Talk:Christianity

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Older archives
Before July 2003 More old debate

Dispute-In-a-Nutshell

side A

Esmehwp, Thatso, Giovani + others

Believe that a Criticism section should be included in this article for details of different versions, of the proposed section read through article history and discussion.

side B

A criticism section of the religion as a whole should not be added for, but rather, a section about internal disputes that have led to the many denominations and variations, for this would provide both criticisms held of certain forms of Christianity, and a better perspective of Christians in general, and how they have shaped their religion.

discussion

This is a rather awkward section all of a sudden. Right before its creation, Esmehwp went into a bit of a rant against those that diagree with him, ending by saying he was esentially withdrawing from editing this article. (See [1]) Then his comments were self-deleted from the talk page, so they don't even appear. I'm not sure if that means he withdraws his withdrawal, just regretted his comments, or what. But I think this Dispute discussion would have been appropriate a few days ago. Now it may not be necessary, and may just open up some old wounds. If others disagree, feel free to comment here. By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Side B advocate. --Anietor 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah consensus was reached with this already--two days ago. The last directly related comment was at 17.25 11 August. And yes I'm also on the B side. Carl.bunderson 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

this is the correct way of resolving disputes not going on rants giving up or lying about other people accepting consensus I accepted the changes just before it was shown to be short lived and futile this is the way its going to be:no criticism section, discussion here, TAG up on article OR critism section up tag gone discussion finished.Esmehwp 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bible worshiping worms?"[2] I tried to remove the criticism section from Islam as well, for the same reason: it's unencyclopedic.Proabivouac 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...he's ba-ack. And with some more classic comments about "this is the way its going to be" and "discussion finished". That's not the way things get resolved, Esmehwp. And deleting your prior comments once you're called on them (See [3]) and deleting everyone's comments from your own discussion page won't hide your true colors. Please either talk in a civil respectful manner, or follow through on your previous "threat" to give up on us. --Anietor 06:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok for the record I want to apologise for puting up those comments I was fustrated and i'm not perfect i'm sorry and i didn't want to hide anything i just didn't want to offend anyone.Esmehwp 06:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I meant this discussion in this section not discussion as a whole sorry if it came off wrongEsmehwp 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

and I like my discussion and user page empty thank you very much and I'd appreciate if you respcted that and I cant and dont intend to hide anything if you are done with me can we please focus on the article?

also I wear glasses so you can call me four eyes if you wish Esmehwp 06:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

also I'm 6 foot 9inches so you can call me "tiny" or "ladder"... go ahead... hope it makes you feel better  :) Esmehwp 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Esmehwp, the only difference between the version you agreed with and the current version is these sentences [4]. These don't really add anything to the article because they just say: there are criticisms of christianity and nothing beyond it. If you replace "Christianity" with any other religion and "Church" with their organization, you'll get a valid statement. So, please let me know why is that so important in changing your views about the neutrality of the article? --Aminz 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

that tiny bit was the least that I could accept.... on a good day AND if the rest of the editors were willing to defend its existance AND I thought there was good faith to be gained but seeing as compromise is not on the table and if we don't constantly watch and work on the article it will be sanitised thouroughly then a different approach seems to be called for, one that respectfully accepts that a large number of editors are irrevocably against including any mention of fact that christianity is today dismissed by a significant, powerful and growing section of humanity and has always had criticism against it along with all other religions. now we propose to present this fact in a very toned down and round about way so as not to offend too many people too much, but you dont agree so we have a dispute.

put yourself in my place if the world was athiestic and you were among the tiny 3-12% of believers who in fact controlled everything from behind the scenes. Wouldn't you want a criticism section up on the athiesm article?!!! you know... to totally complete your circle of control over the majority athiests... and add to you influence among the impressionable young who are so easily influenced by what they read online  ;)

dont take me too seriously i cant help teasing

Esmehwp 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive removed the tag for aesthetic purposes please continue discussion as before or restore tag if you feel it appropriate.Esmehwp 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Str1977's changes.

Str977 recently made a pair of changes without leaving an edit comment. This would be a fine place to explain the reasons so that nobody just reverts the changes. ThAtSo 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed through the archives to look for my unexplained changes and found two:

• [5]: As said elsewhere, a section about persecution is not about criticism of Christianity and hence should not link to it as a main article (which is supposed to have the same topic as the section). Making Hypatia more concise has been explained elsewhere, I fact tag I removed as I don't think that anyone doubts this. If so, please restore.
• [6]: the Mountain of the Sermon is neither Mount Zion nor does it represent Mount Zion. The passage I removed implied that "other individuals" (what a terrible expression) denied the validity of the Ten Commandments. This would certainly be a fringe view. "the old law has been done away with" means something else - and even that issue is not properly covered here.

If I have missed the changes you were referrin to, please notify me on my talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Persecution section

I am not sure if (at least some part of) this section really belongs to this article. This article is about Christianity and not the deeds of whoever happens to be Christian. Many of the persecuters probably had other motives (economical, political, social, etc etc) and, furthermore, they may not have been Christians by definition (follow teachings of Christ) as opposed to a Christian by conviction. --Aminz 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it belongs just fine and could be expanded. What happened to the controversy section? It looks like some editors have removed both the section and the information that was added to the body of the article. I guess this means we should re add the category itself, or do editors still agree the points should be within the body of the article? It looks like POV pushing to me to keep removing this information.75.48.2.41 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rereading the article I think there is too much that comes from a particular branch within Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole. Persecution is a particularly messy problem because most Christan persecution came from other Christan groups under the charge of Heresy. For example, the Gnostics were persecuted for their beliefs as were Mormons. In fact, some Christians even try to denigh these groups are Christian because of their polytheistic teachings. The article is getting a little unwieldy and perhaps so effort at pulling some denominational stuff out into separate articles is in order.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim a lot without substantiating it. Gnostics were not persecuted on a large scale by other Christians as they flourished way before Christians had any power (of course there are instance of Gnostic groups later own who were persecuted). Mormons definitely were not persecuted very much by others, even if only because they left. In both cases the classification as Christians is controversial at best. If they groups are polytheists they definitely are not Christians. It is strange that you think such a classification as worse ("even") than persecution. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but everybody but right wind fundamentalist theologians accept that Gnostics and Mormons are Christian groups even though they have polytheist beliefs (The Encyclopedia Britannica, religious tolerance and many other sources admit this). The persecution of any form of Christianity that did not conform to local views is well documented and doing googling will produce reams of articles. The Mormons left because they were persecuted (the [Light Planet] fully documents this. Similar articles regarding Gnostic persecution can also be found. As I have said before you don't need references out the wazoo to show the sky is blue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Begotten

Thank you for your vote of confidence, Anietor. I feel like Ross has a point, too, though. I looked for some articles we could wikilink to; unfortunately Begotten is apparently some mindless movie. However, wikilinking begotten to Eternity is an option. It might be best to leave it as it is, unexplained, and hope people will avail themselves of a dictionary if needed, but this is a possibility. Discuss amongst yourselves ;) Carl.bunderson 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Jesus article it says "only-begotten (unique) Son". I will look at other Bible translations to see what they have for John 3:16 ^rossnixon 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it means that Christ is eternal; i.e. he isn't a creature. As in the Creed, where we say he is "eternally begotten of the Father/God from God....begotten not made, one in being with the Father..." Carl.bunderson 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your theology here completely. But the sentence reads like an extract from John 3:16 KJV. The greek here does not mean eternal (correct me if I'm wrong!). We get eternal Son from the understanding of other verses. ^rossnixon 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think Jn 3.16 is well enough known that it doesn't need to be cited as a ref for the sentence. I actually didn't realize it at first, it just seems so natural. Carl.bunderson 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "begotten" derives from the term "begat" as in the geneologies. See Matt 1. In this sense the "Only Begotten Son", means that Jesus was the only literal descendant of God the Father and as such the only rightful heir. See Heb 1:2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 05:01, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

If "Begotten" is a movie we shouldn't link to it. Linking to anything else is problematic too so it is best left without a link, directing the reader to an article on Jesus etc.

The exact passage in the creed emphasizes that Jesus is the only actual, begotten (not "adopted") Son of God.

"Begotten" denotes that the Son was not created by the father but was "of one substance" with the father. (Just as a human father doesn't create a child but begets one, just as the child is human like the father.) Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Str here; no link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro

With an estimated 1.9 billion adherents in 2007, Christianity is the world's largest religion

Citation is needed here. Gagueci 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Njnikusha 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Question. lot of web-sites and even some articles in wikipedia state that christianity has over 2 billion in some cases 2.1 billion mambers but in here its decreased to 1.9 billion. so which statistics are the correct ones????

No one knows, but, however, most of the sites I visited can agree that 33% of the world's population is Christian. --Imhungry 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we don't have a reference for the 1.9 billion statement. So I put a "citation needed" tag on it. 33% sounds like a just share, though. One third for the Muslims, one third for the Christians and one third for the rest :-) Alfons Åberg 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a cite at www.adherents.com - not sure if that is sufficient. Is there no 'world census' site that we can use for this? SparrowsWing _(talk) 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid the adherents.com site will not do, it cannot be considered a reliable source. I will demonstrate this problem. If you want to determine the percentage of Christians in a population, you’ll have to go and ask people about their beliefs. If you don’t, you’re heading for trouble. Just as an example, adherents.com has incorporated statistics of the Lutheran (dominant) churches of Denmark, Norway and Sweden in their material. According to these statistics, 87%, 90% and 79.6% respectively of the populations of these countries are members of the national churches. However, according to a Eurobarometer survey (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf - p. 9), only 31%, 32% and 23% respectively of the population believe in God in the first place. God knows how big this discrepancy is on a world scale – but adherents.com don’t know. So basically, the info on adherents.com cannot substantiate a 2.1 billion figure (or any other figure on the world scale). I am reverting the last edit by SparrowsWing, as this edit does not conform to WP:VERIFY. Best regards, Alfons Åberg 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

www.cia.gov gives 33% of world religion as Christian. This info is compiled from nation's stats. Given current world population of +/- 6,613,671,241 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) this gives +/- 2.1 billion. SparrowsWing _(talk) 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done Gagueci 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, no matter how we go about this, our claims have to be verifiable. Unfortunately, the CIA info is suffering from the same flaws as the adherents.com site. Just to demonstrate this, the CIA source says that 98%, 90.1% and above 87% of the populations in the countries I mentioned above, are Christians. This is simply not true (as per my previous comment). SparrowsWing, by providing the CIA source as a replacement for the erroneous adherents.com source, you are only replacing one unreliable source with another unreliable source. This does not conform to WP:VERIFY. So I am removing the CIA source and adding a comment about the general problem with statistical data in this field. Alfons Åberg 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We must report information that is verifiable in reliable sources. We must present that information in proportion to its appearance in recent reference material. We are not permitted to use our own research, theories or thoughts in articles, including through synthesis, as this is prohibited original research. This is not the place to debate your opinion of those claims and facts. If you disagree with the assertion, please find verifiable information from reliable references to present an opposing view, preferably a reference with an equitable, or better, reputation for accuracy and fact-checking as the government source. Addressing your edit specifically, some of it was fundamentally flawed. For example, presenting the number of Lutherans and the number of all Christians as contradictory is a fallacy, as there is no contradiction between those numbers. The EU site is currently being very slow (attempts to download or access the document stall), but question formulation is large matter in such surveys. For example, a common formulation is asking whether or not people believe in a "personal God", which many interpret to mean a G-d who currently intervenes directly in human affairs, which many Christians do not believe. I'll check the source to see more specifically what it says (if it reveals that information). Vassyana 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The download of the pdf is still stalling. I will continue to attempt to access the document. Vassyana 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adherents is a reputable source. Alfons, your problem is with the site and simply because you disagree with it does not mean it is not a reputable source. I agree with Vassyana, find a reputable source a quote it, but the source must address the total figure of Christians. If you want to attack the Adherents methodolgoy, that would be for another article. Also, attempting to define the beliefs of individuals is impossible; personal beliefs differ from beliefs/doctrines taught by individual religions or churches. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really important because it's a bogus number anyway. Christians themselves can't agree on who actually is a Christian. Actually are those Christians who can't agree on who is a Christian Christians themselves? True Christians at that? You get the point...--Svetovid 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

