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

Monotheism

While there are plenty of citations saying that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, it's quite obviously not, these sources are clearly incorrect. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Lucifer, Gabriel (or any angel for that matter), all separate entities, and all have powers that would be described as god-like. People constantly pray to angels, which counts as worshiping angels. If the belief in Zeus in ancient Greece is considered polytheism, it seems blatantly obvious that Christianity follows the same label. Why is there no mention of this whatsoever in this article? Neoform (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check the archives this has been discussed ad nauseum. It is a monotheistic religion. Soxwon (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it has been brought up so often because it's very clearly an error and should be fixed?

I suggest that for the sake of neutrality, the line "Christianity is a monotheistic religion", be changed to say "Christianity is considered by Chrisitans to be a monotheistic religion", as this would be far more accurate (since it's very likely that all the citations for this topic are from Christians themselves). Neoform (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been brought up slightly less often than the people saying that Obama was born in Kenya,or the CIA was responsible for 9/11. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. This is completely off topic.Neoform (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's off-topic as your suggestion that the frequency of bringing up a question is related to it's correctness.

There are a huge number of extremely reliable academic sources that state clearly that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and a very small number of people that consider it not to be - almost all of whom are opponents of Christianity. Deciding that the 'few' are somehow 'correct' is what we at Wikipedia call Wikipedia:Original research and is not allowed in articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no original research required to make the change I suggested above. This is an issue of neutrality, of which you seem to be lacking as you are taking a clearly aggressive stance against my suggestion in your implication that I am an "opponent" of Christianity. Neoform (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The view you are proposing is held by so few people that it is not worth mentioning here. See Wikipedia:Undue weight. It would be akin to saying "Evolution is believed by Evolutionists to be the origin of spieces", or "The Earth is believed by some to be a sphere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist', this is an invalid argument. Christianity as a monotheistic religion is self described by Christians and non-Christians tacitly agree because they have no specific interest in questioning the claim, however it is clearly false. You can claim it has undue weight, but it is clearly a falsehood to begin with and thus should not be explicitly stated without modification. The vast majority (if not all) of citations for this claim are from Christian sources. Neoform (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I can't see any evidence of an aggressive stance here, neither can I see any rhyme of reason behind the proposed change. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reading the policies that Wikipedia has used to handle similar situations elsewhere, and maybe some of the other discussions in the archives of this talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is the reason. Articles on wikipedia are not supposed to cater to believers of the article's content, but instead to anyone/everyone. If Christians believed that 2 + 2 = 5, how would you word that in the article? Would you say "2+2=5" or would you say "Christians believe 2+2=5"? The answer is quite obvious. Neoform (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even excluding Christians themselves, a huge majority of sources consider Christianity to be a monotheistic religion. I recommend a good, scholarly book on comparative religions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neoform, you need to read WP:Weight, a book as recommended and also apply a bit of logic. Under the circumstances you mention I would say "Christianity involves the belief that 2+2=5". Talking about religion is very different from talking about maths. You won't find a dictionary or equivalent that says that Christianity is polytheistic. Looks like POV pushing to me. If you have a substantive 3rd party source lets look at it, otherwise please drop this. --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange that you should say this is different from math, because this is exactly a problem of math. Mono vs Poly, the difference being numbers. Neoform (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: What possible citations can I provide on this topic? Do you want me to find a citation that 1 = 1 and 2 > 1? Even if I provided a citation on this subject, you would then turn around and state that this view is a minority view (since Christians account for a massive portion of the world, and the vast majority of the English world). This entire discussion is skewed against neutrality. As a contributor, you should really be more interested in neutrality than you seem to be. Neoform (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's your interpretation as to what should be counted as a god against the 'poly'. Note that Pharao's wizards also had supernatural powers (turning sticks to snakes), and that the Shaitan is the Islamic version of Christianity's devil. So I could make a claim that there is no monotheistic religion... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You very well could; at present, I am not making that argument. Neoform (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several citations provided in the article, and many thousands of others that could be provided, to back up the article's current statement. Why would you find it difficult to provide citations for your point of view? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a point of view, this is an obvious and factual error that is not open to interpretation. I can't find any citations that one is equal to one or that two is greater than one, does that mean it isn't the case? In any case, if you need a citation that badly, then the dictionary should suffice: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polytheism , "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." If you also cite this article itself, then you'll see that Christian religions very clearly meet the requirement of a Polytheistic religion.Neoform (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is again your personal interpretation of what counts as a god. Find a non-fringe reliable source that states that Christianity is a polytheistic religion - then we can talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat; This is not a point of view. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gods if you reference the non-capitalized definition of a god, "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality." you can very clearly see that angels are gods, even if lesser ones, they are still gods. Citations are not easily available for this because Christians will likely view this as inflammatory or contradictory their beliefs, which I suspect is the main opposition to my suggested change; this opposition however is clearly biased and does not deserve merit. Neoform (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything you are writing is what we call Wikipedia:Original research, which as I said above is not allowed. Please read that article carefully and you will discover why it is not permitted. Please make sure you understand the way Wikipedia works before criticising. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly original research. Citation or silence I think neoform --Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of research. At what point does reading the dictionary definition of a word constitute original research? Simplistic/literal deduction is not research by anyone reasonable person's definition. Please provide a citation that this is original research. Neoform (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article I linked to above? I find it pretty clear. Which part did you not understand? