Talk:Christianity

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	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

"self-defined" monotheistic?

Giovanni, as per edit summary, there is no Christian denomination that I know of which believes God and Jesus two be two seperate gods.

Even so, why not in "controversies" mention that Christianity is alleged to be polytheistic, most notably by many Muslims? That would be an appropriate place for it, and as a major world POV, it's something that should be briefly mentioned, perhaps with a link to Isa.

The "self-defined" is rather derisive in tone, and suggests that they are deluding themselves in this regard. Why not, "Christianity (as self-defined) claims to be a so-called "Monotheistic" religion..."? Yes, that's parody on my part, but illustrative of the feeling I get from this phrase. It's too off-key for the intro sentence, which is not meant to provoke cognitive dissonance, but only provide a clear framework for subsequent critical discussion.Timothy Usher 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if what you say is true, then that supports my inclusion of "self-defined"--if the definition is limited to Christian denominations. Btw, its not true that all versions of Christians in the past held to only one god theory. See: http://religion-cults.com/heresies/second.htm I agree that the controversies section should make mention others interpretation of the various god-like creatures found in Chirstianity (Holy Ghost), their interpretatoin of the Trinity, etc. But, again, if there is such a controvery then this only highlights the need to qualify the definition, since it does not assume the POV of Christians unless it does so in a NPOV manner, i.e. "according to Christians...," which is the same things a "self-defined." Giovanni33 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved this comment from above (recently archived) since it belongs in this section, and makes the same point. Giovanni33 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, that's a great Heresies link. Thanks. Of course that's Christian history, as in this sentence, we're saying what Christianity is now.

It's all very interesting stuff, and I don't object to any of its inclusion. The trouble I've seen on this site - and many others - is again that editors want to put their issues into the introduction, where it's guaranteed to be reverted - and to prove this, you can revert it again - I don't much like going over two if supportive editors aren't present - but you know it won't stick. At best, it will take a round-the-clock effort to keep it up for a few hours per day, if that, and aggravate other editors (and yourself) in the meantime.

There has been some pretty critical material (did Jesus exist?) and offbeat material (Is Jesus based on Osiris?) added in the past week, and it stuck because the editor was satisfied with making sure the reader was informed of it, rather than trying to spin the entire article to a point of view that I think he'd acknowledge doesn't come to most people's minds when they think "Christianity."

The intro should be utterly uncontroversial to the majority of readers. Let uncertainties, critical examination and associated dissonance come later.Timothy Usher 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but its currently controversial, depending on who you ask. That should not be the criteria, nor should it be who can get more editors on their side to revert to their version. The criteria should be based on NPOV policies and guidelines. And, if you read the rest of the contents of the link, they talk about also present day Christians who also hold to a many gods belief sytem, such as Mormonism, which I pasted below from the site.Giovanni33 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam is the most significant objector in this regard. Christianity as monotheism is almost part of the western (and English language) *definition* of monotheism. Whether it is truly philosophically monotheism is an interesting discussion. It just doesn't belong in the introduction.

As per your edit summaries, while NPOV is a good rule, all the wikipedia rules together don't come close to encoding the procedures necessary to create a good article. Rule one - it's an encyclopedia - is as close as it comes, but what this means isn't often discussed. Similarly, original research touches on my point, but not explicitly. Original point of view?Timothy Usher 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are the three canonical WP policies. They overrule all others, but not necessarily themselves. Just for reference.

KV 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Certain groups of Christians (Catholics being the largest) believe that the Holy Spirit is active to this day and inspires/guides people such as the Pope... The only point I've ever wondered about is the "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" bit as I know some others (such as some Islamists) regard Christianity as polytheistic. I've always thought "Christianity defines itself as a monotheistic religion' would be closer to NPOV. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From the above website, I even see that were are current surving Christians who hold to three gods, not one: http://religion-cults.com/heresies/second.htm

Tritheism: There are three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, against the Trinity. Present day Mormonism is tritheistic

Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced by the cults for the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is, by definition, monothestic. That is, it is a doctrine that affirms that there is only one God in all the universe.

Tritheism has taken different forms throughout the centuries. In the early church the Christians were accused of being tritheists by those who either refused to understand or could not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. In the late 11th century a Catholic monk of Compiègne in France, Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings and that it could be said they were three gods. He maintained that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son unless there were three gods.

Present day Mormonism is tritheistic -- but with a twist. Mormonism teaches that there are many God's in the universe but they serve and worship only one of them. The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father used to be a man on another world who brought one of his wives with him to this world - they both have bodies of flesh and bones. The son is a second god who was literally begotten between god the father and his goddess wife. The holy ghost is a third god. Therefore, in reality, Mormonism is polytheistic with a tritheistic emphasis. Giovanni33 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My POV: Being "monotheistic" is not a definition. Someone can not worships two "distinct persons" and then solves the problem by defining these two distinct persons to be one in an unknown way. I think the good way to check if Christianity is "monotheistic" is to ask a Christian "What does it mean for someone to be a monotheistic"? The meanings of these words all shape in world-view and practice of monotheistic. Fighting over definition of a word will lead us nowhere. --Aminz 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They can when it come to religious beliefs. You can make up anything you want and define it as your own belief-there's no need for it even to be rational or logical. So, if I want to make up a belief that the bread and wine really does turn into flesh and blood, instantly, it doesnt matter what the microscope or chemical analysis says---its a matter of faith and belief in a dogmatic manner. Its true, because someone said its true and I was told not to question this truth, but to blelieve it blindly. Irrational? Yes. But that is the nature of the beast and in my POV, the dangers with religion. So, to respect NPOV its important to not state it as a fact all agree on but say, "according to x, y is..." It doesn't have to make sense, its religion. Now, if everone agrees a certain religion is monothesistic or polythesistic based on an obeservation of the reality (the facts) from different perspectives, then its pretty safe to state it as a fact, without violating NPOV policy. The problem with this article is that Christians want to have their Christian POV to be stated as a fact when its only their persepctive, yet they do not want to use language that reflect that. Intead they assert it as a truth that everyone has to accept as true, hence the frequent edit waring here and talk of a Chrstian cabal.Giovanni33 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Being only modestly well-informed about my own faith, I just yesterday read the Athanasian Creed, and from there the Shield of the Trinity. I found it a great articulation of my own conception of the trinity, but I don't know how useful it would be as an explanation to someone who didn't already believe it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, Can you please help me understand how is it possible that Jesus be God and still he directs the father as God, says "trust in God, ALSO trust me", prays to God, changes his mind in some cases, learns and does not have the knowledge of the "hour"? I can agree that he was the second most important being in the world, having recieved all the authority in heaven and earth, but yet not God. --Aminz 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I need to go now, but let me ask another question which I will be thankful if you could answer. Let's assume that Jesus claimed God is three in one and he told his disciples about this. Shouldn't they ask him to explain these fascinating facts to him? It should have been definitely interesting for them to know. There should be a conversation about it in NT. It should be somewhere where Jesus tells them about the nature of God and tells them that this concept is hard to understand but should have trust in it, or at least he should illuminate his disciples. --Aminz 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tom, Can you please help me understand how is it possible..." No, probably not:-) I don't really understand it myself, I just believe it. I could repeat Athanasius and say, "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God." Or I could say the relation between the Son and the Father is non-transitive (if I'm using the term correctly); I could say something about what the Trinity is not, but not much about what it is. After all, it is unique. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended to our Orthodox colleages, but of course Jesus said no such thing. And at no point did he unambiguously, undeniably claim to be God - "I and the Father are one" is the closest, but that falls short of "I am God." Indeed, were it so, one would expect it to have been mentioned at every turn (as per our "last prophet" discussion).Timothy Usher 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense to you, Timothy, but it is not certain that he didn't say it or that he did not mean it when he said what you quoted (And, BTW, of course, the Son couldn't truthfully say "I am the Father"). There are also other verses relevant in this, especially the whole prologue of John's gospel. Also, such a clear statement by Jesus is not needed unless one subscribes to the extrabiblical principle of sola scriptura.

Let me finish by saying: Don't feed the trolls. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think fellow editor, Aminz, is a troll. Also, its not very nice or civil of you to say that.Giovanni33 09:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I do apologize. There used to be another editor of a similar persuasion and similar name that made his day by posting these kinds of questions to Christians on talk pages. Having looked a Aminz' page now I agree that he does not seem to be one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the subject to the Controversies section. I had to mention Egypt again to pull in a parallel, not knowing of another. But if there is a another parallel, feel free to replace it. I think there should be some parallel included to explain the Christian argument. I also have some information from Hall which may do good for another controversy, involving whether God could have a son, based upon God needing to have a mate and procreate in that manner. KV 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, KV, the Egyptian parallel is no parallel. There is no parallel. The Egyptian religion, as well as Hindusim and other religions, Greek philosophy too, had an idea about all realities originating with a single entity. So all the different deities are seen as manifestations of this "Prime cause", which how ever was often considered impersonal and inapproachable (Greek philosophy). In Egypt, various local gods competed on filling that role, and the temples drew up various genealogies: Ra winning out in his town Heliopolis, Ptah winning out in his Memphis, Amun winning out in his Thebes - in the end Amun prevailed by intendifying with Ra, being merged into Amun-Ra.

This system of manifestations is unthinkable in the Jewish and Christian mindset which holds God to be one and enternal, without beginning or end, and also as a person who can be addressed.

The closest parallel (in the end it isn't one) is in fact an Islamic one: Muslims consider the Quran to be uncreated and eternal, which is the same that Christians believe about Jesus Christ in his divine nature. The difference is that Muslims, lacking the insight of Greek philosophy, don't draw the conclusion that this makes the Quran "of one being" with God.

Be that as it may and as hard it may be to accept, but there there is no parallel for the Trinity.

I would like to point out that 1) Judaism does not accept God to be a person who can be approached, but rather that God is a force. And 2) That is precisely the parallel in question...... that they are all ONE. In Hinduism and Egyptian religion, probably in Greek as well, all of those gods and goddesses were one. I can cite that if you'd like.

KV 11:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, KV, that you are extremely mistaken about Judaism. It certainly believes in a personal God, not in some impersonal force. And since both today's Jews as well as people in the Bible pray to that God he is also approachable. I have never heard of Plato praying to the "idea of the Good" or Aristotle to the "prime mover".

It is precisely not the parallel: various religions have great numbers of deities, some based on localities, some on natural phenomena, or on moral values (the Romans were good in this) - great numbers of deities and at one point believers considered all these deities mere manifestations of the one supreme god/force/prime mover etc. So no need to cite anything, we don't disagree on that.

What we disagree on is the Christianity, which is not like all these other religions. Hence no parallel. Firstly, Christianity is based on the Jewish "idea" of God as eternal, omnipotent, personal, approachable, which different to pagan deities that all came into existence at one point of time. Secondly, Judaism and Christianity do not believe in a God manifesting in various, even countless forms or in nature - but in on a being distinct from all creation. Hence Judaism's and Islam's opposition to the idea of the incarnation. Thirdly, Christianity does believe in one instance of God becoming man, in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is seen as the eternal and uncreated Word of God, as well as the Holy Spirit is considered the eternal and uncerated Spirit of God. Hence Word and Spirit are seen as "of one being" with their "source", God the Father, and hence are considered one God. It is a sort of internal dynamic within God. Now, non-Christians might consider this view absurd but that is the belief of Christians - maybe absurd (which is POV) but not tri-/polytheistic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This concept of God/Godhead and monotheism is one of the great mysteries of those who worship the God of Israel. Gio you had a colorful explanation of what Mormons believe about God, but as a LDS, I would never and have never expressed myself in that fashion. I suspect that churches teach a doctrine and their members easily believe something different. Latter-day Saints (Mormons), IMPO, worship one God, the Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the communicator of God in many ways. Surely He can speak directly do us, his children, but the vast majority of the time it is through the Holy Spirit. I tend to think that I strive to worship the same God that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane. They are one Godhead, though they are three distinct personages. The Nicene Creed, from most theologians with whom I have spoken, is a mystery to understand. I think it is beyond the understanding of most, if not all, people. The Nicene Creed is a product of the 4th century. It strives to instruct its adherents in a way that attempts to provide an understanding of an incomprehensible subject. It is a mystery. They are three, but one. Though I can understand whay Muslims would say that Christians are polytheistic; for them there is one God, end of the story. No need for one to atone for the wages of sin, no need for a sacrifice of the Son of God. Sometimes we need to acknowledge how things look to other people, though we would say things differently and believe differently. Some people say Mormons are polythesitic, to which I disagree, but I understand why they say it. Just as the Bible mentions other gods, Israel worshipped One God. LDS worship One God and the vast majority of Christians worship One God. Saying one "self-defines" or similar statement does not cast dispersions, but is a statement of fact. I can't tell you the numbers of times I have been forced to write that Mormons are self-described as Christians. Is it a pain in backside? You bet. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just how prevalent is the view that Christianity is polytheistic? From a countering systemic bias point of view we may have to consider using a phrase such as I suggested above if it is shown that there is a significant world view somewhere that does not accept Christianity's own defininition. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, this view is prevalent among Muslim apologist/missionaries. It is a rhetoric ploy to combat Christianity. It is not factual. As I have explained above, Christianity's view of the Trinity might be termed absurd (which however is POV) but not polytheistic or tritheistic. I don't go over to the Islam page and claim that Islam is bitheistic because of the Islamic stance on the Quran (explained even further up). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You say it isn't, they say it is. That's the time to invoke the NPOV rule. The article isn't allowed to pick one side of this dispute and claim its the "right" side. Its time in the article to present both sides and let the reader pick, while the article makes no claim as to which is correct. Drogo Underburrow 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means representing an objective or neutral view, not accounting for the views of rival religious worldviews. Christianity is monotheistic: the nuances of this term are dealt with (or should be) at the article on monotheism. Myopic Bookworm 09:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Began as Jewish sect

Though I don't think "first century" necessary, is there any real dispute that Christianity began as a Jewish sect (even if this would not be recognizable as "Christianity")?Timothy Usher 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now the only source for that statement is biblical scripture. Therefore, it is necessary to qualify the sentence, instead of hiding the POV in the citation. For all I know, this statement isn't disputed at all in regards to Christian origins, but sources besides the NT need to be cited. Until we get these sources together, there needs to be the clause I added (and you reverted). Look at the 2nd paragraph on the Jesus article. There are a number of claims that are made about Jesus. Surely they can be backed up by the bible, but please look at the citation. Are any of the cited sources bible quotes? Why then should the bible not be a good enough source in the Jesus article, but good enough in this article? Alternatively, we could just tag that sentence with a fact tag [] until a proper source is cited.--Andrew c 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the clause unnecessary, but I agree that another citation(s) can only help. I've added the tag.

However, if you restore your version, I'll not contest it. Either way, we need a non-scriptural cite.Timothy Usher 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few candidates: 1) | http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/july99.htm - about a third of the way down, just above the "an unlikely place of origin" heading - but a Christian POV source; 2) | http://www.illuminati-news.com/origin-of-christianity.htm - paragraph 9 - not a Christian POV source by any stretch of the imagination, but I doubt it meets the criteria for reliable sources; 3) | http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Part I, paragraph 5 - but another Christian POV source; 4) | http://www.cie.org/ContentsDetail.aspx?id=N&m_id=29&cat_id=57&item_id=150&con_id=3522&corder=3&src= paragraph 3, reviewing textbooks (with some quotes and cites) from an Islamic POV; 5) | http://www.mbtranslations.com/articles.php?filenum=386 - paragraph 6 - translated from the German, by a professor emeritus of the old testament. GRBerry 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it completely ridiculous to require a citation for something which is completely undisputed and practically indisputable. I also think it unreasonable to discount the earliest available contemporary documentation (the Greek text of the Acts of the Apostles) just because it happens to be regarded as canonical scripture by Christians.

For what it's worth, here is a quotation from an impeccably non-Christian source (and not a crackpot website): "Christianity, a religion that grew out of Judaism and at first existed as a Jewish sect." R. J. Zwi Werblowsky & G. Wigoder The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (New York & Oxford, 1997).

Myopic Bookworm 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

During Bar Kokhba's revolt in 132, some Jews supported Simon Bar Kokhba until he and others claimed that Bar Kokhba was the Messiah, because they believed Jesus was the Messiah. As late as the 300s, John Chrysostom had to warn Christians not to participate in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances, in his infamous homilies "Against the Jews" (or Judaizers) in Antioch. It took time for the distinction between Judaism and Christianity to become as clear or complete as it seems to us today. Wesley 16:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History and origins

I read the link that Gio inserted and I didn't think it actually supported the summary given even though it is taken almost word for word from the link. In the actual body of the link it states that the roman state influences were mostly because of persection and the mystery religion influence is unclear. The Greek philosophy is influence is supported but unless I'm mistaken we already have that covered somewhere. Here is the link - what do others think?

Among the distinct threads of pagan religious thought that are most identifiable within the context of a developing Christianity, are the cults of the Roman state, the mystery religions, and the schools of Greek philosophy. [1]

Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all these elements played an important role in the formation of early Christianity, given that it set the stage, the context, for its development. As the site explains, "First-century Roman Palestine offered the ancient religion of Judaism, the political religion of the Roman state, the personal religion of the mystery cults, and the intellectual and ethical schools of Greek philosophy." Certainly, after the ascention of Christianity to the State relgion, it would assume the political role of the previous state-religion. I think the main article acknowleges this point later on. The fact that the influence of the mystery religions is unclear is also accurate and based on what we know (and reflected in the article.) There may be have influence but its unclear and thus scholars differ. At most one can say this addition is not really needed, although I say that it such a short sentence and adds a little bit more understanding for a reader to have a little summation that links to a clearly written and informative site that explains in more detail the context of its historical development.Giovanni33 10:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia,

yes, the Greek philosophy as well as the mystery cults are already covered, in the same paragraph, immediately preceding Gio's addition. Roman imperial cult had no influence on Christianity - only an impact: persecution - and the fact that it was supplanted by Christianity is not an influence on Christianity or on its development, and certainly out of place chronologically. So, even if Gio's link supported his addition, it still has to go as it repeats what has already been stated, thus giving undue weight to some aspects, thus pushing a POV (not surprisingly the one POV that Gio has been pushing since day 1). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Scriptures/Authority and different parts of the bible

The third paragraph of this level 3 section needs work if it is to fit with the section - only the first sentence seems to fit with the section title. Here is the current version "Jews see the [[Torah]] as the most important part of the Bible, most Christians regard the [[Gospels]], which tell of the life and teachings of Jesus, as central. Ornamental books of the four gospels are sometimes used in church liturgies. These may be carried into the church in procession and laid upon the altar during the first part of the service. The "gospel" means the "good news" of the Christian message, which Christians regularly disseminate to others. This may include [[missionary]] work as well as the translation and distribution of Bibles, as practiced by [[Gideons International]], [[Wycliffe Bible Translators]], [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] and others." GRBerry 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Egyptian Resurrection"

(continued from above section "Tweaks")

KV, that depends on the definition of resurrection.

If you define it very broadly it means nothings more than "life after death", "death is not the end" or "afterlife". However, resurrection is strictly speaking the Jewish and Christian concept of the dead (including their bodies) rising again at Judgement day to be judged by the Messiah, with the damned going to hell (body and soul) and the saved (body and soul) inhabiting the land of the living/New Jerusalem/Paradise etc.

The Egyptian view is quite different from that - they originally believed that the dead Pharaoh would share the fate of Osiris and life on in the realm of the dead, if his body was preserved (hence mummification) and nourished equipped (hence the gifts and paintings in the tomb). The dead Pharaoh was identified with Osiris, while his heir was identified with Horus. Later, this view was "democraticized" and extended to not just the Pharaoh but all Egyptians that passed the trial in the underworld (Anubis weighing the deceased person's heart against a feather).

If Budge adhered to the broader definition of ressurection that is fine and dandy for him (and explains why he could come up with this thesis), but WP is not in the position to take his side. The "afterlife" version therefore is more NPOV.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When immediately after "Ancient Egyptian" Str keeps changing Resurrection to "view of the afterlife". I had cited specifically where Budge, a devout Christian and eminent Egyptologist had called it "Resurrection" with a capital R and all, and compared it to the Christian belief. It is most certainly, factually, "Resurrection". Str, without reading up on the issue and debating it, simply denies that and replaces it with "view of the afterlife" which is not what is being talked about and is not what the citation I gave supports. Is there anything you can do to stop this senseless edit warring? KV 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (copied over from Musical Linguist's talk page)

KV, I keep on reverting it for accuracy's and NPOV's sake and have explained the reasons above (while you haven't).

Whether Budge is a ("devout" or not) Christian is irrelevant, except that he interpreted Egyptian religion as a partly forerunner to Christianity. Budge might have been an "eminent Egyptologist" but he is also definitely outdated (live 1857 to 1934). His interpretations on this issue have not been universally (or even widely) accepted in past or present and in any case remain that - interpretations. You write "... called it "Resurrection" with a capital R and all, and compared it to the Christian belief." - that is his POV and we should report it (if we must), but we cannot state it as fact or even endorse it - your wording does endorse his "findings". To solve this problem I propose two alternative wordings:

• The first you know already: Budge also drew analogies between the Ancient Egyptian view on the afterlife (which gave rise to the practice of mummification) and the Christian Resurrection.

It is factual, NPOV and neither endorses nor rejects Budge's view.

• Budge also drew analogies between what he termed the Ancient Egyptian Resurrection (which gave rise to the practice of mummification) and the Christian Resurrection.

This reads a bit awkward and it is certainly my less preferred version but if you insist on retaining Resurrection this is the way to go.

I will make two edits now, first inserting alternative number 1, then number 2 and leave the decision to others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are specifically denying Budge's POV. The whole point there was to show that some believe that Christianity could have been influenced by it, it just looks foolish if you don't have Ressurection. Budge was talking about the dead rising up from their graves, though not necessarily being judged by a messiah, yet they were to be judged. These are one and the same concept. Specifically, the sentence says what Budge says, you made sure prior that it was what Budge said. So if we're going to say that Budge said it, then we'll use what he actually said. Your description would include the afterlife prior to the ressurection, which would make it inaccurate. Though the change is not outwardly POV, for it doesnt' state a POV, it is deliberately censoring a POV which is being fairly described in an NPOV way. I went out of my way to find something to further counter that. There is absolutely no reason to not call it Ressurection.

KV 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Judged by whom in this case? If its what I remember it being, some sort of boar/steer thingy attacks whoever goes up to their version of the afterlife if they lose or something. Homestarmy 14:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me give some sites which have it, and aren't Budge's book. [2], [3], Legend_of_Osiris_and_Isis, [4], [5].... using the term Resurrection for that is common place. It's not views of the afterlife, many, many people, not only Budge, not only people trying to prove that Christianity got some roots from Osiris, use Resurrection. That simply is the correct term..... it doesnt' matter what the beliefs in the afterlife were (though that one completely alludes me homestarmy.

KV 15:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, KV, my wording (talking about number 1) does not deny Budge. It uses a NPOV wording to describe one phenomena. Budge called it "Egyptian Resurrection", which already presupposes his later identification. Hence we cannot use it, since it is questionable in itself. Or did the Egyptians use the term "resurrection" to describe their thing? I don't think so. Resurrection is a term from the Jewish and Christian religions - Egyptians did not, from what we know, hold a similar view, though Budge evidently disagrees with this. "What Budge says ..." is not relevant in this case, on the contrary - it is an argument in favour of not using it. My wording is using accurate, NPOV terms for two phenomena that are not in general identical and than states that Budge identified the two. Which is accurate and NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt, KV: you seem to say that the the Ancient Egyptians believed in a resurrection of the dead (physically) after the end of the world to inhabit some sort of new earth (earth! not some netherworld). That view is new to me and if indeed the Egyptians believed that and if indeed that they believed this is accepted as consensus by today's Egyptologists, than please do provide a reference. Otherwise this is just an eccentric idea by some long-dead Egyptologist. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KV, I don't know whether above links were addressed only to Homes, or also to me. If the latter is the case, I must say that they do not meet the requirements of my request. These are all pages pushing this view - what I want is a reference from reputable current Egyptologist accepting the term "Resurrection" for the Egyptian belief in the after life (as a term in itself, not as an explanation via parallel). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ressurection is one of three things (leaving out the Christian specific one which specifically deals with Jesus):

1)The act of rising from the dead or returning to life.

