Jump to content

Talk:Christianity: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 352: Line 352:
:::Guy conveniently ignores the fact that I have produced numerous reference including those from '''professional journals''' and a quote of an LDS president backing up my statements while he and the others have not produced one reliable refuting reference. I dealt with a person called Sheff over in sci.archaeology who engaged in this type of nonsense. By the time it was over I had some 30 references that tore his arguments (if you can dignify them with that world) to shreds.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Guy conveniently ignores the fact that I have produced numerous reference including those from '''professional journals''' and a quote of an LDS president backing up my statements while he and the others have not produced one reliable refuting reference. I dealt with a person called Sheff over in sci.archaeology who engaged in this type of nonsense. By the time it was over I had some 30 references that tore his arguments (if you can dignify them with that world) to shreds.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Bruce: (1) You are speaking only to Mormonism, not Christianity as a whole, so you have the wrong Talk page, and (2) because LDS self-identify as monotheistic, and you have not provided a reference that advances your counter-hypothesis, it falls under [[WP:OR]]. You might consider writing and then publishing your research, as a book or a magazine article. Then we can reference you here on Wikipedia. I'm not being sarcastic. [[User:LotR|LotR]] ([[User talk:LotR|talk]]) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Bruce: (1) You are speaking only to Mormonism, not Christianity as a whole, so you have the wrong Talk page, and (2) because LDS self-identify as monotheistic, and you have not provided a reference that advances your counter-hypothesis, it falls under [[WP:OR]]. You might consider writing and then publishing your research, as a book or a magazine article. Then we can reference you here on Wikipedia. I'm not being sarcastic. [[User:LotR|LotR]] ([[User talk:LotR|talk]]) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::You and the others simply don't get it. Mormons are the best example of how the presented information just does not fit the facts. Sure Mormons '''worship''' one god but monotheism as used by wikipidia is the ''belief'' in one god which has been demonstrated as to not be the case. Heck even the Bible refers to Satan as "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4). When you get right down to it Christians are best henotheisic-they may say there is only one god but they definitely ''believe'' in another god (Satan) who will be ultimately defeated by the true God. Mormonism just takes this further but saying the faithful will get their own planet to play with. THis statement is fully documented so ignoring is not going to make it go away.--[[Special:Contributions/216.31.15.35|216.31.15.35]] ([[User talk:216.31.15.35|talk]]) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(and it so obvious in the case of the Mormons as

Muller may have handwaved it with the term Henotheism but the fact is


==Second Helvetic Confession==
==Second Helvetic Confession==

Revision as of 16:21, 15 December 2007

Template:Talkheaderlong

Former featured articleChristianity is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleChristianity has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2004.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
December 26, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
July 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 1, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
Archive
Archives (Index)

Older archives

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If i may, Holy does not mean Good or any of the meanings commonly associated with it. It means seperate or apart, and as such the title Holy Bible does not promote the book more, it simply describes what it is My two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.77.241 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've reformulated the introduction making it neutral. --Esimal 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that Christianty is "dying out" is hardly neutral. --Anietor 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[1] The Qur'an also uses the title "Messiah," though with a different meaning.[2][3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
I looked at how Wikipedia defined deity and got "a preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings." My question is how does that definition not apply to saints or angels? The skeptic annotated Bible shows some 31 passages either hinting or expressly stating there are other gods. That would make Christianity henotheistic even if you try to hand wave it as demons, spirits, or whatever pretending to be gods. In fact, 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV refers to "the god of this world" blinding the mind of men (often read as a reference to Satan).--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Here is your reliable secondary independent source: "Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic." ("Polytheism and Christian Belief" by Michael C. Rea _The Journal of Theological Studies_ 2006 57(1):133-148) Some older references are "Hinduism, for example, is described as a polytheism, but is no more polytheistic than Christianity" - Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association. 1942:380 "The person of the Trinity in its old polytheistic form would have to go..." The American Journal of Theology 1920:367. "..whereas Christanity, though likewise of Semitic Origin, has become modified by Aryan influences, and is decidedly Polytheistic." The American Journal of Theology 1885:367 Also in a poll at bestandworst 50% firmly believed Christianity was NOT monotheistic. One of the comments at the debatingchristianity site sums up the situation best in that Saints and angels are not called god but have similar powers as gods in other religions that admit they are polytheistic.

