questions on WP, provided of course they generally adhere to WP's guidelines on trustworthy sources. Since no one here has questioned that, my prior experience of having to defend that multiple times is moot, so I'm sorry for having sidetracked this conversation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Graham (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Jesus the as God, Almighty?

There are beliefs such as " The Holy Trinity ". Does this mean that Jesus is the same as God-the father? the Bible has stated clearly that, no lie was found in Jesus. Erudite2020 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Quote: "Since that time, Christian theologians have been careful to emphasize that Trinity does not imply that there are three gods (the antitrinitarian heresy of hritism),..."

The link text should say "tritheism" instead of "hritism." 79.60.19.171 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the link and done a quick Google search - this appears to be a reasonable request. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Denominations

As for Christian denominations, having met a variation of individual interpretations here on Wikipedia, there seems to be no consensus. That is why I would like to open this discussion. I have invited followers of various talk pages to this discussion. Feel free to extend more invitations. Here are a few preexisting, prominent article examples, commented further below:

Preexistent interpretations (6 January 2016)

Ordered by number of subdivisions.

1. Christianity#Major denominations:

  • Catholic
  • Orthodox
  • Protestant
  • Restorationist
  • Other

2. Christian denominations by number of members:

  • Catholic Church - 1,272 million
  • Protestantism - 800 million
  • Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million
  • Oriental Orthodoxy - 86 million
  • Anglicanism - 85 million
  • Restorationism and Nontrinitarianism - 42–48 million
  • Independent Catholic denominations - 28 million
  • Church of the East - 0.6 million

3. List of Christian denominations:

  • Catholic Church
  • Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Church of the East
  • Protestantism (note: including Anglicanism inter alia)
  • Restorationism
  • Nontrinitarianism
  • Independent Catholicism
  • New Thought
  • Esoteric Christianity
  • Racialist groups
  • Interdenominational (ecumenical) churches and organizations
  • Other

4. Template:Christianity, and Template:Christianity footer:

  • Western
    • Adventist
    • Anabaptist
    • Anglican
    • Baptist
    • Calvinist
    • Catholic
    • Charismatic
    • Evangelical
    • Holiness
    • Lutheran
    • Methodist
    • Pentecostal
    • Protestant
  • Eastern
    • Eastern Orthodox
    • Eastern Catholic
    • Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite)
    • Assyrian Church of the East ("Nestorian")
  • Nontrinitarian
    • Jehovah's Witnesses
    • Latter Day Saint movement
    • Oneness Pentecostalism

5. Outline of Christianity#Branches of Christianity:

Potential questions

Hopefully we can reach consensus on some of these, yet split in separate, specific relevant talk pages likely needed. Feel free to add more for overview.
  1. What would be the minimal size (members, adherents?), theological tenets, and/or organisational structure to be considered to qualify as a Christian denomination?
  2. To what extent should the main groupings in article content be WP:Consistent with the content of the templates?
  3. How to group Christian denominations?
    1. Would there be a reason to group Christian denominations in List of Christian denominations by number of members by default, rendering List of Christian denominations by number of members essentially superflouos?
    2. Are the terms "Christian denominational family" and "branch of Christianity" the same thing, and are one or both of them encyclopedically relevant and neutral?
    3. Is the Catholic Church considered part of Catholicism (or Catholic)?
    4. Is Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy considered together part of "Orthodoxy"?
    5. Is Anglicanism considered part of Protestantism, Christianity or Catholicism?
    6. Is Independent Catholicism considered part of Catholicism or Christianity?
    7. Is Old Catholicism considered part of Independent Catholicism, Catholicism or Christianity?
    8. Is Restorationism and/or Nontrinitarianism considered part of Protestantism (for historical/theological reasons)?
    9. Is the Church of England considered as having separated from the Catholic Church in England and Wales, the Catholic Church, or Christianity in England (with equivalence for other national churches in Europe)?
    10. How to group defunct ancient and medieval sects and movements?

To edit after consensus

Likely incomplete, feel free to add more.

Proposed, relevant articles to employ a WP:Consistent WP:Consensus would be:

Naturally, there would also be potential repercussions for other specific relevant article contents, such as articles on individual Christian denomnations.

No, this is very not incomplete (what is the opposite of incomplete?)... only "Christianity" can be edited on the basis of WP:consensus here at Talk:Christianity. tahc chat 18:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That is customarly, yes. However, you seem to cross-refer content on one location to other location? At least an overview here on a case by case consensus might help. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments on above questions

Please add your comments here.

As for preexisting groupings, I am inclined to view alternative #2 as the most appropriate one. With one exception, though: having Anglicanism grouped under Protestantism. That would be in accordance (per WP:Consistency) with alternative #3 (List of Christian denominations), as well as Category:Protestant denominational families, Protestantism#Major branches, Christian denomination#Protestant Reformation (16th century), and other similar content on Wikipedia. The least accurate one I would say is alternative #4 with the two templates, with interpretations most far from those of other contents (mind for instance a global world where "Western", and "Eastern" hold less and less significance). - Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for preparing this. I agree that #2 is most useful and that #4 is least. I'm fine with Anglicanism as a separate category, but have no strong opinion. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Put really broadly, a denomination is two or more local churches that together are part of a single administrative entity, whether a federation of two or more basically independent churches (e.g. a Baptist convention) or a larger church that's divided into two or more local congregations (e.g. a Presbyterian denomination, or anything episcopal). If you have just one local group meeting, it's an independent church (see congregationalism and non-denominational Christianity), but if you have more, you're forming a group, and that's a denomination, regardless of membership. Of course, we can't list all of them; if there's a dispute over how big you have to be to be a major denomination, it wouldn't be hard to create a set of criteria, and implementing that would be easy if people agree. Also, bear in mind that nontrinitarianism long predates the Protestant Reformation; see Arianism and Sabellianism, both of which began in the third century. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Relevant discussions

I'd suggest changing bare "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic [Church]". In English "... holy catholic [...] church" is common to both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and used by Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox alike. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please place those kind of discussions at Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Roman Catholic (term) or Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wrong Venue

This page is to discuss improvement to just one article: Christianity. It is not the place to discuss changes for any other page. Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. tahc chat 17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right. Would Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard be the best place? If none objects, I will move this post to your suggested venue (and then have the later discussion on splitting up the overview in perhaps yet different venues). Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.
The core topics list can never include any sort of complete list of Christian groups; it is only for a limited number of "top-important" Christianity articles-- and can thus only include a limited number of "top-important" Christian group articles.
For any discussion of more Christian group articles-- such as those on List of Christian denominations it has to be elsewhere... such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard.
I also have to agree with others that you have too many questions to cover at once, and while we could (in theory) reach consensus (for WikiProject Christianity) on what is not a Christian group at WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, we cannot have one list of "all" Christian groups that has to be uncluded for all Christianity articles. Some pages need to go into less detail for groups and other need to go into more detail for groups.
To sum up, maybe you should cover some items of WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and cover other template-related questions afterward at the Talk: core topics list. If we consider the two sets of questions unrelated, then the two could be done at the same time. tahc chat 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many questions