33% is an old statistic that has been jumping around for quite a time now. A new survey is needed to determine how many christians there are. Until then, all numbers are mere speculations.216.99.60.106 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, i'd say 1 out of 50 christians is a devout christian, maybe less.. so that brings the population down to somewhere around 40 Million..:D 216.99.60.106 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Christianity by Country Article, christians total between 1.68 - 1.99 billion. The article also mentions CIA factbook's contradiction of numbers: while it says that there are about 2.1 billion christians, if you add up the individual numbers, it turns out to be quite less..around 1.8 billion216.99.60.106 01:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's purely original research. Even a dated survey is not speculation. "Devout" was never an issue is the door for subjective speculation. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Christianity by Country gives the best estimate to the number of christians as of today. Atleast it's not outdated like many other sources..216.99.60.106 01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Adherents.com is accurate, in the sense that the site collects all available statistics, good and bad. "2.1 billion" (give-or-take) is surely the number of *nominal Christians*, while the number of *self-identified* Christians is some unknown percentage of that. Both are meaningful. If someone is born into a Christian family, and vaguely exposed to the religion on holidays or weddings / funerals (even if he becomes an atheist), that's important. In the Middle East, when people ask about your religion, nobody cares very much what *you* believe--they want to know what your father was, and what identity group you belong to. For the sake of comparison, oft-encountered figures of 1 billion + for Islam are made on the same basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.168.222 (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My obvious suggestion is to include a range. 1.7-2.1 billion or something like that. Basejumper2 12:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just leave as is. it's a 'given' that the figure is 'nominal'. A lot of muslims will be nominal - just going along with convention to avoid hassles. ^rossnixon 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

When the God in Christianism was created?

Some people say: When the Chinese philosopher Ji Liang said the dictum that "People is the origin of gods" or "People is the master of gods" (see: Zuo Zhuan · The Sixth Year of Heng Gong) in more than 2700 years ago, the ideas and concepts of God in Christianism had probably not been created by Jewish people. (季梁∶“夫民，神之主也”（見：《左傳·桓公六年》）。當中國哲學家季梁提出人是神的主的時候，基督教裏面的神可能還沒有被猶太民族創作出來。) I have a question: when the God in Christianism was created? -Scienting 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianism could mean either Dominionism or Christianity, you'll have to be more specific. Homestarmy 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I regard the God in Christianity, Dominionism and Judaism to be the same one, although among them there may be some differences in the views towards the God. And Christianism came from Judaism. Right? If not the same, then when the God in Christianity was created? -Scienting 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, the Judeo-Christian, or Abrahamic, religions are generally considered to worship the same G-d. However, it is not unusual for Jewish and Muslim critics to claim that mainstream Christianity worships a different G-d. This is based on the view that the Trinity is not strict monotheism, which is generally demanded in Judaism and Islam. Such critics would claim that the Christian G-d has more in common with Neo-Platonic philosophy, than with the Jewish/Islamic G-d. Also, some denominations of Christians claim that some groups such as Roman Catholics, Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses do not worship the "true" G-d. Vassyana 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the question. How are the views of one Chinese philosopher who lived 3000 years ago relevant to this article? Do we need to subscribe to his views. Certainly the question is a loaded one. The very first Christians were Jews. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very valuable and essential question since God is the core of Christianity. We could not know well about Christianity if we do not know well about God. To clarify and answer this question, we need to review and examine the history of both Christianism and Judaism, I suppose. --Amelika 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is being asked, albeit with messy terminology, is a question of which most Christians are often only dimly aware. I've always felt that the Imago Dei gets it wrong. It is not we who are made in God's image, but we who create a God in an image which suits our needs. We all do it, it's inherent to being human. It stands as the reason for different denominations in Christianity and for different religions in general, it is also why most theologians write about apophasis at one point or another. The question is one of conceptual idolatry. When we talk about "God" are we just talking about some personified moral ideal--which invariably is dependent on and reflective of us? Or are we actually talking about what is beyond our ideas about the justice, morals, and Being we have as a product of our culture? Therefore, I would say that the very instant we say, "I am a Christian," we have made our own little idol in the form of Christianity's God, and it is the task of our religious path to kill it. Our particular religious traditions stand to both help and hinder us in this task. The "God of Christianism" is made anew by each believer. MerricMaker 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

a paradigm of sociologist babble. i mean this as a compliment, as it was an interesting read. however, what's the relevance? and is there a citation? and if you're looking for critique, it is a novelty to say that each individual creates his own image - which is only true insofar as each individual has his own individual perception of the idea of God, for each mind makes its own impressions - but the idea of God is usually transmitted socially (which is the traditional route of critique of religion as being indoctrinated). the other thing it implies is that ppl are utilitarian in everything that they do, that there is no uprightness or honesty, so i guess that would leave me doubting your own intentions, if your statement was even true. if ppl cannot make an unselfish concept of good or truth, why would i think you are not selfish in all things that you do, like posting your message above? The Jackal God 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by ppl? I think you two are not answering the question. Or you misunderstood what I'm asking. Surely you can say that every believer of the same religion has his or her own image of God(s)(in some religions there are many gods) in mind, and the images differs from one to another. However, for every believer, the image of god(s) comes primarily from the religion he or she believes. What I'm asking is when the God cited in Christianism (or Judasim, actually they share the same origin) was created? -Scienting 11:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe ppl is Internet shorthand for "people." Most of the answers you're getting for your question as to the creation of God are addressing the conceptual issue of God. At least that's how I took it because this is what Ji Liang seemed to indicate by his statement. In saying "People is the origin of gods," he seems to be saying in this translation, "People create gods, without people to worship them, there would be no Gods." However, what you seem to want an answer to is the actual concrete question of when the God of the Abrahamic religions came into existence.

Historically, this God was one among many such Gods, every tribe had their own God, worshiped it and recognized it as supreme for their own village, but did not discount the existence of other Gods specific to other villages. The early Jews actually believed that their God lived in Jerusalem, within the confines of the temple and could therefore only be properly worshiped there; this form of religion is called henotheism. Following Israel's defeat and captivity in Babylon someone wrote, "how can we sing the songs of our fathers in this foreign land." In other words: how can we sing songs of devotion to our God when we were defeated in battle, our temple destroyed, and hundreds of miles from that God's domain? Gods were, in henotheism, parts of the community who were supposed to do their job, just like the King, farmers, and everybody else. Such a god could be defeated along with its people, and if so, what good is it since it is supposed to protect the people? Some Jews held in captivity converted to local religions, abandoning their tribal identity. As a result of these experiences, Jews were forced to reevaluate their understanding of God. They returned from the Babylonian exile with a broadened perspective and following a full monotheism which is still being followed today.

Now then, your question of when this God came into being is a rather funny one. It skewers Christianity (which is basically just a weird Jewish sect that got really big) by asking where our God came from. Above is the historical pedigree of that God, so that's where it came from in a social sense. But you're more interested in the question someone once joked that God sits around and ponders, "if I made the universe as well as time itself, who made me?" The answer I would give (as a Whiteheadian and borderline pantheist) is that "God" is the word which people apply to a unifying factor within the universe which exists in some dynamic capacity in all processes; temporal, cosmological, biological, and psychological. Some people need to personify this figure, some prefer not to, some acknowledge no such unifying factor called "God" and chalk it all up to natural processes, which is essentially correct, so who cares. By saying this, I'm saying that this God is this process of universal growth and change, as well as being the process of change within me.

So, knowing all of that history and knowing that both Freud and Tillich were correct to suggest that Christian faith in God is a coping mechanism in response to the inevitability of death, I still believe in God, it's just very important to clarify just what you mean by "God," which is obvious based on the responses you've been getting. MerricMaker 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're uncritically buying the most radical possible (or formerly possible) position on the dating of the Old Testament texts. You are retailing here an entirely speculative just-so story for the origin of Jewish religion, which fits the late dating but has literally nothing else to be said in its favor.

Unfortunately for your theory, the most radically skeptical positions have been repeatedly discredited by archeology (e.g., [7]). A.J.A. 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, check WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT please, especially WP:FORUM. Could you guys maybe bring this back around to the purpose of a talk page -- namely, improvement of the article? Jpers36 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy has a question. Is not the overarching purpose of Wikipedia to answer questions? MerricMaker 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- through presentation of sourced and verifiable information on article pages, not through discussion on talk pages. Talk page discussion is reserved for discussion of improvements to the article. Jpers36 14:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think no such substantive growth results from the reasoned discussion of an issue? MerricMaker 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, an official Wikipedia policy -- specifically WP:FORUM (sentence bolded by me):

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board.

Jpers36 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And quite right, too. But the person who posted the question (Scienting) had created no such talk page and may not have the knowledge to use such a venue. The question was therefore being addressed in the only available, albeit inappropriate, forum. MerricMaker 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Look it.

This Talk page is not a blog/chatroom/discussion forum for promoting anti-Christian agendas. The original "question" is ill-posed and irrelevant to the article. LotR 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the question is badly posed, but it is never a waste of time to explore God concepts other than the old white dude in the sky. There's nothing anti-Christian about that exploration and it sells the breadth of the tradition short to suggest it is. Would it be better to have an article that only addresses a static view of God? This would be a wild misrepresentation of the faith and render a one-dimensional article. MerricMaker 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to get drawn into this discussion, but I believe you are acting in good faith, so I cannot help but to reply that there is nothing within Christian theology that has ever proposed that the Godhead is an old white dude in the sky. This may have been the traditional artistic expression of the First Person of the Trinity, and many believers may even have this imagery in their minds, but I don't think this is what is advanced in this article. The article does not advocate Christianity as being The One True Faith, nor does it advocate the opposite. It merely presents the facts about the base belief system, and these facts are well sourced. But further discussion really ought to be taken to a User Talk page. LotR 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us consider this case closed. There is nothing to be gained from debating this further, unless it is of relevance to the article, of which I see none as of yet. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, I don't believe the issue is relevant to the article and hence it doesn't belong here. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Today, people believe that if someone believes in a god or gods, then they have a religion. This has been true until the birth of Christ. What is a religion? A religion is when there is a divine being, who requires the "lower" man to worship and preform specific rituals or commands man to perform something for his own honor. However, according to the Bible, man is a sinner. The Bible is commanding us to always do the right thing. Then, Christ, the Lord, came down in the flesh of man. The definition of sinning is death and destruction. Jesus did nothing wrong, but was killed. How does this make sense, then? It doesn't. When he died, after doing nothing wrong, death itself turned around, so that even if a man is a sinner, then he can live for an eternity. Now, all what man must do is love and create a personal relationship with Jesus, and our loving God will take us to a place where no sin has ever been committed: Heaven. This contradicts the principles of a religion. Unfortunately, people nowadays have no understanding of the Gospel, and many people's foolishness and pride condemn them to an eternity of torture and pain. Even though it is so simple, man cannot overcome their pride. Love is what Christianity is about, not the specific rules we should be following. It is not a rule-based belief. The rules are still to be followed, but when you break them, it is not a condemnation to Hell. Christianity is a belief, not a religion. It is a relationship. God may be the power of the universe and beyond, but he can still be a friend, for he is a loving God. I cannot prove that He exists, but nobody can prove that He doesn't exist. Some Christians have physically seen, heard, and felt Jesus. For all others, the only evidence of Christ is the power and vigor of love, which has transformed even the most stubborn of men. People of the world see Christians as weak, but the stronger Christians have overcome fear, and have been even tortured for Christ. It is only through Jesus's power that they can accomplish such deeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.108.111 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you about the lessened dependence upon practices, polity, and rules. After all, part of Jesus' campaign went up against the legalistic bean-counting practices of the Pharisees, but your definition of religion is problematic. What about traditions which we call religion, but which are explicitly atheist in orientation? Orthodox Buddhism is a religion, but it has no higher being to which adherents make supplication for their souls. What about aboriginal religions? Lindbeck's definition of religion is a bit more flexible, so long as it is used with a few provisos. Religion, Lindbeck states in The Nature of Doctrine, "can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought...It is not primarily an array of beliefs about the true and the good...it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments." Now, obviously, this is so broad as to include too much, but the definition which is dependent on "God," which is a rather Western-centric idea, is too narrow. MerricMaker 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormon spin and the love of controversy

