Talk:Christianity

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

"Sect of Judaism"

The view that Christianity began as a sect of Judaism is asserted against the New Testament. I've moved this down much later in the article, where it can be bickered about without such prominence as the second paragraph of the entire article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mkmcconn,

that Christianity started within the Jewish religion (Judaism is a problematic term) is a matter of fact. Christianity was a Jewish sect. Statements about the timeline doesn't belong into the intro but this whole paragraph is about the relationship of Christianity to other religions. Therefore it does not belong into the history section either. However, this could be placed in a separate section.

I have moved the following over from talk:

"Christians traditionally consider the Christian Church to have a covenant with God independent of any of the requirements of Judaism, because of the conviction that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Others believe that Christianity has been grafted on to Israel, and that Judaism remains relevant as the religion of God's chosen people."

as it is a) unfit to be in the intro, b) inaccurate (hidden away in the wikilinks it makes supersessionism the general Christian belief). (And the wording is also bad, as there is no such things as "the Christian Church".) This belongs more into the beliefs section.

Another things that doesn't belong into the intro is the details about number of adherents. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 05:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On numbers of adherants, shouldn't basic information like that be in intro? I mean, its part of asserting the importance of the subject and all I'd think... Homestarmy 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, Str1977, "Judaism" is the "problematic term". I'll leave it, if that's recognized.

Supersessionism is the general Christian belief. The church is not a sect of Judaism; and yet its existence is justified by the Jewish scriptures. Supersessionism is not politically neutral, and has been mischievously redefined by some, and these are the only reasons that the practically unbroken uniformity of this belief throughout Christian history is only recently not acknowledged (by some)

Just striking the word "Christian" accomplishes your suggested wording fix. It's redundant, as you imply. In any case, by eliminating the "Others believe ..." sentence, you have eliminated the need for the supersessionism sentence; and I am content. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, there is no denying that Christianity originated within the Jewish religion. However, the error is equating the Jewish religion of the 1st century with all its diversity with the Judaism that later developed, primarily (but not exclusively) from the Pharisees. Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity happen to be the two branches surviving the turmoil of these times.

Supersessionism is a problematic term, even if it had only rendered such by modern interpretations. It certainly should not be covered in the intro. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence reads correctly, now.

Christianity shares its origins and many religious texts with Judaism, specifically the Hebrew Bible ...

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, that reading was no incorrect but it hides correct information as well and was placed there with a confused edit summary by an anon excelling in bad edits. I hope you have no problem with the "Jewish sect" version. I see nothing in the NT that contradicts this.

PS. Could you please refrain from starting postings with a blank? Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, could you please state what your concerns were regarding the "Jewish sect" version. I find the new version needlessly wordy, though it certainly is not incorrect. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is wordy, as a result of trying to moderate between the two versions. "Jewish sect" communicates to me the opinion that Christianity was originally one of the sects of the Jewish religion: a modern view, usually associated with secularism or humanist/liberalism, and often connected with the theory that "Pauline Christianity" took over to make a Greek-speaking Gentile religion out of what was originally just another Aramaic-speaking, unextraordinarily Judaistic, law-observant minority - something like, but not necessarily identical to, the Ebionites: like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes. It is an academic (and unitarian) POV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But I don't see that view included or implied in the wording. PS. Have you read my PS from above? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being too obsessive, then. I immediately infer this when people speak of Christianity as a Jewish sect. Let me know on my talk page what you mean by starting postings with a blank, if I'm still doing it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

editorial comment

What is the intended function of this paragraph:

Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, mainstream Christianity considers certain core doctrines essential. Those accepting them often consider followers of Jesus who disagree with these doctrines to be heretical, or outside Christianity altogether.

It strikes me as being purely editorial, and uninformative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me it is a way of referring to the fact that recently there has been mucho discussion on this page as to whether or not groups like the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses are "real" Christians. That sentence seems to address the point, which would allow these groups -- which self-identify as Christian -- to be included, while acknowledging the arguments of the Trinitarians who claim they aren't (acknowledging the existence of the arguments, not necessarily their validity): i.e., it's an NPOV way of saying there's a whole helluva lot of POV on just who gets to be included in the article. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 03:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It evolved over time as a direct result of the "felt" need to identify that there is heresy within Christianity and some groups are identified as heretical... i.e. LDS, JWs, etc. I would agree that it is editorial in nature, but it helps to prevent the alternative, which is to list all the groups that have been identified as nonChristian, the Great Whore of All the Earth, etc. etc. etc. The list is actual quite long when taking the history of Christianity as a whole. Almost all major church groups get hammered at some point in their history. Christianity started out as being identified as a cult, then with time became an accepted relgion, then respected. This can be said for almost all major Christian churches today. New thoughts, new ideas, and new ways of doing things are not favored by the culture at large...thus the wonderful use of Cult. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this go without saying? As an orthodoxy develops, this consensus is not shared by those who reject it. It's true that there are many more ways to disagree, than there are to agree. But this hardly needs to be explained. Indeed, the paragraph does not explain it; but it does almost insinuate that there is something sinister about developing agreement in the essentials of the faith. The paragraph is an opinion that is afraid to show its head for the good reason that if it did, it would be recognized for what it is and would be removed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the comment should be taken a step further so that we explain that many "outside the mainstream" consider the mainstream to have lost the "true path". This would cover the Restorationists. --Richard 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro serves to the effect of introducing the general beliefs of Christianity (and therefore it contains no further comments on "restorianists") while acknowledging that not all agree with these. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though I might be in the minority, in thinking that the introduction alone satisfactorily explains that not all groups have the same understanding of what Christianity is. I like the abbreviated form of the paragraph - but it doesn't really say anything more than the introduction does. If further explanation really is felt to be necessary, would the following be more helpful, in your opinion?