This is just too much to discuss all at once. If people would even bother to start discuss these questions here, the discussion is likely to end up as a trainwreck. I would suggest to split the questions and discuss each of them at the most proper place. Secondarily, the questions are better to be translated as proposals. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the points listed above have alrady been discussed ad-nauseum and the current articles reflect the consensus of WP editors. By nature the subject is contentious and it is likley impossible to find a resolution that will satisfy 100% of editors. We have done our best to be both fair and accurate. As the saying goes, "God is in the details", in this case literally so. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed a contentious subject by nature. Many of the circumfered discussions has been up before. However, it is precisely this large area that the above mentioned content aim to circumfere (along with approporiate talk pages). There is legitimacy in proposing to harmonise them if just a little bit.
No solution will satisfy 100 % of the editors. Also, it will be an ongoing process. However, none of these are satisfying arguments against an open discussion. Judging from the above preexisting interpretations and the manner with which they are individually preserved in their different locations by a few highly determinated accounts, at least I thought the discussion would bring to light an overview of some conflict lines.
Not to say that they could then subsequently be divided in different individual talk pages if that would be the only way to go about. Yet possibly at least with some refreshed perspectives on for instance whether and how templates should reflect article content. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Way too much to swallow in one bite. Break into bite-sized chunks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I do agree with you. However, I still think the post may serve as an introduction to more specific cases which earlier lacked an overview. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Followers

They're not. Ascribed populations en masse they are. I could login and remove the word which would improve the lede but ... . More factitious but also more contentious would be to replace "with" by "claiming" backing off the assertion that the entirety of said masses were adherents rather merely ascribed, which is what they in fact are.

And of course if you wanted to be really truthful, you could do the work of using a better statistic set such as church attendence or other evidence of acheived rather than ascribed status of any kind. Hard counterfactual in that attributing mass populations includes people vehemently opposed rather than being "followers".

I think if that were done the actual figure would be less than half of the stated one third of the planetary population, at most so it's a pretty big distortion. Abrahamics of all sorts could get to that level.

One third ascribed would be accurate, factual, truthful. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Needless semantics, and insufficient reasoning to negate the five cited sources. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Anon, I understand your position, but it is slicing and dicing to meet an agenda. The sources do not define the level of activity, participation, etc., rather it simply identifies those who have been identified as members, which the sources support. You are wanting to address a separate question. --StormRider 17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No it's not "needless semantics". That's a thing people say who fail to understand that meaning in language is important, that semantics is not a medieval scholastic oddity but a vital part of intellectual life. In any case, since opening the thread, it's occurred to me that "follower" can be construed as "person ascribed to a thing because they live in a country where that thing has some prevalence". I do have an antireligion agenda in personal life, but I'm scrupulously neutral and factitious as an editor in order to thrive here, and as I indicated in opening, while it's a gross error of fact, I'm not going to use my named identity to work it. These figures are arrived at by counting the entire population of for example Sweden, France, the Czech Republic, Estonia, other countries of Europe, as I say a gross misrepresentation of the fact of adherence to the belief system in question, prominently placed in the lede with misleading support. Do it but know others see it for what it is.

Pretty sure there's no question (unless Islam) if the numbers weren't hyper inflated this would still be by far the largest superstition remaining, you may want to consider that as a more defensible fall back going forward, as the preponderance would be more impressive in that case. Lycurgus (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Would you prefer my original phraseology, "needless pedantism"? It is indeed "needless semantics" when multiple notable sources contradict your personal opinion. Cite sources that both agree with your stance and negate or challenge the five sources currently cited, or stop wasting our time. This is neither a forum for personal opinion nor for personal research. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Last I checked, there were numerous current reliable sources which name Christianity as the largest religion in the wrold with over 2.3 billion followers, including an article published earlier this year in The Economist and a study published earlier this month by the Pew Research Center. The best way to resolve this is to cite reliable sources, which the sources in the article support. Personal opinion is a original research and can't be introduced in the article. Cheers.--Jobas (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
ty. There may be a right word here that avoids the lie of obviously falsely attributed adherence, if it occurs to/is found by me will post here. English is the richest language so it likely exists and probably can be found in sociological vocabulary 98.4.124.117 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Upon reflection, and in view of the political situation, just "population", i.e. with just "followers" removed or otherwise redacted. It's gonna happen eventually, may as well work it to your liking. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Most important fact, should be in intro Christianity is a Jewish Belief

Its the belief in a Jewish Messiah and its a jewish belief, this is important even tho alot of "christians" dont know this basic fact of their belief! Its like the article on the Egyptian gods not mentioning Egypt!--TobyWongly (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You've clearly not met many Christians if you think that they don't know their religion's relationship to Judaism. And you've obviously read nothing about Judaism if you would describe belief in Jesus as a Jewish belief -- that's the biggest difference between the two religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Someone vandalized this page (I see the first paragraph, but unsure of the rest) 73.26.42.32 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Already done. The vandalism has already been reverted. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Demographics" section needs cleansing

The "demographics" section and its related articles (Christianity by country, Christian population growth, Growth of religion) need to be cleansed of the garbage that over the years was introduced by the now, and finally, indefinitely-banned user Jobas. The section is full of poor-quality unreliable sources (mostly online fake-news tabloids) and is especially anti-Muslim in its slant, trying to convince the reader that there is large-scale conversion of Muslims to Christianity.--80.182.2.44 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sloppy citation

In lede:

According to the New Testament, he rose from the dead,[38] ascended to heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father[39] and will ultimately return[Acts 1:9–11]

But [39] cites the so called Nicene Creed (the one that wasn't formulated in Nicea 325), which in my book contradicts the New Testament. I believe there might be some right-hand-stuff in the Revelations, but this entire sentence – among myriads among the sorry religious articles in Wikipedia – is to much WP:SYNTH for my taste, I would rather have a common statement of some international organization of Christianity. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2017

article for you. Please be clear and precise in explaining and justifying the change. An established user may then make the change on your behalf.

Please leave the existing codes intact. Write your request below the ...State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes... line and above the ...Write your request ABOVE this line... line. Please provide a specific description of the edit request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not helpful and will often be rejected; the request should be of the form "please change X to Y because...". Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request. Please provide reliable sources if appropriate. All information in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from reliable sources which are independent of the sub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.136.235 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal of List of Christian denominations by number of members into List of Christian denominations

For details, please see Talk:List of Christian_denominations#Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation on this line ?

"The late 20th century has shown the shift of Christian adherence to the Third World and southern hemisphere in general, with the western civilization no longer the chief standard bearer of Christianity". Τζερόνυμο (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrespective of sourcing, I see no merit in the claim that "western civilization [is] no longer the chief standard bearer of Christianity." It's an unfalsifiable opinion. Also, the word "chief" is redundant and I'm pretty sure that "standard bearer" is hyphenated. Lukacris (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

POV in lede

I recommend changing the words "Jesus Christ" in the lede to "Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Christ by Christians". It's POV as written since Christians see Jesus as the Christ—or Messiah—but Jews, for example, do not. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Revert this (and subsequent edits to the same material by the same editor) - not otherwise discussed in article and part of continuous POV pushing by the same editor on that topic - also not supported by a reliable, neutral source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's have a conversation about major branches

Recently the wording of part of the lead section was altered from "Worldwide, the three largest branches of Christianity are the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the various denominations of Protestantism." to "Worldwide, the largest branches of Christianity are the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as thousands of denominations and congregations of Protestantism, the latter due to fundamentally different ecclesiology." I have restored the previous wording as I think the new version has some issues, but I want to have a conversation about whether any aspects of the new version should be included and if so how to do so.

