Talk:Christianity

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Index, Before July 2003, More old debate, 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

Section on criticism of Christianity.

Islam has a short section summarizing criticism and linking to a more in-depth article, so why shouldn't Christianity? Explain here instead of reverting. Any reversion without explanation will be reversed, and not just by me. ThAtSo 06:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Including a criticism section "because Islam has one" is not a valid reason. Consistency is certainly a good idea in theory, but there is not one master article template for articles on religion. But more importantly, the proposed entry was weak and of no value, as noted by others who have reverted it..."and not just by me" ( I include that quote in the spirit of blind consistency that generated this topic). --Anietor 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the standards applied to the Christianity and Islam articles should be different, because Christianity and Islam are different. However, criticism of Christianity deserves some mention here especially considering that this is an important area of discourse, and there is a lengthy article about it. Arrow740 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to apply special standards to Christianity that make it immune to the sort of criticism that Islam is subject to. This would be blatantly POV.

The section is short and carefully sticks to the job of summarizing the sort of criticism that exists instead of going into great detail. After all, that detail can be found in the criticism article, so all we need here is a brief overview, which this section does admirably.

In short, none of the reasons given so far are a credible basis upon which to remove the section, so it's going to stay. ThAtSo 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither article should have a "Criticism" section.Proabivouac 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sharing your opinion. Now, if you only explained how you arrived at that conclusion, I might be able to give your opinion some weight. As it stands, I can only shrug and disregard. ThAtSo 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the disrespectful reply, ThAtSo. I agree with Proabivouac. And to cure you of your shrug and disregard disease: WP: criticism suggests an actual "criticism" section is discouraged. The WP guideline specifically states this, and encourages, instead, the integration of such material into the main article. As an encyclopedia, it makes more sense to address counter-points/criticisms in the body of the article, where a specific topic is discussed. If you think there is info missing, add it to the article. That doesn't require a separate section.--Anietor 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a guideline. "The main argument for [not having them] is that they are often a troll magnet." This article is heavily scrutinized, and that won't be a problem. While I would theoretically support incorporating criticisms into the main articles here and elsewhere, that is not going to happen in the current climate and it's not clear to me how that could be accomplished in an encyclopedic way. Arrow740 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see how having an article heavily scrutinised means that attracting trolls won't cause problems. ElinorD (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your agreement is only as interesting as the argument supporting it. As it turns out, that doesn't make it very interesting at all. You see, I'm all for integrating the material from the criticism section into the article, but deleting the section is not a form of integration. If you think you can integrate it better, feel free to try. But until you succeed, you don't get to delete the section. ThAtSo 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is scope for a "Christianity and society" or "Cultural impact of Christianity" type section where the underpinning of the legal systems (ie homosexuality, blasphemy, abortion etc) of various countries could be discussed. Criticism of Christianity could then be a "see also" at the top of the section. Just a thought for a compromise as I also dislike criticism sections but also feel this is an important point that should be addressed prominently. Sophia 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We had a controversy section in this article, but now I notice its gone.Giovanni33 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ThatSO, I reverted your edit for two reasons: 1) there is no concensus that you are claiming, but more importantly, Saying other articles or sections exists elsewhere is not a reason or an argument for this article. Just so you know where my thoughts are focused, I support a criticism section that is well referenced that would balance anything "positive" in the article or from a historical perspective. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1) NPOV requires us to list criticism. This supercedes any consensus.

2) It is a normal practice to keep a short overview in the main article, linking to the detailed one. This practice is followed in similar articles, such as Islam, and there are people here who support following it here.

3) Nobody's put forth anything resembling a convincing argument for hiding the criticism.

For these reasons, I'm going to wait until I'm clearly not in violation fo 3RR, then revert again. In the meantime, and afterwards, others can revert. If you won't listen to the consensus among those of us who have already discussed the issue, you can listen to the consensus among reverters. ThAtSo 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but the only time content policy trumps consensus (or majority, for that matter; few Wikipedians can tell the difference) is when the Wikimedia Foundation is at risk of getting sued; that's the only time the 3RR doesn't apply. As long as the 3RR applies, you can either leave the majority version up most of the time, or break the 3RR and get blocked. And even if you don't ever break 3RR, you might get blocked if an admin feels like it (which could happen for literally nothing). A.J.A. 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, ThAtSo, NPOV absolutely does not "require" a criticism section as you state above. Where does that come from? And your comments on consensus are perplexing...when you inserted the section, you included a comment that there was consensus for it. Now in the talk page you're saying the need for the section "supercedes any consensus." Is that because the consensus is running against you? This is an important enough issue to hammer out here before inserting it into the article. If anything is clear, it is that there is no clear, strong consensus one way or the other. We should follow Sophia's lead (above) and try to work out some consensus instead of the all or nothing approach. In the meantime, keep the section out. Christianity has been around for 2000 years...we can hold off on a small section of the article for a few days! --Anietor 04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a criticism section on such a broad subject is that it tends to grow and hold a lot of points that are not relevant to this article in particular, but perhaps belong in sub-articles. It is better with such a broad subject (in my opinion) that criticisms can be woven into parts of the article that relate to the particular point. This keeps the article at a reasonable size while still keeping it NPOV. Bytebear 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a majority in favor of suppressing all criticism of Christianity, and there's certainly isn't a consensus. Even if a consensus were to form, it would be an illegal one since NPOV policy overrides all consensus. Now, I'm not going to violate 3RR, but I suppose an admin could unfairly ban me at random. Would you be in favor of that? ThAtSo 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody is against criticism of issues within this article, but to add all criticisms collected in one section is beyond the scope of this article. Bytebear 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. The only time a consensus is "illegal" is when it's actually illegal. Otherwise, the majority editors get an absolutely free hand to decide what NPOV is, which of course makes NPOV null. And since most editors disagree with you, you're obviously the disruptive one here. A.J.A. 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we collect all criticisms into one section. In fact, we already have an entire article dedicated to containing these criticisms, so all we need to do is briefly summarize it and point to the main article. Whenever anyone adds criticism to the section, we can remove the bloat by moving the criticism either into a more appropriate part of this article, or into the criticism article. ThAtSo 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Control the bloat? How many revert wars will we start deciding what is a critical criticism and what is not. It's not worth the headache. Bytebear 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with a "See also" link to a criticism article, but even a header paragraph entices bloat. Bytebear 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a revert war because some people are afraid to have THREE SENTENCES of commentary about the existence of criticism. This has nothing to do with bloat and everything to do with suppression of criticism. ThAtSo 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe what Bytebear is proposing is not to have a criticism section, but contain criticisms in the article where each would apply. That format is a recommendation of Wikipedia also, but I have always disliked it and feel it does not best lend itself to all types of articles; articles on religion being one group. NPOV requires balance in articles, but I would point out that the topic is Christianity. The section would necessarily need to apply to Christianity as a whole and not a single church or denomination to apply.