I recently edited the comments regarding the LDS religion. My objective was to stick strictly to LDS canon given the links to main articles about the subject. AJA reverted with the comment that it was necessary to either portray where Latter-day Saints differ from orthodoxy or it would be required to not mention them at all. Although I reject the premise given because it has no basis in logic and because it would completely obviate the value wikipedia policy, I thought it would be worth a spin (excuse the pun) here.

First, the article already makes it clear that Mormonism, JWs, etc. are heretical; I assume that means these religions are outside of the bounds of orthodoxy? Is saying it not enough or are you seekign something more? If not, please disabuse me such fallacious understanding. Second, the edit in question specifically states that LDS believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones; is there any other Christian religion that believes such a doctrine? If not, then I would assume the difference between orthodoxy and LDS doctrine is already further made clear. Again, please correct me if I am missing something significant. Third, everything I edited comes directly from LDS canon, which for this article is of utmost importance. Fourth, Mormonism, the Latter Day Saint movement is something that is much larger than the LDS church and the beliefs are not uniform. This reason strongly supports the need for keeping comments to canon and not the peculiar beliefs of one group within the movement.

Now, please explain the need for the revert? If it will be necessary to include this information on one group within the movement, it would seem logical to provide an explanation of such beliefs. Of course, it if it is not already abundantly clear that LDS are not within the bounds of 4th century orthodoxy, exactly what is the motivation for the spin, I mean revert? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts to your obfuscation.

1. The orthodox also believe that the three Persons of the Trinity are united in will and purpose; the word "only" makes it clear where the distinction lies. The part about "three beings" could, but only to a reader who is already well informed about the theology involved. An uninformed reader, as you wrote it, would come away with no more information than the fact that Mormons are not modalist, and perhaps with the impression that modalism is the alternative to Mormonism. I believe this is intentional; in my experience, you will not discuss your religion in good faith.

1. You choose to write at length about the physical body issue, and ignore the fact that you removed the mention of the Mormon belief that God was deified at some point in the past, whitewashing just how radically Mormonism departs from not only "4th century orthodoxy" but from theism.

Neither change is defensible. You have already begun bad faith accusations that long-standing straightforward statement of fact is spin, probably to distract attention from that that you're spinning. Because, according to every poorly-educated "elder" out there, the only place to learn about something is from the people with an interest in selling it to you. Isn't that right? A.J.A. 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, both changes are more in line with actual LDS theology, and not LDS speculation. There is no canonized document that says what the state of God was before he was God. Furthermore, Jesus Christ was God before the foundation of the Earth. So, what was the status of the Father before the foundation? It is speculation and many Mormons will debate the nature and status of God, so to say that he is was "deified" is simply false, because Jesus Christ was never "deified". He was always God.

Point two, the "only" limits the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are not physically the same being, but their connection and unity cannot be devalued by using the term "only". They are connectd in a way that we cannot understand and to say the are united "only" in purpose diminishes the unity of them. Bytebear 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as "speculation", Joseph Smith called them "the revelations of Jesus Christ". So who is a reliable source about Mormonism, you, or Joseph Smith?

As for "only" name some other way Mormons consider them united, back it up, and put it in the article. Otherwise leave "only" alone. A.J.A. 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this [8] "It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead." - Gordon B. Hinkley

Bytebear 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're accusing us of believing that the Persons are less than perfectly united in their wills (which would be incoherent, given the rest of Trinitarian doctrine), you're ignoring my point about making the distinction between orthodoxy and Mormonism clear. Which defeats the point of having a Talk page, doesn't it? A.J.A. 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is is "us" against "them" or you? I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am making the article reflect the references cited. You are adding the weasel word "only" in an attempt to deflate the perfectness of their union. Would you say "Jesus is mearely perfect?" If not, then why say "God and Jesus are mearely perfectly united in purpose" I changed "only" to "mearely" to show you how the word devalues the statement.

Also before you revert my changes about "God is a spirit", read this [9]: "Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. Jesus’s declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body." - Gordon B. Hinkley.

Bytebear 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A long-winded way of saying you have no interest in dialogue, only in puffing your own sect. A.J.A. 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your statement "Unless you're accusing us of believing that the Persons are less than perfectly united in their wills" tells me that you want a theological debate, and not looking at ways to improve the article. If not, then please define "us" and "them" so I can understand. All I am doing is making sure the article is accurate. If you want to debate the differences between Mormons and other sects, go to Mormonism and Christianity. Otherwise, this article is simply stating the facts about various christian sects. There should be no comparisons at all, just stated facts. Mormon theology is just as valid as any other on Wikipedia. Bytebear 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say "them"? A.J.A. 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not avoid the issue by nit picking. Bytebear 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You make up words and put them in my mouth and then have the nerve to demand I defend them. And when I point out I never said what you're asking me to define, I'm avoiding the issue. No. You're deliberately throwing up smoke. My posts were perfectly clear, and you're avoiding it because your only purpose here is adding sectarian bias to the article. A.J.A. 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Unless you're accusing us of believing that the Persons are less than perfectly united in their wills (which would be incoherent, given the rest of Trinitarian doctrine), you're ignoring my point about making the distinction between orthodoxy and Mormonism clear." How am I misinterpreting this. It is clear you are trying to make a distintion between orthodoxy and Mormonism, but I am saying there is an article for that, and it isn't this one. If I am mistaken, please clarify. Bytebear 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not mistaken, you're lying. You choose, now, to address my point, and you present that as if it were your initial reaction, when it's clear a few lines up that it wasn't.

But thanks for confirming there was no ambiguity that may have confused you. A.J.A. 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, and please tell me where I lied. Bytebear 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"You present that as if it were your initial reaction, when it's clear a few lines up that it wasn't." Which, as you know, I already said. Yet now you demand I tell you as if I hadn't just done it.

Are you capable of saying anything in good faith? A.J.A. 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Again a personal attack. I asked to show where I lied, and you quote yourself? Bytebear 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to tell you where you lied and I quoted myself telling you where you lied, thereby demonstrating that your request had been fulfilled before you asked it (if you had any sincere interest in the answer, you would have noticed it the first time). But, as with most of this conversation, you knew that. You're still throwing up smoke because you're wrong and you know you're wrong. A.J.A. 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-read my posts, and they are consistent, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs)

<CR> Please focus on content, not editors WP:EQ. LotR 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LotR is correct; focus solely on content. The current state of the article is better and accurate. The topic of this article is CHRISTIANITY; it is not the differences in LDS theology and orthodoxy. As already pointed that article is at Mormonism and Christianity. I will state again, the Latter Day Saint movement is a significantly broader movement than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All doctrines presented as Mormonism should meet the standards of the movement as a whole unless you are attempting to address solely the beliefs of the LDS church, which I think would be best addressed under other topics, but I am more than happy to comply with your wise guidance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

talk page

I'm thinking that this talk page needs one of those {{calm talk}} templates Connör ^(talk) 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC

Lol yeah it does...I <3 the Lord!! (had 2 say that sorry...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.210 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Protestant and Catholics

Whats the difference between protestants an catholics?

Although your questions is appreciated, the discussion page is focused on how to improve the topic of the article. However, the answer is easily understood by reading this article and the Roman Catholic Church, History of Protestantism and the Reformation. All will help you understand the subtle and major differences. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources and references

I was reviewing an edit today and noticed that scriptures were being used to support interpretations; this fails to meet the Wikipedia policy. All scripture references should be replaced with secondary sources that support the statements being made. Even though some of the statements appear to be clearly supported by the scriptures, I think they still fail to meet policy as outlined in WP:OR. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think scripture references are fine in many cases. If the reference's interpretation is uncontroversial amongst the majority of Christians, then I don't see a problem. ^rossnixon 01:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If we can't interpret the english language (Which is what these particular scripture verses are written in) when using references, then we can't interpret any references which are written in English for anything. I might be able to read some references written at an elementary spanish level if you can find any though... Homestarmy 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

The Christianity article is criticized for being too long, and I agree. There is a great deal of redundancy created by topics that have separate articles. Much if not most of the information presented in considerable detail in this article is duplicated in the Main Article on that topic. Examples: agape Trinity Scripture and others. I propose that these topics, though very appropriate for the article, each be shortened here to an overview paragraph and the reader be referred to the Main Article on that topic. Opinions please. Thanks. Afaprof01 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you here. I'm going to propose a serious overhaul outlined below. Signaj90 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Love (Agape) Section

If someone hasnt already noticed, there is an out of place first-person comment in section 2.1.1 Christian Love (Agape) Section. As I have just joined Wikipedia today i cant edit this article. is it locked? would someone mind if they reformmated or deleted the said comment?

thanks - Darthpotterbob 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"biblical" or "Biblical"?

Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?

Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully request consideration and discussion on the entry of the word " Bible " in all text ....... My desire is to see it always written as " Holy Bible " , as is properly titled on most all official publications of it ......... There is sound reason for applying the word " Holy " in conjunction with "Bible " .......... The word " Holy " can only be attributed to the One which is Holy , and all consenses must certainly resolve that " One " , is God ...... Since the Holy Bible from beginning to end of it's text is unquestionably refering and relating to " God " , the word " Holy " is applied to it denoting that singular possesive characteristic of " God " ......... thank you . Pilotwingz 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your request. My thoughts are that to call it Holy would violate Wikipedia's policies. We strive to not take a position on what is true, but rather we report what experts say is true or we explain their positions both pro and con. In this instance, thre are many "bibles" in the world and we can not take a position that one is more holy than the next; they are all revered texts. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If we may consider the publishers ( eg: Thomas Nelson Publishers - Nashville , and host of others verifiable as well )of the book called the " Holy Bible " by the publishers reference to it , and conceed that those publishers are the experts of their publications ( eg: Holy Bible ) , then we indeed have the ' experts say ' already accounted for ......... Further , if we look up the word 'Bible' in an official dictionary ( Encarta , Websters , etc. ) and conceed to accept their definition of that word 'Bible' ( again as "expert" of their publication ), we will find it always is described as a " Holy " book , regardless of which Bible in the world is being discussed ......... Further , the root meaning of the word bible is ' book ' , and the placing of the word " Holy " before it decribes the books content ( refer to the expert citations previously mentioned ) , thus the proper and complete title " Holy Bible "........ no one is asking you to make judgement this way or that in reference to the word " Holy " , that has already been done and is a matter of historical record .......... thank you Pilotwingz 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with you - the Bible is Holy. Let's get that out of the way. However, you would be hard pressed to get an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc to call the Bible Holy. Unless you were seriously willing to describe the Qur'an as holy, Buddhist monks as holy men, the Hindu scriptures as holy, etc, then your approach would appear to be contradictory. I do not call those books holy, nor do I expect all people to consider our book holy (much as I would wish it to the contrary). Finally, the ascription of something as "Holy" is not a statement of fact nearly so much as it is a human statement of confidence in its holiness. As such, it is for people of faith rather than encyclopedias to declare the holiness of Scripture. Sorry. Signaj90 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The book is properly titled , the Holy Bible.......... I did not give it that name , it's authors did .......... no matter who the word holy offends , no matter who believes a thing is holy or not so , no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks , the book is properly titled , the Holy Bible .......... it always has been and that is what it should still be called this day ............ you all have argued over what one believes or dosen't believe ............ I have argued that the book commonly called Bible , is properly titled , the Holy Bible ............ I have stated verifiable fact .......... I did not invent it ..... Pilotwingz 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Word messiah

Why is the origin of the word Messiah assumed to be from Mashiakh (meaning Annointed) rather than in the more similar sounding Mashia (meaning savior). Greek has a kh sound but no 'sh'. It seems more likely to me that Messiah is simply helenized Mashia (as it's an exact transliteration) rather than mashiakh, which would necessitate them mysteriously dropping the kh sound, though it exists in their language too. Thoughts? Basejumper2 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no assumption at play here. First, as for pronounciation, no serious scholar presumes to know how a word used to be said. Further along that line, Jews no longer spoke Hebrew in Jesus' day. They spoke Aramaic. Messiah came to Greek through Aramaic from Hebrew - messing up the pronounciation would be expected. Finally for now, the Hebrew for 'messiah' occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and given the prophetic use of "messiah", we have every reason to think that the Greek use of "messiah" corresponded to the Prophetic use of it, since the Gospel writers understood themselves to be speaking of the Messiah promised in the OT. If you'd like me to go further, just say the word. Signaj90 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I would like to make an edit to this page. It says it's semi-protected, but I can't edit it even after I've created an account. OneQuickEdit 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Gradually developing itself"?

When did that get in the lead? I haven't payed too much close attention to this article, but that seems like a rather vauge statement, even if referenced. And what's with the random quote? I don't even know what its talking about. Homestarmy 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Four Thousand years" "a Monotheistic religion"

The page begins with two generalizations that are subject to huge dispute, namely that Christianity is monotheistic and has been developing for four thousand, nee two thousand years.

Christian monotheism is significantly less pure than Muslim or Jewish versions, lending one to question if monotheistic is a definitive, let alone completely accurate, description of the Christian religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christian denominations range from a seeing a pure unity to, as Richard Swinburne has suggested "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods." (See the Trinity page.) Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic, but it certainly isn't "monotheistic enough" to treat the issue as a. an inarguable fact b. a definitive, introductory part of the Christianity article.

Not a single human being two thousand years ago, let alone four thousand years ago (!) referred to themselves as a Christian. Traveling back in time, you would fail to meet a single person who could even have a hint of understanding to what you refer. To claim that Christianity has been evolving for four thousand years is, at least without further justification, quite strange. I assume the implication by saying four thousand years is that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. This however, is itself a controversial claim, from within and without Christian groups.

These are HUGE errors, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.226 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe enough to describe Christianity as monotheist - there may be a few exceptions, but then again there are some Christian atheists, too - but I agree with the points of the last two commenters about the 'gradually developing itself' bit. A close look at the reference for this point, and the quote that goes with it, shows that it is from a book published in 1835 - hardly an up to date perspective. The four thousand year time scale seems arbitrary and the other points seem to represent a particular viewpoint. I propose to delete this, unless anyone has strong objections or wants to reword it. Rbreen 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement for monotheism is increadibly well-referenced. However, the weird thing about gradually developing itself, as I noted in the previous section, does seem very unusual, so I agree with the proposel to delete it. Homestarmy 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the Christian goddess Sophia, although she seems to have been mostly marginalized or forgotten. (Haven't met a Christian who knew they had a goddess) I think the article should make a note that the line between monotheism and polytheism is signficantly blurred when dealing particularly with gnostic areas of the religion.--Shadowlink1014 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gnosticism isn't Christian at all, and if it was important to the question of Christianity being monotheistic, surely the sources we have so far would have mentioned it. Homestarmy 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly when it comes to monotheism Christianity is a special case -- not that we aren't but get a pass as if we were, but that, in spite of precisely fitting the dictionary definition (which has been posted in the archives), we still aren't. Either someone changes the definition of "monotheism", or makes himself a judge of purity, or gives us another deity which we now "have" without our even knowing it. A.J.A. 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to flatly contradict the claims of the initial post here directly. I refer the objector to Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 as Biblical texts which speak of the title "Christian", and the latest credible dating of these texts places them at a mimimum of 1900 years old, give or take a few decades. Second, with respect to Shadowlink's sophia and gnosticism, as a seminary student who can reference any number of ancient writings (Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril, Agustine, Athanasius, etc) on this topic, the concept of sophia as a god of Christianity betrays a near complete lack of understanding of the available textual evidence we have concerning historic Christianity. One week's study of the most basic of ancient Christian documents show that gnostics were nearly unanimously dismissed by Christians. Third, as for the four thousand year statement, I'll concede that discussion can happen here. This flows from the Christian claim that it is in continuity with the Pre-Christ Jewish faith. Fourth, with respect to questioning Christianity's monotheism, I refer you to the Athanasian creed, accepted by all but Nestorian churches, which requires monotheism. Historic Christianity has never formally sacrificed Monotheism, though individual Christians and theologians may have. Final conclusions: The time comment and the monotheistic comment can be a springboard for the nuancing of the article, but don't delete either. (PS: sorry about the many edits to my post. This has been my first post ever, so I was sloppy. Signaj90 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the issue of the montheisticness of Christianity in concern to the Holy Trinity is as follows...The Holy Trinity is meant to describe 3 parts of the only God "whose name is The Lord." The Father is the creator and king of the universe, the Son is Jesus the Christ, who is God's presence on Earth in flesh and blood, and the Holy Spirit is is the divinity of God (the last one is the one in shich I possess the least understanding). To say that Christianity is a non-monotheistic religion is innacurate, for it is taught that there is one God, portrayed through 3 parts. 1Shank1

The "gradually developed for 4,000 years" is eclectic nonsense. You might just as well claim Christianity has "gradually developed" for 40,000 or 400,000 years. It's arbitrary. Regarding monotheism, it's true, Christian theology has always struggled to remain monotheistic. The emphasis here is on struggled. It has taken them some 600 years to somehow get to grips with Christology. The question didn't suddenly make sense in the 7th century, but people just let it be because it was simply impossible to say anything new or interesting on it at that point: "God is triple and yet single, don't ask us, we've quibbled about this for six centuries, let's just say it is a matter of belief". dab (𒁳) 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It doesn't make any sense to say that Christianity has gradually developed over 4,000 years because it didn't even exist before common era. Now, you could certainly say that the Jewish theology from which it's based has developed over a long period of time, and indeed, has been polytheist in the past, but not Christianity.--Shadowlink1014 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowlink and dab on the word "struggled" to describe Christianity's monotheism, though I'd prefer it if any changed language imply basic success with that struggle. Regarding 4,000 years, I think the emphasis of the phrase is not the time spent, but the fact that gradual development or evolution has been happening - it isn't a static religion (though it retains it's historical tenants of faith). Formal suggestion: Let's get rid of the number 4,000, replace the time reference with something generalized, like "over the course of its history", and think about changing the description of it's "development". Could this be a consensus opinion?Signaj90 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

that's all I'm saying: (a) the "4,000 years" is arbitrary nonsense, (b) Christology is a complicated topic and should be summarized by people who know what they are talking about, avoiding polemics, (c) the 1st century origins of (proto-)Chistianity are discussed at origins of Christianity. What passes for Christianity-as-we-know-it-today originates in the 4th century. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

dab is right, Christianity as we know it today has its development roots in the First Council of Nicaea and Council of Chalcedon. — Superman 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't agree with your view of Christianity's development. However, we agree on the choice of words, so it seems that we can go forward with the change. Signaj90 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bwildasi's Reference Modification

Bwildasi made a needed change, but the coding isn't finished - it needs to be changed so that the refererences can be links to the actual Bible texts trying to be referenced. Can someone do that for me since I can't do that myself? See line 8, in "Beliefs", reference numbers 14and 15 at present. Signaj90 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Four Main Divisions

There is no bullet for the 'And Reformed' churches
Four main divisions:
-Roman Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodox (/Oriental Orthodox)
-Protestantism
And Reformed

Sign your posts please!

I want to contest the entire discussion of the Protestant and Reformed section of this part of the page.

1. All groups who split away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation era are considered to be Protestant by the majority of the literature. This false distinction needs to be dropped.

2. The implied similarity of Anglicans and Lutherans is incorrect. Anglicans try to find a middle way between Reformed and Catholic theology and practice. They derive nothing from the Lutheran tradition historically. As the text reads, it implies that they belong with the Lutherans and not the Reformed, and is wrong to do so.

3. Melancthon was Luther's friend and helper, and he penned the Augsburg confession - the primary document of the Lutheran tradition. As such, he is improperly placed with the Reformed, though his later and more Reformed way of thinking leaves this point open to dialogue.

4. The inclusion of the Anabaptists in the Reformed camp NEEDS to be changed. The Reformed (and Lutheran and Catholic) churches persecuted, imprisoned, killed, and treated them as a dangerously different kind of Christian! Their thinking is independant of Luther and Calvin and, at points, is quite opposed to them. If Protestant and Reformed are to be distinguished from one another, the Anabaptists get their own, because they come from neither Luther nor Calvin.

5. The Protestant section states that it's defining characteristic is more traditional aspects of services and the Reformed's characteristic is Calvin's thought. This seems accurate for the Reformed, but the defining characteristic of Lutherans and Anglicans is not their style of worship.

6. The wording of the entire Reformed section needs to be edited. I propose the following sentences:

"Reformed churches are groups which generally follow the teachings of John Calvin together with those of the other Reformers, [insert names here] . These churches are [insert names here]"

It's a lot - I know. I could say more, but I want to wait for conversation first. Comments? Signaj90 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would add a fifth division, Restorationism, which can be viewed as a branch of Protestantism historically, but doctrinally, Restoration groups are all over the map and really have no connection with each other, other than they feel thay have restored truth, rather than reforming existing institutions or protesting them. Also, the reference to the "four divisions" found here actually only lists three: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Either find a different reference, or clean up that part of the article. Bytebear 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you the presence of Restorationism within the general category of Protestantism (along with Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist groups) so long as their ambiguous Christian affiliation is also included. You're right in bringing them up, because they are at least cousins of the three groups, and deserve mention as such, even if they are finally rejected as Christian.Signaj90 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul of Organization Proposal

Greetings all. I wish to propose two major overhauls of information in this article. As a matter of practicality, I am going to split this up into two discussion sections.

