Talk:Christianity

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

Lets finish this

We all know (come on, we really do) that all religions are rubbish.

Christianity is just another one. Zero credible evidence. Belief for belief's sake. A trap for the weak minded. A justification for evil deeds.

We could solve a lot of problems and have a lot more resources if only we could put the religions in their place.

Wikipedia is the logical place for witnessing the final stand of the medieval religions. Religions have no place here, except as a historical footnote on how we came to be in our current state.

This main article on Christianity would be a particularly good place to start the vinegar stroke. I propose we start the article with an opening paragraph like:

"Christianity is one religion among many, however it played an important role in the development of western civilisation as we currently know it. There is no scientific evidence to support the major Christian beliefs. It is likely that modern Christianity is now harming the progress of the world by misguiding people on reality, causing them to make bad decisions which affect others. With this in mind, the specifics of the Christian faith are..."

Or anything along these lines. We should be assisting the millions of people who were effectively brainwashed into "belief" at a very early age by parents who had been similarly conditioned. At the very least, we need to prevent them brainwashing the next generation.

Generally speaking, we need to stamp out superstitious beliefs from the world. Christianity is an obvious place to start.

I would like to formally request that the introduction to Christianity be changed to acknowledge its lack of evidence and the high probability of being a false belief. I think we owe the Christians that much - we can't let them stay deluded forever, its dangerous and wasteful.

124.170.133.234 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Marty

Well, despite the fact that what you have written is trash it does suggest changes to the article, so is relevant. However, Wiki is not a soapbox for you to push your opinions. Thus your suggestions which are highly Point of view biased have no real merit for the project. Now, be gone with you sir and may your god go with you. Gavin (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gavin. The soapbox link probably applies - depending on your point of view. 124.170.133.234 (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Marty

Well you see, Wiki is Neutral, to insert the POV claim that Christianity is untrue or does more harm than good would fail to meet standards. You will also need to provide evidence for your claims in the form of viable citations. So feel free to have a go, you may want to check out the Criticism of Christianity page, Be Bold Gavin (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If your concern is with religion in general (" . . . all religions are rubbish. Christianity is just another one."), then you might also want to check out the article on Criticism of religion. EastTN (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Gavin. I'm working on it. This might take some time ;) Marty-was-here (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Marty

However, Gavin, if you pursue that logical path, I could sincerely ask that the assertions that the earth is a sphere be removed from the article about Earth, because though my (hypothetical) belief that the earth is flat may be wrong it is also sincere. We cannot entertain every belief simply because someone is sincere about it. I recommend that we treat this article just as we would an article about Roman, Greek, or Norse mythology: as a piece of history with no logical or scientific foundation that still maintains an influence in the modern world. --scochran4 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

biased

This article is biased from a christian's bpoint of view........ 71.10.88.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Then so are all other religous articles. Ludicrous! Philippe Auguste (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with Christian heresy and List of Christian heresies

I have done a major rework of Christian heresy and, as part of that effort, I extracted the "List of Christian heresies" section and created the List of Christian heresies article.

I recognize that both articles still need a lot of work. I invite you to review these two articles and give me your feedback on their respective Talk Pages. I have already indicated Talk:List of Christian heresies some areas where I need some help.

Thank you.

--Richard (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Henotheism v. Monotheism

It has come to my attention that Christianity may be considered, at least in some traditions and denominations, to be a henotheistic religion as opposed to a monotheistic religion. The Decalogue itself states "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3), implying that there are other gods. Does this classification refer to the existence of other gods within a religious framework, or is the classification based on what deity(ies) are actually worshipped? --scochran4 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's monotheistic. And we've been through this before. Check the talk page archives. Recently, I know you can look at 45-47; and before that: 2, 4, 5, 19-22, 32, 41, and likely others. 20:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have checked the archives first. My fault. --scochran4 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no problem. Easy mistake. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Monotheism again

I read the archives and I still have to insist that the main issue of calling Christianity monotheistic has not been addressed. Forget about the holy trinity and the uncountable manouvers that apologetics have gone through to ensure a "one god" impression to the christian god.

One has to mention all the other deities that exist within christianity; that is, beings that exist in a supernatural realm and are capable of suprahuman achievements. If you start with Catholicism you have legions upon legions of "Saints" that are frequent objects of prayers and deliver miracles by themselves, and you also have the virgin Mary, which is a goddess in her own right, manifesting herself frequently to believers.