In reading the proposed langugage by Thatso, I don't see a problem inserting it. I would leave out the NOTE part, but it seems rather benign. What are the reasons for not including it? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for integrating the criticism into the article, and as soon as all of Criticism of Christianity is integrated, we won't need a section summarizing it and pointing to it. But until then, we do. ThAtSo 06:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Christianity is a very broad subject, and criticisms on any point may be too specific for such a broad topic. If a section lends itself to criticism, then it should be presented, but, for example "monotheism" should not be criticized here, but in another article, perhaps Nature of God, or God the Father, or Trinity or Godhead. These articles are more specific about the issue, and not all Christians agree on all points at issue, so to put a criticism here would be too large a blanket statement. Point two, is that in such a broad topic, criticisms tend to stack up, clutter up, and make the article unreadable. The reason a separate article exists just shows the amount of information that can pile up. I am not proposing censorship, but to put the content in the place most appropriate. For this article, I think a single link is sufficient. You don't really nead a lead paragraph, because people will know what a criticism link is leading them to. Bytebear 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Criticism section late last week by putting each criticism into the body of the article in correct section. None were removed! Every one previously listed there was integrated in to the article.

Neither Islam nor Christianity should have a "Criticism" section, no article should:

"Criticism sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article can be structured more neutrally. The correct, neutral way to present this information is to integrate the criticism into each appropriate section."

Criticisms should be included in the prose of the article and a seperate section for them is nothing more than sloppy editing. This article will never move past GA status with a seperate Criticism section.

Last week I moved all the content of the section to correct locations according to proper style, killed the section header, and a few days later the section grows back like the head of a hydra! This arguement looks like like it going to be huge waste of everyone's time and I will not edit here any further. Best of luck to you all. -- SECisek 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section doesn't contain the criticism, just a brief summary and a link to the criticism article, so I don't see how you could have removed what's not there. ThAtSo 20:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If your first edit on this article was yesterday, please review the history of this article to see what I am refering to. You also failed to remove the link from "See Also" where it was palced when the section was killed, it now appears twice. -- SECisek 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been experiencing "Wikipedia Foundation Server Error" and tried to resubmit my edit, and it looks like they were all taking--without me knowing--and in the process I undid some other editors edits my mistake. However, I see the section was removed again, because "criticism sections are discouraged." But, what I added was listing the major relevant controversies, and there is no reason that would be disouraged. That section was the product of many editors working together and was added with consensus. I don't see that there was any consensus to remove it. What are the objections?Giovanni33 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is any necessity to have a criticism section. Can you please show other encyclopedias(e.g. Britannica) that have such sections? --Aminz 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the new paragraph again, as there is no consensus for this "it says nothing placeholder". Feel free to post on the talk page when there is actual content. Then the wording can be discussed if necessary. ^rossnixon 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please state why the criticism section should note be included NOTE: the section proposed only states there is criticism without providing a list of the criticisms and and linking it to the article. If you are not providing reasons why it should not be inserted in the article your rejection is not acceptable and your reasons about concensus are a sham. If you do not provide reasons there is no possibility of concensus. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained a few times already, and none of the counterarguments have survived the least bit of scrutiny. We need a summary section to prevent the criticism article from becoming a POV fork. Criticism sections are discourages, but POV forks are just plain forbidden, because they violate NPOV. ThAtSo 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A "criticisms" section will only degrade the quality of this article. It will not provide the reader with any useful information pertaining to the Christian religion, as is appropriate for an introductory article. On the other hand, it will (1) bloat the article, providing only tangential information at best (2) serve as troll magnet, attracting everyone with an anti-Christian ax to grind to chime in with their two-cents, and, last but not least, (3) sensationalize the article (which seems to be the order of the day). There is already an article Criticisms of Christianity -- just provide a link to that article and be done with it (I believe Giovanni33 has already proposed this). LotR 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LotR, I am concerned about the possibility of not presenting a balanced article. The only language I am promoting was an edit I saw reversed which read:

==Criticism of Christianity==

Throughout the history of Christianity, a wide range of Christians and non-Christians alike have offered criticisms of Christianity, the Church, and Christians themselves. Christians has responded to many of these criticisms, partially through the field of Christian apologetics.