You may argue the early ones but not the Michael C. Rea article-it is a scholarly paper in a per-reviewed journal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[2] Marskell (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I found no less then four different article are from Journal ranging from 1885 to 2006. So much for your claims of "original research" "Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic." ("Polytheism and Christian Belief" by Michael C. Rea _The Journal of Theological Studies_ 2006 57(1):133-148) Some older references are "Hinduism, for example, is described as a polytheism, but is no more polytheistic than Christianity" - Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association. 1942:380 "The person of the Trinity in its old polytheistic form would have to go..." The American Journal of Theology 1920:367. "..whereas Christianity, though likewise of Semitic Origin, has become modified by Aryan influences, and is decidedly Polytheistic." The American Journal of Theology 1885:367 Also in a poll at bestandworst 50% firmly believed Christianity was NOT monotheistic. One of the comments at the debatingchristianity site sums up the situation best in that Saints and angels are not called god but have similar powers as gods in other religions that admit they are polytheistic.
Lets see. We have at four scholarly paper in per-reviewed journals, a popular poll, a blog that all say Christianity was or is polytheistic. Again what more do you freaking need?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Paper A says it considers mormonism polytheistic, paper B say it considers mormonism a branch of Chrristianity, BruceGrubb takes A plus B and decides that this means we should say in the lead of our top-level article on Christianity that Christianity has polytheistic branches. Novel synthesis. At the same time we have literally thousands of scholarly references on Christianity which accept the standard view within the Christian tradition, which is that there is one God in three persons. So you are also undue weight on your interpretation. One person saying that the holy trinity looks like polytheism does not change the fact that the Christian view of the holy trinity is one God, three persons; we cover that in holy trinity anyway. Four sources spread out over more than a century, plus some evangelical attacks on mormonism, is a very long way from being persuasive. You might convince people to include a very tiny mention here if you could find an independent reliable source that explicitly states that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. I think it's fair to say that most Christians do not even consider mormons to be a part of the Christian church. You have made a weak case for possibly including a mention of polytheism in the article on mormonism, although I suspect you'll have no more joy there than here due to the nature of the sources, but you are a very long way from persuading me - and I think others here - tat this belongs in this article at all, let alone in the lead. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
It's a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
chaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge states Mormanism is polytheistic. Face it I can find more references proving my point while you people have not produced one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
First of all, I do not think orthography optional anywhere.
1. The linked speech was only a later addition. Your explanations seems to me like Mr Smith contradicting himself. Well never mind. I do not doubt that God is a mystery but it was Mr Smith who ridiculed the mystery of the Trinity in the first place and claimed that his view is somehow logical. In any case, believe what you will.
2. What is a "non-canonical statement"? I guess you mean it is not from the Bible. Well, I do not care a bit as I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The creed is binding nonetheless. And no, it is not meaningless to non-Christians, as it is the statement of faith that the Church has once adopted and to which still most Christians adhere to. It is actually more important to non-Christians what a creed says than what any holy book says because a creed states the actual beliefs while Scripture first would have to be interpreted. If the book of mormon says "one God" than that's okay (though there is a contradiction to other mormon statements) - for the record I do not think the Trinity illogical - I was assuming a possible criticism directed at it (namely that "one God in three persons" is illogical - opposed to the invalid criticism that "one God in three persons" equals Polytheism). I never said that the Mormon belief was illogical, only that when there is more than one being called God we do have more than one god.
Again will you please stop your personal attacks, I never attacked you personally. And mind the spelling (it is spelled "hypocrisy"). Str1977 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 passages used by BOTH Joseph Smith and Brigham Young you are just wasting our time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While interesting none of this has any bearing on this article. Christianity is monotheistic, whether you like it or not. Str1977 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get it. LotR gets it. You can easily replace "council of Gods" with "Trinity" or "Godhead" (the latter being the Biblical term), and you get the same concept. God is not one being, but three. That is all Christianity and Mormonism teaches. Call it a mystery or semantics, or what you will, but both beliefs are monotheistic (by your own definition). Oh, and the addition of "grand" to imply more than three beings, is purely an invention of anti-Momons who want to make implications that do not exist in Mormon theology. You can misrepresent the LDS doctrine of the Godhead, and non-Christians can misrepresent the Trinity, but that doesn't change the definition as monotheistic, does it? Bytebear (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is such Doubletalk nonsense that it makes the ramblings of 1984's Big Brother look rational. The exact quote (which you would have known if you have bothered to follow the link) says "The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world." Again unless God has a major MPS problem this passage only makes sense in context of polythesism. In fact the idea of one god doing several things at once shows up in polythesism long before the idea of the Trinity was even thought of: Apollo and Helios from Greek and later Roman mythology case in point. Also passages that refer to God in the plural form in Genesis belong to Author 'E'. The [skeptics annotated bible] lists some 37 passage either stating or implying there is more than one god but only 13 passages saying there is only one God. Exodus 12:12 is particularly weird for if there is only one god then who prey tell who is God executing judgment against? IF they don't exist then the passage makes no sense and if they are demons or spirits maskerating as gods shouldn't the passage say this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me translate into LDS theology, so your eyes may be opened: "[God the Father] called together the [Godhead] and sat in grand council to bring forth the world." It is just a fancy way of saying "God created the Earth", and as was pointed out, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness". The council (meeting) was grand. I sure hope it was. I mean this was the plan to create Earth. Now you accuse me of believing "God has a major MPS problem," when the NT is full of instances where Jesus prays to the Father as a separate individual. Was he suffering from MPS too? Give me a break. The problem you seem to have is not understanding the concept of one God in three beings. Christians call it the trinity, and Mormons call it the Godhead. But the concept is the same. Bruce, are you arguing that both Christianity and Mormonism are polytheistic? Because my point is that either both are monotheistic or both are polytheistic, but you use the same arguments for one and not for the other. As much as Christians want to exclude Mormons from their club, when it comes to the nuts and bolts, they are both in the same boat, theologically. And I agree, you need reliable independent secondary sources to say any of this. Both belief systems claim monotheism. That is verifiable. Bytebear (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the Trinity states that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are the same being. This as John Armstrong points out in his [God vs the Bible http://www.godvsthebible.com/] site results in the somewhat ridiculous situation of God having to sacrifice himself (Jesus) to himself (God) to change a rule he (God) made in the first place. "We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring." - Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48 Love to see how you handwave THAT little gem.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, what exactly is it that you are saying? That Christians / Mormons do not believe in one God, or that it is illogical to do so? These are two different questions. Nobody disputes that the concept of the Trinity is difficult - some would say it is impossible - but that is a question for a different place. The point is that, from the very beginning, Christians have insisted that they do in fact believe in one God, and have gone on to consider the difficult theological implications of that fundamental premise. Whether their explanations make sense is irrelevant to the issue here, which is whether they believe they do. If we are to adopt a properly neutral point of view here, we can only describe religious groups by what they sincerely say they believe. As far as I can see, Mormons do sincerely see themselves as Christians and monotheists, and the vast majority (at least) of Christians see themselves as monotheists. We are simply describing what they say they believe, not what we or others think they believe. If there exists a substantial, notable, and reasonably neutral published source (preferably not a website, and certainly not an apologetic or polemical one, no matter how valid) that says explicitly that these groups, or some of them, do not believe these things, then it can be mentioned in an appropriate place in the article - just because we begin by accepting a group's self-description does not mean we cannot describe reasonable criticisms of it - but we cannot simply publish one editor's interpretations. Monotheism has been such a core element of classical Christian belief since the earliest days, and is held so strongly and widely across the many denominations, that it would be misleading not to use it in a description of Christianity; and unless there is good evidence of reasonably widespread, self-described, non-monotheistic belief groups in the Christian community, there is no reason to qualify it as 'generally' held. Why not leave it at that?Rbreen (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr's passage has NOTHING to do with the Trinity so stop trying to force it on the statement. Since you obviously don't know Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. was the tenth president of the LDS church from 1970 to 1972! In fact the "We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring." passage was even in the 1976 Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual. So stop the tap dancing and address the issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. There is no reliable source which takes those statements and makes from them the inference that Christianity is polytheistic. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I have this straight. I have provided at least three professional Journals that clearly state Christianity was/is polytheistic by the very definition of the term and a passage from the LDS's president about the faithful Mormon becoming a god and getting his own world to play with (basically a variant of the old Gnostics) and you are saying that it is irrelevant?! Tell me exactly what part of professional journal didn't you get?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what you need is... a reliable independent secondary source which uses that (or some other argument) to identify Christianity as polytheistic. Because, after all, all the cited sources, seem to agree it's not. No novel synthesis, a solid, reliable , independent, secondary, authoritative source that explicitly describes Christianity as polytheistic or having polytheistic branches. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mark 12:29-30 (one of the four canonical Gospels): "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