2)The state of one who has returned to life.

3)The act of bringing back to practice, notice, or use; revival.

Certainly I'm not talking about #3, but we're talking about 1 and 2 here. I have given a citation, which states clearly this belief. Budge has written books on it, using Egyptian scripture. I have ordered the book on it specifically, and I can give you actual text inform your further. I have also given you several sites which document this. If I need find the actual text, I shall try.

KV 15:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KV, just a caveat. Don't bother trying to reference Budge's thesis - we need the consensus of Egyptology. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lacking some detail, but we have a direct text from touregypt.com

"He doeth away with every evil thing whatsoever that belongesth to thee, he bindeth up in order for thee thy person, he gathereth together for thee thy members, he collecteth for thee thy bones, and he bringeth to thee whatsoever belongeth to thee. Thus thou art raised up, O Osiris, and Ihave given unto thee thy hand, and I make thee to stand up a living being for ever and ever."

VI. "Homage to thee, O Governor of those who are in Amenti, who makest mortals to be born again, who renewest thy youth, thou comest who dwellet in thy season, and who art more beautiful than....., thy son Horus hath avenged thee; the rank and dignity of Tem have been conferred upon thee, O Un-nefer. Thou art raised up, O Bull of Amentet, thou art stablished in the body of Nut, who uniteth herself unto thee, and who cometh forth with thee. Thy heart is stablished upon that which supporteth it, and thy breast is as it was formerly; thy nose is firmly fixed with life and power, thou livest, and thou art renewed, and thou makest thyself young like Ra each and every day. Mighty, mighty is Osiris in victory, and he is firmly stablished with life."

(emphasis added)

I found this at the very bottom of http://www.touregypt.net/osirhymn.htm

So there is your proof

KV 15:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

homestarmy, I thought of that, and it doesnt' make sense. Belief in a Resurrection maybe, but not views on. Unfortunately, I'm out of reverts for today on this article.

KV 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KV,

• Proof? I was talking about Egyptologist - you know, scholars - not some "Egypt Guide for Travel and Tours, Modern and Ancient Egypt, Welcome".
• Also, your proof doesn't talk about resurrection. Resurrection is not putting parts of a corps together and have sex with it (which is what Isis did). Also, texts can be translated differently.

So I am once again asking you for a reputable Egyptologist reference. This is all I need. Mind you, if scholars use that term I can well live with that - that doesn't make Budge's view any truer than ommitting term makes it falser. My concern is proper wording.

Apart from that I think it ridiculous to have a controversy section containing an outdated eccenttric claim in the overview article (!) on Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the text is a text from a very reputable source.... the Egyptian priesthood and that is a literal translation, I would say that is sufficient. But what did the Egyptians know of their own religion? Probably nothing. But then if you want an Egyptologist, how about a man who, I don't know, was the keeper of the Egyptian antiquities for the United Kingdom for several decades until he died, wrote many, many books on Egypt and specifically Egyptian religious beliefs and was highly respected in his field? How about someone that might fit like...... E A WALLIS BUDGE!

KV 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We find more on that site, under "RESURRECTION OF OSIRIS" on the page http://www.touregypt.net/osirfun.htm

"We now have to consider Osiris in his character of god and judge of the dead, and as the symbol of the resurrection, and the best source which we can draw for information on this subject is the Book of the Dead. In this work Osiris is held to be the greatest of the gods, and it is he who is the judge of men after death, and he is the arbiter of their future destiny. He attained this exalted position because he was believed to have been once a human being who died and had been dismembered; but his limbs had been dismembered ; but his limbs had been reconstructed and he had become immortal. The most remarkable thing about him was that his body had never decayed like the bodies of ordinary men, and neither putrefication nor worms ever acquired power over it, or caused it to diminish in the least degree. It is true that it was embalmed by Horus, and Anubis, and Isis , who carried out with the greatest care and exactitude all the prescriptions which had been ordered by Thoth, and who performed their work so throughly well that the material body which Osiris possessed on this earth served as the body for the god in the world beyond the grave, though only after it had had undergone some mysterious change, which was brought about by the words of power which these gods said and by the ceremonies which they performed. A very ancient tradition declared that the god Thoth himself had acted the part of priest for Osiris, and although the Egyptians believed that it was his words which brought the dead god back to life, they were never able wholly to free themselves from the idea that the series of magical ceremonies which they performed in connection with the embalment and burial of the dead produced most beneficial results for their deceased friends."

KV 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not an area I know anything about, but maybe we need to make more clear that it is Budge who is saying "resurrection." If both are content with Homestarmy's latest, then that's great. If not, maybe we need something like, "what he describes as the Ancient Egyptian Resurrection," or some other less awkward construction. Honestly it seems kind of a minor point. Budge says maybe Egyptian religion influenced Christian ideas about resurrection. Okay, Budge says that, or he doesn't. Either way, I don't see that much more than a mention is warranted here, in the main article on Christianity. I mean, I don't see anything (nor do I want to!) about the influence of Babylonian beliefs on Judaism and how that in turn influenced Christianity, and that is at least something I've heard discussed. There's nothing in our article (and again, there should not be) about "The Golden Bough," with all its dead-god-reborn stuff. I don't really understand why Budge but not Fraser, but neither do I care much. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have this from Yahoo books about Budge's book on Osiris: "Volume 1 of the most comprehensive, scholarly work on Osiris. Includes translations of numerous texts, reproductions of classical Egyptian art—iconography, the Heaven of Osiris, liturgy, shrines and mysteries, funeral and burial practices, human sacrifice, judge of the dead, links between Osiris worship and African religions, much more." (http://store.yahoo.net/doverpublications/0486227804.html)

Info on Budge is also given in a doctoral thesis, "Sir E. A. Wallis Budge presents a titanic figure in the history of popular archaeology. He did more than any other person to rouse in the ordinary reader of the English-speaking world an interest in the language and writings of ancient Egypt (Wilson, p. 89). Tremendously energetic, Budge turned out more than a hundred volumes, and the most popular of these would almost certainly have been available to Joyce. I will draw on Budge's Gods of the Egyptians (1904) for much information, as Mr. Atherton does. This is because I assume that it was not only one of several general surveys used by Joyce, but that it is probably also the one most easily obtained by readers of this dissertation. Thus, I will refer to The Gods of the Egyptians, or the other popular work mentioned by Mr. Atherton, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection (1891), when Budge's material is most likely Joyce's source, and also when his books are in general agreement with others I have encountered.

"It was through Budge's great ingenuity that the British Museum obtained many of its most beautiful papyri, such as the recension of The Book of the Dead known as The Papyrus of Ani. Budge was a "prodigious editor of texts in a wide range of oriental languages" (Wilson, p. 216). "

Further he talks about Osiris: "The overriding identification was with Osiris, the archetypal resurrected being: "the absolute identity of the deceased with Osiris is always assumed . . ." (BD, p. iiv). As the cycle of the god involved a physical rebirth (for Osiris and for those who followed him), and a voyage to the fields of Amenti, the journey of the god was related to the elemental and visible voyage of the sun, with his daily rebirth and journey across the heavens in the solar bark." (emphasis added)

"These were extended and ritualized, and followed by men who wished to assume the identity of the god who had attained immortality after resurrection."

"The rituals performed on behalf of the dead Egyptian were intended to reenact the resurrection of Osiris. The body was first mummified as Osiris' had been (67). The deceased was then placed in the tomb-chamber (61) and surrounded by charms intended to protect and assist him on his journey to the Otherworld and make him comfortable there (64). Especially significant was a small shaped mold outlined to resemble Osiris and planted with grain. As the grain sprouted, it was supposed, through a form of sympathetic magic, to help the body undergo a similar germination or rebirth"

I could go on, but I don't see reason. The dissertation, by a now PhD in Egyptology, is at http://www.trentu.ca/jjoyce/mummeries/troybook.htm

KV 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, at the very least, each use of resurrection needs to have the same capitalization, so as to not trivialize one or the other. KV 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KV, I don't see reason either. That's all fine and dandy and interesting what you posted, but it doesn't touch upon the issues:

• Is the inclusion of a controversies section warranted in the main article on Christianity?
• Is this issue notable enough nowadays to merit inclusion into such a controversies section?
• Is "resurrection" (and re capitalization I think both should be lower case) the accurate and NPOV wording, accepted by today's Egyptology?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, the Ancient Egyptians knew about their religion better than me, or you, or Budge. But unfortunately, they are all dead by know and we cannot ask them what they meant. In the text you produced I can see no parallel to the general resurrection, and not even to the resurrection of Jesus. There is a slight resemblance to the accounts of Jesus raising someone else to life again (the girl, Lazarus, etc.), but actually Osiris wasn't actually raised to life again bodily. The only thing he did after dying was to father Horus, wasn't it? His afterlife was not corporeal, on this earth, but in the netherworld, wasn't it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1) absolutely since Christianity is full of controversy. At least some of the controversy should and must be covered.

2) Two major books "The Hiram Key" and "The Book of Hiram" were written recently including the topic potential influences of Jesus. This is one of them. A main article on the subject should be made eventually.

3) it is accurate, and it is a NPOV, seeing as it is a fact. It is about as POV to say resurrection for the Egyptians as it is to say the same for the Christians. I have given you doctoral dissertations, that will suffice. It will more than suffice. And seeing as Budge is highly quoted amongst those who are making this accusation, it wouldn't even matter if today's Egyptology didn't accept it, even though they do.

KV 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KV, you still don't get it: Quoting Budge or his supporters cannot ever suffice on the issue of whether this word is accurate. We need a repubtable current Egyptologist to confirm this - otherwise, the wording is part of Budge's view, and hence not NPOV. If the two things are not the same, putting in the same word twice is not accurate - since this issue is the point of dispute, on which POV or NPOV hinges, using the same word twice is indeed endorsing the view, while "my" versions are not.

PS. Pointing to pseudo-scholarship like "the Hiram Key" is really not helping your position.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to continually change the subject. First it's that the citation isn't enough, then it's do we need such a section, and now it's back to the citation again. I have given about 15 references thusfar, including probably the most prominent egyptologist on religion of all time and a doctoral dissertation that was accepted. You don't make any casual claims in a dissertation unless it is generally seen as infalliable fact, and you dont' become a doctor if you do. I would like to see you try to even make one similar citation that refutes what was said.

Now, as per Wikipedia policy, all I have to do to suffice with WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." I have done that, and I have even done it to a higher standard than it has been degraded to. I had specific page numbers, you all decided that wasn't important. As of now, the only citations seem to be on things that question Christianity and specific figures. I have come up with references time and again, you have come up with none. So let's stop playing games, because we can always take this to arbitration, and you know you wouldn't win.

KV 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for an analogy's sake........ what you are asking for in demanding that currently Egyptology hasn't completely changed on this matter, when the source is saying that this controversy exists (I have given you several sites on the matter) and that Budge confirms some facts......... is equivalent to me demanding that you come up with a citation that says that Christian Historians still agree that Jesus is the Son of God. Then if you name someone in say 1976, I say I need someone more recent. Christian views may have changed radically in the past 30 years, and I don't need evidence of it to question that.

KV 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back...... seeing now....... Ancient Egyptian religion isn't changing currently, it cannot change, what was believed will not change....... however, Christianity is still alive and flourishing, and is much more likely to change in a thirty year period than what the Ancient Egyptians believed. KV 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Now don't be silly. Asking for a "state of the art" reference isn't too much, is it? A Egyptologist from 1976 would suffice - but even you must admit that 1934 was some time ago (and that is when he died, not when he wrote this stuff). Your analogy doesn't work - there are still two billion Christians around (including your hypothetical historian) and Jesus' divinity is also an integral part of Christianity. But there are no ancient Egyptians around (except for the ones that are Christians) and we cannot ask them - hence we turn to scholars, to the specialists of Ancient Egypt.

As for "V" being the threshold. Yes, you verify that what you wrote is what Budge wrote and hence I wouldn't object to including another "what Budge calls ..." We have been there before. But a quote by Budge or a Budgist is not enough to determine the acceptance by Egyptology.

Last but not least: I am not changing the subject. I have said from the get-go that I don't think the "osiris" passage should be here at all - but if it is, it should be presented in the best form possibly, regarding to NPOV and accuracy.

I'm glad you say that, because I did give you a reference from a PhD dissertation, an Egyptologist wrote, in 1976! Actually several references from that dissertation.

KV 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gonna reopen the reverting season, but you still have not provided sufficent evidence. All right, you did cite above a dissertation, but most of what you quoted relates Budges' thesis - hence it is no confirmation that the term "resurrection" is accepted apart from Budge's thesis. or that his thesis is universally accepted. But that is what I am looking for. The description quoted by you doesn't look like resurrection to me: mummification, journey to some otherland - granted I see how this can be seen as a parallel to the Christian view on the afterlife, but the particular part of the resurrection is not paralleled in what you quoted. Nonetheless, if Egyptologists call it resurrection nonetheless, I will yield to their judgment. But if they don't use that term, your wording is and remains POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. Your new wording is definitely an improvement, but we should still strive for absolute accuracy. Maybe we should call in some Egyptologists. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Dr.Daniel Jackson?:)Timothy Usher 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no way the Egyptian view of the resurrection can be 100 percent identical to Christianity, you'd think somebody would of noticed that by now. How is "their view of the/a resurrection" wrong? Homestarmy 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In "Death in Ancient Egypt" (penguin book 1982) by A.J.Spencer who was an egyptologist for the British Museum he does use the term "resurrection of the body" when describing the importance of the burial mound in Egyptian funerary rights. I'll have a more detailed look later to find specific quotes which I will post here. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sophia, let it keep coming in. Though the dispute got heated up there, I am only concerned to have proper. scholarly wording. I have posted a request over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While I am not a an expert: resurrection appears once in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, under the "Resurrection of Osiris," on page 378—which is only a brief description of a local festival of the Resurrection of Osiris on a lake outside of Sais. The only online references that do not concern Budge seem to involve early Christianity rather than a term from Egyptology. JCarriker 14:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (Copied over from my talk page, thanks.)

Str, the thesis I quoted uses Budge as a reference, yes... which in itself shows that Budge is considered a reliable source on the subject. Budge is well known and very well accepted in Egyptology. I also gave you a direct translation from www.touregypt.com......... which was the words of the Ancient Egyptian priests. And you could have always contacted the fledgling Egyptian Religion Wikiproject which is listed on List of proposed Wikiprojects. I pushed to start that one, and btw, Ancient Egypt isn't about content, it's about style. Read its goals. But of course you say "A Egyptologist from 1976 would suffice", and I did give you a thesis from an Egyptologoist. You then claim that it doesnt' count because he agrees with Budge, who is the most prominent figure on Ancient Egyptian Religion since Ancient Egypt. If we're going for accuracy, please find me sources for all the other comments that were made in this article, and while we're at it, lets throw on the requirement that they don't agree with what the statement said. So basically, we're ditching the entire article, because you're trying to put qualifications for this passage that cannot exist. All sources have to either disagree with this statement, or agree with it and in effect agree with Budge's theory, which they are likely to specifically mention. So why don't you face the fact that what I wrote is accurate and that it's been put through more scrutiny and citation than anything else in the article. Yes, this was cited to the page originally.

Straight out, anyone on the Arbitration committee or Mediation committee or anything else would immediately see that you are putting unwarranted requirements on something that is against your POV, but of course the parts of the article that are in tune with your POV don't need citations or any evidence at all that they're true. Right now, I am suggesting that we enter official mediation. I can apply for it as soon as you agree, or rather apply since I'll probably apply for it once you reply and try to change the subject once again.

KV 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. the link to the wikiproject description is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Egyptian_Religion.

KV 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have the Budge book on my shelf and I didn't realise! Forgive me if I repeat anything above but there is so much to this thread it's hard to read it all. E.A. Wallis Budge was formerly Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum. In 1923 he published "The Book of the Dead" which as far as I am aware is the classic translation of the Egyptian funarary texts. In it he refers to Osiris as being resurrected - Introduction lxi for example: "moreover for countless generations Osiris was the type and emblem of the resurrection, and relying upon his power to give immortality to man untold generations lived and died" . From a very very quick skim of the actual texts I can't see the use of the actual word "resurrection" in the translations - they tend to use "reborn" or go on and on about how their guts won't be eaten by worms! Budge is a very legit scholar who produced a reference text so I don't think it's at all unreasonable to quote him. He uses the term "resurrection" because that is what the Egyptians meant even if they didn't phrase things exactly the way we would today. It is all about life after death. For example page 519 "Let life [come] from it's death, and let not decay caused by any reptile make an end [of me], and let them not come against me in their [various] forms. As long as the wording is NPOV it could have a place in the history section as one of the earliest resurrecting god cults but a brief sentence with a link for those interested is really all that's needed. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sophia for backing me up. Budge is a legitimate source.

KV 05:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

KV, I'd like to thank you for keeping at it. This is an odd but very interesting section of the article, Budge is certainly legitimate and the parallel between the traditions is obvious.

Also, it's been said here that Christianity has a very particular view of how resurrection will occur:

"However, resurrection is strictly speaking the Jewish and Christian concept of the dead (including their bodies) rising again at Judgement day to be judged by the Messiah, with the damned going to hell (body and soul) and the saved (body and soul) inhabiting the land of the living/New Jerusalem/Paradise etc."

I never heard anything that specific in Church, and I doubt that too many people I know would endorse this precise interpretation. It's common enough, for example, that people believe the afterlife begins immediately after death, which isn't compatible with the view above. (Moreover, at least one element is contradicted by Jesus' own words, others merely unsupported, but that's another discussion).

Anyhow, as I'd given you some initial pushback, thanks again for your persistance.Timothy Usher 05:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I practice an Ancient Egyptian religion, so my passion kept it going. :) I knew that I knew what I was talking about 100%. I can piece together that description of the ressurection for the most part.... so I didn't say anything about that. A citation there would be nice. I never heard it being the Messiah, and certainly I don't believe the Jewish people think that, but yes, God will. I know that St. (Anthony I think, I'll have to reread to make sure) was in Egypt and had his body buried where no one knowed so his followers wouldn't mummify him..... he claimed that "God" would give him a new body, so that part I think may be off in a worldwide NPOV way at least. The Messiah, who the Jews apparently abandoned and use the name moshiach instead, is described here, [6], I don't see much on Resurrection in Judaism, but one of the 13 primary beliefs is stated as "The dead will be resurrected" [7] but nothing more is put there. I'm not sure what they believe beyond that or even if it is unified. The site I was given, by a Jewish Wikipedian, is [8]. There are parallels between the Egyptian and Christian resurrection stories for sure, which is what I believe is stated. Not that they are 100% identical. I'll try to stick to it more in the future. Citations are always a good thing.

KV 06:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hermetica is worth reading as I'm sure KV will agree. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 07:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I paged through this a nearly twenty years ago, in the Pymander version. Will take another (and closer) look one of these days. Thanks.Timothy Usher 07:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, not to get off on a tangent, but the common belief you mentioned that the afterlife begins immediately after death, is not at all incompatible with a much later bodily resurrection of everyone. The "immediate afterlife" is generally understood to be as a disembodied soul (or spirit or ghost), while we anticipate receiving new bodies at the later general resurrection. Stories of various saints' bodies failing to decay or even exuding a pleasant smell are thought to "anticipate" or "hint" at this later resurrection.

Back to the subject at hand, I got a little lost reading through the arguments about Budge and whether Egyptians believe in a "resurrection." Could someone please summarize the actual article text that is at stake, and what the competing versions are? Wesley 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To insert a bit of the Thomism maligned elsewhere: the disembodied afterlife of the soul can only be a intermediate state (though having attained the beatific vision certainly makes for any thing lacking, including a body), if the soul is defined as "form" and the body as "matter" - matter and form need each other to exist. Aside from that, various Christian denominations do not belief in such a "disembodied afterlife" (JWs for instance). The Orthodox have a different stance too (Hi, Wesley). But practically all denominations in their orthodox form believe in a general resurrection on Judgement day. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The text at stake is whether it says "Ancient Egyptian view of the afterlife" or if it says "Ancient Egyptian Resurrection or as I settled for "form of the Resurrection". I argued that it is called a Resurrection all over, that Budge is well accepted in the community on the subject of religion, and found several sources. Str said that Budge was probably outdated, and that he would accept a source from 1976, but then changed his mind and said that on the condition that they don't agree with Budge's "theory". In essence, that he would only accept a source that would be impossible to even make up if one were good at forgery, because the conditions would be unattainable: confirming while in no way confirming. Sophia then verified my arguments.

I believe the difference is in whether we recognize that one of the primary beliefs of Christianity may have existed prior. Included also was a rationalization by the Coptic Church for such phenomena.

KV 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for the moment with "form of resurrection", since it at least gives room the possibility that there might be similar but yet different things. KV, I never changed my mind on what I wanted but only expressed myself poorly. I don't doubt for a minute that Budge is well respected. My query was strictly about the wording "resurrection" in the context of Osiris and Egyptian religion, as seen by today's Egyptologists (hence Egyptian source texts don't work), quite apart from Budge's theory. If Budge used the R word and someone discusses Budge he will probably also use the R word - the question was: when some Egyptologist writes about Osiris' afterlife without any reference to Budge's theory, does he use the R word? I merely want this to be according to the state of the art, wordingwise. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please define "Budge's Theory". So I can get a clear view of what you're saying.

KV 04:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Voilà! Budge's theory of a connection between the Egyptian thing and the Judaeo-Christian thing, ... or any other theory of similar leaning. I want a strictly Egyptologist take on this. This might still be influence by the Christian view, since very many great Egyptologist came from a Christian background, but if Egyptologists use the term when discussing the Egyptian thing (without any reference to the Christian thing) then I'll be content. Does that suffice? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Section break for convenience:Egypt

Someone took out the whole Budge thing and replaced it with, "Some argue that because the role of Jesus is similar to that of various mythological figures said to have died and risen again, these may have been the inspiration for Christianity. (See Jesus-Myth.)" I approve. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I completely disapprove since it doesn't begin to explain anything, and went from verifiable to unverifiable.

KV 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose after "Some argue" we could have a ref to Budge. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Budge didn't specifically argue that it was the source, many others make that claim. Budge rather was a devout Christian and wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole. What Budge is used for is to cite the specific similarities that he saw and mentioned, without touching the idea of them as being the source for Christianity with a 10 foot pole. There is no reason to shorten that down. It is longer text because A)It shows both sides of an argument, B) Str insisted on having Budge at the beginning of each sentence, and C) It is controversial and needs more explanation than other pieces. If we were to shorten it like that, before making an article purely on Christian Controversy, unmistakenly, someone would come in within a month and say that it isnt' important to be there at all, because the new proposed text is so devoid of meaning. It ends up being a domino effect. And yes, these things DO happen.... such as when we agreed upon "Jesus Nazareth, whom Christians know as Jesus Christ, " we saw Giovanni pick up that flag a month or so later and try to remove the Christ reference. It does not make sense to let it go seeing as there is plenty of room in this article. Once it hits 50k, then we should talk about shortening it, by then I should have an article on Controversies in Christianity anyways, and we can protect it with the whole main article aspect."

KV 17:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As the one who did it (and whose contributions have now been unfairly reverted), let me defend myself.

First, I was being bold, not vandalizing.

Second, why exactly was my change to the "Interpretation" subsection reverted? The version I replaced is biased and doesn't even cover the topic! I'd like a new section covering authority (i.e., Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition, Papal infallibility, etc.) in a neutral way. But the section on interpretation should cover just that, Biblical exegesis.