Much of the criticism cannot be distinguished from general criticism of religion. Other criticism addresses the Christian teachings specifically and concerns interpretations and dogmas related to Christianity.

I do believe that editors will attempt to expand and provide specific areas of critique. Those should be judged on their individual merits and should be treated just as we treat all edits. Adding a simple statement that there are criticisms would not "degrade" the topic, but add a degree of balance.

Even the appearance of censorship is inappropriate. Currently, there is not even a link under the See Also section directing readers to a contrarian article. It may be sufficient to just add links there and call it good. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really crazy about the version you like which was reverted, Storm. It really doesn't give any information. I mean, its a 2000 y/o religion, of course people have criticized it. There should be a wikilink to Critisism of Christianity in the see also section, or there should be a terse section giving a few criticisms in addition to this wikilink. Personally, I think a wikilink by itself is the best solution. Adding a section in here will just lead to much conflict over what does and does not go in. Carl.bunderson 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not buring a torch over this issue; I am comfortable with a link in the See Also. The mere fact that proposed language was so benign is what first caught my eye on this issue. All it was doing was raising the issue that there was criticism and directed the reader to an article.

As Lot intitmated above Christianity is not a single monolithic entity; it is a broad range of individual groups that acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the Messiah. Criticism for one group is not criticism for another. This is something I understand and support, but currently there is nothing that directs the reader to criticism of any kind. It seems like something is needed and I would support links. What do others think? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The text that Storm has written above is reasonable and concise enough that it would not be problematic or detract from the article as I was thinking. I was under the impression that a bloated, agenda-driven section with undue weight was at issue. Editors would still have to remain vigilant against accretions and trolling, however -- I have witnessed "controversy" sections in other (less watched) articles become behemoths over time in this manner. The link to Criticism of Christianity could be also provided here and in the See Also section. LotR 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a link in the See Also section. I think that provides readers with access to criticisms if that's what they are looking for, and it prevents a bloated section subject to edit wars in this article that several editors (including me) fear.--Anietor 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, think those interested can find it in the See Also section. Other Encyclopedias(such as Britannica and others) don't have such section; therefore having a criticism section is at most optional. --Aminz 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why on Earth doesn't Christianity have a criticism section. I recall that everyone came to the concensus that every religion needs a criticism section. Even Confucianism has one!--User:Ishvara7 21:58 23 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

Ideally, criticism on a topic is mixed throughout an article, but for various reasons, that's not always possible, so we create criticism sections, because it's better to put the text somewhere than delete it. In fact, the NPOV policy requires that we preserve criticism when it's from reliable sources.

When any section gets too large, though, we may need to break it out into its own child article and cut the section in the main article down to a summary that prominently links to it. This isn't about hiding the contents of the section, just factoring it out to make the article more manageable. The risk is that clever but biased people might move all the criticism out of an article into a new one, then cut the links, burying the criticism in a POV fork that nobody will ever see.