Although from the outset there have always been Christian groups espousing incompatible versions of Christianity, the catholic Church developed definitions, or creeds, for the direction of faith toward salvation in Christ. This church, conceived as an originally unified institution, is the historical and doctrinal antecedent to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Trinitarian Protestantism, according to their various accounts of how heresy and schism were introduced into the Church in the course of its history. Those groups that are directed toward a different conception of salvation, not compatible with the orthodox creeds, are called heterodox by "mainstream" or "traditional" Christians.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Space for 213... objections

An anon going by the IP 213... is making edits that are unwarranted IMHO. Despite being opposed several times he has not yet explained himself on talk. This is his opportunity to do so.

To state the problems with his edits beforehand:

• He opposes any mentioning of the origin of Christianity within the Jewish religion, constantly talking about Judaism, which we have already covered by not using the term Judaism. Also using strange edit summaries talking about what "he (presumamby Jesus) was very clear about" and that "Unitarianismus did not orginated from Catholicism" (indeed, U did originated via intermediate stepts from Catholicism)
• he opposes the fact that most Christians believe in an eternal and triune God and needlessly complicates this. The entire "beliefs" sections is about the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. There is no use of separating the two items.
• he also censors the word Jewish from the "history and origins" section
• he introduced a personal conversion of Constantine into the same section. Personally, I do believe that such a one occured but a) it is not needed in this context, b) it is highly contested, some stating that Constantine only adopted Christianity out of political motives
• he adds a detail about early disagreements (Easter date dispute) that can never be covered fully in this section. The passage reads horridly, confuses the first (years 1-100) with the second century (years 101-200), includes wrong information (he pits West vs. East, when it was in fact only Asia Minor), and pushes the POV that this had "a profound effect" when it actually had little effect at all.

But I have said enough, I'd like to hear from him. Otherwise I will have to revert him again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, in fact, reverted the anon, but kept the edits from Mkmcconn. I had some problems with the implication that the Trinity is not part of mainstream Christianity. "Christianity has a common origin the Jewish people" is ungrammatical, though I'm sure it's just a typo. I also think there was a POV problem with changing "Christianity" to "Christ's teachings", as the latter implies that Jesus really was the Christ. However, I also invite User:213.140.6.103 to join us on the talk page, as I'm sure we can reach a compromise. ElinorD (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Not so) Minor problems

I also have some trouble with some changes recently made:

• "by the Spirit, who will indwell them to form within them a new faith, hope and holiness, giving them as a new creation" is much too detailed and theologico-speak for my taste, especially the term "new creation" - do we need to have this?
• Why suddenly use "Traditional Christians" (a vague term) in the beliefs section? What is wrong with the wording "most Christians"?
• "God is an uncreated spirit, an eternal being" - clearly Christians hold that God is spirit (but not a spirit), if we really need to include this I propose "uncreated, eternal spirutual being". As for the edit summary: Christians indeed believe that God became man, ipso facto corporeal. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the note about the minor status as this getting major. I question the wisdom of a whole series of recent changes

• introducing complicated language and theology-speak
• blurring the distinction between sections (introducing Jesus-specific issues into the God pararaph), *changing wording because they sound not allright to some ears (the accurate "substance" changed to "spirit" because the former sounds too "materialistic")

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be all in favor of trying to make that statement more concise and clear. I would be disappointed though, if the fullness of the statement was removed.

"Traditional Christians" is not more vague than "most Christians". It identifies from whence "most Christians" derive, or along which path they orient, their beliefs. None of these is as satisfactory as simply Christians; but we are constrained.

God is [ a ] spirit. "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24. "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." John 1:18

God does not become change into a corporeal being (which asserts change in being). As the Chalcedonian Creed says, "... one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably ...". Trinitarian Christology asserts that Jesus Christ has two natures - that God does not change into a man, and that man is not changed into a god: but that God and Man, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of Man, the will of God and the will of Man, are not confused but joined in one Person, Jesus Christ. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Most Christians" is best used because the whole super-section has that scope. Also, "traditional" is vague and actually do not cover all those who believe that.

Quoting the gospel you commit the error of sneaking in an indefinite article. John does not say that God is a spirit, so you cannot use this to argue against my objection.

You also misunderstand the Council of Chalcedon, which talks about the relation of divinity and humanity in the one person of Christ, who is both God and man, without changing one nature into the other. However, that "God became man in Christ" is quite an important tenet of Christianity. That does not imply a change into God being God at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The indefinite article is there, depending on the translation. It is not "sneaking" anything in - especially since I marked the interpolation for your benefit.

I'm sorry but you are the one who has misunderstood Chalcedon. God became man in Christ, is a true confession of the Christian faith. But God does not change into a man. He remains exactly what he was. Man does not change into a God being. He remains a man. However, by union in Jesus Christ, Man becomes God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is interesting, as the God-into-Man/Man-into-God topic is fascinating to me. However, I believe such details of theology are best left out of this main article and instead addressed at Christology and Conceptions of God. Vassyana 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As we've discussed in Talk:Mormonism and Christianity, this is not really possible. Trinitarian Christianity is theology: because it teaches that God as such is our salvation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism conceives of "substance" in materialistic terms - it does not communicate the same thing, to people who believe that all substances are material. However, Mormonism does have a blurry conception of "spirit" being incorporeal, perhaps even omnipresent - it is ambiguous about what spirit is in Mormonism. For that reason, it is a more suitable term than "substance" in that particular context. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do I get this right? Mormons say they don't believe in Father and Son being of one substance but because you think that people are too materialistic and will misunderstand, we need to change the accurate wording and replace with something that neither (mainstream) Christians believe nor Mormons rejected as form of relating the difference between the two?