Third, in an overview article (which this is), less important topics should be put on side articles and given links. There's no reason for a minor figure like Budge to get a whole paragraph here. Over at Jesus-Myth, you will note, I've removed an enormous lump of cruft and reorganized it a little. I did this specifically to open room for discussion of issues like Osiris. There's little risk the link will be removed later, since it points to an article covering the topic at more length. A single line with a mention of the issue and a link is really all we should need or expect. A.J.A. 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed vital info that I had entered, which was not a paragraph on Budge (he was the source) but on Osiris. I saw a previous edit which just stripped an entire section of most of it's text, so I reverted to the one before you. When there is tons of discussion going on, especially on that Osiris paragraph, and you just come in and make sweeping changes without so much as an explanation, expect to be reverted.

KV 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And Osiris clearly belongs on the other article, not here.

There was absolutely no good reason for reverting to the version before my first edit. I didn't "strip" the text, I replaced it with better text. A.J.A. 18:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored your edit on exegesis, which is an issue separate from Budge. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. A.J.A. 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had no part in these edits and don't think they should be done without discussion. However, I must agree with the view that this is not a notable controversy and should be dealt with in a different article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is convincing evidence, if not conclusive, that Moses was an initiate of the Ancient Egyptian mystery schools, that his early life's story is based off of Egyptian mythology, and that Judaism was heavily influenced if not spawned from Egyptian religion. Christianity formed from Judaism, some insist that Jesus spent his childhood partially in Egypt, and one of the primary ideas of Christianity is closely paralleled in Egyptian mythology. This makes it quite notable of a controversy, part of a much more notable controversy that Christianity is nothing more than an amalgam of other religions and traditions. So, this is of note, and I'm holding off on adding similar text until I can A) cite it properly and B) make an article entitled Christian Controversies to be a main article for that section.

KV 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such evidence, especially since mystery schools did not exist in Moses' day, and there's no parallel to any Egyptian myth I know of. However, there is evidence that the Corpus Hermeticum was in fact written in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century, possibly even taking in some Christian influence. So much for historicity of certain beliefs. Sorry to disappoint you, KV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have two different sources that cover the fact that Moses was an initiate, one is from Budge, which he mentions it in passing, and the other is from Manly P. Hall who goes much deeper into it. I'd have to look over the story of Moses again, but I do know that the story of Osiris is in it, as Moses is found by the pharoah's daughter in the basket, as Osiris' body was found by a woman, when the trunk containing it lodged against a tree. Moses was quite high up in rank. And no, the Corpus Hermeticum was not written in those centuries, there is no evidence to substantiate it. That was the common thought until 1948, when linguistics from a Greek Translation led them to that being the age. It's like saying that the Bible was written in 1970 because of the language in the New King James Version. In 1948, one part of hte Corpus Hermeticum was part of the Nag Hammadi find. Hermes to Asclepius, and it was older, written in Coptic. We do not know that this is the earliest version, it is only the earliest version found. And please don't post way up here where I'm lucky I even saw it........

KV 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that you have essentially made a few talk comments, made your user page, and spent the rest of your time reverting and deleting sections, as per your contributions... [9] You seem to like undoing work by people who you disagree with rather than contributing new information. Please try to contribute more and uncontribute less.

KV 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ancient Egyptian mystery schools".

Uh huh.

Now I can't stop you from characterizing my edit history however you want, but you might have wanted to, you know, check more than just today before sounding off on my whole history. A.J.A. 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with KV's reversion of your edits. The controversies section deserves to be here. It's sourced, it's reasonable (just as would be unreasonable to assume that the development of Christian doctrine could not have been influenced by Egyptian religion), it's short, it doesn't dominate the article, and it's a reasonable article for it to be in.Timothy Usher 04:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody took the controversy section out. The issue is whether one particular argument about one minor controversy should get a whole paragraph. The bullet point immediately preceding it reads:

• Some claim that Jesus of Nazareth may not ever have existed, arguing a lack of sources outside the New Testament. This view has not found general acceptance among historians or Bible scholars (see the Historicity of Jesus).

See? States the topic, gives the link, and we're done.

If we are going to cover Budge, there should be some kind of attention to the refutations pf these claims, especially given the dubious nature of the case: monotheism in ancient Egypt (other than that one sun-worshipping Pharoah)? A.J.A. 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the new controversies section. It give the article a sense of beign inclusive and cutting-edge, and makes it stand out in a good way from the stanard article one might expect to find. Thanks, KV for your effort in improving this article. The major problem with the article,still, IMHO, is the introduction. Noticed that I tried to fix this by adding "beliefs" of Jesus. I hope the reason is clear. I do think Giovanni was right to change the intro as he did but I also know he doesnt have consensus yet for such a change. I hope my minor tweak is more acceptable. At least now its accurate. MikaM 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni. No, the reason is not clear; how could it be, as you've not explained it?Timothy Usher 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, User:MikaM, then will you appear on the talk page and explain the purpose of your edit? Thanks.Timothy Usher 04:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bones and beliefs in intro

MikaM, your edit is short of the mark. First, Christians center their beliefs in Jesus Christ, his teachings are secondary. Christians believe he was the Messiah, not that he taught that he was the Messiah. This is a significant distinction that is muddled by your edit. I think I might understand your intent, but it is not an accurate statement. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not Giovanni. I said I agree with Giovanni. The reason is for accuracy. What you have is a belief of Jesus--that is what is it centered on. How can be be on a man itself? No, its the ideas of the man. The man itself could well be mythical. Do you mean you base it on the physical remains of the man, i.e. his bones? I dont think you even have that. Clearly its a matter of accuracy to say its based on beliefs of Jesus, etc. I'd like to see your argument that its not. MikaM 04:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Do you mean you base it on the physical remains of the man, i.e. his bones? I dont think you even have that."

Nobody does. That's kind of the point, actually. A.J.A. 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this slowly. Your point is that Christians believe in the beliefs of Jesus. This contradicts the fundamental belief of Christianity wherein Christians believe Jesus to have been their personal Savior. This is separate from his teachings. His teachings are believed to guide humanity in the ways of happiness and righteousness in this life and elevate humanity into the presence of God in the next. (For the moment please put aside the faith and works dichotomy.) I understand that your edit is an attempt to position the argument in the supposed teachings and beliefs of the supposed man called Jesus. I understand and respect your POV; however, in your zeal to push that POV, I suspect that you have failed to understand a/some real, fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Drop the bones thing, you are not dense and it is without merit. The article is already rife with these qualifers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I see Mika's point and I tried to my take again incorporating Storm's statment of the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is their personal savior. I see these qualifiers that article is rife with to be essential for NPOV. Therefore my version is now:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on New Testament stories of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ who is regarded as their personal savior. Giovanni33 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you were blocked for edit warring over the "stories" thing. Don't start another edit war as soon as you get back. We've explained over and over again on the talk page that Christianity is centred on the person Jesus (whether He really existed or not), not on "stories". We've also pointed out that the word "stories" seems designed to introduce doubts — Peter Rabbit and Jesus. Finally, the "personal saviour" thing is not emphasized by all Christians. While Christians do indeed regard Jesus as their personal saviour, it's usually, AFAIK,just Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, rather than Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants, who talk about having "accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour". Some of them even believe that you can't be saved unless you have an emotional experience of accepting Him on a particular date. I remember being told by an ex-Catholic fundamentalist that when she was a Catholic she thought that Christ had died for everyone, but she became a Christian (the implication being that Catholics aren't Christians) the day she realized that He died for her. (There shouldn't actually have been a contradiction between the two!) So, "stories" is POV; it's introduced as part of what seems to be your agenda of trying to discredit Christianity on Wikipedia. It is inaccurate and POV to define Christian belief in a way that Christians themselves would disagree with. And I'd like to see more discussion about the "personal Saviour" bit. Do I regard Christ as my personal Saviour? Yes. Do I emphasize it to the extent of focusing on some emotional experience and excluding the fact that He is the Saviour of others? No. Finally, please read WP:3RR again, and note that people with a history of edit warring can be blocked on fewer than four reverts. It looks really bad if you resume your edit war as soon as you get back. You know that there is strong objection to this "stories" thing, and you're behaving as if you're determined to get it in regardless. AnnH ♫ 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Well, if "personal savior" does not pertain to all Christians, then it should not be there. I'm trying to find out the objection to making the intro NPOV and accurate. The objection was just stating the stories of Jesus was not enough--they regard him as a personal savior. Now you are simply begging the question again by saying that that Christianity is centred on the person Jesus (whether He really existed or not), not on "stories". But, this begs the question about where this contruction and notion of the "person" comes from. Is is not from stories in the NT? Are not these stories the basis for the creation of this "person" (wheater he really exited or not)? But, ofcourse. My aim is not to discredit Christianity---its silly to try to discredit a myth. Its already known as a mythology. Everyone knows that. Its like saying I want to discredit the notion that the Moon is not made of cheese. Everyone knows it not made of Cheese. All I want to do is see that the article is both accurate and abides by the NPOV policy. Christianity is a religion. It is impossible to discredit a religion because religions are not based on reality--its based on personal faith and worship, and practices (some groups believe that the stories are literal and true, others see them as symbolic and parables, truths given in fables, etc.--but it doesnt matter. Its not science. Its religion.) The Christian POV is fine to state, esp. since this article is about Christianity, but in order for it to abide by NPOV policies it must attribute this to a POV--not state it as a fact. It must also be accurate. So, if its to be centered on the "person" of Jesus, this concept need to be clarified because franky it doesnt make a lot of sense to me. What does it mean to be centered on the person? What part of the person and on what basis? Well if you think about it, "the person" is really a construction based on stories of the person (real or not); its the IDEAS of the person's existence and meaning. Its not the person itself (if there was a person the person is long dead, no?). For instance, lets say I have a school of thought that is based on some other philosopher, say Marx, or Lincoln, etc. Well, it is not literally on the physical person its on their ideas. Or if I worshed them as in a cult of personality, I might include basing my belief system on stories or known aspects of their life and personality---or the meaning of their life as my belief system creates. In all cases, its all about IDEAS, mental constructions that stem from what is known (thorugh stories---history is a story), wheather true or not, as you way. To quality the meaning is not only required by NPOV, its is alos required simply to make the sentence and meaning accurate. I know that the word "stories" was objected to, and the consensus was to use "accounts" instead of stories. I'm fine with that. But the way it was changed to what is now removes all pretence of NPOV and accuracy and that is why I must change it. Given this need for NPOV and Accuracy, which is more important than not reverting per policy, I feel your warning that I should not contest this because I was recently blocked for violating the 3RR rule not to be valid. But, ofcourse, now that I know how the 3RR works better, I'll follow it. Giovanni33 09:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "personal saviour" does pertain to all Christians, but is not emphasized by all Christians. Some Christians talk about it a lot — I was saved on 13 July 1989 when I accepted Jesus as my personal Saviour. Some of them believe that they are "born again" through that emotional experience, and that baptism is just a formality, since they're already been "saved". Other Christians feel a little uncomfortable with that, but do of course, still regard Jesus as their Saviour. There are various aspects of being a Christian that would be common to most or all Christian — being baptized, accepting Jesus as your personal Saviour, saying prayers, etc. — but Christians would disagree about how central any of those things is to being a Christian. Therefore, the "personal Saviour" bit doesn't belong in the introduction, in my view.

I hope you're not trying to imply that belief in Christianity is on the same level as belief that the moon is made of cheese, and that Christians are as unenlightened and eccentric as those who hold such views. That's a rather extreme POV to take. AnnH ♫ 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that you would make a distinction between beliefs such as the moon is made of cheese, and the views of Christianity or other religious beliefs--or superstitions, or mythologies, which some people may believe in as part of their religion. The only difference is one is organized and institutionalized and thus is able to increase its ranks. But, if I were to form a new religion centered around the idea that the moon is made of cheese, it would not make it any less englightened than other religious belief systems. Ofcourse such beliefs are unenlightened. Do you think your religious beliefs are any more enlightened than other superstitious belief system, i.e. those of, say, Scientology? Ofcourse its not rational. Christian belifes in being born from a virgin, the dead coming back to life, bread and win turning into blood and flesh, etc---all those are contrary to logic and not englightened beliefs. But, its your right to hold them and they do chracterize the religion. This is just a matter of being rational and objective--its not a judgment value. My POV is that it is generally harmful to believe in absurdities (the more liberal Christians don't believe it is true, but only parable), but many Christian do, an that is their perogative. My POV is not extreme at all--only from your reference point. My view is mainstream. The mainstream view says that when all our senses and observations inform us of a certain reality and if a religious person say, "all that doesn't matter--i still believe the moon is made of chesse (the bread is really human flesh)--that is the extreme view. In anycase, this is not really important for the article, what is important is that when the claim is made about the belife of the moon being made of chesse is made to define the belief system that is uses NPOV language to describe it--it can not state as a fact that the moon is made of cheese, only that its based on the belief of it.Giovanni33 00:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To address the points raised:

• As StormRider said: Christians don't believe in the beliefs in Jesus, they belief in Jesus. Also, religion is widely understood to include some beliefs. Hence Mika's point falls apart.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Christians don't believe in the beliefs of Jesus? So, if Jesus believes something (according to the stories), then Christians don't also blieve in his beliefs? They disagree? Reallly? That would be the first time I heard such a thing. Is not the purpose of Jesus stating his beliefs (according to the stories), for the express purpose that his followers adopt them and share in such beliefs? You say they instead "believe in Jesus." What that is well in good but its rather meaningless without some explanation about what the means. What about Jesus do they believe in? All we have to believe in is the stories about him---thats it. Can you point to ANYTHING else, other than the stories? I'd love to hear it. Just name one thing, please that is NOT based in stories of him, his life, his beliefs, his character, etc. as recounted in the stories of him in the NT.Giovanni33 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, please read careful: "believe in the belief in Jesus" - this is redundant or nonsensical. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, you still can't answer the question because the answer is obvious. You have nothing to point to except beliefs based on stories of Jesus, and belief in the validity of these stories. That is the reality, and that reality has to be stated for accuracy.Giovanni33 00:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• The same goes for the "bones" thing. If someone had the bones of Jesus, Christianity would be proven wrong. But no one has these bones, as the grave was empty and explanations for that fact have been presented for that since day one (a.k.a. Feast of Unleavened Bread, year 30 AD, Jerusalem).Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the comment but I know exactly what the point was. It points the the problem of what is meant by being centered on the person. What about the person is it being centered on? If it is nothting physical then it must be strictly in the realm of ideas about the person. Ideas means stories. And, maybe they did find the bones, but don't know it. But, so what? If a myth is created around a real person, how is finding the bones of that person proving the religion wrong? As your friend AnnH says, it doesnt matter to the religion of Jesus was real or not. Reality is not the point of religion. Its faith, make-believe. That is fine, since Christianity does not purport to be a science, but calls it self a religion. Giovanni33 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Christians believe Jesus died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He sure is, according to our beliefs, physical - but since he's not dead there's no point in talking about his bones. "Maybe they did find the bones, but don't know it." And maybe the moon is made of green chees and maybe the sun will never rise again if I wash my hair this evening. Maybe, maybe. Maybe I don't exist, maybe you don't. All speculative nonsense. It does matter to Christianity whether Jesus was real or not (I don't think Ann meant that, whatver she said). Christianity is a historic faith (like Judaism). It is your objections that are make-believe. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann certainly didn't mean that; nor did she say it! I said, Christianity is centred on the person Jesus (whether He really existed or not), not on "stories". His existence is not necessary for the statement that Christianity is centred on the person Jesus to be linguistically logical and NPOV. (I may have mentioned before about how the witch in The Silver Chair hypnotizes the Prince, the two children, and the marsh-wiggle into believing that Aslan (who represents Jesus) does not exist, and the marsh-wiggle, in a huge effort to struggle against the enchantment says something like, "I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it." If you believe in someone who doesn't exist, his non-existence matters a lot to the truth of your belief, but it doesn't matter at all to the truth of the statement that you believe in him. Christians believe in Jesus, and did before the New Testament had been written AnnH ♫ 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that is true AnnH? You say Christians believe in Jesus before the NT had been written. How do you know that. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? All you are doing is telling me what you beleieve---its not established fact, as there is no evidence to support this belief. Everything you know about Jesus comes from stories in the NT. That is why we don't know for sure if Jesus ever existed. We lack the evidence. But you are right about the belief system not requring the actual physical, real, existence of Jesus. But its still important not to state a belief system and its myths in language that states it as a fact instead of it as a belief. Its the latter, not the former.Giovanni33 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• "stories" is unacceptable because of its connotation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I used "accounts," now. Giovanni33 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have nothing to add to Ann's explaination about the "personal saviour" bit
• "I'm trying to find out the objection to making the intro NPOV and accurate." - there is not objection to that. In fact, that is what we, editors of this article, have done all the time. I can't see where you are doing it. You are trying to insert or least suggest via connotation the POV that Christianity is a sham. You are free to hold that view, and view to express it civilly, but the current NPOV version allows for that view. If you don't like the current NPOV version (Jesus and accounts) I have no objection of switching back to the even more allowing previous version (Jesus, as recounted). But not without consensus of editors.
• Christianity is based on the person and the life (teachings, death and resurrection) of Jesus. You cannot compare it with Marxism, as this ideology claims to be a scientific observation of how the world works, proposed by a guy called Karl Marx. KM never claimed to bring about the revolution and free mankind, he only said: "This is how the world works". In religious figures, Mohammed would be a parallel as Muslims consider him to be only the messenger. In Christianity things are quite different. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See above about the meaningless of saying its based on a person. You really mean to say its based on stories of the person--since that is all you have to go on. If this is not true then you must state what aspect in particular is based on a person that is NOT based on the ideas and stories of the person. The fact that I radiate heat, occupy space and time, convert oxygen to Co2, and effect work that can be measured, and many other things are things that are based on my person. But, if someone tells a story that was written about me, and others worship that story then that is beliefs based on the stories of me, not me. You might think it does but that is your POV. Giovanni33 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can't seem to understand it, doesn't mean it's meaningless. Let me give you an example: If you have a pen pal (or a wiki-friend for that matter, I mean a real one ;-)) and you have never met him in person but have exchanged countless letter and you say you like that pal ... or would you say you like your pal's letters? I don't think so. You might say I like him/her based on what I read in his/her letters - which is what the current intro says, only with Jesus and NT accounts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say I like the pal based on my belief of what the letters tell me about the person, specifically that I like these attributes which the letters suggest this person possesses, and I can say that I believe that these attributes as described in the letter are believed in as truthful. Notice this is all about my beliefs. But, even, because of letters directly written by this person, who has idenfitied him/or herself to me, I an use language that assumes the person is real. I have more than simply heresay accounts from anonymous authors close to a century removed from the actual stories of the person. This is a crucial difference. You can't assume state that even the existence of Jesus is a fact. All you really have is hightly suspect stories about it, and your belief system is clearly centered around the beliefs and teachings of these propaganda stories, stories that contradict each other, that describe things are counter to all known facts. Yet, you wan to support wording that makes it seem as if its as real as a real pen pal? That is POV.Giovanni33 00:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, we don't worship the story; we worship the person. AnnH ♫ 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Last but not least: You say "The Christian POV is fine to state, esp. since this article is about Christianity, but in order for it to abide by NPOV policies it must attribute this to a POV" - I must say: this is nonsense. Christianity is the subject of this article and hence this article must state what Christianity is. This is a fact, not some POV. What Christianity is up defined by Christianity (of course in NPOV wording, so no "belief in the Son of God, consubtantial with the Father, who died and was raised ...). But in the end it is Christianity who defines itself. There also cannot be some differing outside authority or view telling readers (Christians or no) what Christianity really is or might really be. Of course, there are internal disagreements between different branches and kinds of Christians and hence the intro definition has to be broad enough to include them all. And IM(BNOM)HO this is what our current intro is doing just very nicely.

Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not nonsense at all. Christianity has to be defined in a NPOV, that is a defintion that is accurate and with nuetral language. If a Christian POV is introduced it must be done so with NPOV language. Christians don't get to frame things based on their POV as if it were universally accepted; it much be couched "according to Christians...." Outsides looking at Christians and observing and studying their belief system have just as much an ability and right to define what it is as Christians do themselves. Being in a religion does not give one a monopoly of powers of observations or understandings of it. It should be broad, accurate and use NPOV language.Giovanni33 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsense. Christianity is a religion, a faith, a belief, if you will. So Christianity is what it is. You don't need some external authority (you?) telling Christians what Christianity is. It needs to be in NPOV language but it still needs to accurately state what Christianity is. An outsider may correctly render such a definition, based on what Christians tell him, but he may not change it. Otherwise I might feel obliged to go over to Atheism and change the intro to "Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the claim of disbelieving in the existence of gods." with the silent connotation that Atheists actually do worship one or more gods, depending on their views, without acknowledging it." Now, you would certainly object to that and rightfully so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you wrote, " I'm trying to find out the objection to making the intro NPOV and accurate."

I grow weary of you and your digi-minions claiming to create or restore the "NPOV version." Without attempting here to engage the particulars of your objections, allow me to direct you to WP:MPOV.Timothy Usher 09:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you can grow tired of it but I won't stop saying it because its true, as I explained many times. Your link didnt go to anyplace meaningful. Giovanni33 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went back to the drawing board and based on the impute and objections here I crafted yet another version that says what Christians want it to say yet still passes the NPOV test: Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of the character of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, recounted in New Testament.Giovanni33 09:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is basically back to our previous version. It needs a bit of polishing still. What do others think of this new old version? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, as recounted in New Testament."

"...the character of..." is just plain weird.Timothy Usher 11:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

...more than plain weird. AnnH ♫ 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Str1977 version, but accept the current version. Without Mika's comments I don't know yet his/her position after this lengthy conversation. My comments on personal Savior was only introduced to demonstrate the distinction between believing teachings and believing in the individual; it certainly was not a recommendation to include it in the introduction. I do not support using the terms character, stories, or anything similar. Those terms are specifically used to push a POV. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. AnnH ♫ 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Str1977's version is not perfect, but at least it is something that I can live with as it can be interpreted, as least, in an accurate and NPOV manner. So, I hope he and others restore it--which was the long standing version that was worked out thought lots of effort as Storm states above. I won't rever to that version but I will respect it if Str1977 or others do. Giovanni33 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Authority of different sections of the Bible

I did some edits today, deleting the sentence on what Jews think is most important in the Bible. In an article on Christianity I did not think it was of value. In addtion, I deleted a recent addition on bring scritpures to the alter. It just doesn't apply to this section; but if it fits somewhere else I see no problem in cluding it.

We really do have to be careful with our edits. When we do not take the entire article into account we begin to be repetitious and state things that don't apply to the topic at hand. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

What is vital to be in the introduction, which elements, then perhaps we can end the edit warring by coming to a conclusion of what is accurate and NPOV, then building words to cover all of it. I'll begin.

• Christianity has been overwhelmingly monotheistic, while certain forms have been henotheistic (i. e. the Cainites, whose name need not be actually mentioned... and perhaps if we have overwhelmingly as a qualifier we need not mention henotheism in the intro)

• Branches of Christianity generally focus on the life and teachings of Jesus the Nazarene as documented in the Gospels.

• Jesus the Nazarene is known as Jesus Christ by Christians

• Christianity came forth from Judaism.

What else do we need? KV 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

King, I appreciate what you are doing, but this path has already been walked. That introduction has taken untold numbers (I suspect in the hundreds if not thousands) of hours to produce. It has been the work of concensus among numerous editors (after several knockdown, drag-out fights). Not for a moment do I think it needs to "rehashed" to accomadate a passing editor, particularly one that obviously does not have an understanding of Christian religion.