My reasons for restoring:

  • The sentence is about major branches, not denominations. The new wording presents the protestant denominations individually, instead of the major branch of Christianity that is Protestantism as a whole.
  • The Oriental Orthodox communion does not fit in either as a major branch (as we do not list other groupings of similar size such as Anglicanism or Lutheranism) or as a denomination (as it is composed of multiple denominations).
  • The sentence immediately following explains the origin of these three major branches in the the East-West Schism and the Reformation. Reasons of style and factual accuracy indicate that we should preserve that parallel.
  • The addendum stating that Protestantism split off due to "fundamentally different ecclesiology" is an oversimplification at best and inaccurate at worst, and in any case is out of place here. We should leave the explanation for the article body, or for the bluelinks.
  • The wording "thousands of denominations and congregations of Protestantism" is dubious (depending on how you count you can get anything from 200 to tens of thousands of denominations) and in any case misses the point of listing major branches.

Things I think would be good to discuss:

  • There exist significant groups such as the Oriental Orthodox communion which do not fall into any of the three branches. Is there an appropriate way to mention them in the lead paragraph?
  • Is there a better way to effectively describe Protestantism as a branch of Christianity that is composed of many independent groups?
  • Is there anything I am failing to consider in all of this, or ways the article could be improved that I haven't thought of?

I would appreciate any input! -- LWG talk 21:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this diagram would be a useful addition to the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Major denominational families in Christianity:
This box:
Schism (1552)
(16th century)
(11th century)
(Not shown are ante-Nicene, nontrinitarian, and restorationist denominations.)

That's great, but Gnosticism should be at the head. It was killed off by the Pauline orthodoxy in the third and fourth centuries, before all the Councils.[1] Sahansdal (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.scribd.com/doc/30321660/Julian-Johnson-The-Path-of-the-Masters

Roman Empire

This article says that by the end of the fourth century A.D., Christianity had become the official religion of Roman civilizations. I think that to say "by the end of the fourth century" is a little misleading, as Constantine first tolerated Christianity in 313, later making it the official Roman religion in 330, suggesting that the Christianisation of the Roman Empire happened earlier than this article suggests. Vorbee (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Miracles" in the lead

Opening a discussion on whether a one-word link to Miracles of Jesus belongs in the lead. I see five reasons of varying quality why it should. (1) Miracles are mentioned a handful of times in the text of the article, certainly sufficient for a one-word link; (2) frequently linked articles such as "Jesus", "messianic prophecies", "Christology", etc. link to or include numerous mentions of "miracles", (3) the argument used to erase "miracles", that it does not appear frequently enough in the article, is not being used to argue against the inclusion of "teachings", which appears even less frequently in the article; (4) a personal, subjective belief that "life", "teachings" and "miracles" are all required for an unbiased, uninformed reader to properly understand the foundations of Christianity; (5) general WP policy to leave a lead in its consensus state until there exists a consensus to change it. All that said, I defer to other editors, and will abide by their decision if consensus to remove it exists. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

One more comment. Due to my personal religious beliefs, I should recuse myself from further discussion on this topic. Because of those beliefs, I am inclined to read WP policy, and the article's contents, in a way that favors the conclusion I desire. Again, I will abide by editors' consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
One of the things that struck me as significant when I reviewed some foundational Christian texts (the Pauline epistles, the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian creed) was that they made no mention of Jesus' miracles. With that in mind I will not argue that the lede should not contain the word miracles, but I will argue the following: First, if the body makes mention of Jesus' miracles significant enough to make inclusion in the lede necessary, it should not. Second, the first sentence of the current revision is inaccurate; Jesus' miracles are not part of the basis of Christianity. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on the current article, I do not think miracles should be included in the lead:
  • They are mentioned only once in the text, in a passing mention: "The biblical accounts of Jesus' ministry include: his baptism, miracles, preaching, teaching and deeds." The lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important points. Something mentioned only once cannot be one of the most important points.
  • My perhaps superficial understanding of Christianity indicates that it is inaccurate to describe Christianity as a "religion based on the ... miracles of Jesus". The miracles are significant in the Biblical narrative, sure, but they have no or little bearing on the religion as it is practiced and taught. Certainly the assertion that Christianity is "based on" the miracles would need to be sourced to reliable scholarly sources in the text, which it is not. @Jtrevor99: Per WP:BURDEN, it is you who would need to provide such sources if you want to keep this content in the lead. Sandstein 06:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems unanimous in the direction of "remove". I'll do so. Thanks for the conversation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The importance of the miracles varies according to the sect, it is impossible give a simple overall assessment. I would suggest using the phrase "the reported miracles of Jesus" since they are undoubtedly reported but makes no comment on the literal veracity of the Gospel accounts. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, could you give a couple of examples of Christian sects in which Jesus' reported miracles are very important and explain why they deserve mention in an article that gives an overview of Christianity? And where do you propose we put the phrase "the reported miracles of Jesus"? For the reasons that Sandstein has pointed out, saying that Christianity is "based on the . . . miracles of Jesus" will not work. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Compare the treatment of miracles (particularly that of the transubstantiation) as viewed by traditional Roman Catholicism with that of, say, Methodism. The suggestion about "reported" was to seek a middle way between yourself and Jtrevor99. If you believe that the issue has already been agreed in your favour then no mediation is needed! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Should I understand you to mean that you will be content if the article does not say that Christianity is based on the (reported) miracles of Jesus? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've no hard opinion either way (maybe a soft leaning to including miracles for historical reasons) so I'm happy to leave it to the others to decide. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Denominations

In the Denominations section, hovering over the blue text for Eastern Orthodox Church and the blue text for Protestantism. The appearing text reads 'Second Largest' for both denominations. Eastern Orthodoxy should read '3rd largest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:8100:C020:3DF1:B1BB:CD21:5AC6 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That blue text is called a wikilink and what you are seeing is a page preview. The discrepancy you noticed is because of what is stated in the lead sections of those two articles, namely Eastern Orthodox Church and Protestantism. Although it is indeed a bit unclear, I think the reason why both are listed as the second largest is probably because Protestantism is the second largest group of Christians, though Protestantism is not a denomination (it contains many denominations, though!); whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church is the second-largest denomination and Church, second only to the Catholic Church. Regardless, thanks for your diligence at checking on these matters! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Gnosticism can be Christian

I got a revert saying "Gnosticism is NOT Christianity". There are certainly Gnostic groups that are not Christian but I never claimed that Gnosticism is Christianity, rather, I said there are Christian denominations that are Gnostic, they are Gnostic Christians and as such their beliefs should be considered also when defining Christianity. Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As gnosticism is a heresy, any person holding those beliefs is anathema (i.e. not part of the Communion). So there are no Gnostic Christians. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Holy Guacamole! But who has the authority to declare another denomination heretic? I think all denominations can declare each other heretic so in short it can be said that all Christian denominations are heretic. I will remind you about Wikipedia:NPOV policy though. Thinker78 (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
There are no Christian teachers, either mainstream or minority, that consider Gnostic teachings to be orthodox. If there are sources that say otherwise, I'd be interested to review them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78 is right. Gnosticism should be included. Not only is it not heresy, except to those who don't understand it, it can be proven to be THE SOURCE of orthodoxy. [1] Yes, that's my book. It can't be used as a reference. But it is true. The Gospel of Judas proves that the Bible is false and always has been. 'Judas' is just a cover for the successor, James the Just -- the real first century savior. Sahansdal (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The number for Christianity needs updating. all latest data put it at 2.3 million or below. Not 2.4 million or above. that estimate is using percentages from the past surveys, which are no longer relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.81.2 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to Islam article

First Christians don't refer to Jesus as "the Christ".