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there's nothing original about what I've stated, your link does not apply, nor does it explain how it's original research. Neoform (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article it explains why it is considered original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "go read the article, it explains my argument perfectly" argument. In fact, all the article describes is original research, of which I have done none. Looking up words in the dictionary and citing them is called citation, not original research. Nice try though. Neoform (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the part where it says any unpublished research counts as original research? It's the first sentence, so I expected you to at least read that far. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How could I not? But what does that article have to do with anything? This is not new or original, I'm not the only one who has brought this error up, and it need attention. Neoform (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is Wikipedia policy on these matters. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Neoform, let me explain this as simply as possible. Find an academic and/or scholarly source that says that Christianity is polytheistic and we'll talk. You are not a reliable source, and right now all you are offering is your interpretation of how to apply a definition. I, as a Presbyterian, find your interpretation quite amusing as I do not worship angels, do not pray to saints, and believe that the holy trinity is in fact one. A vast majority of protestants also belief this to be true. That you are trying to assert otherwise is why we rely on RELIABLE sources rather than individual editor assertions. Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you stating your views as if they are relevant to this discussion? (Your amusement is equally irrelevant) I am asking for this article to be modified to be more neutral; you are opposing this change on the basis that you are Christian and do not hold the described beliefs in angels due to your sect's lack of belief in angels, this has no bearing whatsoever on the subject. My 'interpretation' is the literal one. If angels are part of a religion, and angels are imbued with god-like powers, they (from a neutral viewers vantage) are rightfully considered gods. This is no different than any/all Greek gods (other than Zeus) being considered a god. This is an unbiased and neutral viewpoint, something you are clearly lacking based on your arguments. Neoform (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, one more time: We include things in Wikipedia only because they are printed in reliable sources, which include such things as scholarly journals and articles by respected experts on the topic. Period. Experts in comparative religion and anthropology say Christianity is a monotheistic religion. They define such terms, not us. If you can provide an academic or scholarly source that states, in no uncertain terms, that Christianity is a polytheistic religion, we can talk. That is exactly what merits its inclusion in Wikipedia -- not our discussions on talk pages over the definitions of gods, divinity, plurality, or anything else. /ninly^(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never asked for this article to be modified, labeling Christianity a polytheistic religion (even though I feel it is). The reason I haven't is because I don't have a citation that says the words "Christianity is a polytheistic religion", despite it being one (which can easily be deduced by merely reading (on wikipedia) about Christian angels and reading the dictionary definition of the words "gods" (non-capitalized) and "polytheism"). I have however asked for the first sentence to be made more neutral. Right now it makes a claim that can only be true if the reader is himself a Christian; this is not neutral. You will likely be unable to provide a citation from an unbiased source on this subject, which is why the mention of monotheism should be clarified (to state that Christians believe their religion is monotheistic) or removed. No argument (other than clamoring for citations where citation is not needed, there has not been a single unbiased argument against my suggestion yet).Neoform (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is the assumption that ONLY christians view their religion as monotheistic which is entirely at odds with reality (unless Encyclopedia Britannica is a strictly Christian organization). Soxwon (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing EB is the same as citing wikipedia, I'm not even sure why this form of citation is allowed to begin with. Neoform (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure there is any value in continuing this line of discussion, but I will add my two cents. As has been stated you need a reference for your position, if you don't have one, there is not reason to continue sharing opinions. There are those who have leveled this claim against Christianity; Muslims have long accused Christianity of not being monotheistic. You will find others who have discussed Christianity as being henotheistic. However, you will also find a plethora of expert references that clearly define Christianity as monotheistic. If you think the article should also report on a claim of polytheism, just present your reference and let's discuss it. If not, there really is not anything to discuss. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Stormrider. Neoform what I was trying to illustrate is that what you see as god-like powers and evidence of polytheism has been strongly disagreed with by a large portion of the population and mulitple scholarly sources. Hence why you need someone who knows what they're talking about to get it into the article. Soxwon (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for the inclusion or mention of polytheism, I am asking for the adjustment of the line laying the claim that Christianity "is a monotheistic religion" as it is false, the only citation you need is to the dictionary. Christianity meets the very criteria set out in the definition of the word 'polytheism', this precludes it from being a monotheistic religion. Wikipedia articles should seek neutrality, not simply statements that have citations. If holding a bunch of citations was the only requirement, this article would look more like that of the conservapedia. Neoform (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See above, if it is that simple than apparently Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of monotheism is inferior to yours (and quite frankly I would trust EB over you). Heck, even your own dictionary lists Christianity as monotheistic.Soxwon (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary is a reference, not an authority. It says Christianity is monotheistic simply because so many people lay the same claim, this however does nothing to prove that Christianity is in fact monotheistic. Citing EB is the same as citing wikipedia, I'm not even sure why this form of citation is allowed to begin with. Neoform (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument has got out of hand and is no longer about improving the article. I suggest discussing this on your own talk pages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Neoform (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given Neoforms suggestion can I suggest the water article be split. Clearly ice, liquid and steam are different substances and should be recognised as such by wikipedia :)- 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Christainity is overwhelming considered monotheistic by scholars and laymen. The idea that it should be called polytheism is either WP:Fringe or close to it. On the other hand, there are certainly a few RS's that speculate as to whether the Trinity is polytheistic in nature (see [[1]],[[2]],[[3]]. Is there perhaps middle ground here? Something like "considered by most to be monothestic", "generally considered monotheistic", "overwhelmingly considered monothestic"?