Catholicism aside, all Christians believe in legions of Angels, Archangels and above all, their very own god of evil. So there you have it, whoever dares to call Christianism a monotheistic religions is certainly fooling himself. I have had enough run ins with christians watchdogging these pages to try to change it, but it certainly takes a lot away from wikipedia not to take other arguments more seriously. 189.138.239.216 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Those are very serious allegations, all totally unfounded on paper. Now, we can have a very involved time trying to work out, for instance, whether all those billions of Catholics really do pray to saints, but there has never been any stance from theologians, the Church, and pastors that prayer is other than through saints, not to. The saints have never, I hope, been claimed to be a source of miracles of themselves either, even from Catholics. The accusation that the virgin Mary has ever been correctly regarded as a God is also extremely offensive; people have been misguided enough to try it in the past, but it has never been sanctioned or officially accepted.
  Again, Satan has never been described as a 'god of evil', and is not regarded as such by church leaders, nor in my experience by more than perhaps an insignificant number of believers. I am afraid to say that you will find it nigh-on impossible to find any record of church councils, decree, or standard practice reflecting any of the things you mention, let alone scripture (to qualify slightly: you are right that it is claimed that beings exist with 'suprahuman' abilities, but even there, the orthodox hierarchy places men in ultimate judgement over angels, as well as putting the prototypical Man himself over all things, so it is still a bit off to think of them as 'above' man in some way). Sorry, but we should be clear on this one: Christianity is monotheistic and Trinitarian (though the discussion over correct terminology for, say, the JWs, is admittedly non-trivial).— Kan8eDie (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, when asking about Christianity, we must ask the Christians. Their theology is what goes and they claim to be monotheistic. If you can find a Christian organization or individual (who is also a reliable source) who claims that Christianity is other than monotheistic, present it here. --scochran4 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2 Corinthians 4:4 does indeed describe Satan as the "god of this world," but to infer from this verse that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion is to stretch the meaning of this verse not only out of its context, but to the breaking point. In context, the Apostle Paul is not placing Satan on a level with God (the Bible quite clearly teaches that Satan was created by God) but rather is insinuating that Satan holds an inordinate sway over the affairs of this world. As for the allegation that belief in demons, angels, and saints dilutes the monotheistic nature of Christianity, that is obviously preposterous on its face. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon, your position is really that of the critic. Critics would contend that Christianity "really" does pray to saints, Mary, etc., but as Scochran has stated Christians, not even Catholics, would support your position. There is a difference between praying to a holy person or asking a holy person to interceded on your behalf to God. There is no problem in citing criticism in the article, but understand that it is not the position of Christians or what they teach. Cheers. --^StormRider 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

High and Late Middle Ages

"following the crusade brought about by the Cathar heresy", sourced by Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, pp. 300, 304–05. [is this really from a neutral source?]

Under the article for Catharism, there are several articles that contradict this, such as: "Suppression", "Albigensian crusade", "Massacre" and "Treaty and persecution". Someone should fix the misinformation in the "High and Late Middle Ages" article of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.107.225 (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done; good catch. The crusade was against the Cathar heresy; just poor wording. --^StormRider 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem in sidebar

My sincerest apologies for not putting this in the proper place on the talk pages, but as it is I am inexperienced at wiki'ing and am pressed for time to learn at this moment.

I notice that an atheist added a rather out-of-place tract entitled "Nothingness" in the left sidebar. I would simply remove it myself, but the Christianity article is protected. This philosophical piece does not conform to Christian beliefs and its placement - personal comments in summary boxes - is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Thank you. Pottersson (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Registered users can edit it. I don't see the text you're referring to. Is it still there for you? Ilkali (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It seemsto be gone now, thanks. --Hojimachong^talk 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Put denominations into intro

Most of the other articles on major religions have a paragraph on the major religious divisions, e.g. Islam mentions Shia and Sunni, together with information on the approximate propotion of adherents, while Buddhism mentions Mahayana and Theravada. I don't see why this article shouldn't have a similar one. Offhand, I'd say that on first reference we want to mention Catholicism, the Protestant denominations as a whole, Orthodoxy and maybe a word on the reconstructionist denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc).--Pyroclastic (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of bias

A user above has mentioned that the article currently has a pro-Christian bias, which seems to me to be quite evident from the article.