Or, on another level: because Mormonism is blurry on "spirit" and the meaning of "spirit" is ambiguous in Mormonism it is more suitable to use "spirit"?Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormons believe that the Father and the Son are made of the same stuff. They are the same substance, like you are the same substance as I am. But no Mormon would say that the Father and the Son are the same spirit being. Since the sentence is describing what Mormons do not believe, it would be better to describe it in terms that cannot allow for equivocation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, when you say, "the Father and the Son are the same spirit", it sounds to a Mormon as though you are saying that the Father and the Son are the same BODY - and they cannot agree with that. Orthodoxy means by "spirit" that God is invisible, incorporeal, and simple (not at all potentially present, but entirely actually present, everywhere). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with Str1977, some of the edits have affected the accuracy of the article and introduced theology-speak. 'Traditional Christians' and 'most Christians' are not necessarily the same thing. Ian Goggin 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

True - but not because "traditional" is more "vague"; on the contrary. Theology speak to one person, might be accuracy to another. If I can have your patience, I think we can work out the difference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, expressed my self badly there. It may in some cases be more accurate, but I think that in may of the edits thus far, theology-speak has made it no more accurate then plain speech had previously. I have full confidence that all problems will be resolved. I'll give input when I can. Ian Goggin 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please - no need to apologize. I don't want in any way to discourage your participation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I do not want to sacrifice accuracy (actually that's what I think some of your changes have done) but a) ensure that the text is understandable, b) that the beliefs section is not slanted to one of the constitutents of the mainstream, c) that the article is accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandability is what is being sacrificed - but I am quite confident that what I've done can be shown to avoid constituent bias, and can be verified as accurate. My aim is to avoid equivocation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By specifically trying to word the article to avoid equivocation with certain Christian sects, you run into a number of problems. First and foremost is that you will stray from "standard" wording. This will sacrifice understandability, as you admit. The problem is that it automatically sacrifices practical accuracy. While you may increase technically increase accuracy, if the article is less understandable, it will be effectively less accurate in the experience of the readers. My other concern is that by deviating from standard terminology and phrasing, we will be delving into a world of POV unsupported by the common discourse. The very fact your aim is the avoidance of equivocation sounds suspiciously like a POV push, regardless of good intentions.

For example, "substance" is the common English word for the concept. Someone reading about the topic will come across "substance" as a standard term. "Spirit" is part of the theology and debate of "substance". It is inaccurate, because it is not a common equivilant term for "substance". It opens the phrasing to a whole new debate about the meaning "spirit", when we already have a standard term for the concept being disussed. Just some thoughts. It is just my opinion and you're more than welcome to some salt with it. Vassyana 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some selectivity here, in what constitutes "standard" wording. The wording I've chosen is verifiably equivalent to the term that you prefer, and is derived from standard sources. It is not inaccurate; although it may introduce misunderstanding because of lack of familiarity. When Trinitarians have said "one substance", they have always meant "one unchangeable, incorporeal entity", "one spirit". The disadvantage of saying "God is a spirit" is only that it uses Biblical language instead of the adapted language of speculative philosophy. The disadvantage is also the advantage, especially in the context of explaining what Mormons do not believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Avoiding equivocation with certain Christian sects" cannot ever be an aim of eiditing the beliefs section. The section tries to related the general beliefs of mainstream Christianity. It does not try to hit at those outside the mainstream. The breadth within the mainstream already requires the text to be less specific.

Regarding the LDS issue: if "substance" doesn't work, why not simply use the word "being". This close enough to the Nicene creed but also unambiguous to LDS ears.

And, at the risk of repeating myself: "God is a spirit" is not a biblical phrase. But even if it were simply taking biblical phraseology from on context and moving it to another is not feasible. Furthermore it is Original research. We should ask a Mormon about what they consider Father and Son not to share. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. To deliberately choose ambiguous language in such a context is uninformative. If information is the goal, avoiding equivocation is crucial, in a context where beliefs are being distinguished.
2. If "substance" doesn't work, neither does "being" for almost the same reason. Is one human being a different being than another - are they not both human? Likewise, is not one of the Godhead the same being as another - are they not all of the same family, of the same order of being, are they not all human being and God being? Thus the head of the Mormon Trinitarian council is called Elohim - a plural name, because he presides over, and is the source of, all that is God. The same thing cannot be said of "the Trinity is a spirit".
3. "God is a spirit" is a Biblical phrase according to the translators of Douay-Rheims John 4:24, King James John 4:24, and various other translations. Since the KJV and the Joseph Smith version (which are Mormon Scripture) do not disagree on the interpolation of an indefinite article, your disagreement is dulled regarding the Mormons and their terminology (all such appearances in English are interpolations into the Greek - and I'm sure you wouldn't say of all of them that they render every occurrence into "not a biblical phrase".).
4. I am having a hard time following your disagreement. I'm unsure that you've read everything that I've said in defense of this phrase - but it's a long thread, and probably tedious to read. You would not disagree if I said "God is a simple, incorporeal being"; how is it possible for you to disagree when I say "God is a spirit"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 10:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet, pg 311

"The teachers of the day say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are all in one body and one God. Jesus prayed that those that the Father had given him out of the world might be made one in them, as they were one [one in spirit, in mind, in purpose]. If I were to testify that the Christian world were wrong on this point, my testimony would be true."