This is exactly what's happened here. It was bad enough when the summary section was deleted, but now even the link that was buried in the bloated See Also section is gone. The result clearly violates NPOV, so I feel compelled to fix it. Unless and until someone integrates all of the criticism from the child article into the main, we absolutely must maintain a summary section with a prominent link. ThAtSo 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this article appropriate for every criticism? Criticisms should reflect the topic, and this topic is too broad to handle every criticism that may come up. Do you want to eliminate every "Criticisms" article in Wikipedia, because I think there are a lot of them, from religion to politics to media personalities. Good luck on that one. Bytebear 04:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, ThAtSo, it is not correct that we "absolutely must" maintain a criticism section. Second, you really should at least be honest about your edits and stop including comments about how there is a consensus when you insert criticisms or revert their deletions. Have you not read all the comments above? There is certainly no consensus on this. Finally, I give you credit for your creative use of the royal "we". However, your attempts to present your views as having gained a consensus are misleading and just bottom-line false. To be frank, I think you make some valid points here and there, but I find it hard to credit them when they're swirling around your other comments which detract from your overall persuasiveness. For instance, you refer to the deletion of the link in the See Also section. I think you have a valid point there, and I would support the inclusion of the link in that section....except that it's part of a rant about POV and what we "absolutely must" do. Tone done the rhetoric and let's deal with the issue, trying to build a real consensus. --Anietor 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo, I agree with Anietor. I have been watching this discussion all day, and I don't see a consensus (certainly not a strong one) one way or the other. Carl.bunderson 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThAtSo. But, I also note that no one has given any reasons for removing the long standing Controversies section. Much less is there any consensus to remove it. Since I see no objections Im restoring it, and it should not be removed unless there is clear consensus to do so. As for a criticism header, I restored that too. If people disagree still, and consensus is against a criticism section, then I'd hope they would ONLY remove that and NOT the long established controversies section.Giovanni33 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I not convinced as to how including a "Criticisms and Controversies" section contributes to an article's NPOV. The article is plenty NPOV without this tangential, agenda-driven add-on. As it stands, the article presents the facts surrounding the Christian religion. It does not have a "Praise and Kudos" section that a Criticisms section would need to counter. It does not have a full-blown "Apologetics" section that presents even a sampling of the numerous arguments supporting the belief system. It does not have a "Humanitarian Contributions" section detailing the overwhelming good that has been achieved from faithful practitioners over the centuries. And there certainly does not seem to be consensus now for inclusion in its present form. I am not saying that there can't be a reasonable Criticisms section (see above), but the section as it stands is a POV rant. LotR 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I think you contradict yourself. You say the article does not have a "Praise Kudos" section, yet you also say it has a section with supporting your POV that is "detailing the overwhemling good that has been acheived from faithful practictioners over the centuries." Thats good and fine, but it doesn't mean we need to exclude the POV that details the overwhemling bad that has been acheived from faithful practiioners over the centuries" either. Another legitimate POV. But all this is for a criticism section. What I'm refering to that stands out and apart from this is a controveries section, detailing important alternative POV form the dominant Christian POV for major issues. I don't see any objections raised why this should not be included, nor consensus for removing it.Giovanni33 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LotR. Also, please note that, unfortunately, this topic has been split into 2 discussion sections (see the Criticism discussion right above this one). So perhaps Giovanni didn't notice that there is the first hint of consensus growing, perhaps to have a link in the See Also section (calm down...I'm not saying consensus has been reached yet!). So let's see where that goes before reinserting that large criticisms block again. And maybe we can continue the discussion above so it's all in one place?--Anietor 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how I have contradicted myself. My point is that there are no existing sections that present the counterpoint to a "controversies and criticisms" section -- I provided concrete examples of hypothetical POV sections that would balance the inclusion of the inherently POV "controversies and criticisms." I am not advocating that such sections be inserted, but am questioning the assertion that a "controversies and criticisms" is needed to make the article NPOV. The article is already NPOV. I would have no problems with providing the link to the rather lengthy article on the topic (as advocated by Anietor above), or having a substantially pared-back section. But the detailed, bulleted (punctuated) section, including mention the so-called "Mythological Jesus" denigration, is transparently POV. LotR 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As a currently uninvolved but lurking party to these discussions, this tempest-in-a-teapot has gone on for long enough. I have two points to make:

• To, e.g., LotR's last sentence, I say "indeed".
• To elaborate on that, please note that to make (or maintain) NPOV for this article, we do not need to include a critics/controversy section/content. What needs to be done is to describe the belief system which is the topic of the article, while avoiding endorsing it (or disparaging it, for that matter). Variant interpretations should not be described as criticisms or controversies, but as variant interpretations, keeping undue weight in the front of our minds at all times.

Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth should any type of religeon have a critisism section? If someone decided to critisize abortion or homosexuality, there would be tremendous backlash and a cry for immediate termination. True, everyone has an opinion, but it can be handled and discussed in a perfectly acceptable manner. Labelling any type of discussion sight "Critisizing Article" is unacceptable. I happen to be a devot Christian who looks upon whatever opinion someone has, with acceptance and open mindedness. I would have loved to enter a mature discussion about a topic within this, but am completly disqusted by the way this article was created. I recognize the good intentions from the beginning of the article, and can easily respect why a critique article would be created, but in order to solve a problem it is usually neccissary to stop it when you can, but initiating critisizm is only building onto this hopeless article which I wonder why I am contributing to. -C.L.O.I.16

Historicity of Jesus

LotR deleted the following text with this edit summary "remove out-of-place, self-contradictory, undue-weight text that was slipped in under my radar sometime last week"

Although historians generally agree that Jesus existed, a few writers propose that Jesus is a myth, and have aimed at reconstructing an historical Jesus. Some writers have depicted Jesus as a metaphor for spiritual awakening or a fictional figure based on Ancient Greek or Egyptian religions.

I didn't insert this text but I'm curious what's wrong with it. I agree that it is a bit "out of place" but I don't agree that the text should have been deleted.

--Richard 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would fit better in the Jesus article, but should not be removed from Wikipedia altogether. Bytebear 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should not be removed, either, and belongs in this article, however, since the point is convered in the reinstalled Controveries section, I did not restore his removing it from other section.Giovanni33 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Best would be to incorporate that section into the body of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but possibly has undue weight issues. I think it best fits in the long established controveries section that a couple of editors keep removing. I hope they stop that until there is consensus to remove it.Giovanni33 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep running into a problem where the article shows no way to make changes, no way to notify someone of errors, no link to request unprotection, if that is indeed the issue, and no way to do anything and no links to do it. Someone please explain why this is the case. 69.181.188.254 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 69.181.188.254 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected: this means that only editors with an account and a certain number of edits under their belt can edit it. I encourage you to create an account - see Wikipedia:Why create an account? Slac speak up! 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the things said above, it is also nonsense and POV-pushing. It is okay when it reads

"Although historians generally agree that Jesus existed, a few writers propose that Jesus is a myth"

but it jumps off the rails when it says "and have aimed at reconstructing an historical Jesus."