Genesis 1:26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis mine) LotR (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful here. You are deling with two very different parts of the Bible with very different histories. The 'E' passages tend to talk about god i as if he is with other gods (such as above) while 'J' passages always have god as the one and only god.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by 'E' and 'J' passages. But it is irrelevant, anyway -- both the Old and New Testaments are considered the inspired Word of God by orthodox Christianity. Note that Jesus himself is only quoting from the Old Testament Pentateuch (which includes Genesis). It is from passages such as these that orthodox Christianity, by inductive reasoning, arrives at the doctrine of a monotheistic Triune God. LotR (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is refering to El (or Elohim) verses Jehovah. But what Bruce doesn't understand is that there are some cases where God is also know as El-Jehovah. Mormons woudl interpret Elohim as the Godhead and Jehovah as Jesus Christ (in pre-Mortal existance) and El as God the Father. Jehovah is the one who is always saying "There are no Gods before me", and all that. I tie this in to the NT where Jesus says "There is no other name by which man may be saved. No man comes to the Father (El) but by me (Jehovah)". Interesting parallel, eh? Bytebear (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe that this conversation is happening. Only in a forum that exists outside Christian academic scholarship could the monotheism of Christianity be questioned. I vote that this discussion be discontinued lest it make Wikipedia's dealings with Christianity so laughable by actual Christian scholars that this article loses all credibility. Blast me for not citing sources if you wish, but the kind of arguments against Christianity's monotheistic theology are so poor that they would not recieve a passing grade in an undergraduate level course on Christianity. For context: I am a pastor. Signaj90 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting, but definitely not the place for this conversation. There are plenty of message boards on the internet where this could be discussed. Our primary concern is what the vast majority of sources report, and they state that Christianity (including those with variant views such as the Mormons and Gnostics) is monotheistic. If you want to assert otherwise in Wikipedia, please publish your views in peer-reviewed journals and/or through reputable publishers and then convince enough authors and experts of your view to move outside of the extreme fringe. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem we have is that people are not in agreement about terms. Further, we are trying to apply terms that are rather limited to something, that, even in debate, is not limited as we are. It is like trying to use dog barks to describe people. It just doesn't workHideousdwarf (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Hideousdwarf[reply]