These remarks must be taken together with other authoritative teachings, to gain their final import. But, note that he uses "one in spirit" (in will or in purpose), which is Mormon doctrine; but he denies "all in one body", even though Mormons confess that God is a spirit (with a body). However, they conceive of spirit (the mode of being - not as synonym for "mind" or "will"), as a finer type of matter - and therefore a body. To say "the Trinity is a spirit", or "the three are the same spirit" is not compatible with Mormon doctrine, because although the Mormon Trinity's "mind" or "purpose" is completely agreed, their spirit as a mode of being is believed not to be the same. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I appreciate your desire to not equivacate in what you believe are differences between orthodox theology and LDS beliefs, but I would ask you to desist in this article. Let us back up a few paces before we move forward.

The topic of this article is Christianity; not Traditional Christianiy or orthodox Christianity. However, let us be clear, orthodox Christianity is THE story of Christianity known to the world today. For that reason, we as editors support writing the ariticle from that perspective while making allowances to other smaller, but still significant, differences within the group. The article succeeds in this objective.

To attempt to draft this article in such a way as to disprove a group that is less than 1% of Christianity reduces the prime objective of article; to describe Christianity, its most common beliefs, practices, and history. Making your objective primary the article becomes less understandable to the common reader and you fail in your objective...you have not disproven LDS beliefs or warned others of its inherent dangers. A LDS will not come to this page, read your edits, and come to the conclusion he is not a member of Christianity. More importantly, the common reader will not deduce that LDS are not Christian. Do not mix the topic Mormonism and Christianity with this article. In addition, you are splitting hairs that most Mormons, and most Christians, are not knowledgeable enough in which to be conversant.

Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You would ask me to desist. Well, that's something I might be persuaded to do, if it's really so hard to use verifiability, reliability, and credibility as a rule for establishing the change of a single letter, 'a'. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic of the sections that I have edited are about the Trinity - those who accept it. There is another section entitled "nontrinitarianism", which is dedicated to vindicating the right to dissent from this widely shared perspective.

The "attempt" is to draft that section in such a way that it is clear. Mormons are not the only ones who think of "substance" and "being" in a materialistic manner. Ours is not a metaphysically adept age. We are an "enlightened" generation, in which the only things that are thought to be real are our minds and "stuff". While this certainly describes Mormonism, it describes many others as well. Consider how much resistance a Roman Catholic editor has, to agreeing with the uniform witness of his own tradition, so that he is adamant not to say "God is a spirit"; but at least in this he is being inconsistent.

I am not at all interested in trying to prove that Mormonism is not a version of Christianity: as I've told you, on the talk page of that other article, this is a futile, extremely provocative, insulting and faith-destroying line of argument in which I have no interest at all. Aside from my interest in this article, I have no interest in finding how small another's faith is, so that I can crush it.

However, I am very interested in describing accurately and unambiguously, what trinitarian Christianity is, according to the trinitarian tradition; and, where appropriate, what difference it makes. I presuppose that you have the same interest exactly - because these are the rules of the game. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think every editor that has added comments to this section seeks the same objective as you have stated; however, they feel your edits have not added clarity. When there is disagreement it is best to revert the proposed edit and bring it to the discussion page until a degree of concensus i achieved.

The reasons you have given for your edits focused on attempting to not equivacate in regards to what Mormons believe. As Vassayana has stated above, this borders on pushing your POV. Leaving me out, I think the editors that have added to this section are all Trinitarians and long-time editors. Please trust them to work with you to produce edits that will be a clear, accurate, precise description of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Also, please be even more cautious about leveling accusations at other editors. I honestly don't believe you mean to be offensive; it is just a common way of your self-expression, but let me assure you that it can be abraisive. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Consensus can only be arrived at through talking about the same thing, looking for reliable sources that will support proposed statements, and allowing others to state themselves in the fashion supported by reliable sources. You have not discussed my sources, you discuss instead the necessity of blocking what they support - and this, not what I am doing, is what Wikipedia means by "pushing POV".
2. You've slightly mis-stated what I've said I'm doing. I am attempting not to equivocate in regards to what Trinitarians believe; and with regard to Mormons, I have attempted to be consistent, in describing without equivocation what Mormons do not believe. It would make little sense to say "X is a fuzz", and for you to say "X is not made of fuzz", unless we mean something at least non-contradictory (even if it won't be identical) by "is a", "made of" and "fuzz".
3. Since I do not know what you mean by "accusations", you leave me in the dark; unfortunately. You don't like how I write; I get that much. But going by what you keep reacting to, I perceive that you are more offended by what I write, than the spirit in which I write it - I'm not sure what to do about that, if that's the case. You'd be amazed apparently, by what a quiet, deferential fellow I am face to face. Someday perhaps we'll have the pleasure of finding out. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Because disruptive edits by an anon IP (or rather one person from similar IPs) and the fact that hardly anyone is doing anything about it, I suggest that this page should be semiprotected. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would do it, but I've been pretty heavily involved lately. I think that disqualifies me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

God is a spirit

This Roman Catholic page offers an article on the incorporeality of God. it says:

• Catholic Teaching

The doctrine of the incorporeal nature of God states that God is a spirit, and as such has no body (John 4:24). Neither is God a composition of body and spirit. It is true that Jesus was both God and man, but we must remember that Jesus had two natures: that of both the divine and the creature (man). As such, we say that Jesus’ Godhead in the divine nature had no composition of body and spirit