Concerning the overhaul of the structure of this article, my ideas are put forward solely to address the issue of redundancy within the article. I want to hear if people see merit in this or if they think that the issue of redundancy should be addressed differently.

Proposals:

1. That Jesus the Christ and Jesus' death and resurrection both be integrated into one section that is no longer than one of the present sections.

2. That Catholic beliefs, Protestant beliefs, History and Origins, and Christian divisions be brought together into one continuous section whose structure is as follows. The logic of this is that these sections are all highly redundant, and bringing them together will make this so clear that people will be able to remove redundancies easer.

Proposed 2nd section:
2. History

2.1 Early to Medieval History (Present History and Origins)

2.2 The Era of Reformation

2.2.1 Protestant Beliefs (Protestant beliefs and Christian Divisions and Ecumenicism, both summarized greatly)

2.2.1.1 Protestant Denominations Past and Present

2.2.2 Roman Catholic Beliefs

Again, for context, this is taking sections 2, 3, 5, and 6, and making them one continuous section for the purpose of making clear and eliminating redundancy as well as excessive length.
Comments? Signaj90 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

lead image

This article needs a lead image to be consistent with the other religions. I will propose a few below (please feel free to add). Yahel Guhan 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10
• 
  11
• 
  12
• 
  13
• 
  14

Personally I would recommend 7 (or 1, but 7 is better). These are the only ones that can really only be associated with Christianity, and are the most ecumenical. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

these are all illustrating Roman Catholicism. Your best bet will be a medieval or ancient symbol such as 9, 10, or 11. From the 14th century, Christianity had become too fragmented to be represented by any single image. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I like #1 out of the options above. #7 is a little "busy", and someone not very familiar with Christianity may be a bit overwhelmed, or not know the relative importance of the countless images in the picture. I disagree that Christianity is too fragmented to be represented by a single image, and the three alternatives listed above are a bit too obscure in my opinion. Some of the original 7 are too Catholic for this general article, but the simplicity of #1 may be appropriate. --Anietor (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism? 1 & 2 are decided NOT Roman Catholic. 3 is almost cetainly an Anglican church. 4 is a painting of Abraham (!?!), 6 and 8 are the only two that are decided Roman Catholic, although 7 would probably not be represtative of all Christianity. That said, none of those images gets it right. A new suggestion # 12. I have boldly added 12 to the article while the debate continues, do not see this as a statement that the subject is closed. -- SECisek (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Praying hands doesn't seem like a very Christian symbol. Other faith traditions use that hand position for prayer. Let's not water it down to the point where it's meaningless. I think adding more images to choose from is a good idea, though, so I hope to see some more suggestions. But it seems like a cross or crucifix would be common denominator symbol for Christianity. --Anietor (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, other faiths? Which ones? I think you are mistaken. BTW see also Islam. -- SECisek (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if only Christians are the only ones who pray as in 12, it doesn't really say Christianity to me. The lead picture should "scream" Christianity. 12 just doesn't do that, in my opinion. With the additions, I think 9 is good. Having said that, 1 [or another image of a cross] would be the best solution. The chi-rho, while explicitly Christian, isn't well-enough known. From my own experience, more Catholics than Protestants are familiar with it, and even many Catholics wouldn't recognize it. So I vote for a simple cross. But that could change as new options are presented. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Carl above. Praying hands seems a bit too tangential (and pc), and while I don't know that we need a picture that "screams" Christianity, the hands picture is barely a whisper. The story behind Albrecht's praying hands is a beautiful one, but a bit too obscure for those not familiar with it. The cross is probably the symbol most associated with Christianity. While the chi-rho certainly has strong historical credentials, it, too, is a bit obscure to those outside the faith. --Anietor (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The cross is already on the Nav box which appears at the top of the article. If the image is to be a simple cross, we should just leave the nav box at the top and be done with it. A crucifix or ressurection painting would be better in my opinion, but would likely be deemed too "Roman Catholic". Carl, what would not be Roman Catholic? If you think #9 has the pope's finger prints on it, this could be a very long process. 9 is my compromise choice, I stand by 12, though.

BTW I am in no way biased in favor of, nor particularly against, Roman Catholic symbolism. -- Secisek (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe we should just leave it, cause I think a cross is the ideal image for Christianity. Basically anything that would make a Protestant start an edit war because its "Catholic"--so I would say crucifixes are definitely out. I see no reason not to use a Resurrection painting, though. I mean I'm Catholic, I personally would love to see a crucifix at the head of this article; but it has to be something that can't be claimed as being associated with one group of Christians to the exclusion of others, because its the article on all of Christianity, not just one group within the religion. And if you feel strongly about 12, I'm not really against it. I just don't think its overtly Christian enough. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lead image would be nice. The first photo of the plain cross would be OK, but I think a resurrection image might be better, for example #14 LotR (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This article gets much traffic and we are certain to get more opinions very soon. -- SECisek (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I also would lean more towards a resurrection picture of Christ. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, Christiainty is about Christ and his resurrection, so the best image will probably be a Christ Pantokrator one. A Christian cross would of course also do, but there the specific shape almost invariably betrays a certain sub-denomination. A medieval example like the Cosenza one might be a solution. I also like the Ravenna Christ they chose at Jesus (dating to the 6th century, it predates the Great Schism). Alternatively, a resurrection icon like this Greek one? dab (𒁳) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So, have we agreed on something? A resurrection image? Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any legitimate sample images so that we can proceed with this? LotR (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over any Ressurecton suggestions? -- SECisek (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1. 13 is one off the page Resurrection of Jesus. There are a few more on there. If we could find one showing the wounds in his hands I think it would be better as overtly Resurrection. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw this one, but didn't think the quality was good enough for a lead image. LotR 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a little low res. -- SECisek 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like this one. It isn't a resurrection image, but it does reflect the power and humility of Jesus. Bytebear 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-dominance of christianity in Europe

Someone insists that christianity is the dominant religion in Europe, but it simply isn't. I'm coming from the Netherlands, which is a pre-dominant non-religious country with a christian minority. That is the case in most European countries. Officially i am Roman-Catholic, but i don't believe in god. Here is a map of the believe in god in Europe: File:Europe belief in a god.pngDaanschr (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of a dominant belief system, or even a dominant religion: I take the reference to mean simply that, of all the religions in Europe, the one with the largest number of adherents is Christianity. It's not saying that the majority of people are Christians, although that's still notionally true in most parts of Europe, and genuinely true (in terms of what people actually believe) in some areas - what's true of the Netherlands is not necessarily true of Poland, Greece or Ireland, for instance. All that is being said here is that, predominantly, Europeans who have a religious belief are Christians, rather than any other religion. There is a separate question which you raise, which is that many Europeans counted in the statistics given in the article - 2.1 billion believers - are only nominally Christian and do not in fact believe the key doctrines described on this page, and in many cases do not even believe in God. In that sense, the figures given here do present a misleading picture, I agree. Rbreen (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the largest religious minority is predominantly christian, than it shouldn't be described as predominant. A better description could be that christianity is the largest religion in Europe, but that christians are a minority in Europe.Daanschr (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pretty map. Can you provide the source? I think I've seen it before, but not sure where it comes from. And that leads to the more important point here...editors should not change numbers or stats in articles based on their personal observations or anecdotal accounts on who goes to church or how religious they think their fellow-citizens are. There are obviously many ways to define who is a Christian (or Jew or Muslim)... it can arguably be based on who is baptised, or who adheres to the core beliefs, or who attends services; and is it based on self-reporting, surveys, census data, etc. If there is a reliable source, then it is appropriate to be relied upon. Official census data, government surveys and the like trump Daanschr's views on who qualifies as a Christian. If there are legitimate criticisms of certain data, then that may very well be appropriate to note. However, we can't get into a debate of what makes a Christian a true Christian...there's not enough room in cyberspace for that discussion. We should use the data that exists. EvenDaanschr states that he is "officially" Roman Catholic. The article doesn't say that those described as Christian are card-carrying, church-going, 10-commandment-abiding followers. That's the mistake of editors who want to dispute the data. If it's necessary to explain how that data is compiled, what it includes or any issues with the data-gathering procedure, that's a separate issue. --Anietor (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, there were numerous current reliable sources which name Christianity as the largest religion in Europe, including an article published earlier this year in The Economist. The best way to resolve this is to cite reliable sources. Personal experience is original research and can't be introduced in the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, there are plenty of reliable sources showing Christianity to be the largest religion in Europe. For an example, see this table in the Encyclopedia Britannica online. Majoreditor (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are sources of the Dutch figures on religiousness compared with other European countries. It is a pity that the sources are in Dutch, but i guess you can use an online dictionary in order to to be able read the many tables.

Let's start with an initial remark in this debate, i contest the notion that membership of a church says something about the amount of christians in a country. I know of many people, including most of my family and myself, who are officially a member of a church but do nothing at all with their religion. Many of them see themselves as non-religious, including me. The Dutch and other European figures (in the link above) will tell you some other statistical details on many aspects of religiousness.

If you persist in not accepting my view on religiousness, as in that the number of members of a church says nothing about the amount of christians in a country, than we will have to use the npov-rule, by trying to get both our views into the article without giving preference to any of them.Daanschr (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV isn't the issue here, unless you are challenging the neutrality of sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The real issue is to support a point using reliable, verifiable sources. Numerous secondary and tertiary sources with recent publication dates make the same assertion, namely, that Christianity is the largest religion in Europe.

That said, I think that there is opportunity to improve both this article and the article on Christianity in Europe by discussing recent trends in church attendence, religiousity and decline in traditional denominations/growth in smaller denominations. Perhaps you want to research the subject and contribute to the appropriate sections in these articles? Majoreditor (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a specific footnote in the article of the Encyclopedia Britannica stating its methods of research. i want to know the specific questions and possible multiple choice answers that have been given. Otherwise it can't be used as a reliable source in this context.Daanschr (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What you're proposing to do is original research. We don't do that here in Wikipedia. You may wish to review WP policies on verifiability, reliable sources and original research. Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't right. I am contesting the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source in the context of what we are discussing now.Daanschr (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The two sources that are used to support the statement that christianity is predominant in Europe are both contested, so the sentence needs to be adjusted. I will move the sentence to this talk page. So we can place it again after the discussion is done.Daanschr (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I move the contested sentence here:

It is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, Southern Africa, the Philippines and Oceania.

Daanschr (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove properly sourced material from the article. I have re-inserted the sentence. Majoreditor (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Encyclopedia Britannica uses as its source the World Christian Encyclopedia, which counts adherents mainly on the basis of data provided by denominations themselves. The World Christian Encyclopedia is compiled by Christian evangelicals and it is very plainly produced as a resource for evangelisation. As such, there is a natural bias towards high estimates for Christian adherents. Certainly the numbers given for adherents in Western European countries seems to reflect notional adherence rather than belief. Since the WCE is almost always the source for the figure of 33% Christian of the world's population it clearly reflects that notional figure. Rbreen (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly in an edit war

We are nearly in an edit war, but i will try a different argument and wait for the results. The Encyclopedia Britannica provides a countdown of the number of christians in Europe. The Dutch government provides a comparisson between Holland and major other European countries on the amount of religiousness. This article on christianity uses a high amount of christians (Encyclopedia Britannica link) as a standard to determine that christianity is predominant in Europe. A sentence before that states that christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. If the high amount of christians are used, even people like me who are only a member of a church without believing in many of the dogmas, than the definition of a christian can't be someone who believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. This would account for a part of the christians, but not all of them.