Perhaps we should not classify it in terms of Mono/Poly theism. Monotheism in my opinion is clearly not what Christianity is. However it is also clear the the Christian majority is in denial. If this is an encyclopedia then it's about facts and we can't just publish something that clearly is wrong. So maybe we should remove the issue.--Marcperkel (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculously widely acknowledged as being monotheistic. WP doesn't care what anyone's opinion is. And it is far from clear that Christians are in denial. The Trinity is called a mystery for a reason. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was once widely believed that the the Earth was the center of the solar system, that the continents didn't move, and that there must be a planet between Mercury and the Sun (called Vulcan). All these things have passed away because people bucked the status quo and showed that the observation and the supposed interpretations did not jive. The fact is that Christianity is at best a form of Henotheism as it acknowledges there are other gods (or at least beings passing themselves off as gods). Mormonism specifically talks about a council of gods and that the faithful will become demiurge-like beings who will go and create their own worlds. You can tap dance all around that but it certainly is NOT monotheistic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. You are treating Christianity like an ontological reality that you understand better than Christians themselves. The reality is that Christianity, by definition, is a tradition. Traditions are defined by what their members actually believe, not by some ontological nature. Consequently, if the majority of members of Christianity are 'deluded' in to thinking that Christianity is monotheistic for about 2000 years with near complete unanimity, the 'delusion' becomes reality. If they believe that they are monotheistic, they become monotheistic. That's the way traditions work.
2. If you are so sure that we're polytheistic, why are there no credible theological treatises published by even the moderately un-orthodox Christian scholars arguing the point? Conservatives and Liberals alike agree that there is only one God in three persons - one in essence (Greek: homousia), three in person (Greek: hypostasis). One God known in three distinct persons. Study the Ecumenical councils if you have an issue with that, otherwise stay away from debating a tradition you do not care enough about to understand it. It's like invading Iraq with no Arabic translators.
3. Read the New Testament. Jesus is clear that that there is one God - Mark 12:28-34. Your interpretational abilities are quite limited if you are unaware of: i. The Old Testament understanding of the divine council of "gods", ii. The Old Testament habit of referring to angels as "gods", or iii. The Old Testament habit of refering to kings as "gods". Every Rabbi knew that there was only one God - the books of Moses made that clear. You're tripping over trivial matters of Biblical interpretation because you don't know the first thing about Hebrew. You could just as well take issue with the English custom of calling people "brother" who aren't blood relatives or "chick" or "shrimp" or whatever, because you are being way too over literal. By the way, did you know that "feet" in Hebrew is a colloquialism for genitalia?
In conclusion, 1. You don't understand the Christian tradition, 2. You don't know how to read the Bible, 3. You don't seem to care enough to learn from other people on this matter. Maybe I'm being too harsh for WP, but uninformed opinions, while they are welcomed on WP for the sake of openness, do not have the right to displace as much informed discourse as this subject has. Signaj90 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 48k of mind-numbing conversation, I do not see a single reliable source which claims that Christianity is a polytheistic religion. On the contrary, I have seen numerous sources (many currently cited in the article) which claim that Christianity is monotheistic. Without such sources, the entire conversation is pointless, and wastes the time of the editors involved with this page. May I suggest to all involved that this conversation, until we have sources, has run its course. Please don't feed this conversation until we have some sources to debate. Pastordavid (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2007 (
This whole conversation is off topic, and probably should be deleted. It's like people arguing about what should have happened instead of gettin gon with writing an article about what actually happened. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Only one sense of Scripture? Hardly. [Read The Causes Of Divisions & Conflicts