The quest for the historical Jesus (why the nonsensical indefinite article) is suddenly identified with the few mythicists on the fringe, which is thoroughly misleading and actually self-contradictory: those who think Jesus is a mere myth do not look for the historical Jesus as they deny the existence of such a thing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The point above mine was incredibly well made regarding the internal contradiction. Anyways....this sentance, "Some writers have depicted Jesus as a metaphor...." is a problem because of the weasel wording. I would like to know who says it. Basejumper2 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Small Criticism vs Large Controversy

I just want to ask everyone, (on both sides of the argument) to leave the short criticism section alone, it only serves as a link to other articles and is so NPOV you fall asleep reading it. I do not think this article is NPOV but I also don't think it is appropriate or helpful to have a huge controversy section in an article that is so close to many people hearts.

I think the compromise should be bland and tiny enough that the zealots can ignore it yet complete and visible enough for those looking for a counter view to find and comprehend it.

Thank you

In good faith

Esmehwp 00:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please all read WP:TIGERS

Esmehwp 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So the best you can say is that it is "bland" and makes the reader "fall asleep reading it"? That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but, rather, another reason to not include it. I think you also need to recognize your own POV here, Esmehwp. It is evident in your classification of the two "sides" as zealots v. those looking for a counter view. A distaste for a criticism section is not an indication that the editor is a zealot, or some sort of police for religious orthodoxy. It is actually consistent with Wiki policy. Furthermore, an article that explains the doctrine of a religion is not POV because it discusses the tenets of the faith. That would be a catechism...an instruction on what the reader SHOULD believe. This is an article about what Christians, generally, do believe. --Anietor 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way to justify removing a criticism section is by integrating its contents. At this point, the contents just point to an article that would turn into a POV fork if references to it were buried, and that's exactly what's going on. I support Esmehwp's allegation that this article violates NPOV. ThAtSo 07:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Unless and until the information is integrated into the article, the section should stand pre NPOV requirements. Whoever wants to remove the section, has the burden of adding the information into the body of the article, and not just blanking valid, sourced information that adds value and NPOV to the article. Or, you are simply a bad editor and will be reverted.Giovanni33 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea for both sides to start discussing here how best to incorporate some of the material, instead of carrying out a battle on the article page between having it all in a criticism section and not having any of it anywhere? ElinorD (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That is why I'm here discussing. I think it belongs in its own section, but if the other side says that its better in the article, I'm ok with that compromise. Let them put it in the article and see what it looks like. I'm open minded. But, just blanking it and then doing nothing is not acceptable. Esp. not considering they are not even talking about it on here. They can move it into the article where they see fit, even if they don't want to talk about it on talk, and I won't revert that. I only revert blanking of valid, sourced, info, that makes this article more comprehensive and NPOV.Giovanni33 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is a bad word; Academic literature are expected to focus on "understanding" rather than "criticism". And as it is the usual for Criticism sections, enough space is not given to Responses for the title of the section makes it clear: It is meant to criticize. The "context" is almost always missing in such sections. --Aminz 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any enthusiasm for a "Cultural impact of Christianity" or some such section? From the dating system (AD/BC) to the laws on euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality (in the west), the school curriculum in the UK, the academic system in Europe (ie the founding of universities) and the settling of America by Europeans - all these things are based on the direct influence of Christianity. By writing a section on such things we could naturally incorporate criticisms without having a separate section. In fact I would go so far as to say that the criticisms article deals with subjects such as the ones I have outlined that are not currently covered by this article and that is why it seem so tacked on and out of place. Sophia 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, since it'd let us cover some of the topics that Christianity gets criticized for without doing it as pure criticism. That'll make it a lot easier to remain neutral while still being accurate. ThAtSo 00:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea, but doesn't it sound like a lot of material? That might be a good topic of a new article, or perhaps one of the offspring articles already in existence. But for this main article on Christianity, it seems like an awfully large section that would have to be created. --Anietor 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why it was just tacked on in a small section that mentions some of the main controversies (not really criticisms even), which can then point to other articles. But to blank all info and mention of these issues from the main article is counter to NPOV, and makes this article less interesting, less comprehensive. Adding in bullet points for larger issues is able to do this without bloating it.Giovanni33 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the "see also" section jumps out as being the place to put this stuff. There is an article Christian views about women which could be brought under the scope of "Cultural impact". As for it being a lot of stuff then if the section becomes bloated a new article would be the thing to do with a summary and link left here. Just looking at the article I feel it's missing one of the most important points about Christianity - how its cultural dominance of Europe and America affects the lives of all who live there (why can't I shop in Sainsbury's on a Sunday after 5pm?) whether they are Christian or not. Sophia 05:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually those are excellent and valid points, and I agree with them. Lets incorporate and balance that section. Cultural impact is multi-sided and had some far reaching ramifications that should be mentioned.Giovanni33 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I had another concern regarding the controversy section: We need a source saying these are the most notable controversies about Christianity, otherwise, using these sparse sources to write such a section looks like doing Original Research. (WP:NOR) I doubt any academic engages in such classification of points of controversy and therefore we shouldn't have such section here (i.e. we are back to the first place: when other Encyclopedias don't have such sections, we can not have it here either)

Giovanni33 argues that deletion of the section "makes this article less interesting, less comprehensive". "Less interesting" depends on reader's taste; it depends what you are looking for. Regarding "less comprehensive" point, It needs to be argued that there are no other topic that is more important than this section. Britannica's Article on Christianity is 227 pages and I can not find any "criticism" or "controversy" section there. Please show that the topics covered there (but not here) are less important than "controversies" you have chosen.