• Definition of the Dogma

John 4:24 quotes: "God is a spirit". Additionally, the 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach: "God is absolutely simple" (De Fide). Since God is absolutely simple it must follow that he is a spirit.
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, and as heretical as this may be (not being a Trinitarian view), some believe that God is spirit, but has a body. Similary we are told in John 4 that we must worship him in spirit, because we also are a spirit (with a body). Bytebear 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's because you think everything is a body. You also think that the Father is omnipresent through the Holy Spirit, and because (according to D&C) the Spirit is a "personage of spirit", he is omnipresent (or not - it's unclear how to resolve the two seemingly different ideas of omnipresence). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually omnipresence is quite easy to explain. The Sun is in a specific place and has a mass and volume, but it's influence can be felt everywhere. Simple Sunday School stuff, but illustrates the point. Joseph Smith taught that all things have matter, but spiritual matter is finer, or more refined, and it can only be descerned with spiritual eyes, similar to the idea that John 4 was addressing. Bytebear 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As discussed on the M&C Talk page, this is what the rest of us would call "ubiquity", not omnipresence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are subtleties in the Mormon understanding of "personage of spirit" (as the un-enfleshed Holy Ghost), that I have trouble understanding. If you would like to help, please join the discussion on Talk:Mormonism and Christianity — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I never claimed it to fit with traditional Christianity. I would actually go so far as saying that the concept of omnipresence is not specifically Biblical, and that ubiquity works just as well with Bible interpretations. Omnipresence may be a term used in creeds and 2nd century dogma, but is not explicitely Biblical. That said, I am not wanting to get into a pissing war. I do think it's fine to say "most of Christianity view the nature of God as ..." and have the Nature of God article hash out the details. Bytebear 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No potty war taken :-) I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few more quotes, from Church fathers and theologians:

Tatian in 170

"God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things ... "

Athenagoras in 177

"Is it not unreasonable to apply the name of atheist to us, who distinguish God from matter and teach that matter is one thing and God another, and that there is a great difference between them, the Deity being unbegotten and eternal, able to be known by reason and understanding alone, while matter is produced and perishable? ... we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, uncontainable ... "

Theophilus of Antioch

"The form of God is ineffable ... in glory He is uncontainable ... it belongs to God, the highest and almighty and the truly God, not only to be everywhere, but also to overlook all things and to hear all things, and yet, nevertheless, not to be contained in space ... " --

Irenaeus, 189AD

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason ... " -- (20)

Clement of Alexandria, 200AD

"What is God? 'God,' as the Lord says, 'is a Spirit.' Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself ... "

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All this does not pertain to the issue: there is no doubt that (in the mainstream Christian view) that God has no body (leaving out the incarnation), that God is a spiritual being and that "God is spirit". The issue was whether He should be called "a spirit" (you know use John as a proof though he John says "God is spirit". You also use Latin sources that cannot help us in this matter, as Latin has no articles). Again I point to my suggested wording above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to follow your meaning here, when you say "this does not pertain to the issue". I admit that, this time you have me stumped. These quotes address what you said directly. It is De Fide, to say that God is "simple". Tatian says, "God is a spirit". Athenagoras says "matter is one thing and God another". Theophilus says God, the "form of God" is ineffable. Ireneus says "He is all mind, all spirit". Clement says, "What is God? 'God,' as the Lord says, 'is a Spirit'. Greek, like Latin, has no indefinite article.

Please explain why you feel there is a difference between saying that God is "incorporeal, invisible, simple, and omnipresent" (which I'm sure you would agree with), and saying that God is "spirit" (which all of these sources uncontestably say), or saying God is "a spirit" (which with the advantage of an indefinite article, English is able to say). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between saying "God is a spirit" and "God is spirit" is inconsequential, in light of what these quotes assert concerning the incorporeality and simplicity of God. However, the difference between saying "God is spirit" and "God is a spiritual being" is vast, in light of the potential for equivocation. There is no view of God in existence - even an atheistic one - that would deny that God is a "spiritual being" (because atheists can believe that God is conjured from the spirit - the mind - of man). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, if God is acknowledged to exist in any sense at all, let alone in the Christian sense, "God is a spiritual being" encompasses all belief in God. However, "God is a triune spirit" is Christian monotheism, and nothing else. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. Also, this cuts to the heart of a great and fierce theological debate. As such, we should avoid it (except to mention the debate) in the article. Many theologians and Christians object to the phrasing "a spirit" because, to them, it implies G-d is "a being". We should stick to common terminology and leave such distinctions for articles such as Conceptions of God and Nature of God. Vassyana 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A great and fierce theological debate among whom, however, is the buried assumption. We should mention that it is not a debate among creedal Christians. Among "traditional", "orthodox", "catholic", "mainstream" Christians, it is only the terminology that is in question - a trivial debate. It is a trivial difference, to say "God is being" and "God is a being", to say "God is one substance" or "God is spirit", to say "God is simple" or "God is a simple being", to say "God's substance is his essence" or to say "God is an unchangeable being".

However, it is a great and fierce debate with corporealists, to say that "the Trinity is a spirit" instead of "the Trinity is spirit". While you can agree with the latter, you cannot agree with the former. And therefore, to make clear what "most Christians believe" or what mainstream/traditional/historical/creedal/orthodox/catholic/trinitarian Christians believe - it is of great explanatory advantage to eliminate the equivocation, and say: "God is a spirit", meaning, "God exists eternally and unchangeably as a single, simple, omnipresent, incorporeal being". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This linked article, unlike those others, is not standard; however, I offer it as typical, as opposed to exceptional. It is written from an Eastern Orthodox perspective:

How do we find God? "God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth," the Scripture teaches (John 4:24). The worship begins with a silencing of the heart and mind so that the soul can receive Him. St. Didochos of Photiki said: ".. but where there is richness of the Spirit, no speech is possible. At such a time the soul is drunk with the love of God and, with voice silent, delights in His glory" (Philokalia I). He means that the focusing on sensory things alone cannot lead us to God. Further, when the focusing becomes extreme we enter idolatry.