Either we say that christianity is predominant in Europe, but that a lot of christians don't believe in the christian dogmas, or we will have to take a close look to the comparisons between European countries on the believe in certain christian dogmas to determine wether dogmatic christian believe is adherred to by a majority of the Europeans.

If the discussion on this topic can't be held in a civil way, then i will regard this as an edit war and will ask for mediation.Daanschr (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked for third opinions.

Your above statement displays a fundemental lack of understanding of WP core policies: I don't see a specific footnote in the article of the Encyclopedia Britannica stating its methods of research. i want to know the specific questions and possible multiple choice answers that have been given. Otherwise it can't be used as a reliable source in this context. Majoreditor (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a master of arts in history, so i should know how a proper reference is made. The article of the Encyclopedia Britannica simply doesn't present a proper reference. When i search further, it asks me wether i want to have a free trial for the encyclopedia. So, it seems to me like an unreliable source. It is better to use direct sources instead of encyclopedias. Sources like the Dutch government agency, SCP, provides. It gives a summary of literature at the end of the pdf-file. That is proper referencing.Daanschr (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

This gives something of the references used:

Adherents. As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person's religion is what he or she says it is. Totals are enumerated for each of the world's 238 countries following the methodology of the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (2001), and World Christian Trends (2001), using recent censuses, polls, surveys, reports, Web sites, literature, and other data.

It supposedly describe the adherents of all major religions, but why does it state than that it uses sources like World Christian Encyclopedia and World Christian Trends. These are not neutral sources if used to determine the adherents of all religions and irreligiousness.Daanschr (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incredible. By that samer line of reasoning we should through out cited references from Encyclopedia Judaica and other tertiary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If I may offer a few comments, based only on the discussion here. We have been over the ground of "what constitutes a Christian" on this page in the past. The fact that many members of churches do not subscribe to all the dogmas of the church has been pointed out before. However, by being a member of said church, they do in fact accept the position of the church. We have no way to sort out the persons who say they believe X (by their membership), but do not actually accept X (by personal statement). That said, a second point: WP:OR says of the use of tertiary sources (such as encyclopedia britanica): Tertiary sources can be useful in avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources. I would say that this article qualifies as a topic where there is a large amount of primary and secondary sources. Pastordavid (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective, David. You bring up an excellent point on why we use tertiary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different reasoning. If a person doesn't adher to the dogmas of a church, than this person actually isn't a true member. Therefore, most Europeans aren't really christians and christianity isn't predominant. There are two ways of describing this in the article:

1) A christian is someone who believes in certain dogmas and in Europe only a minority is trully christian.

2) A christian doesn't need to believe in certain dogmas (like me), is only christian out of tradition as examplified by church membership and Europe is predominantly christian.

The text at present doesn't correspond to the facts, wether as a tertiary, secondary, primary, or original source. I have sources that will depict a reality check.Daanschr (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As with on all similar articles, we follow persons' self-designations. The persons are members of church bodies. Said church bodies believe X. The persons who are members believe X. It would be original research for this article to state otherwise. Please, we have been down this road before. Every time, consensus has led to the same conclusion. Give me some time (or if someone else would like to, go ahead), and I will dredge it out of the talk page archives. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that we have a storm in a teapot here! The encyclopedia cited is a reputable source and is appropriate to use in this article. The church membership has been demonstrated and supported. Daanschr, your issueis that members of respective churches may not believe the doctrines of their respective churches. That is a different issue entirely. I lived in France for a few years and the French are almost all Catholic, but not many actively attend church or believe the doctrines of their church; however, they remain Catholic.

I have edited the article to state that Christianity teaches rather than Christians believe. Does that satisfy your issue? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A perfectly reasonable way to cut the Gordian knot (and save me a trip through the archives). As always, good work StormRider. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job, StormRider. Thank you. Majoreditor (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Without detracting from Stormrider's solution, I don't think the issue is adequately settled. Despite Daanschr's poor approach of deleting Europe from the list, I think there is a valid point although not necessarily the one that Daanschr is pushing.

I think it would be useful to clarify what is meant by "number of Christians". Is that based on an objective survey (i.e. a non-church affiliated survey), is it based on self-identification as Christian or membership in a church? Clearly, these will yield different numbers and no single approach is "right". They are all valid measures and tell us different things.

Daanschr's point is that being a member of a church doesn't mean you are actually Christian. I disagree there. A person who self-identifies as Catholic but doesn't go to Mass and doesn't agree with the doctrine on abortion is still a Catholic. In addition, a person who self-identifies as a Christian but isn't a member of a church is also a Christian.

If we are going to provide any numbers at all and do any kind of comparison to other religions at all, then we need to work harder to get to sources that can be considered reliable. At the same time, we need to make sure that we provide good "apples to apples" comparisons and make clear what counting criteria were used.

--Richard (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop evangelical propaganda about Christians in China

http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2007/s07100011.htm

Christians in China are about the 4% if the total population, and they grow as the total population grows. They're a small minority in a country populated by nearly 1.3 billion people.

I've lived in China since three months ago. There are not as many Christians as evangelicals-bushist want to believe. This is misinformation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article only states that the Christian church is growing rapidly, which it is according to your own complaint, as the population grows. I did not find any misleading claims made in the article about Christians in China as a percentage of the population, or any general statements about the size of the Chinese Christian community in regard to the rest of the population. Pastordavid (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This study talks about the false statistics propagated by evangelicals and Charismatics. There are political reasons behind these problematic numbers and Wikipedia shouldn't be polluted by non-neutral viewpoints. And I'm not talking only about China: the phrase cites also the Middle East. The claim about the gorwth of Christianity in the Middle East is simply absurd.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If your stats are correct - 4% of 1.3 billion - that means 52,000,000 Christians live in China. Taken as a unified group (which they are not), that would make them the the 4th or 5th largest Christaian denomination in the world. Certainly worthy of note. -- SECisek (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am unclear here. Exactly what claim in the article do you object to? All I was able to find was the statement that the chinese christian community is growing rapidly. The map at the bottom makes clear that the % of Christians in china is below 9%. So the problem is ... Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If the number of Christians in China is in fact growing in line with population then it is misleading to say it is "growing rapidly". We should find other places where it is growing faster than population to talk about. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to become more neutral. The introduction requirs a complete rewrite. The introduction is too much propaganda for dogmatic christians, while a majority of the world population doesn't belong to the dogmatic christians. It is nice to hear from someone who is against this one-sided pov-pushing of christian fundamentalists.

To strengthen my position, i would like to note the following issues:

• Even if some facts are supported by sources, than they don't need to be portrayed.
• The order of facts, especially in the introduction, has nothing to do with sources. I would prefer a more neutral approach in which christianity is one among many religions and not something which is predominant and growing. That could be the spirit behind the introduction, something which can't be measured, and therefore has mainly to do with the npov-rule and not with fact verification.Daanschr (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and if it is growing, then surely the intro should say that, whether any individual editor likes it or not. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a christian fundamentalist and have little admiration for them, that said the lead does not smack of fundamentalism. I see nothing wrong with it. Can you be specific? -- SECisek (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The lead is designed to give a general overview of the topic. A statement of the widely agreed upon beliefs and the size of the group are certainly items that belong in such a summary. Indeed, such info would be included in the lead of any group. Why would the lead here be any different? The topic of the article is not World Religions (see Religion for that) which is why that is not what is focused on in the lead. Neither is the topic criticisms of Christianity (see Criticism of Christianity for that) which is why that is not focused on in the lead. The fact that Christianity represents 33% of the world population and is growining certain regions of the world (as documented verifiably by reliable sources) is notoable, in fact is part of what makes the topic itself notable which is why it is in the lead. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is more neutral to determine wether christianity is growing in total percentage of the worldpopulation or not. It is also notable to mention that christianity is deteriorating in Europe, which used to be one of its most fanatic propegators during the age of imperialism.Daanschr (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is not growing, it's fading all over the world.

• Taiwan ([10])
• Europe
• Australia
• England
• Britain
• Lebanon & Middle East
• France —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is still not neutral, but now relatively okay. Since i know that christianity is rapidly dissappearing from Europe, it can be accounted as a certainty that in, in 30 years, official data will tell that Europe has become a majority non-religious continent. So, i will leave this temporary squabble for those who think they can win some in this discussion and retreat from this place.Daanschr (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not assert that a majority of Europeans are Christians. It states that the most practiced form of religion in Europe is Christianity. This is fact. -- SECisek (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reformulated the introduction making it neutral. --Esimal 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating that Christianty is "dying out" is hardly neutral. --Anietor 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anietor is correct; the language isn't neutral. I'd also suggest that information on country- and region-level growth and decline does not belong in the introduction. Please examine the introductions articles on Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. They don't use their leads to explain what countries are experiencing growth and decline in followers. Let's keep the introduction concise per WP:LEAD and present details on regional and country-level trends further back in the article. Majoreditor 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Majoreditor. The issue of trends is an interesting one, but is more appropriate for a section further into the article. That's not to say that I support the current language, whether it's in the intro or a separate section. We should rely on well-sourced statistics, and avoid terminology like "dying out". I expect that the subject will be contentious enough without adding such language. --Anietor 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree: just a brief mention in the lead, details in another section, try to avoid loaded terminology one way or other; we should be informing the readers, not scoring points. There are two issues that seem to me interesting and valid, and are not currently mentioned, that don't have to be detailed in the lead (1) the general proportion of Christians has changed little over the past 100 years, but the demographics have - from majority white, European to majority non-white, Asian / South American, African; and (2) especially in Europe there is a significant divergence between affiliation and belief. I can find citations to support both of these, although not right now. Rbreen 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the text and created another section. Feel free to edit or discuss here how to better place it. I wasn't sure what, if any, of the topic should remain in the intro. I also tried to restore the text to a version prior to the inclusion of some of those loaded words (i.e. dying out commentaries). It certainly needs some work...this was just to get the ball rolling. --Anietor 02:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the relocation, but you've restored the old POV version that misuses sources to support false claims. I'm going to modify the text as I did yesterday. The source about Christians in China does not talk about a "growth", but it simply cites the numbers provided by the Chinese government; there are no sources claiming a growth of Christianity in the Middle East. --Esimal 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This section still needs a lot of work. As it is, the section has incorrect information, and ceratinly portrays statistics in a misleading way. For example, the countries where Christianity is "predominant" are directly compared to countries where it is "declining". These are not opposites. A religion can be predominant and declining at the same time (The UK would be an example, if not all of Europe). We need to compare apples and apples. It also mentions countries with no citations/sources. As it is, the section probably provides more incorrect than useful information (whether by design or poor construction is debatable). It is an interesting issue, and worth including, but only if it's done in a neutral and accurate manner. --Anietor 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the present introduction. There is no need at all to measure the amount of christians. Especially given the dubiousness of the level of adherence to established christian dogmas.Daanschr 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed section about Muslim objections to Trinitarianism

I removed the following paragraph because it is not relevant to this article. All it does is expound on Islamic criticism of a particular Christian doctrine, which seems about as relevant to an explanatory article about Christianity as the objections of a Hindu or an atheist. If this paragraph is to be in the article, why not another saying that the Christian belief in salvation is incompatible with the Hindu belief in reincarnation?