I have introduced a Criticism section to the article which is currently empty but which links to the full article on Criticism. I hope that it will expand to a short section highlighting the main threads of criticism, while leaving the full discussion to the dedicated article.

This seems to me to be a necessary pre-requisite for getting this article back to featured article status.Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a whole article why is another one necessary in the main? Why not simply have the link? Soxwon (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting the article to represent one's own biased view point of Christianity is not a prerequisite, either way. In my opinion, this article is wholly biased against Christianity, and a section on Christianity's awesome achievements should be listed. The fact is, if people on both sides think this is not fitting their ridiculous agenda of portraying Christianity in their narrow-minded viewpoint, then its very Neutral. Gabr-el 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

im going to have to agree with you on this the article is biased in a very odd way depending on which sentence your reading Christianity is either the bane of human existence or the greatest gift ever given to man im not Christian and honestly hate the religion but this isnt my article its an encyclopedia and should be as neutral as possible which is why i dont edit it please people state what it is not what you think it is--Ofrolvi (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then in what way do you intend to fix this? If its biased for and against Christianity, its got the right balance hasn't it? Personally I love Christianity, and I know its the truth, but if neither Christian lovers nor haters are happy, then it is neutral. Gabr-el 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An equal balance of pro- and anti- does not make for a neutral article. Every part should be neutral. Ilkali (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but what Gabr-el is saying is that if neither side is happy, that's usually b/c it isn't in there favor, meaning it's neutral. Soxwon (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

yes.Gabr-el 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, if one's goal is to make the page unbiased, the correct solution is not removing sections wholesale. If a section is pertinent to the discussion of the subject, it belongs in the article. If you feel this ought to be balanced by a (referenced and sourced) description of the advantages of Christianity, I would not only agree with you but encourage you to add such a section.

A section should not be removed just because it has an article of its own. If the subject is relevant and adds weight to the subject discussed here, it should be included as a summary, with reference to the full article. Your attempt to eliminate all criticism of Christianity and relegate it to a link at the end of the article shows a blatant pro-Christian bias. I am re-adding the section. Do not remove it. If you feel it ought to be balanced with a summary of the advantages of Christianity, please do that. The solution to balance is not ripping the guts out of the article, but adding in the missing bits which are needed.Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

intro implies that unorthodox Christian beliefs do not exist or are not Christian

There are, as this article alludes to in its body, people who consider themselves Christian but do not believe in some fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity (for example, that Jesus is an incarnation of God). Classical unitarians would be examples. I understand that these people are a minority of those who call themselves Christians, maybe even a tiny minority. But the strong wording in the introduction of this article implies that all Christians accept certain basic tenets of orthodox Christianity, which in turn implies that people such as classical unitarians are wrong to call themselves Christian. This seems like POV to me. An easy solution, I think, would be to insert some qualifiers like "Most Christians maintain..." or "Orthodox Christian theology claims..." here and there in the intro. It would decrease the strength of the writing, but I think NPOV is more important.

That said, I have perused but by no means read the formidable archives of this talk page. I know some similar points have been raised, but if this particular point has been raised and discussed, please point me to the right archive. I don't want to rehash old discussion.

Finally, please understand that I'm not saying that I want minority views to be given more weight; my point is only about wording that implies that such views do not exist or are not Christian. --Allen (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article bounces between NPOV and POV as most do. It is not acceptable to say Christians believe... because it is impossible to prove such a statement. Wikipedia can demonstrate what churches teach, but not what individual members believe. There is no reference to support such a statement because it is impossible to measure. I think Allen is on the right path, but I would qualify it by phrasing it, "Most orthodox Christian churches teach..." The focus should always be on the majority position, but never to the exclusion of all other groups that also claim to be Christian but do not accept the orthodox positions.