P.S. BTW, What is the philosohpy of "POV"-tag? How is it that the article becomes "biased" if it doesn't criticize the subject? Let's keep tag aside in any case. --Aminz 06:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"We need a source saying these are the most notable controversies about Christianity" - Yes, that is a good point. I also question to what extent an observation that "some people do not believe this" constitutes criticism of Christianity. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an entire article on Criticism of Christianity which needs to be summarized and placed somewhere in this article with a {{details}} template linking to it. Otherwise we have a case of WP:POVFORK, which should be avoided. This article needs to be restructured as a Main article with spinoff articles which are summarized and linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See examples of other religions such as Islam#Criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you not in favor of merging the criticism section into the rest of the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes. But a section can be created with a short, one paragraph summary of Criticism of Christianity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Persecutions & Critics

For about 10 days now, I have been trying to keep the trivial "controversy" section off this page by pointing out that EVERY SINGLE WORD of it was already in the text of the article under the prsecutions section. Since nobody bothered to read the article, you all have been reverting and deleteing text that appeared in the article twice the whole time. Somebody at last noticed this and deleted the passage from the persecution section saying that there was "no consensus for this 'new' section." It's not new, it was there this whole time! I am not watching this article anymore and I think it should be delisted as GA since there is this ridculous edit war going on here. -- SECisek 11:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked this version [1] from 01 Aug. The part-section I deleted is nowhere on the page. I searched for "apologetics" which is part of the new sentences, looked under "Persecution", looked under "Criticism" - nope. It's NEW and ADDS NOTHING USEFUL, and the consensus since then (AFAIK) is that it doesn't belong. Will wait for more comment before deleting it again. ^rossnixon 12:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See above for why NPOV requires this section. Stop deleting it. ThAtSo 17:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo, does NPOV require that it be in the article twice? Because it was after that edit of yours. Maybe you remember it. It's the one where you used the edit summary to accuse me of vandalism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked and I failed to see where any part of the persecutions section has any cross over with the controveries/criticism section. I dont see there its repeated twice.Giovanni33 20:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1 less party in dispute

I think the article is now fair and balanced and the integration is also positive so I'm withdrawing my objections and supporting the current draft being a GA.Esmehwp 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree it was, until the information on a criticism section that was integrated into the persecutions section was removed.Giovanni33 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Persecution section

Giovanii, could you please explain your edit summary more ("statements are relevant and do add to the article. No valid reason to remove.")[2]. Thanks. --Aminz 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Persecution

I don't see much to explain. It should be self evident. The section has these links to main article: Main articles: Persecution of Christians, Historical persecution by Christians, and Criticism of Christianity. Perhaps you can explain more your edit summary that says what you removed was "not relevant and add nothing to the article"? The introduction sentence that there are a wide range of criticisms from...to...touches on the question of scope, that the main article discusses in detail.Giovanni33 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to "Criticism of Christianity" was placed there only recently. Just as the addition to the section about "criticism" it doesn't belong in a section about persecution of and by Christians. I don't see much to explain either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This section is not a replacement for "criticism" section; it is about "persecution".

The sentence "Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been a wide range of criticisms of Christianity, practices and beliefs of the respective Churchs, or of Christians themselves." is a general statement about criticisms and the only thing it says is that there are criticisms. Well, everybody knows there are criticisms. The statement would be still true if we replace "Christianity" with "Judaism", "Islam" or any other world-wide religion. That's why I said it is not informative nor is it focused on "persecution". --Aminz 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not everyone knows the scope of the criticism, and even if they do its imporatnt for an article to even include well known truisms for NPOV reasons. Since it doesnt quite belong in that section, and I agree, then it should be stated in its own small section that points to the larger article per NPOV.Giovanni33 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So we'll start by saying, "People who don't believe the Christian religion don't believe it." A.J.A. 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some common sense. Bytebear 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"...(although some say they really do and just won't admit it). On the other hand, people who believe the Christian religion do believe in it (although some claim they just pretend to believe it)." A.J.A. 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we don't say any such nonsense. However, we do say:

"

See also: Criticism of Christianity

Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been wide range of criticisms of Christianity, its practices, and beliefs, the repective Churchs, and of Christians themselves. Much of the criticism cannot be distinguished from general criticism of religion.

Christianity has responded to many of these criticisms, partially through the field of Christian apologetics."