My advice for anyone that disagrees with the current intro is to read the archives. You will see that your "new" points have already been made, discussed, and the product today is the best you are going to get, because it says it in the most concise manner. If after reading the archives an editor feels they truly possess a new point, then state it here on the discussion page. Numerous editors will readily recognize if it is a truly new point or a rehash of something already done. Cheers Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, the intro as in its most current mutation is not the long standing consensus version of before, which used the language "as recounted in the NT." This was the one formulated by Str1977 and others. The latest version which I'm edit waring with (I guess) lacks even that kind of qualifier which was at least semi acceptable. Giovanni33 07:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, you are right. The long standing consensus version was "... as recounted in the NT". It was your opposition to this that resulted in the change. I always have and always will prefer the former version, but I am willing to compromise and have and almost everyone is happy. Now, don't complain about a version that is only here because of your opposition and don't demand the change to a version that will always be just plainly inaccurate. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Im sure you are very happy with this version as its even more POV that your version. At least your version tried to make a pretence at being NPOV and was at least passable, although objectionable. What it was replaced with is certainly not. To blame the person who tried to make it better for what it was replaced with when it was done in opposition to what I want is not logical. If anything it shows the POV nature of editors that want to forces the POV language that is not even accurate. So, I will continue to protest.Giovanni33 09:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So then we can go back to Str's version since you feel it's less POV? Sounds like problem solved.... Homestarmy 17:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Str1977's version is not perfect, but at least it is something that I can live with as it can be interpreted, as least, in an accurate and NPOV manner. So, I hope he and others restore it--which was the long standing version that was worked out thought lots of effort as Storm states above. I won't rever to that version but I will respect it if Str1977 or others do.Giovanni33 00:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I restored the long standing consensus version for the intro put in by Str1977, agreed to by AnnH, and StormRider, as well. Giovanni33 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I restored the long standing consensus version and that it was reverted and yet no one but myself restores it shows bad faith over this issue, i.e. POV pushing is allowed when it comes from the Christian POV.Giovanni33 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer "centred on Jesus" to "centred on the life and teaching of Jesus", but I can accept either. Generally people don't revert unless they find something objectionable. Nothing bad faith in that. And please stop the constant accusations of POV pushing. Someone who compares a belief in God to the belief that the moon is made of cheese is not really competent to judge neutrality, in my view. It's perfectly natural that people with one POV will think those with the opposite one have a POV and that they themselves don't, but we don't have to have accusations constantly thrown around. To use the term about one's opponents once or twice every couple of weeks is normal for editors on a controversial article, but you go way beyond that. AnnH ♫ 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeming Deletion of Conversation

I remember more posts in the "Section break for convenience:Egypt" section. What happened with those replies?

Maybe the software bug struck. I didn't notice anything missing, but if I'm away from a talk page for several hours, I often select the option of seeing a comparison between the last version I had seen and the current one, rather than clicking on each separate diff. That way, it's easy to miss a few posts that were swallowed up by the bug. If you feel strongly about it, check all the diffs in the history from the time you think those posts were there, find the missing ones, and restore them. (A tedious job — I've done it on numerous occasions.) And I'd like to appeal to everyone, please, if you've made a post, could you click on the diff for that post immediately afterwards, to make sure you didn't swallow up anything. If it goes unnoticed until four or five other editors have posted, it's a nightmare trying to restore the missing bits. AnnH ♫ 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife

The original page makes it shady what happens, but with good reason. Not all Christians agree that the physical body will rise up, such as St. Anthony the Great. He refused for his body to be mummified, and had it buried in the desert where no one knew it's position. His words "At the Resurrection of the dead I shall receive it from the Saviour incorruptible." (Budge pp. 104-5) St. Anthony didn't believe his body would rearrise, but rather that he would be granted a new one. This is one of many views on the subject held by Christians on the subject of Resurrection, not all are the same, and pushing one specific view of the Afterlife is not healthy.

KV 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

""At the Resurrection of the dead I shall receive it from the Saviour incorruptible,", is, of course, an admirably orthodox statement of the doctrine of the resurrection which any Christian would be happy to subscribe to.

The wording I replaced is simply wrong. It's not at all unclear how they fit together, and it's certainly not the case that the survival of the soul after death is incompatible with the resurrection (as the current wording implies. A.J.A. 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A., I believe your version to be inaccurate. Most Christians I know do not have nearly as specific a view as you allege. Indeed, scripture tells us that we do not know.Timothy Usher 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Most Christians I know" is original research (if we can dignify it as "research"). "Scripture tells us" needs a citation. A.J.A. 04:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your "Most Christians..." version is no better cited. At least mine was in the talk page. As for the relevant verse(s), I'll go find them. I think Ecclesiastes?

In the meantime, I've rewritten the original section to be less argumentative ("It is generally unclear...") and somewhat clearer, although it's still awkward.Timothy Usher 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I was adding sources at the same time and there ended up being an edit conflict. I added a line from your version to mine. A.J.A. 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

These are good sources, and your sentence is demonstrably accurate in a way the last one wasn't. However, "Orthodox" here will likely be misinterpreted as "Eastern Orthodox" thanks to the previous sentence. I'll leave it up to you to change it if you like.

Must say, I doubt too many American Christians are aware of what they're supposed to believe, but as it now discusses orthodox theology rather than popular belief, I suppose it's no longer a problem. Thanks.Timothy Usher 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I remind you that Modern Christianity is not the only focus of this article. There were many, many Early Christian branches which are a part of Christianity. Many of those held that the Resurrection was not even a physical resurrection and Jesus did not actually die, but rather he recieved a spiritual resurrection where his soul was brought back into life (whereas the vast majority of others had dead souls). There needs to be the distinction between many different views on this, not just one view being propped up. I can cite this information as well. The Hiram Key.

KV 05:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Only saying that the current text can stand and sourced and a fair representation of what it claims to represent, orthodox theology.Timothy Usher

It looks rather odd to say the eternity of the afterlife is debated in the Eastern Church, given that the eternity of hell has been and still is a matter of theological debate in the Western Church.Myopic Bookworm 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy and Heresy

Well, I found more information on this issue, reading The Hiram Key today. The statement is in a sense factual, but completely POV. "orthodoxy is defined in opposition to heresy" It seems that of the multiple early Christian groups, all were accusing the others of heresy. The Council of Nicea was formed by Emperor Constantine to (probably for the sake of using Christianity, especially since he never left his Solar worship cult which he was high priest of to convert to Christianity, his mother did however) create unity amongst Christian belief. The heresy (meaning in this case falsehood) existed beforehand, but we CANNOT call it heresy then, because heresy existed beforehand only because it meant false teaching. The way this plays out, we are saying, substituting the meaning, "orthodoxy is defined in opposition to false teachings". That certainly is not NPOV. I'm going to have to change the wording...

From "Church authorities condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. Other early sects deemed..."

To "Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; The various sects accused one another of heresy, false teachings, leading to the Council of Nicaea on May 20th, 325 CE. This council included church leaders from all parts of the Roman Empire and Emperor Constantine, whom discussed the various points of contention and voted on an orthodox understanding, to which all dissenting thoughts were deemed heretical.{{citebook|The Hiram Key (Paperback ed.). Glouchester: Fariwinds Press. 1996. pp. 61–6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) The most notable of sects deemed heretical afterwards were the Chrsitian Gnostics, with other sects including..."

KV 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks.Timothy Usher 07:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Tom, that citebook isn't working for me, can you figure out why?

KV 06:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we please not use pseudo scholarship as authority? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure about the quality of the authority used but the facts as described are accurate, and the text that results seems better to me, more NPOV.Giovanni33 12:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In so far it contains accurate facts, we don't need this book, as serious books contain accurate facts too. But it also contains pseudo-scholarship and hence using it as a citation will hurt WP's or this article's credibility. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the original wording because:

• "The various sects accused one another of heresy, false teachings, leading to the Council of Nicaea"

the first part is really stating the obvious, however with a twist: it implies that there were various more or less similar "sects" accusing each other, while in reality there were quite different in shape, size and time. Such disputes did not lead to the Council at all, which was caused simply by two things: the heresy of Arius and the excommunication of Eusebius of Caesarea (connected to his closeness to supporters of Arius)Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Only those two things? There heresy of Arius is part of the whole problem of many sects all thinking they posses the only truth and accusing each other of heresy. This doesnt imply that they were not different in shape or size, nor does it mean that Constantine's goal for defining an enforced and official orthodoxy was due to only one or two disputes, even if those were the culminating ones.Giovanni33 12:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hence Nicaea only should be mentioned as an example for Ecumenical councils. The passage is about heresies in general. As for "sects" - KV's version read like suddenly thousands of little sects disagreeing, then getting together and voting on each other. It wasn't like that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• "This council included church leaders from all parts of the Roman Empire and Emperor ..."

The Emperor was present but he wasn't a part of the Council - only bishops can be parts of a council.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

He was still present and very much a part of the processes, which he himself forced, and got his way for views that he wanted, i.e. the part about non-questioning. Giovanni33 12:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Constantine was present to make sure a decision was reached. He didn't dictate the outcome.

Don't know what the last bit means, but actually I don't care. Probably some nonsense. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• "... whom discussed the various points of contention"

Not at all. The council discussed mainly Arianism, and the Easter date at the side. Also a few disciplinary things were decided, but we don't know about any contention about them.

Ofcourse there was contention. That was the whole point of the counil--to discuss and resolve the various points of contention. As new issues arose new counsils were formed.Giovanni33 12:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, why do you never understand. There was contention about Arianism, about the Easter date, we don't know in how far there was contention about the issues raised in the canons, e.g. primacies, church discipline. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of content, the grammar is incorrect. "Whom" is in the wrong grammatical case. AnnH ♫ 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• "... and voted on an orthodox understanding" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This again is not completely accurate (vote implies things that didn't take place then).

Are you saying they did not vote? What is not accurate?Giovanni33 12:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that voting is an oversimplification. Councils don't work like general elections. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• "to which all dissenting thoughts were deemed heretical."

is ambiguous: it can either mean anything that disagreed with the council's definition and anathema, in which case the phrase is stating the obvious, or it can meant the anathemas itself, in which case it is inaccurate, as they did not condemn "all dissenting thoughts" but carefully worded statements. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be obvious to some, but not all. I think it should say that the effect of defining an orthodoxy has the result of calling all other dissenting versions of Christianity as heretical, and thus illegal. They were then suppressed.Giovanni33 12:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As always, Gio, you only address half of my argument: stating the obvious or inaccurate. I don't want neither. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The citation given is a work of pseudo-scholarship.

All in all, the edit I reverted adds no valuable information to the article, rather bloats it, inserts some inaccuracies and ambiguities and a bogus reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am curious where you get your information. If you wish to revert it, calling it inaccurate, I demand that you find a better source first. My source is verifiable, you give none to be verified. Find a source.

KV 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uoh, uoh, does Kiram Key, ISBN 0099699419, in any way meet our strict requirements for WP:RS? Looks rather strange to me. --Pjacobi 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a very clearcut rehashing of history. The parts that were POV (as to the motives of Constantine) were left out, only the base factual accuracy was pulled out. And the Hiram Key clearly states where it is theorizing and where it is displaying only the facts. You see that they're theorizing all over the book, but in so far as recounting the story of the Council of Nicaea, the bare events, they are certainly very qualified to do just that, and that part is a statement of facts, not theory. If I were citing their take on one of thier theories, and not stating that I am citing their POV (as would happen in the Controversies section, countered by one or more other POVs), then there is a problem with a reputable source, not here.

KV 16:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with content, for which it is now given as reference, but would prefer giving a scholarly source. --Pjacobi 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call this "not scholarly" but it certainly isn't coming from academia. One is in advertising and the other is in solid state physics, so they are not the most qualified. But I do stand behind their work as valid scholarly work, even without credentials. But it is indeed hard to defend that.

If a work done by someone more qualified can be cited, then that's just fine. I don't have much information on Christianity at my fingertips, and certainly not more than your average author. But in the mean time, this citation is qualified enough, and it's better than no citation at all. And of course this version of the text is less NPOV as it explains why dissenting views are considered heretical, but doesn't say that the orthodoxy is specifically not heretical or anything like that.

KV 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we really need to reference general knowledge, we can use any seriously scholarly church history. I cannot provide an English one, I am afraid right now, as I live in Germany.

We shouldn't in any case use even unproblematic bits of a dodgy book as a reference for facts. This hurts WP's credibility and it isn't allowed with scholars either.

Another problem with your change, KV, was that you changed a passage on the whole "theological disputes" into one about the Nicene Council. I wouldn't object to a mentioning of the Nicene Council and will include it.

And finally, KV's version is horrible language-wise, I must say.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that a Church source counts as a scholarly source. Surely there are such sources outside of the Church. And, as you surrounded the whole problem with the declaration of what was orthodoxy, and what was heresy, you were already talking about the Council of Nicaea, but not referencing it. That's when an orthodoxy was developped.

KV 16:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your version is as such:

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; Church authorities condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. Other early sects deemed heretical included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325.

The first sentence is fine, which is why I haven't removed it. But while there were all these different sects, there were no Church authorities. Rather, the various churches accused all one another of being heretical, including the Gnostics calling others heretics. To say that they defined orthodoxy as being in contrast to false teachings is completely POV, for that is saying that the other teachings were indeed false. And where did they form this orthodoxy? You make it sound like it was after they had decided what was heretical and what was not, though it WAS where they decided, for the most part, what was heresy and what was not, from amongst all of the churches. Your version is one inaccurate, uncited, Catholic POV mess, and it cannot be allowed over a cited and accurate NPOV account that does not pick who is right and who is wrong. KV 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from using pseudo-scholarship, you are most definitely wrong, KV, when you say "there were no Church authorities. Rather, the various churches accused all one another of being heretical, including the Gnostics calling others heretics." - there definitely were church authorities such as bishops, e.g. Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage, Dionysius of Alexandria, various bishops of Rome etc. I could go on all days. There were also councils, such as the one that deposed Paul of Samosata from the see of Antioch. Rival "churches" sprung up only when their leader had been expelled from the mainstream, such as Marcion, Novatian, Montanus.

Also it is saying no such thing as that the others were false. Only that the Church authorities at that time deemed them false or rather incompatible with "true" Christianity and in contrast to these "errors" defined orthodox doctrine bit by bit.

Finally, there is no "after" - it is a question of logical and intellectual sequence, not of temporal sequence. They looked at. e.g. Arianism, reflected that this was wrong, and then drew up a statement of faith (here: the Nicene creed) which contained safeguards against Arian doctrine. In other words, the orthodoxy was already there implicitely but became explicite via the definition in opposition to heresy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously; "The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasonry, and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus"? You want to cite that as a source for an encyclopedia article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the type of fact it is given as being, any speculation is based upon basic facts like this. It is certainly more in line with WP:V than Str's personal opinion on the matter. Until a better source is found, it is better than the previous version. Sure, it is not an ideal source, but it is better than no source.

KV 18:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:

NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

These three policies are THE MOST VITAL Wikipedia policies, and they overrule all others, including consensus.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Str's version states that the unorthodox teachings are false teachings, which is what heresy means. It assumes that there is one Church that decided for itself, when there were several competing churches. It states that Gnosticism was deemed heretical, without mentioning Nicaea, which was the point in which it could be said that it began being officially seen as heretical, before then, all churches were equally considered heretical, by all other churches. It vehemontly violates NPOV.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

This is specifically what this article reaks of, what the statement in question reaked of. The dominant editors here have a Mainstream Modern Christian bias which makes those views which aren't part of the current mainstream looked down upon.

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

And so you are to, by Wikipedia policy, provide some alternative sources before reverting.

From WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

This makes a citation to a reliable, published source, as mine, preferable to a non-citation.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

As mine is sourced, and yours isnt', the burden of proof is on you! Not me. Find a source that disagrees and is of equal or better repute.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Mine is verifiable, the uncited version previously was NOT.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}.

Str's edit lacked a source, it was removed, I readded in another that was sourced.

From WP:NOR:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Str's version is suspect of Original Research by this definition.

My version must stand until these problems can be solved.

KV 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hiram Key "is better than no source?" No, I don't think it is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I could pull this into mediation and then arbitration with a clearcut ruling in my favor, I just was digging through some books, figuring out which to store, and I found an old college world history textbook that just might do the trick in explaining this, being an undisputedly reputable source, which I can switch...... I'll refrain from making my last revert until I have at least searched for this as a valid reference. But you would think you would at least fix the whole unorthodox views are false part of Str's version rather than supporting it whole-heartedly.

KV 20:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that an unscholarly source undermines the credibility of the encyclopaedia. I do not agree that saying that the Church defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy carries any implication that any particular belief was heretical. It's disturbing to see that after I explained in a post in this section yesterday that "whom" was in the wrong grammatical case, that grammatical error gets reinserted. The use of "who" for an accusative pronoun is acceptable in informal usage, though "whom" is more correct. The use of "whom" for a nominative pronoun is never acceptable. In this context, it's like saying "them discussed the various points of contention." I don't see any original research in Str1977's passage. (Did you intend to leave that out when you removed the Hiram Key, Tom?) And I assure you, King Vegita, you could certainly not get a clearcut ruling in your favour from the arbitration committee. I've followed arbitration cases before, and I'm familiar with the kind of cases that they accept and the kind they reject. I have never, ever seen the arbitrators accept a case based on a content dispute. I personally doubt if this would be accepted for mediation either, although I'm less familiar with meditation cases.

One last point: if you're inserting some kind of tag like the {{fact}} tag into a talk page, just to comment on it, rather than in an article where you want to use it, it's better to use <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> so that it doesn't expand into the whole content of the template, put extra load on the server, and confuse people by adding a talk page to a category of articles with POV, uncited sources, etc. You can find the nowiki button on the fourth from the right just above the editing box. It's like a W crossed out. I have nowiki'ed the templates that were in your post. AnnH ♫ 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see two problem's with King Vegita's version. First, the theological conflicts did not really lead up to or culminate in the First Ecumenical Council. That council didn't happen because the bishops decided they needed to hold one to settle things, it happened because Emperor Constantine summoned the council. This is pretty well established and agreed upon, by people who favor and disfavor that Council's decisions. Secondly, it may or may not be accurate to say that the council defined all other views to be heretical. They declared what the true faith is, and they enumerated some very specific claims that were heretical, such as Arius' claime that "there was a time when the Son was not." Wesley

Part of the problem, Wesley, is the confusion KV's change brings about to this passage. Is it about the "heresy problem" in general or is it about the Nicene council. As I originally authored the passage (with help and criticism from others) I can say that it is about the problem in general, with the Nicene council only a (or the) most prominent example of such cases, and the first one after Christianity's legalisation. Regarding Constantine: he of course participated in the calling of the Council, however he wasn't alone. The bishops had already called a council to Ancyra, when Constantine took interest in it and ordered the bishops to meet in his palace in Nicaea instead. He also was instrumental in making it "Ecumenical", by helpong far off bishops to travel to the place, and by giving the decisions the stamp of legislation. But that's only a historical aside. Re your final observations, they are absolutely spot on. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not sure it's right to say that orthodoxy was defined in opposition to heresy. Orthodoxy was defined as being the "faith of our fathers," "the faith of the Apostles" and so on. Admittedly, more than one group made this claim. But in general, the claim was "X is orthodox because it's what Christ taught the Apostles, and what the Apostles taught their followers, etc. Y is not orthodox (heretical) because it is incompatible with X, and is not the faith of the Apostles." It might be more accurate to say that heresy was defined as that which was opposed to, or incompatible with, orthodoxy. Wesley

I meant the explicite defintion, of course, orthodoxy was there implictely before the heresy sprung up. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And at the very least, let's at least fix that use of "whom." :-) Wesley 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wesley's position and agree that his points are viewed as closer to historical fact. If I was editing I would only caution that the council stated what they "believed" to be the .... Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind the "orthodoxy in opposition to heresy" is that the Church came to a fuller understanding and definition of things like Christ having two natures but being one person, His being consubstantial with the Father, His having a human will and a divine will, both in harmony, as a result of these doctrines being challenged. It has been said that we wouldn't have the Nicene Creed now if there had been no Arian heresy. So the existence of a heresy leads to greater reflection, and ultimately to the definition of a doctrine which might not have been defined otherwise. The wording is Str's not mine, so he may explain it better than I do. He may, even, have something completely different in mind. But my understanding is that the Church might know something vaguely, having not thought it through; it might be challenged or denied; the Church would recognize the denial as a heresy, and would then, after reflection, make a strong and clear statement of that particular truth. AnnH ♫ 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ann, you reading the mind of your "iffy company" quite well. That is exactly what I meant by this wording. I don't mind improving the wording towards a greater clarity. Wesley, I always welcome your proposals. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I "read [his] mind and reveal his thoughts, but they are [mine]." LOL. (Apologies to the other editors — I couldn't resist that private joke!)

And yes, perhaps we should try for greater clarity, since the meaning is not self evident. And as Str says above, of course the orthodoxy was there implicitly before the heresy sprang up. But the fuller understanding and the definitions followed from the existence of the heresies. AnnH ♫ 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently, I'm working on building a more comprehensive view using other sources. Thusfar I have purchased a mainstream Christian POV book (unfortunately it specifically notes the reason for return to Christianity after an Emporer restored Paganism along side it was that Christianity was liberating while the pagan religion was not, without any such evidence) and found the little bit it says. I'm looking for other sources, and I will build a cited and much more accurate and NPOV view from it.

KV 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

True God and true man

It may be the phrase typically used in some churches, but it's archaic and opaque to the uninitiated. Unless it appears in a quote, it makes sense to use clearer language.Timothy Usher 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it for stylistic reasons, but wouldn't object if it's changed back. In fact, I'd even be willing to change it back myself if I get feedback from others who would prefer it. (I have a weakness for archaic language, myself. I'm constantly accused of cheating at Scrabble when I use words like "ere" or "yonder"!) But it doesn't sound terribly archaic to me, because I'm so familiar with the phrase from the Divine Praises. I don't like two "fully humans" in close succession, anyway. But it doesn't affect the accuracy or the neutrality, so if you change it back, I won't protest. Or, if you leave it a day or two, I'll be happy to change it back myself if that's what other editors want. AnnH ♫ 22:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How is "God" or "man" archaic or opaque? I can hardly think of words more clear. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about saying "true" man and "true" God... I've heard "fully" used in its place before.

KV 15:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I can live with either "fully" or "true". Maybe we should use the older one and put the newer one in bracketts, e.g. True God and true man (fully divine and fully human). No harm in doing this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

God is a noun and divine is an adjective. However, "divine" is not as clear as "God", because it could be used to mean "God-like", or having the attributes of a god. You could be divine without being God, but you couldn't be God without being divine. The noun "God" is qualified with the adjective "true", while the adjective "divine" is qualified by the adverb "fully". Maybe we could put "true God and true man" in quotation marks? AnnH ♫ 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Building on Ann's comment, I would propose using "true God and true man" and put an explanation by "fully divine and fully human" in brackets. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Divine could mean God-like, but if you are fully God-like, you are fully God.