This particular issue of the incarnation of God was not formalized until the 4th century at the Council of Nicea and it has been a measuring stick by which heresy has been judged since that period. However, one group's heresy is another's truth and Wikipedia should never be used as the hammer to further one group's position over another. Good catch. --^StormRider 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I appreciate the effort, your recent edit may introduce a problem as significant as the one we're trying to solve. Is it our place as editors to declare some sects to be "orthodox"? Doesn't this amount to deciding that certain sects are normative and the rest are deviant? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Allen, you're right, of course. If we take a conservative estimate of the number of people in just three Christian denominations that reject the view that Jesus is God (Jehovah's Witnesses, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and members of the Iglesia ni Cristo), then there are 23 million Christians who don't believe Jesus is God. Of course, there are more besides these. It might also be worth noting that among those who do would agree that Jesus is God incarnate, the unity is superficial. What a Catholic means is different from what a Oneness Pentecostal means and (arguably) even different from what an Eastern Orthodox Christian means. I've removed the reference to Jesus as God incarnate from the lead, but more work needs to be done. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sgt, I am not opposed to removing the statement that Jesus is God incarnate, but I think some of our orthodox editors will be opposed to doing so. The vast majority of Christian churches teach the doctrine of the Trinity (they may not teach the Nicene Creed per se, but the teaching is the same none-the-less). In fact, many churches teach that if the Nicene Creed is not a doctrine of belief then Chrisitianity is not possible.

Orthodoxy in Christianity is easily recognizable; it is the prevenlent belief among all Christian churches. I don't see the differentiation being as strong as you represent. Just summing the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy, you have the majority of Christians upon the earth. They are unequivocal in their teaching of the Nicene Creed.

Just to clarify my position, I am not a Trinitarian and I reject the Nicene Creed, but I think we must first present the majority position. If you are quibbling about the use of the term "orthodox", then I can accept any of the others that have often been used...mainstream, etc. All of the terms have pros and cons. --^StormRider 07:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we try to reach a consensus that is acceptable to all editors here, including "orthodox" editors? Absolutely -- that's why I've joined in this dialogue, and I look forward to other editors' joining the discussion. Should we try to characterize what most Christian denominations teach? Absolutely. One thing to keep in mind though is that we have a commitment to remove POV language, even if it's language that most editors like. We must also take care to distinguish between what particular Christians consider to be essential to their faith, even if they are the majority, and what is from a NPOV essential to being a Christian.

The way I see it, this article would ideally be like the article on mammals. The lead there notes that most mammals are placental but only after giving an adequate characterization of all mammals, and it in no way implies or implicates that mammals that aren't placental have a deviant sort of mammalness. One way to improve this entry would be to focus on what unites even Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christians (why does the lead say nothing about baptism or communion/the eucharist?). As it stands, it reads as though it were written by people who want to define Christianity pre-emptively to assert the superiority of their denomination. Mind you, I realize that the article is the result of a series of good faith edits, and probably few people intended that. But that's how it currently reads. (Speaking of good faith, I'd appreciate it if you didn't characterize what I do as quibbling.) -- SgtSchumann (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, I notice that you've reverted my edits. While I gave three reasons for making the edits I did, you only responded to one of these when you reverted them. As I have no interest in getting into an edit war, I'm currently only going to remove some POV language instead of fully restoring my edits. However, I don't think the way you conducted your revert was appropriate. I hope that in the future we can resolve whatever differences we have here. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had actually planned more edits and addressing all your points, then bringing up the changes here. Unforetunately, I ran out of time. I apologize if it seems like I was just trying to insert my own POV. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I certainly can't fault someone for being short on time. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to what you said about characterizing thing in general before branching out, I'm surprised the lead doesn't mention A)Jehovah B)Prayer/Worship and C)The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and its significance. I think these are important to all Christians (though I may be overgeneralizing as I'm familiar mostly with orthodox branches). Soxwon (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree that these three things are important. The main problem might be with Jehovah, in part because members of the LDS church have an idiosyncratic understanding of who Jehovah is (I'm hazy on the details). Also I think mainstream Christian scholars differ on whether Jehovah is to be identified as the Father, the Trinity, or either depending on context. But prayer, worship, and sacrifice -- what were we thinking when we left these out? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sgt, again, I can support your edit, but it does invite a lot of disagreement. The tenets of the Nicene Creed are significant to many adherents of mainstream churches. When we leave it out of the introduction it often generates a knee-jerk reaction. While I tend to think that the rest of the description already present in the intro is sufficient to describe a Christian, this one doctrine of God incarnate is a requirement for most of Christianity. It may be that I have just grown a thick skin and accept that most members of Christianity accepts this as truth and feel compelled to mention it. If there was a vote, I would vote not to include it in the introduction. However, I also realize Christians have burned people at the stake for denying this single doctrine; it is vital to them when describing the very meaning of Christianity. Most importantly, they are the majority of Christianity. Dr. Walter Martindale of Bible answer man fame claims it as an essential doctrine of Christianity.