But it seems you have a pattern of suppressing criticisms, here and in other article, even if its just making clear there ARE criticisms.Giovanni33 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a supression of critism to object to such a hollow entry...do we really need to "make clear there are criticisms" of Christianity? AS AJA points out, Christians believe, non-Christians don't (the same being true for any other religion, of course). Putting in such obvious statements to make it clear that not everyone believes what Christians do makes the article read like a 5th grade book report. I have no problem with a link to the Criticisms article (which I think should just go in the See Also section), but some of the material being thrown in as well is of no value to the article. And as a practical matter, having more than a link to the criticism article will result in endless edit wars about what goes in, stays out, is relevant, is slanderous, etc. --Anietor 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no censorship going on here, and the implication is bias. It is a matter of putting material where it makes sense, and this is not a critical article. It is a very broad topic with thousands of diverse religious groups represented. Many criticisms are based on historical events, and not of these groups, and often many of these groups within Christianity have the same (or similar) disagreements. I have seen this in other topics where bias people want to make sure the "uninformed reader" just has to know all the evils of the group. Well, this isn't the place for such issues. It bloats the article, it allows for bias and POV, and it is poor style. All of these factors overweigh the rather paltry argument of balance and censorship. Bytebear 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clearly censorship. Wikipedia requires NPOV, and removing the summary of the related criticism article is a violation of this policy. Bring on the RFC, because I won't let you get away with this. ThAtSo 20:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been wide range of..." That's vacuous; the criticisms such as they are have been incorporated into the relevent sections; the criticism article is linked in 'see also'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what you quoted ALONE would be vaculous, but not if you quote the rest. It speaks to the scope of the criticisms of Christianity, i.e., its practices, and beliefs, the repective Churchs, and of Christians themselves. It also states that much of the criticism falls under general criticism of religion, linking to that important article (that is not in see other), and it links to, Christian apologetics, which has been the response to these mounting criticism. This is only an introduction to the criticism article. It jumps out in a way that is needed so readers can click on any of these links and understand the wide scope of the subject--even if its not detailed in this article.Giovanni33 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, criticism of every religion includes those of its institutions, practices and the believers (if the new point is that Church is an important institution for Christianity, then it's already in the article). The term Christian apologetics is not informatiove for one can think of something like "Religion X apologetics". If you would like to add those links to the article, please feel free to add them to the see also section.--Aminz 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes,that may be true, but things that are obvious and true sometimes need to be stated nontheless, given their import, and for NPOV purposes. And just adding a link to apologetics would be out of context.Giovanni33 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Tom is right. We have already added the criticisms to the article following the principle of Show, don't tell. --Aminz 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. These statments were integrated into the body, true, but then were trimmed, and then removed completely. Now they are completely taken out save for this section. What remains integrated are the main controversies.Giovanni33 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I am sure those interested in criticisms, will not miss the link. That introduction is reallly not informative. Please let it go. --Aminz 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, if we make it more informative, then you would not oppose it? I just want to make sure I understand the basis of your objection correctly. And, yes, I'm sure they wont miss it with its own section.Giovanni33 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I have a personal request: all those main controversies have been included in the article. I am afraid if we add more controversies, the article will start looking pointy. Please let this go as it is. --Aminz 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of persecuton, Tom harrison is so angry at me for what I'm doing here that he's trying to get me banned forever by having me identified as the reincarnation of some long-term vandal. I just love it when people try to intimidate me with empty threats. Is this what Jesus would have done? ThAtSo 23:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Jesus having taken a stand on sockpuppetry one way or another.Proabivouac 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Giggle...thanks for the levity, Proabivouac! Much needed. But seriously, ThAtSo, your comments continue to demonstrate your incorrect presumption that anyone opposed to your criticism section is some sort of Orthodox-policing censor. However, the comments make it clear that the objections have been..for lack of a better term...objective. It adds nothing to the article, it's redundant, the link is sufficient, etc. Please get over your persection complex, and your "I won't let you get away with this" threats. And stop inserting edits with comments about how there is concensus. There's nothing close to consensus for your edits. --Anietor 23:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the part where you're not supposed to bare false witness, or is that OT and therefore doesn't apply to Christians? ThAtSo 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it does. For example, if someone says something you know to be true, and you call them a liar, that is false witness.Proabivouac 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page create more accusations of sockpuppetry than all the others i work on combined? Sophia 10:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know…maybe because Women, children, Hindutva and criticism of Islamophobia isn't on your watchlist? There are actually articles where most contributors are probable socks. This one doesn't look that bad.Proabivouac 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I don't edit in the Macarthyism circles. Sophia 12:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I've got it: 1) Joseph McCarthy accused people of being part of a Communist conspiracy without credible evidence 2) Some editors on Wikipedia have accused others of being sockpuppets 3) therefore, these editors are like unto Joseph McCarthy, and their claims lack credible evidence.

Actually, there's no such thing as sockpuppets. It's all the fabrication of the Military-industrial complex. WP:RfCU? A big witchhunt. Sockpuppets are the figment of the paranoid McCarthyist imagination.Proabivouac 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Macarthyism - my point was that if you do this stuff all the time you have to be careful not to jump at shadows. As a scientist I was taught that if you are getting the results you expect then you need to be very careful you have not introduced systemic bias and to investigate thoroughly - not to push full steam ahead and congratulate your self that you are so clever. This is way off topic now and I personally feel calling for the perm ban of an editor is a serious matter to be treated properly. I will not be responding further. Sophia 12:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not all science, actually: a halfway-aware reader will be able to immediately and unfailingly distinguish between passages by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, Hemmingway, Faulkner and Nabokov. If someone then asks, well, how can you be sure, the proof might get fairly involved. That's not to say that the id wasn't obvious to begin with.Proabivouac 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things.

First, I am literally laughing out loud and can't help but to respond. The reason such analogies completely fall short as arguments is that the people who make them get so excited by the small similarities that they ignore the big differences, leaving the result strained to the point of irrelevancy. Of course anyone can tell Chaucer from Faulkner; Chaucer wrote in an archaic dialect of English that's centuries old and barely comprehensible to modern speakers. In fact, all the authors you chose either come from different eras or wrote classic novels in particularly distinctive styles on characteristic topics. They're also famous writers whose work has been studied to death by academics, who really can recognize them at a glance.