In general the article on Islam is very supportive of Islam. You'd think everything in Islam was settled and fine when in fact it is characterised by its never-ending strife.

Yet for the Christianity article we get: " irreconcilable differences in theology and a lack of consensus on the core tenets of Christianity, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox often deny that members of certain other branches are Christians."

Who says they're irreconcilable? Not Christians in general. And Christians do not deny other denominations are Christians. However, although you'd never know it from the article, Muslims DO very definitely deny other groups of Muslims are Muslim. It's one of the fundamental characteristics of Islam.51.52.147.62 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Christians do not deny other denominations are Christians." I have certainly heard and read some people who claim to be Christians do precisely that. I use the words "claim to be" for that very reason. I could start a very long discussion by asking you to define a Christian, but this isn't really the place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, any purported deficiencies in the Islam article should be noted on the Talk:Islam page, not here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Common Baptism Discussion Included From User Talk Page

In Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Restorationism

You deleted an edit you made to an article on the basis it had no evident support and you gave no EVIDENCE for this save ONE example. In your comment you headed it with " Most of the claims in this passage are either dubious or demonstrably false (even the citied source gives totally different demoninational statistics)."

You commented not on most but on ONE which was the claim about 5 denomination representing 95% of Christian population. I should have put 85%

the denominationsl stats are from the 1990s but the point I made was " . These five denominations represent over 95% of those that identify as Christian.[2]"

It should read 85% not 95% but rather than change 9 to 8 you just deleted the entire article citing this one claim as "lack of evidence" ! Let's ADD UP the actual numbers. 

"Global Catholic population exceeds 1.28 billion – CatholicHerald.co.uk". 6 April 2017.

Lutheran = 70-90 million 

Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 2011
Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and . Books.google.it. 2010-09-21. ISBN 9781598842043

Calvinism (Reformed churches) – 55–100 million 

Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 2011
"About The World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC)". World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC). Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. 
"Old First Reformed Church in Park Slope : : The Reformed Church". Oldfirstbrooklyn.org. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
http://wcrc.ch/about-us

Methodism – 60–80 million 

"Member Churches". Worldmethodistcouncil.org. 
"Membership". www.methodist.org.uk.

Total Christian 2240000001 90.00% 2016000000.9 other cath 18000000 Catholic 1285000000 Anglican 85000000 Orthodox 356000000 Lutheran 90000000 Methodist 80000000

Sum Catholic anglican Orthodos Lutheran Methodist ( the 5 I mentioned) 1914000000

Percentage ( of 2.34 billion) 85.4464285333 =85.5% is not "Demonstrably false" in relation to 85% rather than 95% .Sorry I put 9 instead of 8 by mistake. Do you accept 85% is supported by reliable sources?

Thanks for your input. I will find more sources and re insert this content later. Please tell me if it should be under a separate heading in the article in your opinion. the sources came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members Please also note that after your comment on my talk page wher they say "While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s)." Please acknowledge that the reason the attribution to the original contribution was removed was because your removed it as far as I am aware! Did you not? Isaw (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Isaw, thanks for getting back to me! I am not the person who objected to using wikipedia as a source, that was Editor2020. You should talk to that editor about those concerns. My concerns, and what I feel needs to be done to address them, are as follows:
  • As mentioned, the statistics were incorrect according to the source. The numbers that you cite are also very different from those on Adherents.org, and come from different sources that may count differently (for example, some counts are based on listed membership, others based on surveys of church attendance, others on professed belief). Fix: correct stated statistics. Make sure all our numbers come from the same source or at least are counting the same way.
  • It's unclear why we list "Catholics of the Latin Church, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists" specifically. Why not mention Reformed, Pentecostal, African Indigenous, or Baptist, all of which are larger groups than Lutherans according to the cited source?[3] Fix: either list the largest groupings, or make it clear what is significant about the groupings mentioned.
  • It's unclear who "these groups" refers to. Since it is in the section for Restorationism, it appears to mean "Restorationist groups" but if so some of the following statements are incorrect or dubious. Fix: make it clear what groups are being referred to, and if Restorationist groups are not what is meant, either correct the information below or move the text to a more appropriate section of the article.
  • The statement "There are tens of thousands of these groups representing 1% of people calling themselves Christian" is dubious. A commonly cited number is that there are 33,000 Christian denominations worldwide. This claim originates in the World Chris­t­ian Ency­clo­pe­dia, which uses a different definition of denomination than the one being used in this article (for example, they divide Roman Catholicism into 242 different "denominations"!)[4]. Even allowing this definition of denomination, there are not tens of thousands of Restorationist denominations. Fix: remove this incorrect statement.
  • The statement "none of them would be accepted by the Three core Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant denominations as falling under their agreed common baptism" is also dubious. The Roman Catholic[5], Methodist[6] and Lutheran[7] churches, for example, all recognize baptisms performed by most other Christian groups (including restorationist groups), even those not part of the "common baptism" agreement. Fix: remove this incorrect statment.
  • The statement "Nor would they accept the core denominations or indeed each other as Christian." is a broad sweeping statement that is demonstrably untrue in many cases. Many if not most smaller Christian groups recognize members of other groups as Christian.[8] Fix: remove this incorrect statement.
  • The statement "Catholics of the Latin Church, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists agree to a common Baptism and regard any Baptised in those denominations as valid Christians." is unclear. While it is true that all of those denominations recognize each other's baptisms as valid, they are not the only groups which do so, and they do not recognize each other as fully "valid Christians" as, for example, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists are all excluded from communion in Catholic churches[9], unless that has changed recently. Fix: clarify the extent to which these and other groups recognize each other.
  • The section discussing the "common baptism" is out of place in the Restorationism section as it is not primarily about Restorationism. Fix: refactor it and move relevant information on "common baptism" to the Baptism section.

I hope that clarifies what my concerns are. I think there is room in the article for a clearer explanation of the recognition and lack thereof between different Christian groups, but I think these concerns need to be addressed before it is reinserted. Cheers, and thanks for your efforts! -- LWG talk 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1524627607/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk
  2. ^ http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity
  3. ^ "adherents.org".
  4. ^ "the issues with the 33,000 number".
  5. ^ "canon law on rebaptism".
  6. ^ "United Methodist Church on Baptism".
  7. ^ "Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod".
  8. ^ "one result pulled at random from the billion or so google results for 'we are not the only Christians'".
  9. ^ "communion of non-catholics".