Of your three links (1) is broken (2) talks about "residual polytheism" but comes down clearly on the side of Christianity as monotheistic, and (3) describes how "classicists [around the fourth century] attacked the Trinity as polytheism and the greatest Christian minds went into showing how it was not so". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not calling for a change. I think it's fine as is. I wonder however if we might give token acknowledgement to Neoform's position? NickCT (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you could wish him well on his talk page. Why would we give token acknowledgement to a fringe theory without any supporting references? --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is RS saying that debate has at least existed (see above). Frankly whether or not the trinity constitutes polytheism is a subjective matter (as is the meaning of virtually any religous parable/concept). If one accepts that a thing is subjective, and that significant debate has existed around that thing, Wikipedia should acknowledge it. As I said earlier, I'm dubious that this debate is significant, but I wonder if we could choose wording that acknowledges even some miniscule dissent on the subject (if to do nothing more than to humur Noeform)? NickCT (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If references to ideas about it being polytheistic would be included, the only reason for its inclusion would be if solid references to it are found and enough references to it because, even if the idea is shown to be posited, it might still be undue weight to include it, especially in the lead. Humouring Neoform is certainly not a good reason. That would just give them and other users the idea that it's fine to go making original research contrary to reliable sources and actually get something out of it. Munci (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus=mythical