What do your examples have to do with anything else? The people on Wikipedia aren't writing lyrical fiction, we're just cranking out functional, workmanlike prose in modern English, and you're no scholar. From where I'm sitting, we each sound more or less like everyone else, especially when we start paraphrasing each other, repeating cliches and and generally talking in shorthand. The most parsimonious explanation for all those people reverting with "rvv" as their edit comment is that they're copying from each other, not that they're secretly the same person. If you wanted to make an honest analogy, you'd talk about whether we can "immediately and unfailingly distinguish" between an article written by the AP as opposed to Reuters, or tell which of the 40 nearly identical essays on labor migration in the post-Reconstruction South was written by me instead of a classmate.

Of course, if someone wanted to systematically highlight the inevitable similarities while discarding all the meaningful dissimilarities, they could build up a supremely weak case for any two people being the same. It's called selection bias, and it's endemic among rank amateurs. It's why professionals use control groups and submit their studies for peer review. It's also why your claim is patently ridiculous, not just a little bit wrong but totally laughable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to pull the wool over people's eyes like this and anyone who takes you seriously should have their heads checked.

Which brings us to the second point. Isn't it funny that you're campaigning against me here instead of digging up any real evidence for your claim? Isn't it funnier that your argument is so weak that I can tear it to shreds without even raising an intellectual sweat? I can see that this is all you've got, and it's not enough to persuade any Rational person of anything. Go ahead and slander me all you like because the absurd flaws of your arguments just reflect poorly on you, but I'm going to have to ask you to take this someplace else. Your little witch hunt against me has nothing to do with the subject of Christianity and everything to do with intimidating the people who want this article to be fair and balanced, and that's why you're trying so hard to stink this place up. It's not going to work and it's not relevant, so you're going to have to find a better captive audience for your nonsense. ThAtSo 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to redirect your comment to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Alienus, where it seems a number of rational people are already persuaded - there may be more. I have no "campaign against you," incidentally; my campaign is against the phenomenon whereby even the most obvious cases of sockpuppetry (such as your own) are met with "well, sure it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but can we be absolutely certain it's a duck?…and in the absence of 100% certainty, shouldn't we pretend we know nothing at all?" making enforcement of basic policies laborious to impossible. Besides your unjust remarks about Tom Harrison, and now myself, I have no particular trouble with your participation on WP, nor am I calling for any sanctions against you; that's between you and ArbCom. The problem of sockpuppetry is much bigger than anything being discussed on this page.Proabivouac 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Do not delete the warning tag until THIS dispute is resovled (as per WP policy)

Dispute-In-a-Nutshell

side A

Esmehwp, Thatso, Giovani + others

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

side B

disagrees...(state a brief outline of your views)

discussion

This is a rather awkward section all of a sudden. Right before its creation, Esmehwp went into a bit of a rant against those that diagree with him, ending by saying he was esentially withdrawing from editing this article. (See [3]) Then his comments were self-deleted from the talk page, so they don't even appear. I'm not sure if that means he withdraws his withdrawal, just regretted his comments, or what. But I think this Dispute discussion would have been appropriate a few days ago. Now it may not be necessary, and may just open up some old wounds. If others disagree, feel free to comment here. By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Side B advocate. --Anietor 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"Bible worshiping worms?"[4] I tried to remove the criticism section from Islam as well, for the same reason: it's unencyclopedic.Proabivouac 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...he's ba-ack. And with some more classic comments about "this is the way its going to be" and "discussion finished". That's not the way things get resolved, Esmehwp. And deleting your prior comments once you're called on them (See [5]) and deleting everyone's comments from your own discussion page won't hide your true colors. Please either talk in a civil respectful manner, or follow through on your previous "threat" to give up on us. --Anietor 06:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Esmehwp, the only difference between the version you agreed with and the current version is these sentences [6]. These don't really add anything to the article because they just say: there are criticisms of christianity and nothing beyond it. If you replace "Christianity" with any other religion and "Church" with their organization, you'll get a valid statement. So, please let me know why is that so important in changing your views about the neutrality of the article? --Aminz 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

dont take me too seriously i cant help teasing

Esmehwp 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Str1977's changes.

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

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

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

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

Persecution section

I am not sure if (at least some part of) this section really belongs to this article. This article is about Christianity and not the deeds of whoever happens to be Christian. Many of the persecuters probably had other motives (economical, political, social, etc etc). --Aminz 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Begotten

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the God in Christianism was created?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately for your theory, the most radically skeptical positions have been repeatedly discredited by archeology (e.g., [9]). A.J.A. 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jpers36 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Look it.

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity

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

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

Mormon spin and the love of controversy

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

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

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

There are two parts to your obfuscation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this [10] "It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead." - Gordon B. Hinkley

Bytebear 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Also before you revert my changes about "God is a spirit", read this [11]: "Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. Jesus’s declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body." - Gordon B. Hinkley.

Bytebear 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk page

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

Protestant and Catholics

Whats the difference between protestants an catholics?

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

Primary sources and references

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

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

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

Redundancy

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

Christian Love (Agape) Section

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

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

"biblical" or "Biblical"?

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of Word messiah

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

Page Protection

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

"Gradually developing itself"?

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

"Four Thousand years" "a Monotheistic religion"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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