Lead length

The lead is getting close to being too long and complex, nearly into template territory, {{lead too long}}. There are also 20+ references which may be excessive, see MOS:LEADCITE and {{Citation needed lead}} (in particular the latter's lead). The penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is repeated at the start of the third paragraph. The lead should only answer two questions: "briefly, what is this page about?" and "in 2 seconds what is ...?". All IMHO of course! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to propose ways to shorten it. Please go ahead per WP:BOLD. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that it is actively being changed and argued over (see above) I shall resist that temptation. Just let's ensure that it grows no larger with stuff that belongs in the body. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it can be shortened at least a litte bit, though, so very welcome back when you had feedback in that regard. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Mention of persecution in the lead section

This revert by Cinadon36 borders obstructive. Feel free to alter/add more sources, but altogether deleting the mentioning of the persecution of Christians is not serious. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't obstructive, see e.g. The Myth of Persecution—by all means this was known long ago by Bible scholars: technically being Christian in the Roman Empire was illegal for at most several decades, no more than that. Of course, there were lynch parties against Pagans who became Christian, especially during troubles attributed to offended gods, but Roman officials were at worst lukewarm about punishing Christians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didnt mean to be obstructive but there were two problems with that edit.

  • The sources were not reliable or appropriate for a historical issue. Have a look here: WP:HISTRS
  • The material added misleads the reader to think that persecution was common or constant during the Roman era. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The persecution of Christians is not limited to the Diocletianic Persecution. It's so vast and long-standing it is hard to know where to begin. For starters, ever checked out what happened in its area of origin, the Middle East, during last 1,400 years or so? Feel free to add better sources, though. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire has been greatly exaggerated. In respect to the Middle East, see Islamic Golden Age. A nuanced approach to it is at [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes - nice report of Islamic historiographical account... Going back to subject, I have reintroduced the paragraph in a rewritten form, and with the same main sources used in the lead section of Persecution of Christians. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
As I have asked before, please establish consensus. The two references you are using are highly problematic. Pew Research Insitude does not support the claim and Open Doors-de is not a Reliable Source. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's see. I see that you are disputing the sources. Are you disputing the very assertion as well? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence you had added is rather vague, but if I had to choose between yes or no, I 'd prefer yes. But it is far more important to establish consensus before re-wording and insert your text once more. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I assume you are more of an expert on this subject than I am, incuding on the scientific research on it. As such, I will leave this paragraph to your discretion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Religion vs Religion group

While I'm currently inclined to believe any difference between the two terms is unnecessarily pedantic, I'm opening this Talk section for anyone who wishes to discuss it. I reverted the "ref needed" tag on "religion" in the first sentence, because the intention - to find a reference calling Christianity a "religion" instead of a "religion group" - was unclear. It instead appears to the reader a violation of WP:BLUE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article relgious groups, they still call all the major religious groups religions as well (see this), leading me to believe that they don't really have a difference at all. The article also states that classifying religions into religious groups "is by no means a uniform practice" leading me to argue that it should just say 'religion' instead of 'religious group'.Awsomaw (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
it seems like someone just changed it to religion so whatever Awsomaw (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

Can you maybe talk about the population of the people in the world who are Christians, for example, you can look at https://www.100people.org/statistics_detailed_statistics.php 2606:6000:CA86:AD00:2D10:494F:4573:F6B3 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That information is already present in the section "Demographics", stating that 33% of the world (or 1 in 3 people) are Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed is not the New Testament

There are portions of this article that say things like Jesus is seated at the right-hand of God that introduce it as a tenet of the New Testament but actually cite the Nicene Creed in the footnote. Creeds are clearly dogma derived from interpretation of the scriptures, not scriptures themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.147.2 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Egotistical and anthropocentric worship of an immortal personhood

Christians are egotistical. The know they're weak, but they want personhood as a notion to be the most important object (philosophy).
Christians claim that personhood is more fundamental than the Universe, through the person of god.

add it on the paragraph Controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4109:C300:6899:772E:9768:55F5 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia does not host original research and we're not a blog, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention we don't promote bigotry. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism?

The first subparagraph refers to supposed Zoroastrian influence;

"Other religious influences of early Christianity are Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism.[27][28] John Bowker states that Christian ideas such as "angels, the end of the world, a final judgment, the resurrection and heaven and hell received form and substance from ... Zoroastrian beliefs".[29]"

But the idea that Zoroastrianism was the source of these things in Christianity is far from a consensus, perhaps not even a majority of scholarly opinion. A major scholar on precisely the topic of the development of the idea of resurrection in Judaism, Jon D. Levenson, argues in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life that Zoroastrianism played a minimal, if any role at all in the idea of resurrection. Given the fact that this is a hotly contested topic, the above should removed from the page and not stated as fact when scholarship hasn't found as such.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought that was odd as well. Even if one were to keep the Zoroastrian theory (which is a controversial, separate issue), it does not work in that location. I will remove it and if someone feels strongly about reinstating it, I do feel that it would need to be put into another section and developed from a NPOV (imho). CuriosumScriptor (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors interrupting GOCE edit

Howdy! Hello, I'm sorry if I screwed something up, but I'm currently copyediting this article for the GOCE; somebody placed a ce tag on it. So can you please not make edits to the article while I'm here? There's an in use template, but oops I put the in use tag in the {{multiple issues}}. So can please everybody just stop editing while I'm here?

Pinging: @Martin of Sheffield, TheTexasNationalist99, and Joshua Jonathan:

P.S. If you want to contact me, please {{ping}} me. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 22:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But do notice that the template displays this message when you've been inactive fkr more than 24 hours: Please remove {{GOCEinuse}} from this page as this page has not been edited for at least 24 hours. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and what Joshua wrote. I removed things even Wikipedia articles show wasn't true.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I know. But can you wait until after, please? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead; thanks for the efforts! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
At second thought: you've been editing this page now for eight days, making 13 edits, including placing the 'goce in use' template at top; I appreciate yout intention to improve this page, but at this pace, you're effectively blocking the development of this page. As a courtesy to other editors, please only use it when you're actually editing the page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Please study WP:LQUOTE before changing the punctuation at the end of quotations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Martin of Sheffield, and I'm an on-and-off editor. (Hey, I'm in school, and homework takes a long time!) – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Once again, your efforts are appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity

Moved to Talk:History of Christianity#Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal

There are too many pages on the (history of) early Christianity:

  • Overview:
  • 1st-3rd century:
  • 1st century:
  • Pre-Pauline Christianity:
  • Emerging Church:
  • 2nd-3rd century:
  • Diverse topics:

Excessive, isn't it? This way, it's impossible to reach, or maintain, any acceptable quality-standard; there are simply too many pages to watch, and it's disheartening to even make a start. There may be WP:COATRACK issues also; see Talk:History of early Christianity#"Origins". I don't think that supposed Hellenistic influences warrant separate pages (that would be a coatrack), but I've also noticed that there's a lot of info which is actually the traditional Christian, Biblical narrative on the origins and history of the earliest Christianity.