Among Protestant Denominations http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm] for a very brief tip of the iceberg look (I can't even call it a thumbnail). [Christian Universalism] in the form of the Universalist National Memorial Church is a case in point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The very second BruceGrubb agrees to stop his one-man crusade to repaint Christianity as a polytheistic religion, the protection can be lifted. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy conveniently ignores the fact that I have produced numerous reference including those from professional journals and a quote of an LDS president backing up my statements while he and the others have not produced one reliable refuting reference. I dealt with a person called Sheff over in sci.archaeology who engaged in this type of nonsense. By the time it was over I had some 30 references that tore his arguments (if you can dignify them with that world) to shreds.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce: (1) You are speaking only to Mormonism, not Christianity as a whole, so you have the wrong Talk page, and (2) because LDS self-identify as monotheistic, and you have not provided a reference that advances your counter-hypothesis, it falls under WP:OR. You might consider writing and then publishing your research, as a book or a magazine article. Then we can reference you here on Wikipedia. I'm not being sarcastic. LotR (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and the others simply don't get it. Mormons are the best example of how the presented information just does not fit the facts. Sure Mormons worship one god but monotheism as used by wikipidia is the belief in one god which has been demonstrated as to not be the case. Heck even the Bible refers to Satan as "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4). When you get right down to it Christians are best henotheisic-they may say there is only one god but they definitely believe in another god (Satan) who will be ultimately defeated by the true God. Mormonism just takes this further but saying the faithful will get their own planet to play with. THis statement is fully documented so ignoring is not going to make it go away.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(and it so obvious in the case of the Mormons as

Muller may have handwaved it with the term Henotheism but the fact is

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Gary Miller, A concise reply to Christianity.
  2. ^ The Holy Qur'an, 3:46.
  3. ^ Mike Tabish, What does the Qur'an say about Isa (Jesus)?