When we start taking out these essential doctrines where do we stop? Liberal Christians don't believe in the resurrection. Not all Christans partake of the Last Supper/Eucharist/Sacrament, some don't believe in the virgin birth, etc. It can be a slippery slope. When trying to limit ourselves to the most inclusive language we could potentially end up with something that is so watered down as to have little to do with what the majority believe Christianity to be. For me, it is Jesus, born of a virgin, lived a sinless, perfect life, performed miracles, bled from every pore in the garden, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, sits on the right hand of the Father, and will return one day; he is the Savior and only way to return to the Father. To me, those are essentials of being a Christian. The problem is that other Christians will reject some of those things or will want include additional doctrines. Eventually, the result is that we go to language that the majority of Christianity accepts as fundamental teachings of Christianity and then later in the article describe the differences. The language can be improved, but I have been through this type of discussions on this article multiple times. Sometimes it is good to cross the bridge again; but I don't want to waste a lot of your time.

Sgt, quibbling was not meant as an insult or to belittle your position; if you were offended than I readily apologize; it was not my intent. We simply have talked about this topic of orthodox, mainstream, etc. often. Whatever you want to call the beliefs of the majority of Christianity will probably be acceptable to me. --^StormRider 16:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, where do you get that they don't believe he rose? w/o the resurrection the Christian faith is both meaningless and empty. Soxwon (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that Wikipedia has guidelines for what we, as editors, are to do. At no point are we expected to refrain from making an edit because it will make some people unhappy, much less because some people will have "a knee-jerk reaction". [N.B. A recent edit requires me to clarify that this comment was in reply to Storm Rider's comment, which begins, "Sgt, again, I can support your edit . . . ."] -- SgtSchumann (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sox, it is unfortunate, but some of our liberal Christian brothers and sisters deny that he actuaaly rose. It makes no sense to me, but such is produced by the mind of man. --^StormRider 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See below for my response to that (heck the liberals should understand what I'm saying :P) Soxwon (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) The Jesus Seminar was notorious for coming up with some pretty unusual positions; no bodily resurrection being just one of them. The gist is that we should stick with majority positions or those doctrines that are supported by the vast majority of Christians. As Sgt. has said, the incarnation (particularly those words) are not necessary, but I can accept the concept being in the lead paragraph with a qualifier that "most" Christian churches teach...

Frankly, I don't like the wording of the introduction. It is sterile language completely bereft any of the beauty one typically finds when discussing Jesus in Christianity. If nothing else, we can at least make this sound more alive and reflective of Christian theology. --^StormRider 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not aiming for beauty. This is an encyclopedia article, not a sermon. Ilkali (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Most Important" Christian Doctrine

I'm going to remove the words most importantly from the lead again on the grounds that it is an unsourced claim. Though the words have been there for a while now, they were added a while after the McGrath reference was added; McGrath's book does not make this claim. Though I think relying on McGrath's book would be problematic, the approach he does use isn't bad: He says it's a person (Jesus), as opposed to a doctrine, that's of central importance to Christianity.