Anyway, some thoughts:

Christianity#Early Christianity and History of Christianity#Early Christianity (c. 31/33–324) can be used as overview-pages, with short sections on the relevant topics, and links to the main articles. This would also include Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Quest for the Historical Jesus; and Paul the Apostle and Judaism, New Perspective on Paul.

Honestly, I think it's a shame that a religion with 2,3 billion adherents is covered in such a messy way. We can do better than that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede needs to be reworked

The lede as it is doesn't seem to follow the MOS:LEAD guideline. It is too unwieldy, it has too many citations when it should actually mainly summarize the contents of the body of the article, it has excessive details, and if it has citations I'm thinking it also has info that is not in the body of the article. I encourage my fellow editors to work on it in a piecemeal fashion if you want. I am already doing my part. Thinker78 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This could be a solution


Thanks. I'd say this can be deleted from the lede as too deep into theology that anyway differs denominationally: "They further maintain that Jesus physically ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead and grant eternal life to his followers. His incarnation, earthly ministry, crucifixion and resurrection are often referred to as "the gospel", meaning "good news". Generally accepted as the Bible, describing Jesus' life and teachings, are the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, with the Jewish Old Testament as the Gospel's respected background."
My only remark would be to introduce some paragrah or at least sentence speaking about past and present persecution, which ought also historically mentioned the Islamic conquests as a significant event in the history of Christianity. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I help out with copy editing on Wikipedia and I think a main issue with this lead is the overuse of links. If you take a look at MOS:LINK and MOS:LEADLINK, you'll see that about 66% of links are not clicked so really you want to include links that would help but not hinder. Also, links shouldn't be adjacent. If, for instance, you really feel that Abrahamic monotheistic religious groups needs to have three links, you should try to rework the sentence so those words are not together. Also from that guide, many of the links are unnecessary because the information is already known or is covered in one of the other links. For example, if you link Jesus, you really don't need to link Son of God, Logos, savior of humanity, because presumably that information is discussed further in the Jesus article. You don't need to link Europe or Middle Ages or the Americas and the like. I would say that that whole article suffers from overlinking which makes it hard to read, but just in the lead there are duplicate links—the churches are linked twice, the bible is linked three times, etc.
You don't need all the citations in the lead if the information is covered elsewhere in the article and properly cited, unless the information may be controversial. For instance, citation #2 is used twice in the first sentence and then down in the Demographics section. In this case, one citation should probably be kept in the lead because this information may seem controversial to some and so should be easily checkable by readers. However, you don't need five citations to state that Christianity played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization. By the way, that's stated twice in the lead, in the first and third paragraphs.
There are also three notes in the lead which interrupts flow and detracts from the idea that this is a summary.
Note that civilization is spelled both the American and British way in the lead. The lead is the only place in the article that uses the British spelling. Doesn't matter which spelling is chosen, but stick with one spelling.
If you take a look at WP:CREATELEAD, I think that the current lead does a good job of covering the 5 Ws.
I do have a question about capitalization. The gospel is introduced as lower case but then in the next sentence is capitalized. It seems that when each gospel is talked about, like Gospel of Matthew, gospel is part of the title so it is capitalized. Should it be capitalized on its own? And that whole sentence needs a rework ... "generally accepted as the bible" -- is that controversial? Why is gospels italicized? With all the links in this article, I am surprised that Jewish is not linked. I don't understand what "respected background" is trying to say.
Last sentence, I don't understand what "culturally diverse" means. Again with the links, you don't need to link pairs of contrasting examples. See MOS:OVERLINK.
I hope this was helpful. And these are just my thoughts, other copy editors may have different ideas. Good luck. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the second paragraph goes way too in depth about the history of Christianity. I've typed up a more concise version, tell me what you think. The bolded sections are things that I think I didn't word very well and should probably be changed.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsomaw (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

While the beginning of that proposal was helpful, I'm afraid the other shortering makes things more vague in an unhelpful way. Please note that their were plenty of substantial schisms prior to 451 also. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair. Here's a potential edit I see in the fourth paragraph that maybe you can also run down... (bolded is the part that is changed.)
Also it seems like the second to last sentence (starting with "generally accepted") just doesn't make sense. The Bible is not just made up of four gospels, and also not made up of the 4 gospels and the old testament. What is "generally accepted" as the Bible? The canonical 4 gospels? The fact that it's describing Jesus' life and teachings? Is the phrase talking about Jesus' life and teachings explaining what the Bible is? Or what the 4 gospels are? Is it just me or is that sentence just confusing? I would try to reword it but I have no clue what it's trying to say. Awsomaw (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

While there were some improvements of the recent updates of Editor2020, I think it would be loss to altogheter drop the ecclesiological history. Still today, all-encompassing ecclesiology is a concern for a majority of Christians, and has been so since antiquity. Reflecting that, it doesn't hurt to retain at least a couple of sentences on major schisms and their reasons. Some note on persecution ought better be included in the lead section as well. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want it to be there please add it back in. Editor2020 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This is more of a reflection that a suggestion, but wouldn't it make some sense to group Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy together? Of course they are different, no dispute about that, but I'd say the difference between an Antiochian Greek Orthodox and an Antiochian Syriac Orthodox is much smaller than between a high church Anglican and a born-again southern Baptist in both theology and religious practice. Then again, that's a point of view. If most sources make this distinction, then we better keep it. Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggest removing the cleanup messageboxes as they are outdated.-Inowen (nlfte) 01:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
What message boxes? Thinker78 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I support keeping the church history. What can go from the lead are the statistics--put them under "Demographics. There are many organizations collecting statistics. There is no firm way to compute them, as self-identifying type membership is based on a combination of surveys, opinion polls, and church rolls. Even preferring one form of data over the other gets you into POV territory with one church or another. There is a no consensus on the number of Christians in the world.
General practices of Christians can go in the lead... for example, something like "Most, but not all Christians get baptized, celebrate the Lord's Supper, pray the Lord's Prayer and other prayers, read or listen to the Bible, have clergy, and attend group worship services.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not in my personal experience. In Greece where I live, most Bibles are printed in Koine Greek, and not in Demotic Greek which is the current vernacular. So most people can't read them, or even understand church service, if they haven't studied ancient Greek language.

Both of my parents considered themselves pious Christians, but never read a single page of the Bible. My father has no idea who the Four Evangelists or the Apostles were, and can't name a single one of them. My even more-religious aunt (attents Church on a daily basis) is nearly illiterate and can't read the Bible. The only persons in my entire family who used to regularly read the Bible was my atheist grandfather (he liked to quote and mock its absurdities), and me (also an atheist). Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought about people in your sort of situation, and I figured that readings during mass do count--although as you say, in another language hardly means much. A long time ago, many people never heard the Bible except in languages they did not understand. This is where the word Hocus Pocus came into being. People didn't understand what the words were. I attended a service in Latin once, and some other times in Greek, so that gives me an idea what that is like. Even in Greek I could make out some parts like the Kyrie (also a Bible quote), and I don't know much Greek at all.
From what I understand, nearly all Catholic churches operate in the vernacular, and of course Protestants do, so that leaves Orthodox. Still, even someone like your Aunt has heard the blessing at the end of the service, or the Lord's Prayer, and those are quotes from the Bible, and even someone who doesn't otherwise know the language used in the liturgy probably will know something of the basic parts if they attend often.
One the other hand, some are pious and don't attend much, and the services are in another language as you say. I don't know how many that would be... Maybe someone here knows.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Christianity is not a religion, but a family of religions.--67.87.191.87 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is rather poor that the world's most persecuted group/community is not described as such in its lead section, isn't it? PPEMES (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

I propose the following lead:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

Christians believe that Jesus died for all people; that God is endless goodness; that God Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit form the Trinity; and that people are justified through faith. Two main Christian sacraments are baptism, which purifies from sin, and Eucharist, which gives virtues. Christians practise various prayers, fasting and almsgiving. They follow the Great Commandment of the love of God and neighbor.

Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox Churches split from the Catholic Church in the 5th century, Eastern Orthodox Churches in the 11th and Protestant churches in the 16th. Christianity spread over the Middle East and Roman Empire, then in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. Nowadays it is world's largest religion with 2.4 billion adherents, of which 1.3 are Catholics, 0.8 Protestants and 0.3 Orthodox.

Propositum (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. That would exclude Nontrinitarianism from its definition of Christianity. The Catholic Church did not exist prior to the 11th century. And the way Christianity spread was through forced conversion, not through evangelisation.:

  • "During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly converted the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare, and law upon conquest. Examples are the Massacre of Verden in 782, when Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred for rebelling,[1] and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785, after another rebellion and destruction of churches and killing of missionary priests and monks,[2] that prescribed death to those who refused to convert to Christianity.[3]"
  • "Forced conversion that occurred after the seventh century generally took place during riots and massacres carried out by mobs and clergy without support of the rulers. In contrast, royal persecutions of Jews from the late eleventh century onward generally took form of expulsions, with some exceptions, such as conversions of Jews in southern Italy of the 13th century, which were carried out by Dominican Inquisitors but instigated by King Charles II of Naples.[4]"
  • "Jews were forced to convert to Christianity by the Crusaders in Lorraine, on the Lower Rhine, in Bavaria and Bohemia, in Mainz and in Worms.[5]"
  • Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that if one agreed to be baptized to avoid torture and intimidation, one nevertheless could be compelled to outwardly observe Christianity: "[T]hose who are immersed even though reluctant, do belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction at least by reason of the sacrament, and might therefore be reasonably compelled to observe the rules of the Christian Faith. It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian Faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason a valid distinction is made by some between kinds of unwilling ones and kinds of compelled ones. Thus one who is drawn to Christianity by violence, through fear and through torture, and receives the sacrament of Baptism in order to avoid loss, he (like one who comes to Baptism in dissimulation) does receive the impress of Christianity, and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling ..." [6]
  • "During the Northern Crusades against the pagan Balts and Slavs of northern Europe, forced conversions were a widely used tactic, which received papal sanction.[7] These tactics were first adopted during the Wendish Crusade, but became more widespread during the Livonian Crusade and Prussian Crusade, in which tactics included the killing of hostages, massacre, and the devastation of the lands of tribes that had not yet submitted.[8] Most of the populations of these regions were converted only after the repeated rebellion of native populations that did not want to accept Christianity even after initial forced conversion; in Old Prussia, the tactics employed in the initial conquest and subsequent conversion of the territory resulted in the death of most of the native population, whose language consequently became extinct."[9] Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Alessandro Barbero (23 February 2018). Charlemagne: Father of a Continent. Univ of California Press. pp. 46–. ISBN 978-0-520-29721-0.
  2. ^ Michael Frassetto (14 March 2013). The Early Medieval World: From the Fall of Rome to the Time of Charlemagne [2 Volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 489–. ISBN 978-1-59884-996-7.
  3. ^ For the Massacre of Verden, see Barbero, Alessandro (2004).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference soyer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Abraham Joshua Heschel; Joachim Neugroschel; Sylvia Heschel (1983). Maimonides: A Biography. Macmillan. p. 43. ISBN 9780374517595.
  6. ^ Chazan, Robert, ed., Church, State, and Jew in the Middle Ages, West Orange, NJ:Behrman House, 1980, p. 103.
  7. ^ Christiansen, Eric. The Northern Crusades. London: Penguin Books. pg. 71
  8. ^ Christiansen, Eric. The Northern Crusades. London: Penguin Books. pg. 95
  9. ^ The German Hansa, P. Dollinger, page 34, 1999, Routledge
The Trinity is the key concept of the Christianity, as stated in the Nicene Creed; and the Catholic Church along with the Pope exists since the very beginning. Propositum (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2019

There are several dead links on this page and I found the correct urls for them. I'm putting this request in to go in there and replace the dead urls with the proper live ones. Helpful Hippopotamus (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Begoon 15:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

yes it is working now, thank you! |answered= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Abrahamic"

Is it really relevant, proportionate and motivated to keep this in the first lead sentence, rather than a bit lower in the article? PPEMES (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Soft Polytheism

Should be mentioned in the lead. From doing research this is apparently controversial among christians. But from a strictly academic or encyclopedic perspectic using the notion of triune or trinity is a concept in a "soft polytheistic" form. Or there needs to be some adjectival phrase to seperate Chritianity from monotheistic religions that are not -une, as in triune, such as collective monotheism. Or a sentence could be added immediately after the first use of "monotheistic" that says; but there are three persons who christians believe are god and they are of one essence. So as to differentiate Christianity from monotheism that could not be called soft polytheism verily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B101:4878:D5DC:FAC6:4A4B:8496 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
So I did not have a particular source in mind. The article already talks about the triune nature of God. And so there has got to be some distinction made between monotheism in the strictest sense possible and a religion with a triune God that is God and also it being explicitly stated that three distinct persons, persons here not used to imply human-form except in the case of Jesus, are God. By monotheism in the strictest sense possible I mean in these religions any definite description for God would always have one and only one object falling under it. I found the right term to make this distinction, pluriform monotheism. Although soft polytheism is the same thing as that. But Christians prefer a mono prefix from everything I have read. I'm going to look for a source. Do adjectives that describe number usually need cited? I've never had to cite addition on a math page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B111:48:1D1C:EA81:83E9:C6E5 (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Be damn sure you'll need sources here. Wars have been fought over this... See Christology#Controversies and ecumenical councils (2nd-8th century). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There have been as many wars as there have been plagues! So I wouldn't insist on the change if it will cause war. But I would like you to justify using a source solely in the context of counting or a number of things situation, which my claim is this is the case. Again if it's going to start a war I'll drop it but I hope the idea is not dropped from the talk page.