KV 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In my circles "fully God and fully man" is most usual formulation, so "fully" doesn't necessarily imply that the term has to be "divine" rather than "God". A.J.A. 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving #29

I have archived past discussions. If you are missing anything, please look at 29. --Andrew c 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish sect and Acts

I'm not sure if this has been intentional, or an indirect result of other reverts in the opening. A week ago[10], I added the clause "According to the Acts of the Apostles" to the 3rd paragraph. Tim removed that clause because he felt is was redundent. We talked it over on the talk page, and he decided to add a fact tag instead [11]. However, both the fact tag, and my attempt to reinstate the qualifying clause have been removed. I find this very problematic. As it stands, there is a statement (presented as fact) that is only supported by scripture, without acknowledging this. Other users have made it clear that this is a very obvious statement that doesn't need citation. Yet, the biblical citation remains. I'd say remove the biblical citations completely, or better yet, add a couple of scholarly sources to that reference tag. If this is such an obvious fact of Christianity, it shouldn't be hard to find a couple of good books to back it up, right? (I looked in the classic Caesar and Christ by Will Durant, and his summary sort of works and sort of doesn't.) So can we work to try to reference this sentence, or restore one of my two 'disclaimer' options (fact tag, or "according to acts..." clause)--Andrew c 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok here is the quote from Durant:

"Christianity arose out of Jewish apocalyptic-esoteric revelations of the coming Kingdom; it derived its impetus from the personality and vision of Christ; it gained strength from the belief in his resurrection, and the promise of eternal life; it received doctrinal form in the theology of Paul; it grew by the absorption of pagan faith and ritual; it became a triumphant CHurch by inheriting the organizing patterns of genius of Rome." (Durant p. 575)

Like I said, I don't think this is a good enough citation for the wording we have, however I don't believe it should be that hard to find one. I just don't have any other books available right now, and I don't have time to go to the library. So for the timebeing, I am going to reinstate the "according to..." clause until someone can find a few proper citations. --Andrew c 02:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not only redundant, but also making this fact sound controversial, when it's not. There is no serious controversy over the fact that Christianity started a) as a Jewish sect and b) in the first century. And Acts is not the only source for this information. We have Tacitus talking about Christians, Josephus talking about Christians - both writing in the 1st century, a bit more ambiguous passage in Suetonius, and we have Plinius talking about Christians early in the 2nd century (making it likely that the other sources got it right). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no reason to think it controversial either, but it'd be even less controversial, and improved (less text, more fact), if we could cite the sources to which you refer.Timothy Usher 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But we do have a whole series of citations - which is good. Only starting the passage with "according to ..." we cast doubt upon the following statement - which would be good if there was an actual controversy (but there isn't) and if the disclaimer were accurate (it isn't because there are other sources). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This "fact" may not be controversial, but the way it was cited WAS. I am glad that this issue has been rectified. There are other sources NOW. Thank you Myopic Bookworm and Tom Harrison. --Andrew c 14:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To Str's dismay, I can back that up with the Hiram Key. The Qumrans, or Nassoreans, or Church of Jerusalem......... whose symbol wasn't a cross, but a fish, the Jesus fish...... the Arab name for them actually meaning little fish.

KV 16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, KV, please keept your crack pot books to yourself. And issues about symbols have nothing to do with this issue. There is no serious controversy over this fact and even if there were, "according to Acts" is wrong - the correct disclaimer would be according to "Acts, Pauline letters, Tacitus and Josephus" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Acts is the exact same thing that you forced me to use when I used Budge. Except, I didn't only have to say that once, but 4 times in a row it says essentially, "According to Budge" with a "Budge considers" in the middle. BTW, is there need for you to call it a crackpot (one word btw) book?

KV 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts is a major and primary text relevant to this subject. Budge is a single scholar, some of whose ideas are very outdated, and who in any case was an Egyptologist, not an expert in Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Book of Acts had everyone sharing everything in common, one couple that kept something for themselves were killed by an apostle using magical feats that most Christians will not accept anyone other than Jesus and maybe Moses as having possessed. I would not consider it past being outdated. And of course the Book of Acts was not written by a single scholar, but by a single person who chances are could not be described as a scholar. If we have to mention Budge's name 5 times, in reference to what he knows about Egypt rather than Christianity (that is what the debate was about), we can handle mentioning that this is according to the Book of Acts which non-Christians may not accept as a factual account.

KV 17:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Acts has Christians giving volutary donations to the Apostles and one couple lying, saying they were giving all their possessions while holding something back - for this they were, according to Acts, struck dead by God - not by an Apostle. Acts is a historical source so all hurly-burly about "not written by a scholar" is also nonsense. And you appearently have no clue about Quellenkritik. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

From Acts, Chapter 2 (verses 44-47), NIV version (Catholic version, since you are a Catholic Str)

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

All the believers did, and one surely was voluntarily a believer, but we do not know that it was voluntary for believers. It is unlikely as every believer did it if it were voluntary.

Then we have Acts Chapter 3 (verses 6-10)

Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man's feet and ankles became strong. He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. When all the people saw him walking and praising God, they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

Here we have a clear act of magic. Accordingly, many non-Christians will not trust a source that claims such things.

Acts Chapter 4 (verses 32-35) repeats the story of possessions in common.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Acts Chapter 5 (verses 1-6) states the following.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

That can be read different ways, surely. But it was upon hearing Peter's words that he died (of course one can even read this metaphorically) suggesting that Peter who did it. And if it was God, then as far as God was concerned, the sharing of property was not voluntary. But anyways, we have something that would not be readily accepted by those who are not Christian.

All in all, seeing as Acts is full of information that is not going to be readily accepted by non-Christians (this is not a scholarly work, but a religious one), it should be mentioned aforehand that it is according to Acts. One cannot simply accept the words of Acts as surely factual, but rather it must be stated that this questionable (to non-Christians) book is the source of the information.

KV 05:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, there is nothing in the quoted text that suggests that the selling possessions and giving the money to the Apostles was anything but voluntarily. Most importantly, in regard to the case of Annanias and wife, consider the following (quote from your quote):

>>Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.<<

"Wasn't the money at your disposal", clearly indicates that the couple could haven given part of it and retained part of it, according to their own choice. What Peter criticized was their lying ("You have not lied to man but to God")

Regarding the couple's death: there is nothing in the text supposing that Peter killed them, except if you think that Peter prayed to God, who killed the two because of that prayer. In this case, you might say Peter killed them, but then again, then it was actually God who killed them (which is His prerogative). You might not believe in such supernatural event, but then the logical thing is to dumb the quote alltogether. You may believe that Peter killed the two, but not on the basis of this text. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, the point was that after they sold it, if they needed money, they could take it from the general coffers, which is where it would be. They had to do it to be one with the believers, and I would also like to mention that if the same happened today, people would call the early Christian Church a cult. As it should be clearly apparent, Acts is not a reputable source. I did notice that there seems to be a second reference however, which is why I didn't simply readd the words. But The Hiram Key is much more acceptable as a work on History than the Book of Acts. Basically, no non-Christian takes that book as accurate.

KV 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, you misread the text. Peter clearly says that the couple could freely decided what to do with their property, whether to keep or sell it, and also with the money they got out of selling it, whether to keep all, or give some to the Apostles or to give it all. The point of contention is that they claimed to give all the money while in fact they in fact held some money back. Clearly lying and reaping the admiration for "giving it all". There is no evidence (and in fact this is passage speaks against it) for a requierement of giving up all possessions. Not a shred.

Your "key of Hiram" is only acceptable for recycling the paper or as an example of crack pot scholarship. Acts, on the contrary, is a primary source of history, and Luke has been getting more and more credit for his work in recent decades. Now stop this useless debate. I have neither the time nor the inclination of debating your crackpots or your misreadings. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, thanks for the scarecrow. The Hiram Key was not mentioned in this text at all, and I made many more arguments than whether it were voluntary or not. Who has been accepting a book of the Bible as accurate? Generally, this is done in finding other information, from other sources which are viewed as more credible, that agree with it. Modern Archaeology for example. That is the source that should be cited, not the religious text.

And Peter does state that they had free will in the matter, but only so far as they could have not sold the house and not been a part of everything, or they could have sold everything and still taken whatever they needed from the general coffers. If I tell you I sold all my books, but I did keep one of special meaning, do you really care that I kept that one for myself? There was a clear choice in doing that and becoming a part of the society, and not becoming a part of the society, but not any shades of gray in between.

KV 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess there is no point in replying anymore, since you don't care to read the text as it stands. And yes, I'd take exception to your "all book" claims if went around boasting how you gave up all your books. Excuse me if I cannot take your posts seriously anymore, but with your claim that archeology proofs that Christians had to give up all property you lost me. If you don't want to return to the real world, I will leave you in neverland. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading again, that's not what I said.

KV 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My last three words on this:

• You have no clue what magic is and isn't.
• You have no clue about Quellenkritik (If historians disregarded all books containing something appearing to be supernatural, there'd be hardly any ancient history.
• You appearently have no clue about voluntary acts.
• You constantly disregard the verse "And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal"

Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is quite comical. First, I know quite well what magic is and what magic isn't. From Crowley's "every intentional act is a magical act" to more practical definitions. When someone suddenly drops dead because of words spoken by another, short of a startling yell from the darkness which would cause cardiac arrest (of which this was not) and happening twice on the same day, that would constitute magic. Healing someone through touch, that is definately magic, a type of magic I practice constantly myself. I know what magic is Str.

No, I have never heard of Quellenkritik.... but though information can be found in such sources, there are plenty of non-mystical sources from the era you describe, and many non-Christians would not take it seriously. The Romans of the time took great records of what happened and what was where, all without going into mysticism.

I do know what is voluntary, and I also understand that there are different degrees. The US has a volunteer army, but that doesnt' mean that one can join and then refuse to see actual battle. I see the same happening with Acts.

I have mentioned that specific verse 3-4 times now......... and that is saying that the money would be available to them through the general fund, so they had no need to keep it for themselves. It does not mean that one could decide to give only part of it all, in fact that is completely counter to the whole lesson they're trying to teach in that section.

KV 11:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Str1977: You keep mentioning Paul, Tacitus and Josephus, but I fail to see these citations in the main article. Would you mind adding them? Myopic Bookworm: Did you get my message? Would you mind adding your reference also to this section? I'd do it myself, only I felt that it was slightly incomplete. Do you have the book number? Or was it a web reference? If so, do you have a link? Thanks, y'all!--Andrew c 01:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to reference all these sources, since they do not state "christianity begann in the 1st century as a Jewish sect", but rather take it for granted (and hence give evidence to it, as does Tacitus - Ann., xv 44) or are simply material from within this group called Christianity (as are Paul's letter. Josephus, notwithstanding all the Testimonium's problems, mentions Jesus and that "the tribe of Christians hasn't to this date died out". But I will included them into the reference, as far as I can. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. These sources don't really say what we want them to say. I think we should stick with the contemporary scholarly stuff. (On top of that, the Josephus line contains an alleged Eusebian tell "εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν".)--Andrew c 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether we remove these references or not, as long as we don't load the text with the false statement "According to Acts" (which nonetheless is the main source for the the details of early Church history). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

False? If it is a false statement, then Acts should hardly be the source. If it is not so according to Acts, then Acts should not be cited in supporting that view.

KV 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, if you don't know what others are talking about, then ask and do not just comment. Acts is indeed a source but not the conly one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, that would not make it a false statement, only an inappropriate one. According to Acts, that is true. And not having read that other source, that may very well be where they got their information for all I know. So long as Acts states it, then it is a true statement, and it is false ONLY if Acts does not state it. And your constant accusations are getting tired.

KV 11:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew, for posting on my talk page and giving me the chance to clarify what I wrote above. In no way did I intend to accuse you of falsehood and if you based your argument on the premise that only Acts was cited in the old footnote, I agree that your conclusion from that was only logical. I called that statment "false" only for its content in regard to the actual sources for the fact. But you are not to blame for that. Sorry I was assuming too much and sorry if I offended you. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently clued up to add a fully coded footnote: the reference is to "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion", editors in chief R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and G. Wigoder (published OUP New York, 1997; ISBN 0-19-508605-8), page 158. Myopic Bookworm 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, I just copy and pasted what you had above and put it bewtween the ref tags right after the sentence in question. The coding already takes care of making the footnote and moving the text down to the bottom.--Andrew c 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Format Change

I'm going to change the format from using citebook to ref tags. We'll use the format I have seen on the other pages, including what I've been converting to in Hermeticism since I have a lot of information to cite in upcoming changes, and the ref tags are much more usable. We ref to the citation, and citebook is used under sources. This allows me to eventually make clearer citations using less code.

KV 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New version of orthodoxy and heresy

I fixed the information, adding citations from reputable sources. The one that gave the most information was an old college textbook done by historians. The other was a book that's bias would only be in apologism for Christians, so I don't see Str having a problem with that book's bias. I of course used the biased source where it is speaking against its bias. This version clarifies orthodoxy and heresy, and the origins of both. And yes, it was the Catholic/Mainstream Christian biased source that told me that Constantine was involved in the debates. I plan on using them more in the persecution section.

There should be no doubt that these authors are better than Str's opinion as far as verifiability goes.

I still need to figure out how this all weaves in to convert it to proper reference format, citebook wasn't cutting it for this. Anyone able to help convert it would be appreciated.

KV 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, you are using biased books (again). I don't like it. I am for serious historical scholarship. Some problems with the new version:

• It bloats the passage way beyong what is needed here.
• It unwarrantedly introduces CE, indicating a lack of care for consensus.
• "the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common creed, but actual beliefs varied widely" is sheer and utter nonsense. The churches (in plural) that existed where the local churces, say, the church of Rome, of Alexandria, of Corinth, of Antioch etc. There was no common creed until the 4th century (Nicene Creed), though baptismal creed basically were similar in their structure. If there was one creed, how can actual beliefs vary widely.
• The number of bishops present at Nicaea is commonly given as 318. But again, this passage is not a supposed to be a retelling of the Nicene Council.
• "Prior to Nicaea, the Western churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations" - actually there is nothing simply about it and it is still like "which the Eastern churches still did not ^[12]" - again nonsense, the Eastern Churches at times obeyed Rome. The suggested continuity is false.
• Constantine cannot have "authoritively control church policy", as if he had the right to do so. But, supposing you have used the wrong word, it still overstates reality.
• "was officially declared" - another appearance of the strange word offically - how do you declare something unoffically heretical?
• The last bit, KV, I am sorry to say it, betrays your complete lack of knowledge in this field. You write, basically, that after Arianism other sects were condemned as well. You name Gnostics (2nd century), Simon Magus (1st century), Marcionism (2nd century), Ebionites (2nd and 3rd century), Montanism (2nd century). Arianism, as you well know, existed in the 4th century, when all these other heresies were already "cold coffee". But not the listing of heresies is at fault - the problem is that you have turned a passage on theological dispute and the process of condemning heresies into a not very well written note about Nicea and Constantine.

So all in all, you take a passage that needs no improvement (IMHO) and turn it upside down and into a hotch potch of half-baked stuff. For those who want to see the diff nonetheless, here it is: [13] In German we call this "Verschlimmbessern" (roughly: Im-worse-prove). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, I am not using biased books. I made one citation that had a bias, not in reporting facts, but rationalizing why things happened. Such as suggesting that the attempt to reraise Paganism after Constantine failed because Paganism couldn't offer the theological liberty of Christianity. The book is well respected for it's facts overall, and its bias is towards your view, not mine. It's biased towards your view, but not as much as you. If you really want to disagree with them about how many bishops attended Nicaea and what date it was held on, that's really petty. KV

KV, you yourself called them biased. I wouldn't call them biased but having a certain view but that goes for any book. It is those lacking knowledge of historiography that use the term "biased" as an argument. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I called one source biased, and I noted in what way they were biased, and used them in quoting something that bias will not change the viewpoint of. It's called disclosure. I noted that the source was biased in such and such a sense, and then noted that I did not use it in a manner that would allow it's pro-Christian bias.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage is not bloated, that much had to be explained to give a clear view of what heresy was and its relationship to orthodoxy. Which your explanation was inaccurate, uncited, and sure seemed POV if you read in between the lines.

Sure it's bloated. It almost doubled the extent, while adding no relevant information and infantilizing the wording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's larger, and it gives plenty of relevant information, and it could be smaller had you not required that size of explanation to come to the same conclusion. Now it's there, fully documenting it all, for anyone who disagrees to see the highly cited and explained reason as to why that is true.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it introduces CE, a PC, NPOV time scale. It starts at the same time as AD, but rather than stating Anos Dominus (Year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), it simply says Common Era. I see no need for consensus on this matter, and it's hardly a reason to scrap the entire version.

Go and read WP stance on the AD/CE issue. Also, go and read some Latin orthography before you are writing nonsense in another language. No it's not my reason for criticizing or reverting your version, but it shows your disregard for the quality of the article and consensus of editors. BTW, PC is not an argument but a mental malfunction ... or a computer. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that they had an official stance, would you like to link it?KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the creed, the source is a college textbook written by two guys with PhD's, one in Archaeology, the other in History, used by accreditted institutions. They know what they're talking about. For example, there was a shared creed that Jesus had come, taught, was crucified, buried, and raised again. However, some people like the Arians thought that Jesus was fully mortal and not at all divine. Others like the Gnostics preferred other gospels than the proto-Catholics. Some believed that Judas betrayed Jesus, others that Jesus asked Judas to turn him in. Some believed that Mary Magdeleine was Jesus' wife and closest apostle, whereas most didn't believe her an apostle at all, and Jesus celibate. All of this without disagreeing with the basic creed described above. I suggest we use the scholars in this area, and not your own personal opinion. KV

Creed might be okay colloquially but it is better to be precise. One cannot share the same creed and vary widely in their beliefs. Your description of the Arians is wrong ... and also nonsense: the ones that belief that Jesus was fully mortal are called orthodox Christians (including Eastern Orthodox, Catholics etc) - only few ever denied that (some branches of Monophysitism, Docetists etc.) Arians did not believe that JC as "not all divine". No one in antiquity believed that the Magdalene was Jesus' wife (that's modernity with its obession with romantic love). And the Gnostics would very well have disagreed with what you call the creed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that the scholars know absolutely nothing....... I mean, they're just PhDs while you have a highschool diploma? An Associates degree? Surely, your uncited wording is better. Str, if you disagree, find a source that is better than a college textbook that devotes several chapters to Christianity alone, and its impact on Western civilization, written by two PhDs in the area in question. When you can do that, then you have a leg to stand on. You cannot refute PhDs specialized in the area by simply saying they're wrong.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the obedience to Rome. The statement in no way says that the East didnt' obey Rome ever, it says they didn't, even after Nicaea, automatically obey Rome. And of course it comes from accredited scholars, not your personal opinion. KV

That's an example of infantilizing the text. No one claims they automatically obeyed Rome (by which you probably mean the Pope - if you want to then say so). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was clarifying what is meant by obedience to Rome. The scholars found it important to note that they did not automatically accept Rome's authority on all things because it played a large role in a little thing called the Great Schism.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On Constantine.... Well I was paraphrasing, the original words said he "controlled Church policy with an iron fist". We can use another word if necessary, but it's necessary to realize the sudden fusion of church and state at that moment in history, which the other source agrees with, citing pros and cons of the arrangement. Christianity became the authorized state religion under Constantine, soon to become the only allowed religion aside from Judaism. The Church had changed.

It is interestind hence I included it in a proper form. But your book is certainly wrong on this. Constantine did not control with an iron fist - despite his interferences in the mid-30s. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, find a souce more reputable than the highly reputable source I found if you wish to disagree with facts. Your own assertions do not counteract PhDs whose work can be verified.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for unofficially declaring someone a heretic, since heresy means wrong doctrine, I could tell you right now that you are a heretic, as several of the early churches accused each other of. However, it wasn't authorititive, it wasn't official. There had yet to be a general agreement on what is heresy and what is orthodox (right-thinking). Nicaea gave that official stance. KV

I was just stating that "officially" is another one of these infantile words some people like to use. But that they don't actually mean anything. They hurt the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Infantile? No, it's called clarification. There was a big difference in someone calling someone a heretic with their own bishop behind them in 200 CE and someone calling someone else a heretic in 400 CE with the majority of the Christian churches from across the Roman Empire backing up their statement.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the logic of when such heresies arose, the Nag Hammâdi find which contained most of the Gnostic gospels we knew was buried in the 4th century, not in the 2nd. The cause for burying it was that there were people from the Church looking to destroy any such texts! These so called "heresies" may have risen in the 2nd century CE, but they were still around in the 4th century. Arianism was still being chased around in 1000 CE, people did not give up on it declared a heresy or not. Arianism was the primary target of Nicaea because, according to the Christian text, the violence that erupted between Arius' followers and the Bishop of Alexandria's followers. The others weren't as important at the time.

Only, in the 4th century the Church did not have to deal with the Gnostic threat as an internal heresy - it had been confronted in the 2nd century and by now was a rival but no longer a threat for the internal continuity and truth of the Gospel. Arianism didn't cause any violence in Alexandria, Arius had only few followers. The trouble was: some of them were bishops (two in Libya, some in Syria, some in Asia Minor). And BTW your statements here actually contradict what you wrote or implied in the text. PS. Do you think your exclamation marks impress anyone? Str1977 ^{(smile back)}

And how about you cite your references, since you want the change. And btw, where does it contradict? You cannot simply say it contradicts without explaining it.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The new version is factually accurate, NPOV, and verifiable. People can check over what I wrote, see where I found it, and see if it says just that. As per Wikipedia policy.

KV 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The new version is partly factually incorrect or misleading but most importantly: it is extremely badly written. Don't make our reader gringe. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Str, I have you completely cornered on everything else, so you decide that you'll make some claim to stylistic error to find any way to hide the facts you don't want out there. AnnH is a linguist, surely she could simply reword what I have to make it a good read without removing any information as you did (in addition to attributing a citation to something that it didnt' apply to). I haven't seen her reword it, nor anyone else. You're the only one claiming that the wording is poor, and that's because you don't like the content, and you can no longer argue that it is nonfactual or from an inreputable source.

KV 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not cornered at all. I have stated my case and stick to it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Str, what is the first step you want to take towards arbitration? WP:DR#Further_dispute_resolution has options.

KV 23:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Str. The previous version was hammered out by a number of people with quite different approaches, and although not entirely agreed, at least made sense and gave accurate facts. The present text looks as though it has been written by one person who can't spell very well and has just read a very general college history book. While some further discussion may be needed, I don't see why such a relatively superficial piece of writing should stand in the article meanwhile. Myopic Bookworm 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Str and Bookworm, and I regret that I have been so busy in the last few days that I didn't get more involved in this. AnnH ♫ 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The old version was in violation of the three main Wikipedia policies, outright.

KV 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

one creed?

KV, it would be helpful to go ahead and name the policies. While I think KV's version is somewhere between misleading and inaccurate, KV is right to ask for a citation or three to the contrary. It won't be hard to find, but it needs to be added before the whole thing is fixed. However, it would also help to clarify that by "one creed" we mean a general "shared set of beliefs" rather than a specific creed with a specific text, like the Nicene or Apostles' Creed.

KV wrote above, For example, there was a shared creed that Jesus had come, taught, was crucified, buried, and raised again. However, some people like the Arians thought that Jesus was fully mortal and not at all divine. Others like the Gnostics preferred other gospels than the proto-Catholics. Some believed that Judas betrayed Jesus, others that Jesus asked Judas to turn him in. Some believed that Mary Magdeleine was Jesus' wife and closest apostle, whereas most didn't believe her an apostle at all, and Jesus celibate. All of this without disagreeing with the basic creed described above. I suggest we use the scholars in this area, and not your own personal opinion. KV

These gnostics do not all agree that Jesus "came, taught, was crucified, buried, and raised again." The Arians thought that Jesus was a highly exalted being created near the beginning of time by God, but not God himself. Regarding those who believed that Jesus asked Judas to turn him in, the Gospel of Judas doesn't record any events after Jesus' arrest. It earlier suggests that Jesus needed to die on the Cross to be free of his physical body, so it's unlikely that this group would have believed in a bodily resurrection, as that would have been a reimprisonment to them. The same is true of many of the gnostics; they would have supported perhaps a spiritual resurrection, but not a physical one. Suggesting the resurrection was only spiritual, was the gnostics' attempt to adapt Christianity and make it more palatable to their listeners. Most Christians did and do include Mary Magdalene as an apostle, calling her and the other first witnesses to the resurrection the "apostles to the apostles." As Str said, belief that she was Jesus' wife or lover is a very modern idea not found in antiquity, despite Gnostic accounts of her having received other "secret teachings." This is pretty basic stuff. I'll try to get sources soon, if no one beats me to it. Wesley 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation procedures have begun. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15_Christianity

I suppose we'll have to finish discussing this there.KV 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust some detractors of my version might want to comment on the page.