The self-manifestation of God is not apprehended through sensory experience but in the stillness of the soul. Encountering God is by necessity quiet and peaceful. God comes to us when we prepare ourselves to receive Him by bringing our senses under control, by elimination the noise and clamor in the world, and by refusing the intoxication the world offers through our senses.
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More quotes:

The Creed (Anglican)

GOD is a Spirit, without beginning or end ...

Augustine, On the Trinity, 5.11.12 (Catholic)

Because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and because the Father is Holy and the Son is Holy, therefore ... since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, and certainly God is Holy, and God is a spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit.

In this case, the appropriateness of the indefinite article is unmistakably clear - with striking result

Baltimore Catechism (Catholic)

Q. 13. What is God?
A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect.

Westminster Shorter Catechism (Reformed)

Q. 4 What is God?
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Isn't the bar of verifiability being raised unreasonably high on this point? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If this phrasing is removed without any real discussion of what I've provided for support, I'll have to start wondering about motives; and I don't want to do that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinity and salvation

I think the following passage is problematic (I broken up and numbered it for orientation):

1. "Trinitarianism is a doctrine of salvation, conceiving of salvation as one work of God, in which each divine person acts distinctly to bring the church into true and full communion with the Father.

2. "For example, Reformed theology explains salvation as a covenant of God with God for the world's sake: before the foundation of the world, the Father gives people to the Son, for whom the Son gives himself to be their atonement, and their righteousness by the Spirit given to indwell them, making them a new creation given to the Father.

3. "Or, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "... Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

This formerly read as:

"In Reformed theology, the Trinity has special relevance to salvation, which is considered the result of an intra-Trinitarian covenant and in some way the work of each person. In its simplest form, the Father elects some to salvation before the foundation of the world, the Son performs the atonement for their sins, and the Spirit regenerates them so they can have faith in Christ, and sanctifies them."

Now, Number 1 is badly written (but this can easily be fixed). More importantly, the question is whether this a general Christian thing or merely a Reformed specialty? The two examples imply that Reformed and Catholic theology holds this - BUT: the excerpt from the CCC (number 3) does actually not provide anything describing salvation as trinitarian. Therefore we are left again with the Reformed piece (number 2), which might or might not be accurate from the Reformed standpoint. However, "new creation" is definitely problematic as the average reader will completely misunderstand this.

(On another note: the Monergism link strangely addresses a thing they call Monergism, which has nothing to do with the actual heresy of that name.)

For these reason I have moved this to talk for the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I wish that I could agree with you, that number 1 is written badly. Written disturbingly, perhaps, but apparently my vanity will not allow me to say that it is incorrect, misleading, obtuse, or biased.
2. Number 2 should be supplied with a better link, and I won't fuss with you over the word "monergism", which is another disturbing word but not mine, this time. It simply means that God's work, not our own, saves; but I don't like the word, because it can be taken to imply that God works and we do not: which is not Christianity.
3. I do not agree with the statement "in its simplest form". For one thing, I do not think that simplicity is necessarily unambiguous - my big enemy. For another, it does not clearly describe the covenantal nature (the "gives", "gives", "gives" part) of the plan formed in eternity in Christ.
4. The CCC (number 3) clearly does imply that Trinitarianism is a doctrine of salvation. This is further bolstered by the footnote added to the comment regarding the resurrection of Christ from the dead (next paragraph on the page), which reads:

   ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 648, part 1, section 2, chapter 2, article 5.ii: Christ's Resurrection is an object of faith in that it is a transcendent intervention of God himself in creation and history. In it the three divine persons act together as one, and manifest their own proper characteristics. The Father's power "raised up" Christ his Son and by doing so perfectly introduced his Son's humanity, including his body, into the Trinity. Jesus is conclusively revealed as "Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the dead". St. Paul insists on the manifestation of God's power through the working of the Spirit who gave life to Jesus' dead humanity and called it to the glorious state of Lordship.'

I will do my best to swallow whatever pride it is that stirs up my objection to your concerns here; but the statements that you are focusing on are verifiable, and (in my own view) very much more accurate, clear and complete than what they replaced. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The "badly written" bit should not be taken personally. I know that in editing one does not always immediately hit a well-flowing wording. And if this were the only problem, I would have fixed this myself (actually I wanted to do just that when I opened the article for editing)

2. The "Monoenergism" is indeed not your fault but the one of the article you linked, or more so, the fault of the dictionary quoted there for definition. I am astonished that a dictionary coins a word without regard for the history Christian theology, creating an ambiguity between two quite different teachings. Anyway, that word is no reason for replacing the link. My problem is that this only describes the Reformed view and that we have no other view on this, making me doubt that this a broadly Christian doctrine (at least considering the details, nore on this further down.)

3. This is no theological seminar. Of course we should not be simplistic but we also have to see things in perspective and not explain every minute detail, especially since the more we go into detail, the less we can describe the general beliefs of Christianity.

4. Okay, I have repeatedly read this CCC passage. If all you are trying to say is that the Trinity cooperates in salvation, then I will not oppose such a passage. Both the CCC and the Reformed link can serve as references.