I would like to go a little further though and say the whole point is that Christianity is different from some other forms of monotheism and thats all I'm really concerned with spelling out in the lead surely we can agree on that here. lets actually talk josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B111:48:1D1C:EA81:83E9:C6E5 (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we can't agree on that. To say that God is transcendent, personal, and immanent without those being the same is not polytheism. That is, in effect, how Christian mysticism (see e.g. Meister Eckhart) generally spells out the Trinity (that the Father is the unknowable God-in-Itself, the Son the "Face" of God, and the Holy Spirit God's presence within the life of the believer).
Also, all Wikipedia does is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without original research. The talk pages are not a general discussion forum, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok but my position changed some throughout and you're neglecting that. Quite specifically and importantly from some use of poly- to monotheism but importantly differs in that God in Christianity is considered triune, which the article already says. This is a boradly accepted Christian idea and all I am saying is the lead should importantly distinguish Christianity from other monotheistic religions by saying either that god is 3 in 1 right off the bat instead of what it says now, or it should use the word pluriform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B111:48:1D1C:EA81:83E9:C6E5 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

...all Wikipedia does is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So then since the trinity is well explained in the article, it must be included in a source. So someone could change the lead to mention the 3 in 1 nature of God in Christianity to tactfully distingiush it rhetorically from other monotheistic religions. This way the article isn't disparaging a religion that is monotheistic but differs to some degree from Christianity, which is not allowed on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.229.128.16 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok so my proposal is to use this source https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/#SocMod and paraphrase the first bit under 2. trinity to get this job that needs done in the lead... one might also add that it is the most common Christian doctrine regarding the issue and include any others in the section on the trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.229.128.16 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request on 21 September 2019

While I might make the edits myself, I am not confident at this stage so as not to impede the work of another editor. It is about the "Etymology" section. If I am not mistaken, it appears that the section lists several bits of information twice up until the point where the section just repeats nearly the same phrase twice. K.Odradek (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Thanks for pointing it out. I have fixed it. (I have also moved this 'Talk' section to the end to the Talk page, which is the conventional place for adding new talk sections.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

I saw some typos ok let me edit it to fix the typos WikiTypoBot (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 01:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019

Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world, especially in the Middle-East, Southeast and East Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.[15][16][17]

This statement should be removed as it uses sources to overgeneralize specific incidents related to geopolitical affairs and regional religious issues into a global context. This supports a biased narrative not supported by actual social science or history. Archyperson (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

​This is the report the cited sources cite: [6]. This is a report by the Bishop of Truro and is a "review into the global persecution of Christians" (I'm not sure how a report by that title would get any other result). We should probably be able to find an additional source that compares more groups, especially scholarly sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done I have removed it. The statement is clearly not neutral, even more so to be in the lede. All the sources goes back to a single commissioned report and that fact is already explained in better terms at Christianity#Persecution. Multiple source (drawing from different independent research) are needed for such statements. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Since there's an ongoing edit war about this, I'll mention that some variation of the text might be permissible, as a tie-in to the aforementioned Persecution section. The 2017 Pew study, for example ([7], see pages 51-52 of the PDF) does state that Christians experienced harassment in more countries than any other major religion ("harassment" here defined as "being physically coerced or singled out with the intent of making life or religious practice more difficult [...ranging] from verbal or written harassment to physical violence and killings".) Of course, this is partly due to Christianity being the largest religion; I've been unable to find any study that clearly states any one religion is more prone to persecution than another, globally. In short, a statement such as "Christianity suffers the most widespread persecution" IS supported by independent studies, but even that might mislead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. This is a fact coming from very reliable sources, and much of the criticism seems to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in the discussion. Personally, I do not find the content objectionable either, and even if the source cited above is dubious, there seem to be plenty of others that state the same thing (or similar). However, I am trying to honor the current state of the article, which means not re-inserting the content until it is hashed out here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, we've hashed this out. The gist is that everyone involved (myself included) needs to come to a consensus on Talk, instead of arguing policy, or deleting & reinstating the statement in question. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring needs to stop

The edit warring over this needs to stop. I do not want to take sides as nobody involed (except Ammarpad) has behaved according to policy. Please read WP:BRD (and WP:3RR). There has been a suggestion to remove the statement, and that was done in a bold edit by Ammarpad. Perfectly fine, no problem there. That bold removal was then reverted, showing that there is no consensus for the removal. Given that three different users have reverted it, it should be clear to anyone that no consensus exists. In that situation, until a proper discussion has been had, the previous version takes precedence. I do not doubt the good intentions of Jtrevor99 and Antinoos69, but their subsequent edits to keep the content out of the article against WP:BRD is not correct. That being said, Wowimsonick, Mikey2maaaa and DVD Vision do need to engage in a proper discussion, not just drive by to revert. (My personal preference is very close to what Jtrevor99 has said above; keeping it in some form that is appropriate). I have no intention to add to the edit war, but encourage Jtrevor99 to kindly self-revert and await a consensus to emerge. Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, YOU are incorrect on WP policy, per WP:CON. A new consensus was established when multiple editors decided to remove the statement, discussing it on the Talk page before doing so, and it went unopposed for quite a while. Then, suddenly, three different users tried to re-add the statement, without engaging on the Talk page (as required per WP:EDITWAR), despite multiple requests that they do so. In short, all attempts to re-add the content have violated clearly stated WP policy. I am merely trying to enforce that policy, despite the fact I personally agree that the statement - with different sources - should remain. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
No, just no. Anyone can make mistakes, no harm in that. Digging in and refusing to acknowledge one's mistakes is a different matter. A discussion for two days, and then a revert a week after the removal... that is not the timespan needed to claim there was a consensus. There are plenty of precedents. Not everyone is on WP daily. Regardless of what one thinks about how the article should look, one simply cannot argue that a consensus was reached just because nobody objected immediately. Once more, the first removal was perfectly fine. The subsequent ones are not. Jeppiz (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
One week is more than enough time to establish a new consensus. And the fact that the reverters who are adding the content back in are refusing to engage in any discussion, despite being asked to do so, and being informed that that is required by policy, is telling. I'm sorry, but your response is entirely unpersuasive. Good news, though: I have to get back to work so must disengage anyway - something that is suggested at WP:EDITWAR for involved editors - so will leave it to others to hash out. I do apologize if I've been too aggressive or personal. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Jtrevor99 you have indeed been both aggressive and disruptive, and will find yourself blocked if you don't follow up on that very good idea to disengage. Reverting three times in just a few hours is a serious case of edit warring. You might think you are doing the right thing. You are not. Even if you were right that there had been a consensus, that is not a valid reason to edit war. Removing vandalism or BLP violations can be done without respecting 3RR. That's not the case for content disputes. Jeppiz (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
You, have been quite aggressive yourself. You are welcome to present all of the evidence to administrators if you truly feel as stated above. I have nothing to hide, am proud of my correct conduct here, and would do the same again per clearly stated WP policy. I am also aware of the 3RR rule which is why I have not violated it. Finally, it is quite telling that you are condemning me for enforcing WP policy rather than condemning those who are violating it, and refusing to try to make WP better. I would say more, but then I would be allowing my own emotion to get in the way. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Please note: I am NOT reporting any editors or filing an Edit War complaint, as I do not think either is appropriate. I am posting a general notice on the Administrators' noticeboard, so that they can weigh in on what the appropriate course of action is here. If I am wrong, so be it, but I do want to hear that because it's clear we both think we are following WP policy. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The response makes a lot of sense: I interpret it as “stop worrying so much about the interim page and this or that policy, and just hash it out on Talk”. As it is clear multiple editors are in favor of keeping the statement - both of us included - shall we begin? (After work, that is?) Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_60&oldid=1092018888"