KV 04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Those who claimed to be"

Giovanni33, re your change: "Christianity began within the Jewish religion among those who claimed to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth". Is there any basis for doubt in this regard? It sounds scare-quotey and snarky, without adding anything useful.Timothy Usher 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is doubt. There should always be doubt based on what is known and what is merely thought to be probable. I simply like to state the facts. We don't even know if Jesus was a real historical person, or that those who claimed to be his followers didn't infact invent him--at least invent him in the form that they did, in their stories of him. In anycase, its simply a matter of fact that these people claimed to be followers of this character named Jesus. Its not scary at all. That is what they claimed and its a matter for personal belief to beleive their claims or not. I choose not to believe their claims without evidence. But, Im happy to report what they claimed. I've seen this language in other reference sources. Also, in reverting this edit, you reverted all my other language improvements--twice. This is careless, blind reverts and shows a lack of consideration. Giovanni33 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed" is a weasel word. There is not reasonable doubt that Christianity began among Jesus' followers. (This wording even leaves room for those that think that only some of his followers started the thing). There is no reasonable doubt of Jesus' historicity. Repeating the same stuff time and again shows a lack of consideration too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If everything is in doubt because the historical sources are questioned then the sentence should read "Christianity claimed to begin within those who claimed to be part of the Jewish religion among those who claimed to be followers of the person who claimed to be Jesus of Nazareth" XXX

Dear whoever, that's a big "if" - the historical sources are not questioned in the way you think. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism needs its own page

I think whether or not Christianity is monotheistic, or whether any religion can be other than monotheistic, is better discussed in context at monotheism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, if there there enough information for its own article, but it should not state as a fact what Christianity is simply because Christians want it to be that way, according to their own POV. Others can look at the religion and dispute the definition. So, to cure this problem it should say, "According to Christians..." This is the way to solve it and what I tried to do before but Str1977 said that only Christians get to say what it is, and Christians know best. Now that Drogo is pushing for the same NPOV treatment, maybe this time proper qualifcation in the language will stick.Giovanni33 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, your sentence, "According to some Moslems, Christianity is a polytheistic religion which worships three false gods", aside from being wildly misplaced (the actual Muslim point of view is represented further in the article), is inaccurate: Muslims do *not* hold that the Christian God is a false God, only that Christians shouldn't worship Jesus or Mary alongside him. The Holy Spirit doesn't come up, so it's unclear what the Islamic position would be - I'd guess that it'd be that this is just God.

It is likewise false to state that Christians belief that there is more than one god. As monotheism is defined as the belief in one God, there should be no debate here. The prevailing belief is that Jesus is God, not that he is another God - in fact, I've never heard anyone propose the latter.

Suppose we have a branch of Islam which holds that the Black Stone is God. Are they now polytheists, in that they worship both God and the Black Stone? By the logic you've advanced here, they would be: 1) The black stone isn't really God 2) such that they worship two entities, not one as they believe 3) hence they are polytheistic. There are many more possible, increasingly ridiculous-sounding examples. Ultimately, your re-definition of monotheism requires us to decide what God is to determine when the use of the term is appropriate without hedging, which is beyond the scope of our mission (and, I'd add, our expertise) here on wikipedia.Timothy Usher 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm pretty sure most Christians don't think you should worship Mary either....... often she is revered as a saint, perhaps the greatest of saints, but she's not God according to Christianity.

KV 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an criticizes the worship of Jesus and Mary alongside God. Whether any Christians were actually doing this is debatable, and comes up often in criticism of the Qur'an, as it suggests a misunderstanding on Muhammad's part, critically undermining the perfect, unadulterated divine origin of the Qur'an.

I recently read Muir despairing that overzealous Nestorian monks, whom Muhammad spent some time with in his youth, had gone overboard in their veneration of Mary, even speculating that Muhammad would have become a great Christian thinker had he understood the doctrine correctly.

Observe, also, that worship of human beings doesn't actually require that one think them gods.Timothy Usher 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have to think them a god, but Christianity holds fast to only worshipping God, and so they wouldn't worship Mary, who is not God.

But on Mohammed, it doesn't undermine the Koran if he misunderstood Christianity since the Koran is solely words he spoke while blacked-out, and according to Muslims, God (or possibly an angel, I'm not clear on that) speaking through him. It wasn't his thought, though there is a text like that.

KV 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It does, in that God is thought both omniscient and honest, such that he cannot be have unaware of Christian doctine, and that he would not misrepresent it. Thus, either the concept of God must be wrong, or Gabrial and/or Muhammad must have corrupted the message. Either allowance is fatal to the absolute certainty that the Qur'an is, in every last respect, the word of God as he's understood.Timothy Usher 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are asserting that Islam is a false religion on the talk page of the article on Christianity? Why? By asserting Islam is false, does this in some way mean they don't believe that Christians worship multiple gods? Since they do, its wrong to state that Christianity IS a monotheistic religion, since its a matter of opinion, others believe it isn't. - Drogo Underburrow 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"You are asserting that Islam is a false religion..." Not at all. A religion, like a text or a scientific theory needn't be entirely true to avoid being called "false."

Further, such arguments can't be in the introduction. No other major religion includes such a rebuttal in its intro. Are we to add to the intro of Islam the reasons why Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, Communists and atheists respectively think it not the way?Timothy Usher 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an, Christians have strayed from strict monotheism. Moslems believe that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion. Drogo Underburrow 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is becoming apparent that saying Xty IS monotheistic is POV. The easiest solution is to just drop the word from the description in the intro & later on mention that Xns view Xty as monotheistic, while others do not --JimWae 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I tried that, however, I got reverted. Why don't you try, maybe they like you better. Drogo Underburrow 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like you both equally. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a problem stating that Christains state they are monotheistic. I do not agree that we need to clarify that other groups disagree because of the depth of that conversation. Looking at the accusation of Islam in particular one comes to understand that they find the concept of the Trinity incomprehensible; that a triune God makes no sense. From there you drop into some deep waters of theology.

This article does suffer from a resistence to stating Christians believe xyz. Often there is an attempt to present things as fact. This is just one case to support that. In closing, I recommend providing the contrary arguments of people who may just not understand the concept of the Trinity. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of edit warring I made a simple edit that states "most Christians believe firmly they are monotheistic". This sentence is very choppy; however, this introduction has taken uncounted hours of negotation to get to where it was. I find it silly that because Islam disputes Christain claims to monotheism that we now have to bend over backwards to take care of another religions concerns in an article about Christianity. Surely readers will assume that an article on Christianity will understand that the article is about Christian beliefs and is not taking a side. This kind of dispute is best handled later in the article. Now having said the above, I still find it acceptable to clarify in the article that Christians believe...x, y, and z.

I have also requested the edit war participants to refrain from further edits and focus on gaining concensus on the discussion page. Let's make this a simple issue and not complicate it any further. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Xns believe that Jesus is one of three persons in a Divine Trinity that is one God.--JimWae 07:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you. At first I debated bringing up the concept of the Trinity, but I think it would make a better sentence/statement. Although the concept of the Trinity is a 4th century realization, it is argued by some to be foundational for all groups identified as Christian (I would disagree with it, but understand those who do support it). Should we wait for other comments and see if this suggestion gains concensus? Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole debate seems to me to be another mad piece of either political correctness or fake neutrality. Christianity is perceived as monotheistic not only by its adherents, but also by neutral commentators. It is only adherents of another religion who try to cast doubt on it. What would happen if the main page on every other religion had to carry a rider pointing out that most Christians consider it to be a false religion? Myopic Bookworm 09:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a case of real neutrality. If you were to ask any of a billion Muslims if they thought Christians worshiped only one god, their answer would be "no"; Christians worship Jesus as a god, and something called the Holy Spirit as well. Catholic and Orthodox Christians worship any number of saints, and the Virgin Mary, as demi-gods. Christians say that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are all one God. But their saying so, doesn't make it so. It makes it their opinion. In matters such as religious beliefs, where there are different sides, NPOV is critical. We must be impartial, saying who believes what, without telling the reader who is right and who is wrong. Therefore, it's correct to say that Christians believe their religion is monotheistic, and wrong to say that Christianity IS monotheistic. - Drogo Underburrow 10:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Drogo. Islam generally believes that Christianity is not monotheistic, and there are non-religious observers who, noting the trinity, Virgin Mary, and the countless saints and angels, agree. To say that Christianity is monotheistic is as POV as insisting that Jesus was the son of God and not just the prophet who preceded the final prophet, Mohammed. It's not up to us to weigh in on whether Christianity or Islam is correct on doctrinal matters such as these, just to report them neutrally.

I therefore support the statement that most Christians view their religion as monotheistic, which is accurate and neutral. If we could clarify the "most", that would be even better, so long as it doesn't once again put us in the position of judging doctrine. Al 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith and think of a reason why Str77 changed the article just now to say the opposite of what we are saying here in chat, but I can't think of one. All I can think of is that he prefers edit warring and has no rational defense for his action. Drogo Underburrow 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried "Christianity defines itself as a monotheistic religion centred....etc" on the talk page here a few weeks ago but no one was interested. Looking at it from a countering systemic bias POV we should give a neutral definition as there obviously significant numbers who disagree that it is monotheistic. Sophia 12:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to interject, if we're going on the idea of "What alot of people say about a religion who don't belong to it" should determine traits, does this mean the Scientology article should start "Scientology is a compleatly bonkers religion of stupidity", because im pretty sure a whole lot of people think that. Now seriously, Islam is like many religions that want everyone else to be false and only them to be right, so what are the chances that their opinion on the trinity is either authoritative or objectively awesome or whatever? I mean come on, some translations of the Qu'ran call Christians out specifically as heading for Hell, I don't think their opinion really means that this article should call us polytheists. The trinity is mostly recognized as the worship of one God in three forms/persons/beings whatever, im sure it wouldn't be hard to dig up like 10 or 20 statements of faith from various groups affirming this, and I think I could grab even more material from oneness pentecostals about monotheism, that's even more obviously monotheistic. The Bible is quite clear in many places that there is but one God, most Christians I would assume try to be quite clear that there is one God, how is this problematic? Homestarmy 12:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

None of what you say changes the fact that Muslims believe that Christianity isn't monotheistic, and as long as there are two sides to an arguement, Wikipedia articles have to stay neutral. So, its wrong to say "Christianity IS monotheistic" which says that Muslims are wrong. - Drogo Underburrow 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The hobbit has a good point. Sophia 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it is equally wrong for people to add Scientology in the "New religious movements" category, as many people believe Scientology is just a twisted sort of business. It would also be wrong for Islam to say that it is an Abrahmaic religion, as some apologetists i've seen argue that the Arabian people did not, in fact, descend directly from Abraham at all. It would also be wrong for the Psycology article to be listed in relation to science, as Scientology is of the opinion (A compleatly ridiculous one by the way, but irregardless, an opinion) that Psycology is basically murdering people every time they have clients. Muslims may believe that Christianity is polytheistic, even though they are compleatly wrong, and we should note that they believe it is polytheistic. We should further note that most Christians consider the trinity to simply be referring to one God in 3 forms/figures/whatever, and that the Bible states in many places about how God is the only God, and that pretty much every single group in the world who calls themselves Christians worships but a single God, so therefore, it is monotheistic. There is no reason why Islam should get to define Christianity, just as im sure I would be most quickly banned for going to every single other religion article on Wikipedia and saying "Fundamentalist Christians, (and there are many in the south it seems) believe your religion is false, therefore, I shall note that your religion is false in the intro". There are 2 or more sides to almost every single thing in the entire world and trying to make them all right would make Wikipedia nothing but a long, contradictory rant, what about color blind people who see red as green, should the red article say "The color red, also known to many as the color green...." and what about the Natural Selection article, should it say "Natural selection, known to be false by a large amount of Christians and Muslims...."? or perhaps the Abortion article, should it say "Abortion is the brutal murder of helpless unborn children and it is the explusion of a fetus from the womb which may or may not feel any pain and may or may not be a human...."? Noting people's POVs is a good thing. Trying to make them all right at the same time is not. Homestarmy 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy is that opinions not be stated as facts. Nobody is saying the article should say Xty is NOT monotheistic. Your examples & your arguments are off target. --JimWae 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Homestarmy.Timothy Usher 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you any idea how many people would disagree with one or another part of the articles Earth and Universe on religious grounds? Yet there is basically no mention of their beliefs. Evolution mentions controversies later in the article, and here, the attitude of the article is clear. Analogous cases may be found across all subjects.

One problem is, what to do when something - e.g. that Christianity is monotheistic - is a matter of objective fact, as shown above, yet there is a significant body of opinion which doubts it based on misinformation.

Perhaps the first step is to put forth a respectable academic source. Even so, common sense must apply. If one finds a scholar who writes, “Christianity is not so much a religion as a social institution,” do we then have to hedge “religion” - after all, some don’t consider it one.

There is an arbitrary number of such objections, limited only by the attitude the editors take to the article: is our goal to inform, or to obscure?

The most informative approach is to flat state general, broadly-accepted truths, followed by discussion of the particulars and associated controversies.

The Muslim objection is significant enough to merit inclusion; the question is only where, and how.Timothy Usher 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy and Homestarmy, you both want to re-write the basic rules that Wikipedia operates under, and that is not allowed. Wikipedia has a method of solving this problem, and its called NPOV for short. You can either read it and learn it and support it, or you force us to explain it to you here on the talk page. I promise you, if you read, knew, and supported NPOV, we would not be having any discussion, the issue would magically go away. Drogo Underburrow 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first rule is, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. That's not just about what wikipedia is not, but about the way articles are structured, topicality, what degree of qualification is appropriate to each section, and many other rules that aren't stated here. It's an unfortunate fact that it's much easier for you to cry NPOV! than it is for others to appeal to the details of the application of common sense, to wit: we shouldn't be going into intros and hedging them to deal with every conceivable objection. NPOV for its part, does not state that every point of view must be given an equal place in the debate, nor that every sentence must itself account for all points of view. I shall poke around to see if I can find some WP policy literature which addresses it.Timothy Usher 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, we all agree with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, we just disagree with what constitutes neutrality. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Look, this issue is not as complicated as both of you, Timothy and Homestarmy are trying to make it out to be.

The bottom line is that the rules here prohibit us from writing in an article that "Christianity is monotheistic" Here is why:

1. Christians believe that Christianity is monotheistic. 2. Muslims believe that Christianity isn't monotheistic.

The two groups do not agree. Are you with me so far? Is this not all perfectly clear and factual so far?

3. Saying "Christianity IS monotheistic" is saying that the Christians are right and the Muslims are wrong. The Muslims say its not, and the sentence says it is, and its contradicting them, therefore they are wrong, according to the article.

4. NPOV says we can't say that. We can't take sides, no matter how badly you want to say that Christians are right, no matter how firmly you believe that they are right, its not allowed.

Christians believe that Christianity is monotheistic. - This is the fact that Muslims and Christians can both agree on, and can go in the article.

Christianity is monotheistic. - This is a statement that Muslims and Christians do not agree on, and hence cannot be treated as a fact, and cannot go in the article.

It's really simple, and has nothing to do with Tom Cruise.

Its called NPOV, you might want to read up on it sometime, and spare us the trouble of having to explain at length the basic rules over and over.

Bringing up Scientology does not change the above. Attempts to confuse the issue will not work. - Drogo Underburrow 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslims are a significant group, so it is not like we are adding the view of some off the wall group. All views must be represented, and it shouldn't simply say that Christianity is monotheistic, but rather that its believers think it's monotheistic, while others do not.

KV 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why does the Islam article state that Islam is monotheistic, im sure many fundamentalists like myself would argue that since their definition of God is not correct, that therefore they are...zerotheistic for worshipping basically nothing, and there are many fundamentalist types out there. Monotheistic simply means to worship one God, and if you go into pretty much any church, whether it be Catholic, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's witness, Mormon, I don't know of any church where you'll ever hear anyone worship a plurality of Gods. I also don't know of a single variety of Bible, whether it be more literal, more figurative, just plain ridiculous, that New Age Bible I hear has been floating around, or anything that does not state that God is the only God. Christianity is almost compleatly based on either the Bible or a Church's practices which get impressed upon followers generally, and either way you slice it, it is clearly monotheistic. This is not New Agepedia, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck. Homestarmy 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re "zerotheism" claim: this is but one of many consequences of the "Black Stone" argument I'd given above, to which no one has responded. The Islamic "critique" (as it is not scholarly opinion, but little more than ignorant prejudice) of Christianity requires that we define what God is, and indeed that's exactly the basis of their assumption.Timothy Usher 18:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Why does the Islam article state that Islam is monotheistic?" I don't know. If you object, do it on their talk page, not here.

"I don't know of any church where you'll ever hear anyone worship a plurality of Gods." - So what?

"I also don't know of a single variety of Bible ...that does not state that God is the only God." - So what? Just because the Bible says something, does not mean Muslims cannot dispute what it says. When significant numbers of people dispute things, NPOV prohibits us from saying one side is right.

"Christianity is almost compleatly(sic) based on either the Bible or a Church's practices ....and either way you slice it, it is clearly monotheistic." - So you say. Muslims disagree. NPOV says the article can't choose sides.

"This is not New Agepedia, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck." - Unless a significant body of people disagree, and call it a sheep. In which case, we are not allowed to say, "Its a duck", we can only say, 'Group X thinks it is a duck."

This is not my opinion. I'm simply applying the NPOV rules. You could do the same for yourself if you would only take the time to learn them and decide they apply instead of whatever rules you make up yourself, and then we could discuss much more complex things to make the article better and not dwell on this basic stuff. But if we do not agree on the basic stuff, there is nothing at all we can agree on, since we arn't playing by the same rules. If one team thinks its baseball, they can't play if the other team insists on using a football. - Drogo Underburrow 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"...if you would only take the time to learn them and decide they apply instead of whatever rules you make up yourself..." I think it's less than useful to suggest that those of us who disagree with you do so out of willful ignorance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

“If you were to ask any of a billion Muslims if they thought Christians worshiped only one god, their answer would be "no"”...“The Muslims say its not”...

You cannot speak for all Muslims, Drogo (indeed, I doubt if you could even speak for one). You need a reputable scholarly source, for starters.

“We can't take sides, no matter how badly you want to say that Christians are right, no matter how firmly you believe that they are right, its not allowed.”

Sorry, but there is a line that we draw when it comes to basic findings of fact as related to dictionary definitions.

What Muslims who believe this are simply misinformed. It is also a common belief among Christians that Allah is not the same as God. In both cases, we cannot be hedging indisputable facts with prejudice and ignorance. It is the job of wikipedia to inform. WP:NPOV must not be construed in such a way as to compromise encyclopedicity. The mere fact that something is widely believed does not in itself merit equal inclusion. Sometimes it’s enough to inform the reader that a certain opinion exists.

“So, its wrong to say "Christianity IS monotheistic" which says that Muslims are wrong.”

No wronger that it is to give the approximate age of the Earth, which says that creationists are wrong. You need a reputable scholarly source which says not just that many Muslims believe Christianity to be polytheistic, which would warrant only a statement to that effect (which we already have), but one which advances the opinion that Christianity actually is polytheistic.Timothy Usher 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

You insist on a source that says Moslems object? I'm not suggesting that the article say that Muslims object. I'm only suggesting that it say that Christians say that Christianity is monotheistic. My reason is that Moslems object. I don't need a source for this, its not going in the article, I am just asserting it. Are you seriously arguing that they don't? That would be very argumentive of you, arguing just to argue. But, if you truly doubt that more than a few Moslems feel that Christianity is not monotheistic, I won't debate you. Instead, I will insist that you entirely remove all mention of monotheism from the article unless every sentence on the topic is sourced and attributed, as required under the WP:Verify policy.

"Sorry, but there is a line that we draw when it comes to basic findings of fact as related to dictionary definitions" - it doesn't say that in the policy pages, and you can't make up your own rules. It makes no difference anyway. If significant numbers of people do not believe something that is defined in a dictionary, then NPOV requires we deal with their POV.

"What Muslims who believe this are simply misinformed." - it doesn't matter, the issue is not wether they are right, but whether they believe something.

"WP:NPOV must not be construed in such a way as to compromise encyclopedicity." - Another rule you just made up? Show me where it says this in the policy pages.

"The mere fact that something is widely believed does not in itself merit equal inclusion." No one is asking for equal inclusion. The point is one cannot say that the side is wrong. Drogo Underburrow 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

There are also the Cainites whom I have mentioned many times. They believed that there were at least TWO Gods, one of the Old Testament that was evil, and a good one that sent Jesus and really created the world. I believe there were 5 total Gods, but I only know for sure about the two. Being Christians, already not all Christianity is monotheistic, but some falls under henotheism. Also, I'm pretty sure "zerotheistic" is not a word, it would be atheistic....... and that wouldn't even make sense. If they believe in one God, then they are monotheistic. If you can claim that that God is really 4 gods, then you can accuse them of the same, polytheism. Their claim is not that they consider the Christian God to be fake (in fact it is the exact same as the Jewish God and the Christian "The Father") and accepted to be so by all three religions in general. Admittedly, there are a few Christians that believe that they really are satanists, but that's not a major group.  :KV 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As you say, that is rightly henotheism, not monotheism. The question is, then, are the Cainites prominent enough to warrant a hedge in the intro? I think the answer is clearly no, because the purpose of the intro is to establish general truths to serve as a reference point for further discussion - it must not be seen as a conclusion. Should they be mentioned in the article? Absolutely.Timothy Usher 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

It is unfortunate to have this type of discussion and have Myopic make edits without gaining concensus. I would request that all editors stop editing the intro until we have come to a conclusion. The proposal on the table is to edit the first paragraph to read, in some way or form, that Christians believe in a monotheistic concept of God. The operative term is believe, the rest of the sentence can be changed.

Also, it does not help to bring up other articles and how they are written. Believe me, the same standards are meant to apply to every article and some just "get it" sooner than others. As a LDS this has long been a thorn in my side as other Christians insist on telling me what I believe; it is not fun, but it is part of the game we play here at WIKI.

The concept of monotheism is so fundamental to Christianity that it is a bit boggling that it should be clarified. However, the simple change mentioned above will ensure that we meet all standards of NPOV however silly we sometimes apply the rules. Enough said. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a fixed version, after seeing Giovanni try to fix it:

Christianity is religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, as recounted in the New Testament. Generally it is thought of as monotheistic, though some ancient sects were not and some critics, most notably Muslims accuse it of being polytheistic.

With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, it is the world's largest religion.

I think it needs that extra explanation if we're going to deal with monotheism, whether it is early on or not. Alternatively, we can leave it as being generally viewed as monotheistic and then discuss the difference of opinions and the Cainites in the beliefs section.

KV 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I can almost live with that, as it is stating what people consider rather than what it actually is, and notes who accuses it of what. However, I say "almost", because im pretty sure the Cainanites were henotheistic, similar to (I think) certain groups of Mormonism. Just remember the "a" in between "is" and "religion" :). Homestarmy 19:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this version at all. Homestarmy's current one is better. The section explaining monotheism is horrible. Drogo Underburrow 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said that they weren't monotheistic, whereas the henotheism is not monotheism, it's a polytheism that only worships one of the gods......

KV 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what's in there now is just whatever Geo did, with me changing the word "Christians" to, well, whatever I put, I was just doing it there temporarily until we resolve this dispute. But anyway, if monotheism is defined as the worship of one God, don't henotheists worship just one God and simply acknowladge the existance of others? Homestarmy 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it's not the worship of one god, "Monotheism (in Greek μόνος = single and θεός = God) is the belief in the existence of one God, or in the oneness of God." If you believe that there is more than one, then you're polytheistic. That's the beginning of the monotheism article.

KV 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the belief in many "gods", and only recognizing one as The True God, though. Even the Bible mentions there are other "gods". (Psalm 82:1; John 1:1; 10:34, 35; 1 Corinthians 4:4; 8:5,6; ). --Oscillate 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that's generally taken by Christians and Jews as being false gods (though there are theories that the earlier Jews did worship other gods they believed to be just as real, and that Yahweh had competition) as in non-existant gods made up by people. Hence allowing Christianity and Judaism to be monotheistic. However, if I am wrong there, then Christianity certainly wouldn't be monotheistic.

KV 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is that "god" is used for Satan, powerful human judges, and Jesus. In the Bible, "god" can mean an entity in a superior position, but "God" is the one Almighty. The Jews were certainly monotheistic. I was only bringing out a semantic difference. --Oscillate 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, a bit off topic, but I noticed that the Cainite page needed to be expanded, very little information is available there..... so if you know much about it, especially if you can cite it, please add there as well.