Muslims believe that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism, and they reject the Christian teaching that Jesus is the Son of God, though they affirm the virgin birth and view him as a prophet preceding Muhammad. The Qur'an also uses the title "Messiah," though with a different meaning. Muslims also dispute the historical occurrence of the crucifixion of Jesus, believing that while a crucifixion occurred, it was not of Jesus(see docetism).

OneQuickEdit 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that last revert, I see how it's out of place. I reverted because the edit was made by a brand new user and removed cited content, thus I assumed vandalism. --Strothra 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is Polytheistic

I want to challenge the first sentence that Christianity is monotheistic. Monotheism means one gos. Polytheism is more than one god. In Christianity you have the Trinity. God and Jesus are separate individuals with different minds and act independently of each other. Jesus was crucified. God was not. God is the father, Jesus is the son. Jesus rose from the dead. God didn't. Jesus was born of a virgin. god wasn't born. Clearly these are separate individuals.

The issue of monotheism vs. polytheism is an objective outside assessment. You count the number of gods.

• 0 gods - Atheism
• 1 god - monotheism
• 2+ gods - polytheism

In order for Christianity to be monotheistic it has to pass the one god test. Trinity means 3 and (3 > 1) therefor it's polytheistic. --Marcperkel (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity [at least mainstream] believes in one God; eg the creed begins "I believe in one God...". This one God has three persons. It is monotheism. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one God, and they do share one mind. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How can they share one mind? "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt 24:36) I agree they are one God. Perhaps we need a footnote to an article like the Oneness of God. Ironically that article redirects to an Islam article. How about Monotheism in Christianity?Bytebear (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Monotheism in Christianity is a good idea for an article. Having said that, there is a footnote on 'monotheistic' which lists 7 references--that statement isn't going anywhere. And as for the one mind, I'll explain why I say that; I know I could be wrong though. I do know that the Father gives of Himself infinitely to the Son; giving infinitely means He gives everything He is, there's nothing held back. So the Father has nothing He has not given to the Son. The Father has a mind, and He has not with-held anything, therefore He shares His mind with the Son. Seems logical to me, but I look forward to hearing what you think. Carl.bunderson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit represent a close group but to say that they are a single individual isn't according to scripture. Clearly when I read the Bible I see God and Jesus as individuals. Jesus himself refers to God as a separate entity. So that would be the final word, wouldn't it?--Marcperkel (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not a close group; Christians believe they are one God; they share one nature, so that they have one intellect and will among them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity involves veneration of many saints cant that be consitered (somewhat) Henotheistic/polytheistic.--76.28.67.224 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is neither henotheistic nor polytheistic. Venerating saints is very different from worshipping or even acknowledging them as gods. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Address the fact that Non-Monotheistic branches of Christianity exist

The fact that not all branches of Christianity believe in Monotheism has been deleted and I have put it back in. The fact is that both the Gnostics and Mormons are polytheistic can be confirmed via a simple google search (religioustolerance and catholic.com as well as several videos on youtube come up).

The Gnostics believed in TWO gods-the Demiurge aka Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth (who created this world and was an incompetent evil being) and the supreme creator god (who sent his son Jesus to save mankind from the Demiurge).

Mormonism is also polytheistic as stated by none other than the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 who also accepts them AND the Gnostics as Christian! This is sited in the religioustolerance site and also several youtube videos (such as Story of Mormonism-Real Mormon theology revealed.

Ignoring such facts is a disservice to an encyclopedia. Using personal views to delete such facts is even worse. The facts say that Gnostics and Mormonism are Christian and they are polytheistic and these fact are backed up by the most respected Encyclopedia in the English speaking world. Claiming this is not so is worst than ignorant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mormon doctrine diverges from the orthodoxy of established Christianity, particularly in its polytheism, in affirming that God has evolved from man and that men might evolve into gods, that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct beings, and that human souls have preexisted." (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006)

But gnostics are not Christians, and whether or not Mormons are can be debated. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, is there any doctrine that is shared by every Christian? Placing the word "generally" in front of the monotheism descriptor adds nothing to the article...we would have to put "generally" in front of every other doctrine, or discussion of sacraments, etc. And if you're going to dig up gnostics...well, now we're talking about every Christian over the past 2000 years? This one general article on Christianity can't address every doctrinal position and theological nuance of every Christian group that ever existed. --Anietor (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, personal views are irrelevant; encyclopedia are for FACTS. The fact is not all Christianity was or is monotheistic. "It (Gnosticism) became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity" [GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm] If anyone had bothered to follow the crosslinks provided you would have found that Mormonism is classed as Christianity in the wikipedia itself and Gnosticism links to Ecclesia Gnostica the modern form of Gnosticism. Since it can be proven that not all branches of Christianity were or are monotheistic the "generally" belongs. Ignoring facts is detrimental to an encyclopedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, these are heretics, not Christians. The existence of heretical groups is not in question, but their beliefs do not indicate anything other than their beliefs. It's a bit like saying that the Jews are child-murderers citing the blood libel as a source. Christianity is a monotheistic religion which believes in a triune God, as all the reliable independent sources agree. That does not mean we cannot discuss the gnostics and the LDS, and in fact we do at some considerable length, but per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR unless you can find reliable independent sources that attest to the fact that some branches of Christianity are polytheistic then it absolutely does not belong in the lead of our top-level article on Christianity. To cite an article about gnosticism and an article about LDS, and assert from that that Christianity can be polytheistic, is a novel synthesis. So find reliable secondary independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Mormons are heretics, as far as some Christians are concerned. (Christianity is polytheistic—as far as some Muslims are concerned.) But Guy is right: it's novel synthesis without reliable secondary sources. Marskell (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite: "heretical" is a term without substance as anyone can view anyone as heretical, depending on his standpoint. But "mono-" and "polytheist" are clear terms: Muslims may regard Christians as polytheistic (though generally they don't) but that doesn't make Christians such. As Christians profess belief in One God they are monotheists. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The point made about Gnostics and Mormons is getting a few things wrong:

• Gnostics are NOT polytheists - they (though that's rather generalising as they are so diverse) do believe in one God, the one that created the spirit world, as opposed to the Demiurg, who created matter. The demiurg in Gnosticism is no god but something like an angel that pretends to be God.
• Mormons do not believe in one God but rather one Godhead made up of three divine beings. Strictly, speaking that is polytheism (not going into the "God was once a man" debate) but Mormons are claiming to be monotheists in some form nonetheless.
• Also, what is overlooked is that both groups are not uncontroversially considered Christian groups. And why? Among other things the lack of belief (in word and substance) in the One God mentioned in the creed. We can debate all day whether Gnostics or Mormons are Christians/Christian groups (and WP will not decide this issue but merely report it) BUT that doesn't change that Christianity is monotheistic. These other groups have, in order to insist on their being Christian, to show that they believe, in some way, in One God too. The controversy remains nonetheless.
• Even if these claims were facts (which they are not), placing these supposed polytheist Christians in the lead is giving them Undue Weight.
• Finally, we have discussed the issue of whether Christianity is monotheistic countless times. We do not need to do it again. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I admit to taking the Nicene creed as my main source here :-) Credo in unum deum (my emphasis). Guy (Help!) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Str1977's "'heretical' is a term without substance as anyone can view anyone as heretical, depending on his standpoint"—that was sort of my point. (Many) Muslims view Christianity as a heretical, somewhat polytheistic, version of the original faith of Abraham. Obviously, we can't adopt one religion's view on another. But all of this is whistling in the wind, without sources. Marskell (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not actually: Muslim do regard Christianity as wrong and its form of monotheism as "shirk" but not as "polytheistic" (polytheism is surpressed under Islamic rule, Christianity and Judaism were "merely" subjugated) or "heretical" - heretical is a term within a religion, not between two or more religions (which is why I personally do not consider Mormonism a heresy of Christianity). Within religions there are ways of deciding what is orthodox and what is heretical but since such issues are often tricky and WP should be careful with using the word, though there is no complete ban on it. In itself "heretical" has not meaning in itself (the word just means a choice of something or a portion of something - unlike Polytheism which means Poly + theos = many gods). Str1977 ^(talk) 12:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as Islam claims ownership of prophets that predate Christianity (and Christ himself), "heretical" can be an appropriate term. The English language Quran: the Jews "earned His anger" and the Christians "went astray." The single most common word I've heard in my time in the Muslim world in this regard is "corrupted," so perhaps that will do. Hey wait, didn't Jesus use that word talking to Joseph Smith? It's a fascinating parallel. "In answering the oft-asked question, 'Are Mormons Christian?' one might ask, only half facetiously, whether Muslims are Christian too."[11] Marskell (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Church father John of Damascus considered Islam a Christian heresy and the historian Hilaire Belloc echoed this. So yes, historically this perspective is valid, especially if one takes into account that the known foundation story of Islam was written under the Abbasides, long after Muhammad's day and may in fact glossed over many links and changes. However, today Islam is a separate religion.

The same could be said about the Judaism/the Jewish religion and Christianity or even the other way round. And yes, of course Mormonism built upon the foundations of Protestantism, taking some things to new heights (the great apostasy was a thought present in all Protestant denominations) while rejecting other things alltogether.

However, we shouldn't base ourselves on retrospective fictions like the Islamic prophet David to use words like heresy that are commonly used within religions, not across religious boundaries.

As for "corrupted", we once had a passage containing Islamic "criticism" of Christianity that contained this. Don't know why it's gone. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) define themselves as monotheist, and the Godhead and Trinity can be considered synonomous in meaning, if not deinition. To quote the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

There is speculation within Mormon circles as to the nature of God (as there is in traditional circles), and although they are separate belings, they are still one God. The trinity in traditional Christian circles comes under the same scrutany (as can be seen by this particular discussion), so to claim Mormons are polytheistic while "Christians" are not, is downright hypocritical. The best answer is to say "Christianity, by their own definition, is a Monotheistic religion". Bytebear (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bytebear: that's what I wanted to say above: Mormons consider their religion monotheist. Hence Mormonism, if included within Christianity, cannot be used as an example of non-monotheist Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: the assertion that Christianity is polytheistic appears to be original research in all the incarnations on this page. Even if we could find a reliable source which identifies it as such (none such being evident), it would still have no place in the lead, as the various churches all claim to be monotheistic and the view that Christianity is monotheistic is dominant to the point that no dissenting sources have yet been found. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out there is NO original research as there were referred sources. Here are relevent quotes from them:

"Are Mormons Christians? Yes, Latter-day Saints are indeed Christians." Are Mormons Christians

"Further, while these three gods rule this world and receive honor and obedience from earthly creatures, there are other worlds, each with its own god or gods who are as supreme in their spheres as our three gods are in ours." The Mormon God: Just One of the Guys

"The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge." [Gnosticism: Ancient and modern http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm]

Doing some more research I found these little gems in the space of about 5 minutes: "Worthy Mormons may become gods to create, rule over and receive worship from their own worlds some day." mormoninfo.org

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them." [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/15-37#15 DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132]

"Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a "plurality of gods"—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church." Catholic Answers The Gods of the Mormon Church

"President Spencer W. Kimball stated that “You are the sons of God, [that] you are the elect of God, and you have within your [grasp] the possibility to become a god and pass by the angels … to your exaltation”—possibilities which seem beyond ordinary imagination—yet the promises are divine." LDS