The article states that the religion is based on Jesus of Nazareth, but there's no real evidence to support his having existed. Outside of the Bible and the bits now proven to have been added to other texts. It should be stated that he is a mythical figure. 70.49.241.9 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion that Jesus did not actually exist is a minority one, even among non-Christians. While such a view is worth mentioning (and is mentioned) in the article Jesus of Nazareth it's pretty irrelevant to Christianity. As we say in the intro, Christianity is based on "Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament". DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's a distinction here to be made between a myth and a hoax. Those who believe he never existed believe the earliest Christians perpetrated a hoax. This is different from a myth. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's actually more evidence for his existence than most ancient historical events. Copius biblical materials, they far outmass other ancient documents recovered, and of course there's the likes of the historian Josephus a Jew i.e. not a Christian, who didn't contest the fact that Jesus was different. Few disbelive in the existence of Troy for which there was only ever mythical hints and of course millions believe in evolution for which no transitional forms have yet been found despite the prophet Darwin predicting their existence last millenia :)- 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Your misinformed, inflammatory and unrelated remark on evolution does not belong here. In regards to the topic, "Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament" is barely acceptable to me in conveying the concerns of original poster.

Correction.

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but "born-again" needs a closing quote: "dentify themselves simply as "Christians" or "born-again Christians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.125.62 (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's been fixed now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1.5-2 billion is GROSSLY underestimating the world's Christian population

nevermind the fact that the second largest religion islam does not allow freedom of religion/persecutes anyone who calls themselves Christian, India and China persecuting the church manipulating their numbers, Christianity is AT LEAST 2.1 BILLION STRONG, that's the lower estimate given on the world religions page. it should be noted on the Christianity page that Christianity is the FASTEST GROWING RELIGION IN INDIA, AFRICA, CHINA and it's strongly evident that it is in muslims countries too (this would be muslims converting, not the result of Christians moving into those countries). altogether, you can see even though Christianity is undeniably the largest religion its numbers are probably underrepresented THE MOST out of all the major religions. i don't think anyone would really be surprised if there are 3 billion Christians in the world right now. history shows that the church thrived when it was under persecution not surprised that's happening in India, Africa, China, muslim countries. Grmike (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)grmike

Many people give many estimates for how many Christians there are. If you think the numbers we give here are wrong, you have to find a reliable source that gives the numbers you think and then you can change the numbers. However when you have found the source you should talk about it on this page first, so that other editors agree.

Some of the reasons incidentally for the lower figures is that there are many people who answer "Christian" when asked what religion they are, even though they have never been to church, believed in God or done anything remotely related to Christianity. Some of the counts exclude people like that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. The fact in question is the number of living "christians". The first thing you would Think one would want to do is have a means for determining who is a christian. This is more or less ignored and much wrangling then ensues over fallacious calculations. Innit funny how very sparse critical intelligent thinking is? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issue here. The question is: do you count someone who says they are Christian, but never goes to church? Or goes to church once a month? Or goes to church but doesn't actually believe in God? Or only those who claim a personal faith? Different counts use different criteria, and that (partially) explains the differences. You would have the same problem counting the number of conservatives, or communists, or atheists in the world. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

NAK. I didn't say that identification was easy, just essential. Your reply makes my point about general intelligence. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a question of whether anyone would be surprised or what the reasoning is behind the estimation, but whether there are reliable sources that make the estimate relevant to wikipedia's standards for inclusion. In this case, it looks like a number of reputable sources (including the CIA world fact book and WP itself) agree with your numbers for an upper estimate, but the lower estimates also come from reliable cited sources (the McGrath and Hinnells refs). I'd also guess this has been a subject of (perhaps lengthy?) previous discussion here. /ninly^(talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, but CIA world fact book is. I calculate their figures at 2.2 billion so I'll update the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this Possible

How Come That the Main article of Christianity Mentioned The Word Islam One Time Only in a Huga Article Like that ,,,, i think thats Not Fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.116.250 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the word aardvark at all, and I don't see the relevance of either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon - Please use some form of grammar when posting on talk pages. I concur with DJ Clayworth. NickCT (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-incarnationalists in the lead