KV 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to go into what others' have said and simply state my view:

• Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it believes in one God.
• Christians also believe that this one God exists as three persons or hypostases while still being one being.
• They believe one of these hypostases to have become man in Jesus Christ.
• Others (such as Muslims) might find this repulsive or illogical or contradictory but that is not the point. Christians still believe in one single deity.
• Christians have developed an elaborate theology out of the question of how to explain the reality of God and of how to combine these seemingly contradictory statements found in revelation (mainly the Bible). I suspect that many edit-warring about this have not even the slightest clue on the whole issue.
• Including the issue in the controversy section might be valid, but to push that POV in the intro is not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more points:

• Given the Islamic view of the Quran, one could also argue that Islam has not one but two Gods - Allah and the Quran, as the latter is considered coeternal and uncreated (basically what Christians say about God the Son)
• The controversies section now refers to a Trinity of God Father, Son and Spirit, whereas Islam wronlgy includes Mary as the third person of the Trinity. So much for giving Islam validity of defining Christianity. I will strip the text down to say just Trinity for accuracy's sake. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you understand that God is not a Trinity, and neither the Bible, nor Jesus, nor God say such in the scriptures, then there are no more "contradictory statements" that need complex and elaborate explanations that reside wholly outside God's Word. --Oscillate 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you really don't care to understand the nature of God down to the most infinitly incomphrehensible levels, which neither the Bible, nor Jesus, nor God ever says we should have to care about, then there isn't any need to make the trinity out to be so complicated to the point where people have any grounds to critisize the idea in the first place. Whether the word trinity is in the Bible or not or whether God ever said a word about it doesn't matter, Christianity still remains monotheistic. Further, if what Str says is true about Islam placing Mary as the third person in the trinity, then forget about comprimise, that's just ridiculous, how can that kind of opinion possibly warrent not labelling Christianity as monotheistic? Homestarmy 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Infinitely incomprehensible"? God never says we have to care about understanding him??

• John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent." The Amplified Bible;
• 1 Timothy 2:4 - (God), "Who wishes all men to be saved and [increasingly] to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth." The Amplified Bible.

If the basis of our understanding of God and his relationship with us is so incomprehenisble, then why would it be so necessary for us to understand God so well? I'd say it's very important to know what God and Jesus say about it. Yes, Christianity is absolutely monotheistic. There is only one True God and Jesus is quite clear that he is not God. --Oscillate 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean know God as in intellectual knowladge of His being and every last way that He operates, not know as in be acquainted with. You can be acquainted with someone without knowing everything about them. And where did the "Jesus not being God" comment come from? I'd be glad to debate this with you but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. The trinity really isn't supposed to be complicated because human's cannot possibly understand every single last bit of God's infinite being, God is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit....also God. Not A group of gods. Homestarmy 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Partially right: God is only one. YHWH is God as He himself said; Jesus is his Son, as he himself said, a divine being who has a God. Jesus was very clear that he was not God, and to be proclaiming that people should come to an accurate knowledge of God and then to pretend like he was praying to someone else, talking to someone else, directing people to someone else when in reality it was him all along...? It's not a matter of fully comprehending the infinite being of God, it's the idea that if you're supposed to have a close relationship with God, and yet, while he was supposedly on Earth, he was tricking people into thinking he was not God but rather the obedient servant of God (before and after his earthly life), sent by Him, trained by Him, directed by Him...don't you see the problem with that? And if Jesus was God, then when Jesus died, he never really died, which was necessary for the ransom to mean anything. --Oscillate 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, i'd sure like to have this debate, but im not sure what this has to do with monotheism. Could we take this to one of our talk pages? Homestarmy 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have a question for Str: How do you gather that the Quaran is a god? If one were to say that, then why don't we disrupt the trinity and state that the Bible is the fourth god of Christianity?

Now, there is no need to debate whether or not Christianity is actually monotheistic or not, because that is not the question. The first question is if the Islamic view is important enough to include, and the second question is, if so, where and how do we include it.

If the agreement is that it shouldn't be included in the intro, then we cannot simply state that Christianity is monotheistic there either (that is siding with the POV) but we should go with my line "is generally seen as monotheistic" and then proceed to elaborate further in the beliefs section.

KV 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know what's going on Str's mind, but I imagine that since he notes many Muslims to believe the Qu'ran as a book which has existed for all eternity, that it therefore certainly has attributes to it normally only attributed to God. Homestarmy 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Str1977 is correct about Muslims believing the Quran to be eternal and uncreated, those things would effectively put it on par with God, at least the way most Christians understand God. Christians believe there is one God, and that everything else that exists is created by God, such as the universe, spiritual beings like angels, etc. Christians do not believe their Bible is eternal and uncreated. We can quibble about dates, but agree that all of it was written down by humans, within time (as opposed to eternity), while being "inspired" by the Holy Spirit. Opinions differ as to what inspired means exactly, but even among those who believe God dictated word for word, this is still thought to be done in time, dictated to a human who lived in time and wrote it down. Wesley 04:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not reading my mind but you guys came pretty close.

Muslims believe Allah to be the one and sole God. "Orthodox Islam" as it developed also hold the Quran to be uncreated and eternally existing. Now, Muslims in their dogmatic development were not confronted with Greek philosophy (as Christianity was) and hence didn't figure out that this makes the Quran "consubstantial", if I may use the key word of the Nicene creed, with Allah, making the Quran either somehow part of the deity (which is, very roughly, the Christian solution in regard to Jesus), or they can believe in two gods. The latter of course would be "shirk" and this is what Muslims accuse Christianity of. Now, my personal solution the Muslims' problem is that the view of an eternal Quran is a later development (it appears in the 9th century, I believe) and erring from Muhammad's teaching. Since Muslims don't use the tool Greek philosophy has given us, they can shirk (pun not intended) the contradiction. However, that's only my opinion and I have that principle that I will never weigh in with confidence in the dogmatic/theological disputes of another religion. In other words: I will not comment on which party in a intra-Islamic dispute is right and which is wrong. I am a Christian and can only speak with any confidence in regard to Christianity.

Wesley is of course right in his reply to KV's objection: Christians don't hold the Bible to be eternally existing but rather all agree that it came into being book by book over time, spanning from Moses (15th century BC) to the Apostle John (c. 100 AD). What Muslims believe about the Quran we believe about Jesus, the eternal word of God. One could say, while Christianity holds that "the Word became flesh" (Prologue to John's gospel), Muslims believe that "the Word became book". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Can someone say exactly what this means? I'd like to adjust the writing but don't want to change the meaning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Christian scriptures, the term "Christian" is first attested in Acts 11:26: "And in Antioch Jesus' disciples were first called Christians" (Gr. χριστιανους, from Christ Gr. Χριστός, which means "the anointed one")."

This sentence seems to be dealing with the "first" use of the word Christian. Is the sentence really all that unclear? ^iggy_talk 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it unclear, yes. It says "in the Christian scriptures," as though it's qualifying it i.e. "it may have been used first elsewhere, but in the Christian scriptures, it was first used ..." And it's not clear what "attested" means in this context. It doesn't mean was first used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, the original author of this passage was trying to point out that the word "Christian" may have been used prior to the writing of the New Testament. It is a bit confusing that it both qualifies "In the Christian scriptures" and then states it is "first attested" which would seem to imply "the first verifiable usage", but this is quite possibly the effect of over-editing. Then again, the particular reference to "Christian scriptures" seems to imply that the original author either had no knowledge of possibly earlier non-Christian sources or ignored what information s/he may have had — I find it quite improbable that there is any text that can attest to the word "Christian" refering to this particular religion prior to the book of Acts, but that is only an opinion. Does that help you at all? ^iggy_talk 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads now is even weirder. In the Christian scriptures, the term "Christian" is first known to have appeared in Acts 11:26. To me, that means that the word may have been in Christian scriptures earlier than Acts 11:26, but we're not quite sure about it. How about this instead, According to Acts 11:26 in the Christian Scriptures, the word "Christian" was first used at Antioch." Does that work better for anyone? BigDT 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be much better.Timothy Usher 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ^iggy_talk 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't know what that's trying to say. Is it saying that Acts 11:26 says that the word was first used at Antioch? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts 11:26 says: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." This isn't much of a source. It would be better to quote a secondary source saying what the earliest known usage of the word is, which may or may not be Acts, and which may or may not tie in with what Acts 11:26 says; and then if you want, quote Acts 11:26 too, so long as the secondary source hasn't made doing that redundant. And why use the term "Christian Scriptures"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well what more sources do we need about Christianity besides the book that sort of defined it? Homestarmy 12:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's usually better to cite an authoritative secondary source, even if s/he says the same thing as the primary source. I'll try to look around for one when I have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts says that the word was first used at Antioch. Since Acts is a well-known text with an extensively documented history, to cite another modern source would surely be redundant, since it would merely be some recent scholar citing Acts. It seems honest enough simply to cite Acts. If Plato says something in his "Republic", you don't scrabble around to quote some modern writer saying the same thing: why treat Acts differently? Myopic Bookworm 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts is a religious text so it does not serve as a good scholarly source, although it can be used if its proprerly stated, "according to Acts..."Giovanni33 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would be silly if the modern source's source was Acts. But then we might not believe Joseph Smith when he says that the term Mormon was first used in Chicago, as well. Most of his account is not held as credible by most people, most people not being Mormons who believe he recieved any gold plates from any angel.

KV 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the use is attributed to Acts, there should be no need to look for a secondary source. ^iggy_talk 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that this article is not about Acts, but instead about the religion, and it would be good to have a reliable source for the first use of the word "Christian". I think that there may have been a book about the history of Christianity written at some point. Jkelly 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's simply saying that within Christian scriptures, the first reference to the term "Christian" is in Acts. —Aiden 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And you need a source for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation request. We should also bear in mind that the word "Christian" would not have been the word that first appeared in Acts, if indeed that is the earliest use of whatever term is translated into English as "Christian," so the sentence is a little misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like "Christianous." That's an unproblematic translation as they go.Timothy Usher 09:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think the reference is the passage in Acts, which says that the name Christians was first coined in Antioch. It was not coined when this passage was written (and Paul's letters - which might or might not include the term) preceded Acts) but this passage reports on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue here is that we cannot cite the first place in the New Testament, as it is traditionally arranged, to support the claim of the first usage. We must refer to reliable secondary sources in this respect; for example, it is quite possible the the word "Christians" first appeared in a non-Christian document. As it stands now ("In the New Testament, the term 'Christian' first appears in Acts 11:26"), the sentence is not especially informative; a reader would be interested in the first usage timewise, not in the first page in the traditional edition of the New Testament. Pecher ^Talk 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, SV, if I misunderstand the issue. I don't have a big stake in that dispute. If my memory serves me right, the sentence was supposed to say that the name "Christians" was first coined in Antioch and that Acts is the source for that information. Whether it was used in any document we don't know - we don't have such document. But it certainly was used orally, most probably by non-Christians. Such names are often given by those outside of the group. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism, continued

Do any reliable sources describe Christianity as other than monotheistic? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a couple Muslim apolgetics sites which seem to lean strongly towareds that conclusion, but since they seem rather evangelistic in nature, I don't think they come right out and say it. Homestarmy 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your version seems great to me, Homestarmy. Drogo Underburrow 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your change of word for my attempted solution is perfectly acceptable to me.Giovanni33 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just put that there until we get done with this discussion, im by no means satisfied with what I put, I just did that because it looked really circular :). I think im leaning towards KV's suggestion since it doesn't try to say what it is or is not but rather puts it into the realm of people's views and seems to lean towared the correct generalization. Homestarmy 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Generalization I think is bad. It is weasel words. What I don't like about it is that it doesn't say who believes that Christianity is monotheistic. Drogo Underburrow 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an arbitrary generalization. Based upon those entities which we can measure (existing on Earth of capable intelligence, we'll let aside what extraterrestrials may think) most who have any concept of Christianity would consider it monotheistic. Just like how most would consider the Earth to be much older than 6000 years. It's a fair generalization but then it brings note to the detractors of the idea that they are monotheistic. Now, we have WP:NPOV state: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"

Islam is a significant viewpoint on the monotheism of Christianity, but it we do not need to represent it as if the views on whether Christianity is monotheistic or not is roughly equal in support. We in no way choose sides on which interpretation is right, but saying that most people in the US ascribe to the Democratic Party or Republican Party is the same. There are very few people in the third parties, and I am the exception.

It's similar to the treatment we're trying to have for the earlier branches of Christianity who were very significant in the past, as discussed in WP:NPOV as well, "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." ... "Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned,"

We mention that there were these varied beliefs by these early sects, we don't say whether they were right or wrong, but it's perfectly fair to say that they no longer exist, or are very minimal. For example, there are very few Arians running around these days, we need not refrain from saying that there are more Catholics than Arians or Gnostics. We just dont' say that Catholicism is more right than the Arians or Gnostics.

So, if you can point out where it makes it appear that the Islamic view is wrong, then we have a NPOV problem, but that is not a weasel word.

KV 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, as recounted in the New Testament. Generally it is thought of by Christians as monotheistic, though some ancient sects were not and some critics, most notably Muslims accuse it of being polytheistic.

This is more specific. but I don't really like it much. -Drogo Underburrow 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For an intro that gets right into the criticisms section. —Aiden 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to leave the attacks and 'but some people say' stuff until at least after the introduction. All Christians consider the religion monotheistic (the number of exceptions is trivial). The fact that some outspoken members of other religions think differently is worth mentioning, but not in the intro. We shouldn't include what is said by a minority critics in the intro. I can find sources who call Islam "Satanic" but I wouldn't put it in the intro to Islam. (I wouldn't put it in the article at all in fact, but there you go). DJ Clayworth 14:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And those Christians who disagree AFAIK reject the Trinity rather than the monotheistic character of their religion, e.g. Unitarians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing the issue. We're talking about Christianity here. The vast majority of Christians view their religion as monotheistic, but simply have a different interpretation of the nature of God from Jews or Muslims. No Christian will deny the oneness of God, but at the same time most will tell you of his parts. Christians often equate this to humans, which they believe have a spirit, soul, and body. These same people would not say a human is three disctinct beings. So I think it is highly POV to remove references to monotheism from the article, namely because it is like saying "Well you think you're monotheist but you're really not." It is basically advocating an outside interpretation over the one of the followers themselves. It's telling Christians what they believe, which is not what Wikipedia is about. If Christians believe in one God, then their religion is by definition monotheistic. —Aiden 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made a version with changes in the first paragraph (minimal) and added information in Monotheism under Beliefs. If this is accepted, we can pull it out of controversies.

KV 16:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Short lived as it was, the permanent link is here, so feel free to comment on that version.

Weasel wording. —Aiden 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find so far any sourced references to Islam viewing Christianity as not monotheistic. Pecher ^Talk 17:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I have added a citation, in the controversies section, and in the short-lived version of mine. And Aiden, how is it weasel wording? Please explain yourself. WP:AWW, first off, is not a policy, but a guideline. And even if a policy, it is inferior to WP:NPOV which would require us to not pick sides on the debate between 2.1 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims on whether Christianity is monotheistic or not. Seeing as it is generally seen as monotheistic, we can say that it is generally seen as such, but there are 1.2 billion people, about 1/5 of the world's population, who see otherwise. We cannot declare Christianity factually monotheistic, only lay out evidence and let them draw their OWN conclusions.

KV 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Trinitarian Christianity, if you please. --Oscillate 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous posting on islamic.org.uk is not a reliable source. Pecher ^Talk 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a page on the organization's site of islamic.org.uk. It is not like it was an anonymous forum post that anyone could have posted, it was made by a member of the organization. The first link, to Adherents.com is also anonymous, as is the book of Acts. Shall we discount these as well?

KV 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A member of what organization? KV, please read WP:RS; we must cite scholar of the subject in question. Pecher ^Talk 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is every bit as credible as those other sources I mentioned, the more scholarly, the better, but most of this article is completely unsourced. In fact, the Adherents.Com site says that its numbers are not credible. "Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective" The number may or may not be 2.1 Billion and probably should be restored to the old version of over 2 Billion. I have heard the accusation many places elsewhere, and I am sure you have as well.

KV 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The adherents.com link is far from ideal. This has popped up on Muslim and Islam as well. The other cites people were using were 1) a BBC link that cited Adherents.com, placed alongside it to give the appearance of agreement 2) wikipedia itself. Meanwhile, Geothone101 comes around every now and then to raise the Christian figure and lower the Muslim figure without any cites at all. So, for now, it's the best we've got. As the information is not particularly provocative or controversial, and indisputably topical, we should be looking for a better source before removing this one. I'm not sure that subbing an unsourced ballpark figure constitutes improvement.Timothy Usher 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was suggesting Adherents.Com just be used for being as good as it states it is good for, which is that ballpark figure. But, my main point is that there is bias in how these standards are applied on this article. Most things are uncited, some are poorly cited, then when similar citations are brought up that aren't conforming to a certain POV, they are unacceptable. If I tried to delete the similar reference to Acts or Adherents.Com I would find myself unable, whereas it doesn't work the other way around. You cannot pick and choose when and how to apply the standards as Pecher is attempting to do. Those citations are an ideal, and should not be denied when they do exist (even though I know through experience that they still are). But given that the citation, though it may not be an ideal citation yet, is better at citing this than most statements, which are completely uncited. There is no reason to doubt that this is the muslim POV when we have muslims saying it is here, we have people on muslim sites, owners of those sites, stating that same fact.

KV 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations are not required, just recommended, but if someone disputes your claim, you must provide a reliable source per [{WP:RS]]. It is not good to say "but, you know, the rest of the article is not referenced at all". It is this specific claim that is the subject of the dispute, so let's stick to it, instead of trying to deflect the arguments by claiming that your opponents use double standards. Pecher ^Talk 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are double standards in place, and I had once placed numerous fact tags on the page, only to have it called vandalism. If you would like to leave civility, we can have many other "facts" on this page questioned with fact tags and require sources for them. Otherwise, you'll have to let the citations of what Muslims are saying (and yes, a muslim is a reliable source for what muslims believe lacking a statement to the contrary from any muslim)stand until there is time to search for another. We have had muslims come on here to claim just that. It's not at all a questionable fact. In fact, there is a questionable (though easily discussed) claim that Christianity is monotheistic that that text was added in reference to. I trust you'll choose civility.

KV 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the current link, and the site is hosted by "The Sabr Foundation" which says it "is a not-for-profit educational and religious foundation." How is that not reputable?

KV 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion

The term "Abrahamic religion" carries with it a very strong POV. Christians do not ususally consider teir religion to be an "Abrahamic" one; to be more, Christian theology does not recognize any relationship to Islam. Furthermore, Judaism does not recognize any special relationship with either Christianity or Islam, considering them man-made religions alongside Buddhism, Hinduism, and everything else. Only in Islam can we find the view that these three religions share a common root in the faith of Abraham. I'm not sure about the views of the majority of contemporary scholars of religion, but I did not see any references in this article as to who among the scholars calls Christianity an "Abrahamic religion". Pecher ^Talk 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the "Abrahamic" article seems to disagree with you, I quote:

This forms a large group of largely monotheistic religions, generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith, and comprises about half of the world's religious adherents. Many of these adherents will reject this grouping of their faiths on the grounds that they contain inherently and fundamentally incompatible ideas concerning Abraham and concerning God.

End quote

Homestarmy 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Abrahamic religion" is Muslim POV. Were I a space alien studying the development word religion, with no particular opinions about their truth value, I should feel obliged to use some terminology corresponding to Abrahamic and Dharmic religion as a mere matter of historical descent (of ideas, not of people).

Obviously any of he Abrahamic religions are more like one another than are Indo-European paganism and Zen Buddhism, yet the latter, like all "Dharmic" religions, descends from the former.

The Abrahamic religions might well be called "Jewish-influenced" religions - if there is Muslim POV there, I suppose it is designation after Abraham, who is selected only due to his appearance in the Qur'an. I don't think there's the notion that Abraham endorses any of this.

"Furthermore, Judaism does not recognize any special relationship with either Christianity or Islam, considering them man-made religions alongside Buddhism, Hinduism, and everything else."

Any special relationship? Christianity began as a sect of Judaism, which is a relationship were there ever one. Acknowledgement doesn't imply endorsement. Similarly, Islam is about Muhammad's perceptions of Judaism and Christianity, and claim of succession. Even were the relationship one of a pretender and a plaigarist, it would still constitute a special relationship.

I'd also guess that the most ancient Judaism would seem at least as foreign to any of these religions as they do to one another, much more so whatever religion Abraham can be said to have practiced.

Buddhism, for its part, descends from Hinduism, which descends from Indo-European paganism. So there isn't a special relationship at this level (although I'd guess them to have had a common ancestor at some point in prehistory).

Perhaps the term does us some vague psychic disservice, but to not inform the reader that there is a historical relationship is a greater disservice.

My inclination is, by default, to use terms in the way they are normally used, avoiding in-text debates about the validity of their ideological underpinnings whenever possible. We know what Abrahamic religion means, it's informative, and there's no well-established competing term (or is there?) Similarly with "monotheism", "Islamism", etc. Where such debates are warranted, they should be confined to discrete sections where they are on-topic, rather than applied against every instance of the term across wikipedia, which would lead to chaos.Timothy Usher 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim, without discussing your argument on merits (and I assume that some scholars may agree with you), I must point out that such considerations constitute a POV. You may try to argue with the leading rabbis that there is some relationship between Christianity and Judaism, but I'm afraid you'll have hard time convincing them. From the Jewish point of view, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion is man-made, and there is no good in trying to distinguish between them. It's somewhat different in Christianity, but here too, there is no special designation encompassing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Only in Islam, we have a hierarchy of religions, including revealed religions tracing to Abraham — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — of which only Islam is uncorrupted. I have requested above for citations from scholars of religion, but to no avail, as I can see. For now, we cannot assume that this article is neutral, while it lumps together Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as "Abrahamic religions". Pecher ^Talk 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't any NPOV tag regarding the usage of "Abrahamic religion" be placed on that article, and not this one that simply uses the information in the linked article? ("This forms a large group of largely monotheistic religions, generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith, and comprises about half of the world's religious adherents.") --Oscillate 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't use other articles as sources, so that's beside the point. Pecher ^Talk 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust you'll be adding the NPOV tag to that article as well, then? --Oscillate 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this as a NPOV issue at all, however the way the sentence is currently phrased is a little weasely: Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion. This naturally raises the question "by whom"? I think if we can state who consideres Christianity an Abrahamic religion, we can fix the POV issues right then and there. Personally, I would remove the phrase "considered", but apparently there is at least one person (maybe more?) who disagree with this claim. Therefore, the easiest fix is to simply state who is making the claim, either by qualifying the sentence, or adding a citation.--Andrew c 22:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note

This page was apparently deleted at some point. AnnH apparently ended up restoring it. I'm only stating this since I notice it's not showing up on my watchlist, so people will now know that it has been edited. Top of your watchlist now...