5. I "replaced" this passage with nothing, so I don't understand your last comment. I moved the passage over here to discuss it. If I thought it irredeemable I would have just deleted it.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have tried to restore what I think a fitting passage on the cooperation of the Divine Persons. This IMHO also addresses the difficulty with the Spirit passage below. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't take it personally. I'm just having a hard time agreeing that it's "badly written" in any way. Perhaps you'll be able to give me a better example to follow, though.
2. The link was directly supportive of the Reformed view, as the supported sentence was qualified to say.
3. This is no theological seminar, I agree - but it is a theological subject. If we do not attempt to write theology - even if adapted for non-theologians - we will write off-topic.
4. As all Trinitarians teach, we are baptized into the name of our salvation:

   "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

   and ... "It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature."

   and ... "The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

   Thus the Father is the source and goal of worship, because the Father is the source and goal of salvation. This is not, thank God, an exclusively Reformed concern.

5. I wasn't talking about you replacing anything - I was saying that what you moved to talk was a replacement for something less clear. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And, I didn't link the monergism article. It was there, and I kept it - but not with the intention of endorsing it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is new language in the Trinity section that poses problems; it is as follows:

Trinitarian Christians are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This implies that everyone who baptizes in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Trinitarian, which would not be accurate. For example, LDS use the same phrase. Upon reading the paragraph I think it may be deleted without harming the context of the section. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch. It implies no such thing. It says, simply, Trinitarians are baptized into that name, and then it goes on to explain why. Please do not delete it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jews do not eat pork. This implies all people who do not eat pork are Jews. To Muslims' chagrin, I will forward them your "logic." The Jackal God 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this formula is Biblical in origin not Trinitarian as the section implied. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another unjustifiably defensive misinterpretation of the text, as above. The origin of Trinitarianism is in the baptismal formula, if anything. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Mark, why then did you remove the passage that placed the origin of the Trinitarian formula in the New Testament? And why did you bloat the section with issues not in-topic to the section, e.g. baptism? All this knowing that this would be controversial? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 - I did not remove the passage. Baptism is not "off-topic" when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. I am giving a clear account of what every Trinitarian is encouraged by his creed (if he/she is familiar with his/her creed) to believe - which I can prove, if necessary, and if it won't be ignored. But since what I'm saying is so far from controversial, in itself, it seems very strange that the burden of proof has been shifted to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

another reason why LDS shouldn't dither Christian doctrine w/ its barnyard theology and keep to its own pages. The Jackal God 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By qualifying your statement by casting the statements of others as "unjustifiably defensive" does not improve your position; stop it. Trinitarianism is not the teaching of Scripture or Jesus Christ, it is the beliefs of others who interpret those scriptures to support their beliefs. The statement of Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost may be used to support Trinitarian doctrine, but that does not make it belong to Trinitarians. The words of Christ are observed by all who choose to follow.

Does the context of the section without the sentence weaker? What is not said that you intended? If you feel that the baptism formula is needed can you word it in such a way as to make it clear that it is not solely a Trinitarian belief? Mark, it is time to get off that high horse. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Storm that Trinitarianism is not the teaching of scripture, even though one may distinguish between the roots and the later developed branches. Having said this, I must add that this is my view and one may disagree with it.

I also disagree with Storm that the passage about baptism implies that all that use this formula are Trinitarians.

However, I agree with him that the term "unjustifiably defensive" is not helpful to the goal of editing this article. And Jackal's last posting borders on personal attack.

All in all, there has recently been too much unilateral changes to this article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, am I not even entitled to point out that you have misread the statement, or to assure you that your worries are not justified? Why when I am trying so hard not to give offense, is my mere disagreement - regardless of how strong - taken as an insult? I don't know what to stop.

A sentence that starts with "Trinitarian Christians baptize ..." does not even imply that they are the only ones who baptize, or that they are the only ones who appeal to the Bible. And it is not useful to the goal of providing basic information, to deny them the power to explain their own beliefs and practices.

I think that a moment's rest from arguing with me might provide you with perspective: I am not on a high horse. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Et tu, Str1977? I have done everything I can to encourage both, collaboration and boldness in editing. There has been a great deal of boldness; collaboration with me has been more of a struggle. It's hard for me to see why. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to appreciate your ongoing committment that your edits can not possibly be interpreted by anyone else in any other way except for the way that you personally intend them; however, stop telling other editors that it is their problem. You have several editors who are telling you differently and you refuse to listen t your fellow editors. I posed specific questions to you that you ignored; please answer them. In doing so I am certain that we can quickly come to a mutually acceptable conclusion. This is not difficult and it is not arguing, but there is disagreement. My comment about a high horse is meant to imply that you are not listening to your fellow editors and appear to think that only you have the answer. Again, these other editors with whom you are talking have more than just a slight degree of expertise in this area; you can trust them to be capable of discussing these issues and arriving at a concensus. This remains a problem of willingly working as a group to achieve our common purpose. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly know that you can interpret them in many ways; but there is a range of right ways, and a range of wrong ways. And if I explain how you're wrong I can't imagine being told to "stop that". I answered your questions by making the edits that you proposed. Please, interact with the sources I've given to support the edits, or allow the edits to stand, and don't let the process to be turned on its head by talking any more about me or my motives. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Spirit raised Christ

I removed a spurious passage about the Holy Spirit raising Christ from the dead. References for this were only bible verses (primary sources) and an extract from the CCC that actually talked about the "involvement" of all Three Divine Persons in the Resurrection. And of course such a thing can be stated, either in general (that the Trinity cooperates in all things) or in specific. However, it cannot be the basis of a statement about the Holy Spirit in specific. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only primary-source-supported statement was concerning the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture. The statement regarding the Holy Spirit raising Christ from the dead is grievously mis-described, when you call it "spurious". Please tell me what you mean - since the CCC excerpt quoted above in full - supports both, the Trinitarian nature of salvation, and the specific work of the Holy Spirit. But by supporting the first, it does not fail to support the other - for, as you very rightly say (the Trinity cooperates in all things). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this whole "cooperation" bit now in a separate passage, which covers both the problems from the section just above and this here. Have a look. And please forgive my over-polemic wording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it in the morning. Thanks for your help. I'm not offended by your wording. 'night. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a Christian?