Thank you for your message concerning my edit to the article on Christianity. You claimed that the "vast majority" of Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and that therefore this statement should be placed in a paragraph describing all Christians in general, rather than the following paragraph, which discusses differences between Christians. I do not know where you are getting your statistics from, but I believe you are mistaken. According to a 2002 survey published by the Barna Group (http://www.barna.org), only 79% of Christians in the United States believe God is one being in three separate and equal persons—God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit. According to the 2001 US Census, section 79 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf), 159,506,000 adults identify themselves as Christians. This would mean that, circa 2001-2002, 33,496,000 American Christians (21% of 159,506,000) were nontrinitarian. Now I realize that we are not exactly talking about the Trinity here, but by and large most nontrinitarians do NOT believe Jesus is God incarnate, the only significant exception being Oneness Pentecostals, and they are a small group indeed. So, by attributing the belief in Jesus as God incarnate to Christians in general, you are not only marginalizing about 1/5 of the Christian population, but also entire denominations. --Donbodo (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets look at these figures. 79% qualifies is a pretty big majority, in my view, but maybe it doesn't quite count as 'vast'. Most nontrinitarian groups are US based, so the number of Trinitarians worldwide is undoubtedly much larger. This is even more likely to be the case given that outside the US Roman Catholicism is much more prevalent than inside.

Now let's consider that many nontrinitarians are in fact Modalists, who DO believe that Jesus is God incarnate. The number who disagree with this is going to be very,very small. I rest my case. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it an error to attempt to say how many "Trinitarians" there are in the world because there are no references to support it. However, what we can demonstrate is how many churches teach a Trinitarian doctrine. I have not seen anyone compile a comparative list of all 36,000 denominations and their doctrine, but we can develop a list of the largest.

Donbodo, this doctrine of the Trinity is foundational for the largest Christian churches. In fact, simply denying this doctrine will put one outside of Christianity for some churches. This fact, as you have stated, is the majority view. I have always thought we approach topics from the majority position first and then include significant minority views.

Your references appear to be of value (though they focus on what individuals believe rather than the more easier what churches teach). In my life I have met very few people who actually understood the doctrine of the Trinity; most are simply good at parroting phrases long since learned, but that does not matter much.

I would be interested in hearing from others on your proposal of changing the first paragraph to a more inclusive statement and moving the Trinity doctrine to a following paragraph. Maybe we simply focus on Jesus Christ in the opening paragraph?--^StormRider 06:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Donbodo's edits were not actually about the Trinity. He removed a statement saying Christians believe Jesus is "God incarnate", which is much better understood and much more foundational. The trouble, just like every previous time we've had this discussion, is that if we try to describe every possible variant of Christianity in the intro we end up with a 100k intro which nobody reads, or we restrict ourselves to things only all Christians agree on 100%, which means we say nothing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ also has a point. We have talked about this intro for countless hours. The truth is that Christians as a body have a very fractured belief system. For example, if you take the Apostles Creed as used by the Catholic Church and attempt to get support by all Christians (even excluding the language about the one Catholic Church), and we would have disagreement. At what point of common belief do we draw the line?

In re-reading the introduction again today I see no problem with the text and I am a non-Trinitarian i.e. the concept of one substance is meaningless to me pesonally. I think the language is the right language.--^StormRider 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "undue weight," because I am not suggesting an addition to the article. The issue here is that we have a statement made that is not verifiable. There is nothing to substantiate the claim that Christianity necessarily includes belief in Jesus as God incarnate. Would you accept a statement like this: "Human beings are between 4 and 7 feet tall." No, because it suggests that those who are taller or shorter than this are not human beings. A better statement would be: "Human beings are usually--or tend to be--or on the average are--between 4 and 7 feet tall." Similarly, when it is said: "Christians believe Jesus is...God having become man," you are suggesting that those who do not believe this are not Christians. So a better statement would be to say: "Most Christians believe Jesus is God having become man," or something like that. But here is an additional problem: The other affirmations in the sentence, that Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, that he is the savior of humanity, and that he is the Messiah, are universally believed by Christians. They thus are on a completely different level than the belief that Jesus is God become man, which is not universal. It therefore should be placed among beliefs that are more akin to it. --Donbodo (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)