I imagine if I spent more time I could find even MORE proof of Mormonism's polytheistic views and that it is considered a Christan faith. Come one guys, its not that freaking hard to find this stuff and the last link is from the LDS's own freaking website. What more proof do you freaking need?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a novel synthesis from published sources. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source that explicitly identifies Christianity as polytheistic it is not going in, and even if it did go in, it would not belong in the lead. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I think you are misundersting the point I am making. I am NOT saying that *all* of Christanity is polytheistic (that would be insane) only that there are some denomintions within it that are. In fact the current article has become way too unwieldly as there are many consepts that belong to certain denominations but not all. The Religious Tolerance site admits that Christian beliefs cover such a wide range that you really cannot hammer out a set defition of what is Christan. The biggest problem as they pointed out is "there are many Christians out there who hold with fierce determination to their own definition of "Christian" as the only valid one." Read some of the real extreme Fundimental Protestant litature some time (Jack Chick is a prime example) some of which claim that Roman Catholics are not Christan.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Point one: this is the top-level article on Christianity, and you are editing the lead. That means it needs to be the 50,000ft view. The 50,000ft view is: monotheistic. All the Christian churches ascribe to some variant of "one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit". Point two: the inference you draw is not actually stated by the sources you use. You need a reliable independent secondary source that says, in as many words, that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. Not that gnostics are arguably polytheistic, and another saying gnostics are arguably Christian, and therefore by inference Chjristianity contains polytheistic branches, but a reliable secondary source that says, in as many words, that some branches of Christianity are polytheistic. Then it might merit a small mention somewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't have a whole lot of time, so I will be brief. It is still hypocritical to say Mormons are polytheistic because church leaders have made statments about mans potential to become gods. Aside from the many statemtents by early Traditional leaders that amount to the same thing, Jesus Christ used the concept that "Ye are gods" to befuddle those who claimed heresy at his taking the title "Son of God". So, if traditional Christians can use the term "monotheists" regardles of the trinity and of the divine nature of man to become "gods", then Mormons can make the same claims. Please pull the beam out of your eye. Bytebear (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Claiming is novel synthesis doesn't mean it is. What I am actually doing is using several independent sources that say the same thing. The Polytheistic Trinity of Mormonism says the same thing Contender Ministries which says the same thing Overview of Mormon Theology (Animation) which says the same thing Probe Ministries does. I personally crosschecked the quote and confirmed it: "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and this "Thus, the head God brough forth the Gods in the grand council" Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young. There is from the pens of none other than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young themselves. Again what more do you need?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so name the reliable secondary sources which make the same claim, in those words. Not your interpretation of a book source, but sources which say, in as many words, that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sources, Grubb. A random animated story on YouTube and some anti-Mormon web sites? Seriously, you're making our job of discounting your own POV very easy. Thanks for that, at least. I hope we can all move on to serious, good-faith and legitimate issues about improving the article now. --Anietor (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were anti-Mormon?! News to me. Have any proof of that? --216.31.15.35 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint Irenaeus, Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius and Saint Augustine all said similar things about the deification of man, but only an anti-Christian would twist their words. You (or rather, your sources) have done the same to Mormonism. Every attack you present against Mormonism is the same attack Atheisists make on Christianity. Do you really want to be in their company? Bytebear (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deification in the orthodox sense is not the same as "man becoming God just as God once was a man". God is eternally God and the different take of Mormonism makes its classification as Christian problematic. But that is not our concern here. Our concern here is write an accurate article on Christianity, which happens to be a monotheist religion. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I will simply say that you, and many inside and outside Mormonism do not understand the doctrines of God as defined by the LDS Church. I do not have the time or effort to go into it, but I will say that Joseph Smith did in fact teach that "God is eternally God" and before you or others claim Mormonism to be non-Monoitheistic, you need to seriously study the matter beyond looking at anti-Mormon websites. The original author of this debate claims Christianity to be non-Monotheistic, because the Trinity is three beings, i.e. three Gods. If he has a reputable source then it should be discussed. As I said, I think an article could easly be made to cover this point. But there are many sources within Christianity that claim otherwise, with various explainations. Now this brings me back to Mormonism. It is the same argument. The only difference is you are inside one group and outside the other. So you defend the one, while you refute the other. This is called hypocricy. I have given a very simply solution. Make the statement read, "By self definition, Christianity is monotheist." Done. Bytebear (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any merit in continuing the discussion. However, let me comment on two points:

1. that Joseph Smith did in fact teach that "God is eternally God"

I know too little about Mr Smith's teachings that I can concur or reject this. (Addition: it seems to me that Mr Smith thaught this when he said "God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you." and "for I am going to tell you how God came to be God" and "We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel ...") However, it happens to be true that a later Mormon President stated that "As God once was, we are now". (Or is that an untrue statement too?) Whether that agrees or disagrees with Mr Smith's teachings or with current Mormon teaching (which seems to change enormously from time to time) I do not know.

2. It is the same argument. The only difference is you are inside one group and outside the other. So you defend the one, while you refute the other. This is called hypocricy.

This is not only a personal attack (and a spelling mistake ;-) ) but also wrong:

• I defend the monotheism of Christianity because its creed says "credo in unum Deum", holding that God is ONE being existing as three persons. Other may think this illogical but that was never the point of this discussion.
• I do not consider Mormonism monotheistic as it considers God the Father and God the Son two separate beings. To me, that looks plainly like more than one God (whether that God is really God depends on the issue raised in item 1) and not just an arguably illogical tenet. However, I do see that Mormons consider their belief as monotheistic.

Finally (and only this is important for the article), one cannot at the same time included Mormons within Christianity (despite their controversial stance on monotheism) and then turn around to use Mormons as an example for non-monotheistic Christianity. We mention Mormons for NPOV's sake, neither rejecting NOR affirming their status regarding Christianity. The whole issue doesn't change what Christianity is: a monotheist religion. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I will address your points (and try to spell correctly, although I tend not to care on talk pages). From the same speech where you get your idea of "how God came to be God," Smith touched on the eternal nature of God and man saying "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man ... because it has no beginning" and "the pure principles of element, are principles that can never be destroyed." So, there is a concept in his speech about the eternal nature of God, man and element, that goes beyond the concept of "when God became God". In short, Smith taught that God is like a ring with no end, and therefore with no beginning. He exists outside space and time, and regardless of "how He became God", he is and always was God. Now, remember two things. 1) this is deep and not a basic tenant of the church and 2) it is not official canonical doctrine of the church. In other words, it is just as much a mystery as your trinity. God is eternal, he has always been God and will always be God. That is LDS doctrine, and a point Smith was attempting to make with this speech, but anti-Mormons have taken the juicier parts of the speech to distort his full meaning. Unfortunately, a mob killed Smith shortly after this speech, so we have no more elaboration on the concept.

Point 2, you say because a creed says "credo in unum Deum", Christianity is monotheistic. The creed (a non canonical statement by the way) is meaningless to the non-Christian. I will also say that (as quoted earlier) the Book of Momon says the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, and that is LDS canon. So your point is moot. You conclude by saying "Other may think this illogical but that was never the point of this discussion." But you say it is illogical for Mormons to believe the same thing. Again more hypocracy. Bytebear (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While interesting none of this explains why both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote about a head God bringing together a grand council of Gods

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young. Even if your view of one God is such that from an outsider POV it looks like he has MPS (Multiple Personal Syndrome) out the yin yang I can't see how any monotheist could write something like that. So far all we have gotten to "explain" this is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors about misinterpretation of the Trinity. Until someone can explain the grand council of Gods passage you are just wasting our time.

Sections Catholic and Protestant

In the article suddenly two sections called "Catholic" and Protestant" appear. They seem to deal mainly with biblical exegesis and hence should be sub-sections to the "Scriptures" or even the "Interpretation" section.

In the "Catholic" section, the sub-section header "literal" should be removed as a) the following talks not merely about "literal" exegesis, b) the length doesn't warrant a section break, c) there is no other sub-section following.

In the "Protestant" section, the subsection "creeds" and "afterlife" are not specifically Protestant at all. Probably this is a mistake in the format of the section headings.

I suggest that the structure is changed:

   * 1 Beliefs
         o 1.1 Jesus the Christ
         o 1.2 The Death and Resurrection of Jesus
         o 1.3 Salvation
         o 1.4 The Trinity
               + 1.4.1 Trinitarians
               + 1.4.2 Non-Trinitarians
         o 1.5 Scriptures
               + 1.5.1 Interpretation
                   + 1.5.1.1 Catholic
                   + 1.5.1.2 Protestant
         o 1.6 Creeds
         o 1.7 Afterlife and Eschaton
   * 2 Worship and practices

etc.

Does anyone object? Is this controversial? If not, could an admin please make this minute change?

Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that there is not just two divisions in Christianity. Even early on you had the Paulines, Nazoreans, and Gnostics. Around the 4th century you had the Roman Catholic-Byzantine(Orthodox) split and then in the 15th century the Roman Catholic-Protestant split. The Protestant side is a real headache as interpretations are all over the theological map; certainly nothing that even remotely could be simplified down to generalities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bruce, please keep this serious. This is about the field of Biblical exegesis and therefore Gnostics have no part in this, and less so quasi-fictious groups like Paulines and Nazoreans. The Orthodox certainly should be mentioned but this can be fixed by including them in the Catholic section, as they agree on exegesis. In any case, this is about the correction of mistakes in structure, not about changing any content. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am serious. Christianity is not the monolithic religions that some denominations have put forth. As for the Paulines and Nazoreans being "quasi-fictious" that is your POV and has no place in an encyclopedia article without references. Their existence and difference in beliefs is documents at Religious Tolerance which uses no less than 10 references at the bottom of the article. Furthermore I noticed you didn't touch on the elephant in the room: Protestant Christianity.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Bruce? Can you please tell me the specifics of Pauline and Nazorean exegesis? Literal, historical, allegorical, typological, eschatological, moral? Of course you can't because nobody knows anything about this, even these "groups" had already a developed view on this (which they quite propably didn't). As for "quasi-fictitious" - "Pauline" is a construct and a group that really existed - Nazoreans did exist but they were no unified group but rather an umbrella term (later, in the beginning it is just another term for Christians) for Jewish Christians that did not require gentiles to circumcise (as opposed to Ebionites).

What elephant? Protestantism is present? Or are you saying it is not unified? Well, indeed, but Protestants pretty much agree that there is only one sense of Scripture, not four. Even if they are not literally-bent, they do not generally reintroduce the other three senses. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some good points about the structure, Str1977. I don't know if I would classify this as a "minute" change, though. I wish the block would be lifted so we can go forward with your suggestion instead of having to rely on a random administrator (not a dig on admins, just would prefer if editors with some history in this article could deal with it directly). Have you requested the block be lifted? I suspect that once the proposed change is made, there will be some tweeking to do, so it would be nice if we had the freedom to do that. I'm hoping the issue that caused the block is now behind us. --Anietor (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think these changes are minute since they only pertain to the level of the sections, not any content. And I actually believe that the current structure was put there by mistake.

I'd prefer direct editing as well and would never request this from admins if I thought it controversial. I have not requested the block to be lifted as I assume that immediately, someone will reintroduce that OR that got the article blocked in the first place. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Helvetic Confession

The quote from the Second Helvetic Confession, contains the following:

The writings of the Church Fathers, and decisions of Ecumenical Councils, though "not despise[d],"
were not authoritative and could be rejected.

but these seems to be a comment by someone quoting the Confession. This should be fixed. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)