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

And I suggest to you, that this question can lead to nothing but confusion, and has no place in this article. It is an unremarkable thing, to say that, to Trinitarians the Trinity is our faith, and our salvation. It is an unremarkable thing, if we say that those who dissent from this doctrine pursue a different idea of salvation. It is neither sinister, nor mean spirited to say that there can be no unity in faith with those who subscribe to a different faith. It is not some kind of insult, to invest in what is accepted as the truth - even if this means that some have a different idea of truth, or do not believe in truth at all. It is not somehow evidence of an unchristian spirit, if this insistence on agreement goes so far as to point out disagreement where it exists, and urges in the name of Christ, that we are to be of the same mind.

But all this is different from asking "what is a Christian?" - because your real question is, "what is not a Christian?". If it were possible to answer the first question, without answering the other, I would say that a Christian is one who seeks to be one, in thought, word and deed, with all those who believe in Jesus Christ in sincerity - to be one church, one soul resting in one truth, as the Father, Son and Spirit are one spirit. But there, you see, is the rub. So, I suggest that you leave this question alone - since we are all working with people who think they are the real Christians, and you are not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The confusion would not be my own. I brought up the questions because all there is among the differing sects is confusion. Especially where the trinity is concerned. Yet belief in it is held up as the standard for Christianess. God is a God not of disorder but of peace. We should give our worship with our power of reason. We should worship in unity and be of one mind and one faith. These are the requirements of being Christian. (It says so in the Bible anyway.) How can Christians be one of mind and faith if their faith is in disagreement over the elements of the most fundamental doctrine? I just want people to think. George 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yet, each denomination and sects within each denomination have differing views on the trinity."

Someone's gotta say it: you don't know what you're talking about. A.J.A. 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read Trinity and [1]and[2]and[3]and...George 03:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not one supported your claim. A.J.A. 04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I concede toyour logic. George 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Text Wrap

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

Of course, some have tried to hide the very contents, and if nobody cares or sees the light, then just shelf it. Christianity has its Brand X. Someone would have to prepare Christianity2 Template and all other related pages could display {{Christianity}}. The Pope is equally lacking good form, so where does it all end. - Athrash | ^Talk 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to reduce the number of images, and left justify inline images. This does a lot for layout issues. Bytebear 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity, multiple religions?

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

I didn't find the vote on your Talk Page but, if I had found it there, I would have suggested that you move it here as this kind of vote/discussion should be held here. Any result will seem more legitimate if the vote/discussion is held on an article Talk Page rather than a user's Talk Page. Don't worry about "conserving space". There's plenty of space, we won't run out.  ;^) --Richard 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a vote to be any way to bring this to a conclusion as the facts of the matter are so glaringly pointing in one direction. Nevertheless, if it pleases Zantaggerung, so be it. I move the vote over here and also voiced my stance. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Vote

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

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

Ditto that. LotR 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

1. Zantaggerung 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
2. A•N•N•A hi! 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No I think Christianity is one religion

1. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
2. ElinorD (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
3. A.J.A. 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
4. LotR 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) ...as per the standard, centuries-old definition
5. Pastordavid 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) ... and this is not the place for the scholarly OR that would say otherwise
6. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Are they the same religion?

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

---

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

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

1. Born2x 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Ian Goggin 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC), but saying that the convention is for Christianity be referred to as a religion.
3. As my previous edit summary would show,[4] I agree with this too. ElinorD (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Pastordavid 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) yep.
6. Pure evil and pointless Sophia 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even having this poll?

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

1. Iamunknown 17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Jkelly 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
3. As my previous edit summary would show,[5] I agree with this too. ElinorD (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. A•N•N•A hi! 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
5. LotR 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
7. George 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Pastordavid 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC). Yeah, this too.
9. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
10. GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) - This is ridiculous. You can't decide a matter of fact by polling. What do sources say about the question? That's all that matters.
11. Aaarrggghh. Sophia 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Vassyana 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I can't tell why our opinions as individuals are relevant to the project of writing Wikipedia. Even if all of us happen to think that Christianity is multiple religions, we still can't include in unless we've got a reliable source saying so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

collaboration

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

go easy on the page, it only mirrors Christian unity. The Jackal God 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have cynical wit; but you're not incapable of telling the truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been away from this page for a few days due to pollen counts over five thousand, but if you're talking about the "a religion/the religion" thing, I have found that it is often considered very bad to change things in an article that are under heavy debate on any article talk page concerning any topic. Of course, I don't know what you did, so I can't say whether or not the person who reverted you may of been justified or not. Homestarmy 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to basics

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

I agree with everything that is said here; however, simple sense should not be thrown out the window. Language requires context for its meaning. We must choose terms that make sense in their context: not invent terms, but choose terms that arise from a comparable context. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This may seem to be a hard thing, or too difficult for folk like us. But that's why we need to put our heads together, to think things through. When demonstration and good-will prevail, in making such subtle decisions, this is what makes the difference between a crap article, and a good article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Documenting consensus decisions.

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

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

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