KV 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Citation needed" on first use of 'Christian' clause

Why is there a 'citation needed' tag on the clause stating the term 'Christian' is first used in the New Testament in Acts 11:26? Maybe I'm missing something. The clause links directly to the verse. This verse is the first mention in the New Testament of the term. See here. —Aiden 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This just came to mind. Do scholars all agree that Acts predates 1 Peter? --Andrew c 22:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but that's not really at issue. The first place (in book order) you'll find mention of the term Christian is in Acts. I don't see the need for additional sources when we have a link to the verse itself. —Aiden 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the link to the verse itself doesn't show it's the first time it's used in the New Testament. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise removed - without comment - in just 11 minutes

Christianity is a religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament. Most Christians believe Jesus to be divine, one of three persons in a triune God, and refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion. [1]

• Aiden, how many reverts for you today? Did you even see this? Your remarks show no indication of working together on this issue --JimWae 23:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. I simply modified your addition to include something all Christians believe, something that better typifies Christianity. All Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, hence the term 'Christ', hence the term 'Christian'. You seem apt to highlight contentious issues in Christianity. —Aiden 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I did leave an edit summary with my reasons. And I think you'd know by now that changing articles which have been in some similair form for quite some time, especially intros, without first reaching a consensus is liable to get your reverted. Again though, I did not revert you; I only reworded some. I don't see what your issue is. —Aiden 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden if you undo another editor's work, it's a revert — whether you delete it, reword it, whether you revert to a previous version, or only part of one, and regardless whether you do a different thing each time, they're all reverts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A reword is not a revert, sorry. —Aiden 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, rewording had been counted as reverting in bannings against Giovanni, for this article specifically. Which would be a precedent that rewording is indeed a revert, assuming it substantially undoes what the previous editor had done.

KV 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Heading off an edit war.

Timothy Usher, I'd like to briefly explain why I felt it necessary to revert most of your changes. The main issue here is monotheism. Christians see themselves as monotheistic, and it would be POV for us to say otherwise. We must report what Christians believe about their own religion. However, we cannot decide whether these beliefs are true. It is a common belief among Muslims that Christianity falls short of true monotheism because they worship a mortal prophet -- Jesus -- as a god. Yes, I realize that trinitarianism says that God is one entity with three aspects, but this is clearly not accepted by Muslims. Who's right? Who cares?! We just report both sides. Given the number of Muslims out there, I hardly think they qualify as a minor view. They deserve a sentence or two, no?

Now, I encourage you to hash this issue out fully in Talk before making any edits at all that involve these topics. This will avoid an edit war. Thank you for understanding. Al 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a website, written by a Muslim, where she expresses her feelings on this issue. Should we use her as a source? No. I simply give this link to show how some Muslims view this question. She writes:

"no matter how much you claim that the Trinity is One God, it still mixes a human being (Jesus) with God, and thus results in worshiping either a deified human being (Jesus as God) or a micro-god (God with Jesus's human characteristics) and this is not monotheism. You are worshiping a false image not the real God."[[14]]

We ought to be respectful of different religions, and factually state what Christians believe, but not asserting those beliefs as being in themselves facts. There is a big difference. The fact that some of our Western sources are not respectful this way, and state Christian dogmas as being facts, does not mean that Wikipedia can do that too. We operate under different rules. - Drogo Underburrow 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As in my reply to King Vegita below, I want to see a reputable scholarly source advancing the argument that Christianity is polytheistic.

As for the comment you quote, that is actually a more accurate representation of Muslim belief than what we've seen thusfar. It's not that Christianity is polytheistic in the way we'd use the term, but that it's not pure monotheism in that it falsely assumes a human being to be God while ascribing human characteristics to God. That's a lot more subtle a point than "Christians worship several gods." I agree with them in this. But, it's not characterizable as "polytheism."Timothy Usher 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before. If people establish a religion and state what they believe, then that's what they believe--THAT is the religion! Who are we to tell people what their religion is and is not? Christians believe in only one God, although having three parts. This is totally different from polytheism. By definition, not by POV, Christianity is monotheistic. By inserting these weasel words you are inferring that Christianity is not in fact monotheistic, but is only believed to be by its followers. Secondly, please see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. As another editor said in the previous dicussion, simply because some groups consider Islam Satanic or based on polytheistic pagan beliefs, does that mean we are to qualify everything about Islam that is generally accepted in society? Why are you same people not putting such a qualifier in the Islam article? Are you advocating one POV over another? —Aiden 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See this definition of Christianity:

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

—Aiden 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken. Even if Christians define their religion as monotheistic, it is not up to us to support or deny this claim: we just report it.

Oh, and note that many definitions of Christianity somehow manage not to mention monotheism, so your point is diminished even on its own terms. For example:

"Christianity, n., pl. -ties.

1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches." - RHWUD

The bottom line is that it is as POV to assert that Christianity is in fact monotheistic as it would be to assert that Islam is in fact wrong. THat's because the former necessitates the latter. Al 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reputable scholarly sources

Replacing www.islamic.org.uk with www.muhammad.net is not adequate. We need reputable scholarly sources, not religious pamphleteering. This is because WP:NPOV does not include the ignorant point of view, which I allege is all this is. Show me an acknlowledged academic expert on Christianity who is claiming that Christianity is polytheistic. Then, we have something. Now, all we have is misunderstanding which believe it or not, despite WP:NPOV, doesn't count. That is why we have WP:V.

Also, Alienus, your allegations of "edit-warring" (in your edit summary), like charges you've put to other editors since your last unblock, is unwarranted, as I've been a regular contributor to this talk page, and have discussed this issue extensively above.Timothy Usher 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim is not that Christianity is polytheistic, but rather that Muslims claim that it is polytheistic. We don't need an expert on Christianity, but an expert on Islam.

KV 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For the "Controversies" section, you're right, as all this says is "Muslims believe...". But for the introduction hedge, I want to see a reputable scholarly and secular source.Timothy Usher 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a choice in the intro regarding monotheism. We can try and claim it is a fact that Christianity is monotheistic. To establish this as a fact, you need scientific proof. No such proof exists, because monotheism is simply a concept, and concepts are not facts, they are ideas. Or, you can state that Christians believe that Christianity is monotheistic, and I think most editors will accept that without any proof. Or, as a third and best solution, simply omit all reference to monotheism from the introduction. Please don't edit war insisting on the first choice. Drogo Underburrow 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no attempt to make any authoritative claim that Christianity is polytheistic, at least not from my efforts. The goal is to show that not all agree on that issue, and so we discuss it further in the article. We make the claim that Christianity is generally considered monotheistic, and there needs not be one scholar who thinks that Christianity is polytheistic for the term to be reduced to "generally considered" if 1.2 billion people think that it is.

KV 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"To establish this as a fact, you need scientific proof. No such proof exists, because monotheism is simply a concept, and concepts are not facts, they are ideas."

This is why we have dictionaries: Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Bartleby

In fact, that Christians believe they worship one God is proof, by the definitions given here (the first that popped up), because monotheism is defined as a belief. Please see my points well above, to which no one responded: the standard being suggested here, that the objects of worship must really be one God, requires us to determine the nature (and existence, as one is more than none) of that God.

"...if 1.2 billion people think that it is."

First, no one has shown that all 1.2 billion of them believe this, and for my part I seriously doubt it. Its appearance in polemic doesn’t mean all Muslims swallow it, and I personally know a few who don’t (although all object to the notion of Jesus as God, as stated, this is a different point). Second, yes we can ignore these voices, if they're based on ignorance rather than reputable scholarship. See Evolution, Earth, etc. Of course, we should mention that some disagree, but we cannot use them as a source for anything beyond the fact that they are saying this, as with creationists.Timothy Usher 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to prove that Christianity is polytheistic. That would be as silly as trying to prove it is monotheistic. There are no proofs of these ideas. This is not science, and we are not dealing with facts. That is why it is wrong of you to make the claim "Christianity is monotheistic". Its not. It says it is, and various scholars say it is, and that is all one can say about it. However, a lot of people, particularly Muslims, feel Christianity is not monotheistic, not in the sense that Islam is. Would you dispute that Muslims do not believe that the dogma of the Trinity is true? In that case, you have 1.2 billion people who object to your saying that the dogma of the Trinity is a fact and therefore Christianity is monotheistic. But that is in fact why Christianity is considered by its adherants as monotheism. Drogo Underburrow 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"No one is trying to prove that Christianity is polytheistic." - We realize this. Please check the dictionaries, and any other to which you might have access. As monotheism is defined as a matter of belief, all that we need to prove here is that Christians believe it so, just as that is all that's needed to show that Judaism or Islam are monotheistic. What some randomly-chosen Muslims feel actually doesn't matter in this regard, anymore than the fact that some Christian polemic claims that Allah is the name of a moon God prevents us from stating without reservation that Allah reflects merely al-ilah "the god." This is why we need reputable scholarly source. Generic sectarian ignorance is not a reputable scholarly source.

And you've yet to provide any evidence for your 1.2 billion figure - just because someone identifies themselves as a Muslim doesn't mean they believe Christianity to be "polytheistic", as this is hardly core doctrine. What is core doctrine is that Jesus is not God. So in the meantime, will you please stop making such claims?Timothy Usher 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christians aren't the only ones who think they're monotheistic. Any number of scholars of religion classify Christianity this way as well; we're not forced to only choose between what Christians claim and what some outspoken Muslims claim. Timothy is correct when he says that if belief in Christianity's polytheism is not mandatory dogma for all Muslims, then you need more specific sources to show how prevalent this belief is among Muslims. Wesley \

I would also like to point out that anyone who took the time to read the text of prayers used by Orthodox Christians would see that they very explicitly avoid offering worship to Mary or any other saint, and explicitly reserve their worship for God alone, who exists as a Trinity. I suspect that the same is true of Roman Catholic prayers. To suggest that we worship the saints as "demigods" or as anything else is demonstrably false, unless you refuse to distinguish between worship and veneration. Wesley \

Having said that, KV appears to be offering a reasonable compromise, along the lines of "Christians are generally considered to be monotheistic...." That looks like the best direction to take this. Wesley 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's reverts

Can someone come to a count on Aiden's reverts, it seems in the past 24 hours he's done at least 5 without me counting. I have to get to bed, so I can't do this right now.

KV 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo's Retraction Statement

I'm going to do something which might be rare here; I'd be curious to know other examples of it here on Wikipedia. What I'm going to do, is change my mind, and state that the opposition has convinced me that they are correct and I am wrong. I've argued very long and hard; now I've decided I was wrong. I now believe that its ok to state as a fact, that Christianity is monotheistic. Here's why I have changed my mind.

Timothy Usher has convinced me, it IS a matter of dictionary definitions, and my understanding of the meaning of "monotheistic" was wrong. Monotheism means to believe that God is one; it doesn't mean that God really is one. So, the mere fact that Christians profess that God is one, makes their religion monotheistic by definition. It doesn't matter if their reason for so believing is wrong. It doesn't matter if others think they are nuts. The only thing that counts, under the definition of monotheism, is for Christians to believe that God is one. I believe that Christians honestly do believe that. Therefore, its ok to state, "Christianity is monotheistic", as this means exactly the same thing as saying, "Christians believe that Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and the Father, are all one God." (or however they want to say it, I'm not 100% on their wording.

Its not POV to say "Christianity is monotheistic" because this IS saying that Christians believe in one God". It is not saying, "Only one God exists", nor is it saying that Christians are right to believe so. It is is simply stating what Christians believe, a point I was not aware of. Now, the only way "Christianity is monotheistic" would violate NPOV, is if other people believed that Christians were liars, and secretly believed that God was not one. If Muslims claim that Christians really believe that God isn't one, then the claim that Christianity is monotheistic becomes again a POV I don't think anyone makes that argument, but if they do, I will again have to rethink my opinion here. But Muslims simply think that Christians only think they believe in one God, but actually are believing in three gods. Am I right about this? On this revolves the whole issue, as it is the Muslim belief that really determines whether it is NPOV to state that "Christianity is monotheistic".

That is, because we only can state that as a fact if there is no one who believes otherwise; if any significant group of people, like 1.2 billion Muslims, believe that Christians don't believe in one God, are lying and secretly worship three gods, then we can't state it as a fact. Its my impression that Moslems do not assert that Christians are liars and secretly worship three Gods. What Moslems assert is that while Christians profess to believe in one God, they actually worship three. But that's ok, as long as Christians honestly profess a belief in one God, even if their dogma makes no sense, they have met the definition of monotheism, which is about belief only.

Congratulations, Timothy, you've convinced me. I hope you will think more kindly of me after this. Drogo Underburrow 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I think. Thank you. —Aiden 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The objection to stating Xty is monotheistic does not depend solely on what Xns profess. It is possible to believe 2 contradictory things - eg, both to believe that someone has betrayed you, and to not be able to believe it. Because, as even Xn scholars admit, the trinity is unfathomable - Xns believe in one god and also believe in (or think in terms of) three gods. To state unequivocally that trinitarianism is monotheism is POV. Xns do not lie about their beliefs, they are just unavoidably confused - because nobody can make sense of 3 "persons" being one entity. Unitarians split from the "mainstream" when their intellects could no longer accept the irrationality (in a non-pejorative sense) of a trinity. The solution for the article is to avoid the controversy/confusion over monotheism in the intro, but to present it only in the article where some discussion is possible. Xty is quite unique among extant religions in believing their founder is truly divine, and also quite unique in believing in a multi-"person" Godhead. Put the trinity in the intro, and monotheism in the main article. --JimWae 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Christianity is a religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament. Most Christians believe Jesus to be divine, one of three persons in a triune God, and refer to him as Jesus Christ.

We must not add our own criterion to what constitutes monotheism. I can't see the sense in it myself, but so what? If someone says that there is only one God, and he lives, in different personalities, both in their pet rock and in their chia pet, and take them as idols, they're still monotheists, even if they don't meet the stringent standards of Tawhid. Mystical and/or obscurantist, but still monotheistic.Timothy Usher 05:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I think you're missing the point. Monotheism is simply the belief in only one God. Christians believe in only one God, just with a different nature than Judaism and Islam. Thus, by definition, Christians are monotheistic. Now, no one is saying they are correct--Islam says that what Christians believe is one God is actually three, but that is neither here nor there. As Christians profess and truly do believe in the existence of only one God, they adhere to a monotheistic faith. It's as simple as that. You have to look at it in the context of the religion's beliefs. If Christians think there is only one God, their religion has only one God and thus by definition is monotheistic (believing in one god).

Secondly, Jim, you are just misinformed about Christian beliefs. Christians do not in one sense believe in one God but in another believe in three Gods. They believe in one God with three distinct parts, just as Christians believe humans have a spirit, soul, and body--this does not constitute three separate people, but simply three distinct parts that make up one person. Unitarianism simply rejects the Trinity in that they reject the existence of these three parts of God. None-the-less, you would be putting words into others' mouths to say that Christians believe in three dieties. No Christian will tell you there are three Gods. And since no Christian would ever do such a thing, all Christians believe in one supreme God, and are thus by definition monotheistic--whether they are right or wrong. —Aiden 06:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the idea of three aspects of one person has been rejected, and that the father, son, and holy spirit are regarded as three persons. This is a confusing idea and so it would be wrong to call the religion monotheistic as though that's an undisputed fact (as it is with Judaism, for example), and therefore it's more accurate to say that it's regarded as monotheistic by its followers, which is undoubtedly correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• If we are going to talk about what Xns think - as I did above - I am sure they think about much less unity than the doctrine states. I think even Aiden's paragraphs above would be considered heresy - since they have used an analogy in which not all "parts" have the same substance --JimWae 06:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An example of just how confusing it gets [15] — three persons, one essence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about whether Christians are wrong or right--whether the Trinity is actually three persons or one. It is about Christianity's beliefs. If Christians believe the Trinity is but one God, then they believe there is but one God. So by definition they are monotheistic in their beliefs. This in no way is implying that Christians are correct about the Trinity, that it constitutes only one diety. This simply states that Christianity and its beliefs hold that there is only one God, which is exactly what monotheism is-- a belief that there is only one God. —Aiden 06:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• And I am saying that what they assert differs considerably from what they think & say --AND even actually sometimes believe -- [User:JimWae|JimWae]] 06:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, the point is that it's disputed, and so Wikipedia can't write that it's monotheistic as though it is not disputed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is disputed is whether or not the Trinity is three Gods or one. It is not in dispute, however, that Christians believe it's only one. The latter is what determines whether the religion is monotheistic. —Aiden 06:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is disputed whether or not Xty is a "monotheistic religion", regardless of what its adherents assert --JimWae 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Then cite sources to prove that there is a difference between the two. Slac speak up! 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and JimWae, your contention that it's disputed is based on original research - namely, the philosophical speculations and considerations of editors to this talk page as to how monotheism should in our opinion be further defined. Based on this, you say the characterization is disputed, but only by ascribing novel meaning to well-established terminology.

Lest you think my claim of underlying OR a stretch, from WP:NOR: "An article qualifies as original research if...It provides new definitions of old terms." Similarly, I submit, if such definitions are implicit in the creation of the text.Timothy Usher 06:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• While monotheism might be defined as "belief in one god", and leaving aside for just a moment how beliefs can be determined when they are contradictory and/or cannot even be clearly put into words --- A "monotheistic religion" is defined as a religion with just one god. It is obviously in dispute whether the trinity is one god or 3 - as even Aiden admitted just above. Xns might assert one god, but they also "think & believe" otherwise --JimWae 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What group disputes the statement that Christianity is a monotheistic religion? Drogo Underburrow 06:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is monotheism defined as "a religion with just one god"? I think its defined in terms of belief, not in terms of facts such as you just stated. I don't have access to good dictionaries, so I'm asking. Drogo Underburrow 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The wording in dispute is "Xty is a monotheistic religion" not "Xians believe in monotheism" --JimWae 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is a monotheistic religion means the same as saying "Christians believe in one god". Drogo Underburrow 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit-conflicted post is remarkably like Drogo's: what you call "believing in monotheism" is by definition monotheism.Timothy Usher 07:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, as you are the one who convinced me. Drogo Underburrow 07:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• They are not "the same". Not all Republicans "believe in" every part of the party platform. Not all Xns "believe" every doctrine of Xty. The dispute stands. --JimWae 07:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest, in the interests of dispute resolution, that no harm is done to the article in completely leaving out the disputed word from the intro? Drogo Underburrow 07:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically, one side is correct, Christianity is indeed a monotheistic religion by definition; but in practice, Muslims in particular contest that the doctrine of the Trinity is a de facto form of polytheism, and hence we should not boldly proclaim monotheism without discussing the various issues involved? Drogo Underburrow 07:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, then cite reputable scholarly sources to that effect, and let us judge how much weight they merit.

As it is, the argument has changed several times - now it is no longer about Islamic critique of trinitarianism, but about whether some Christians might not follow orthodox doctrine (whereas before defiance of orthodox doctrine would have been a prerequisite for monotheism!).

It would seem that the continuance of the dispute is the only point beyond negotiation.Timothy Usher 07:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider my points in my last post. Also, as JimWae pointed out, what Christians believe is not a matter of what they say they believe, but what they actually do believe. If they believe in three gods, while saying they believe in only one, then how monotheistic are they? Drogo Underburrow 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have considered them, and agree that dispute resolution is a valid goal in itself.

The question you pose here, "...how monotheistic are they?" is not ours to answer. It presumes a redefinition of "monotheism" to something more approaching tawhid, which while similar is not identical. Far from hewing to a neutral point of view, it advances a certain purportedly objective concept of God, substituted for the non-judgemental relativism of definition by belief, such that Christianity can no longer be said to be uncontroversially monotheism (whereas to the very most skeptical, it's all made up anyhow, there is no God, so it can only be about belief.) It is a controversy only according to the introduction of this perspective, and as such reflects original research...unless we can find a reputable scholarly source which makes these claims, and even so, the question of due weight still applies.Timothy Usher 08:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave it out of the intro as a statement of fact as there is significant disagreement. If necessary move the "denominations" section to below the "beliefs" then the first thing the reader will come across is the fact that Christianity defines itself as monotheistic despite any outside misunderstandings of the nature of the trinity. Sophia 08:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. One dictionary definition of monotheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God". So if Christians have a doctrine that there is only one God, but in practice believe that there are three or even more gods (i.e. by praying to the Virgin Mary), then its not so clear that Christianity is monotheistic. Why not leave such hair-splitting issues to the body of the article where they can be covered, and simply omit the word "monotheism" from the intro? Drogo Underburrow 08:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, it is somewhat distortive to present this as a compromise: hasn't the goal here been precisely to remove the mention of monotheism from the introduction, or barring that, to conspicuously hobble it?

I don't have a problem with challenging this in an appropriate section later on in the article (the hair-splitting), but, the straightforward application of standard definitions should come first, without unwarranted qualification. Further, the challenge(s) should be sourced.Timothy Usher 08:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But the definition is not so straightforwardly applied here. If Christians appear to others to be worshipping multiple gods, and if they express beliefs that others say are polytheistic, then one cannot confidently be sure what they believe. And the dictionary definition is not "claiming to believe in only one God" but "believing in only one God". Drogo Underburrow 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's distortive is to present as fact an opinion not shared by a significant number of groups. As Drogo says - the concept of the Trinity is complex - even Christian denominations such as Jehovah's Witnesses would not agree with mainstream Christian groups on this one. No one is trying to "hobble" anything - we are writing an encyclopedia not an apologist statement. Sophia 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But the determination of monotheism by its standard definition is itself not complex, nor is it controversial, except according to the original research/philosophical speculations and interpretations occuring on this page.Timothy Usher 09:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The internal definitions and beliefs of a group are not universal facts to be accepted by all. It may come as a suprise to you that many do not agree but the article needs to be NPOV. [16] [17] [18] Sophia 10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They may not all agree on what exactly the trinity is, but i've never heard of a single group of Christianity or ever heard of or talked to any Christian who has said, with confidence, that they believe in three separate gods and worship them all. The trinity can be as complex and as complicated as people want it to be, but in the end, who is actually worshipping Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost as three compleatly separate gods? Because if nobody is, then there is no polytheism here, whether the trinity is a confusing definition or not. Homestarmy 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More on monotheism (to prevent the thread from getting too long

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definitions:

• Monotheistic — Of, relating to, or characterized by monotheism; having the beliefs of a monotheist. Of a god: regarded as unique.
• Monotheism — The doctrine or belief that there is only one God (as opposed to many, as in polytheism).

Note that it's not defined as "the belief that one believes in and worships one God".

Now I don't think there can be any question that Christian Churches teach that there is one God, or that Christians believe there is one God. The POV is not whether Christians believe that there is one God (it's a fact that they do); the POV is whether or not it is logical or reasonable for them to believe there is one God when they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The very first words in the ancient Nicene Creed are Credo in unum Deum — I believe in one God. The (also ancient) Athanasian Creed says something like "So is the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God. And yet they are not three gods but One God." I think we're getting confused about whether the issue is whether Christianity teaches that there is one God (which it does, and which is what monotheism means) or whether it's logical for them to teach that when they recognize Three Persons as One God. Even Moslems, if they doubt the logic of the Christian position, cannot deny that Christianity teaches that there is one God.

If I state officially that my bedroom wallpaper is pink, and then elaborate on it so that you realize I think the colour is a mixture of blue and yellow, you can then say that my wallpaper is green, or that I'm crazy to say that it's pink, but you cannot deny that I state officially that it is pink. (Not that I'd want to imply that the doctrine of the Trinity is as crazy as thinking that blue and yellow make pink — but just giving an example that for you to acknowledge that I officially say something does not mean that you have to think it makes sense.)

In my view, to challenge the monotheistic nature of Christianity based on Islamic belief that Christians can't really believe in one God is a little bit like denying the theistic nature of Christianity based on atheists' belief that there is no God, so Christians can't really be worshipping Him — it's not a theistic religion, because although they think they worship a God, they don't really, since there is no God for them to worship.

Ask any Christian priest or theologian or peasant or seven-year-old child from a catechism class "how many Gods are there", and you will always get the same answer — "one". Because that is what Chrisianity teaches. I stress again that monotheism is not the belief that one believes in one God: it is the belief that there is one God, without reference to whether or not the believer can logically hold that belief in combination with his or her other beliefs. AnnH ♫ 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Monothesism and Wiki's Razor

OK, so I made up the term as a tip to Ockam's Razor!

This whole discussion is very nice, but the WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR policies require all this to be documented. So, folks, everything should be sustaiable from legitimate sources. Who's got them? --CTSWyneken 10:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful you don't cut yourself! Actually you'll find a lot of quotes by Christian sites saying it's monotheistic. That's not the same as saying it as a fact. You either say Christianity defines itself as such or avoid it in the intro and explain the unique Christian concept of monotheism a bit later on in the article. Sophia 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)