In case anyone is tempted to run out and find a reference so that the words can be reinserted I'm going to point out that there are at least two good reasons not to do this. First, there is no agreement among Christians, even "orthodox" Christians over what the most important doctrine is (when I did a Google search the first book I found was one that said that according to John T. Robertson love is the most important doctrine). Second, even among those who do feel that the death and resurrection is central to the Christian faith, there are many who would say that the suffering of Jesus is not as important. Finally, these words are in the lead section, and making contentious claims about the most important Christian doctrine does not contribute to a general overview of Christianity. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Saying that the resurrection isn't important to Christianity is like saying that inhaling isn't important to marijuana. You can still do it, but it really loses its meaning if you do. Soxwon (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about saying the resurrection isn't important to Christianity. Ilkali (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Refraining from calling something "the most important" is not the same as saying that something isn't the most important, much less that it isn't important. Indeed its inclusion in the lead indicates that it is a significant part of Christianity. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't argue that it's not the most important, which is why I'm puzzled as to why that distinction is repeatedly getting removed. w/o the resurrection, there is not Christianity. Most (if not all) of the denomimations (all of the major ones and any that don't most likely make up a very, VERY tiny minority) believe that the resurrection is the most important part (hence Easter being more important than say Christmas) and that disproving it would render the religion moot. I think that distinction should be made. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing that it's not the most important. Our opinions here don't matter. It's about whether the article should say it's the most important. For one thing, it's not clear from the wording who considers it important - Wikipedia? Most churches? Most scholars? Most Christians? Ilkali (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that the doctrine of the resurrection is the most important doctrine. We must therefore leave out the phrase, lest anyone mistakenly believe that the most important doctrine concerns Jesus' resurrection, death, and suffering and not just the resurrection. But in any case I gave three reasons for deleting the phrase, any of which would be good on its own, and you've only responded to one of them. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No I've answered it already. In the eyes of a Christian, w/o the resurrection there are no doctrines, there are no "other domintations," there's no faith. The religion doesn't happen if there's no resurrection. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are Christians who deny the resurrection. Bultmann was one of these, right? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just google Jesus Seminar and you will find several liberal theologians who have come to a place where they believe the resurrection was not real. I can't think of a church/denomination that takes that position, but I think we can find several individuals who possess that belief. Sox, I understand your statement of what you think the absence of this belief means, I even agree with you, but it is not our position to speak to that on Wikipedia. It is POV, OR (unless we quote an expert). --^StormRider 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> See section below, if they are such a minority I don't know why they deserve acknowledgement in the lead though. Soxwon (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

a specific proposal stemming from my original point

I started this discussion by pointing out that each doctrine of Christianity is rejected by some group or other who at least call themselves Christian, even though other Christians deny that these groups are truly Christian. I argued that it would be POV for Wikipedia to take a stand on who is truly Christian, therefore we cannot make any blanket statements about what all Christians believe. I think everyone agreed with this, but then the discussion went in another direction. Much of this other discussion is important, but I want to clarify whether there is consensus on my proposal. What is my proposal? That every time we say what Christians believe, we use some qualifier like "most". For example:

• "Adherents of Christianity, known as Christians, believe..."

becomes:

• "MOST adherents of Christianity, known as Christians, believe..."

another example:

• "Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven"

becomes:

• "MOST Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven"

Do we have consensus on these changes to the article? --Allen (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the people who deny the resurrection might be classified as WP:FRINGE.

On what grounds? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that this was discussed here before, but I hope you'll excuse me, if I don't remember what the result was. It seems to me we're better off saying things like this:

• The official position of most Christian churches is that . . .
• Most Christians belong to a denomination that teaches that . . .

One reason I say this is that it's often a lot easier to make deductions based on church teachings than it is to find reliable surveys that indicate what Christians the world over believe. This would also help us avoid difficult issues involving liberals who reject a literal understanding of (some parts of) Christian doctrine, since they're often members of churches whose official position is that the doctrines are true. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Idk, maybe I'm viewing this through rose-tinted glasses, but really since the church was founded almost all of the theology has been centered around the resurrection with those that disagree being relatively contemporary. In my opinion, that would mean this particular view deserved a greater mention. Soxwon (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SgtSchumann, that makes sense to me. Soxwon, my proposal doesn't involve mentioning dissenting views; I'm only proposing that we not word things to imply that the dissenting views don't exist at all or are not Christian. --Allen (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think my frustration is more in line with what StormRider said earlier, the opening seems to lack something of the "beauty one typically finds when discussing Jesus in Christianity," and I think one reason is that it's trying to be too inclusive in what views and ideologies are discussed. But even ignoring that, I think that some views are being pushed more then they should be and it reduces some concepts and their place in the grand scheme. We're so busy trying not to leave ppl out or offend them that we lose sight of what is really important and significant. The dissenters exist, but is their enough of them to justify their position in the lead? I would think not considering the size of the major branches of Christianity (Roman catholicism and protestant churches account for almost 3/4s of Christianity with 26% of the World's population and over 1.6 billion members). Soxwon (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation in "Son of God"

Regarding this reversion by Soxwon:

I think there's some leeway with messiah, but son is simple. If you're referring to him by the composite title Son of God then you capitalise. If you're actually describing him as a son - ie, as a male offspring - and discussing his status as such then it's a plain old common noun and we don't capitalise, no matter who his dad was. Ilkali (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert so I'll bow to your judgement. Soxwon (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on 'son' vs. 'Son'; however, I would prefer 'Messiah' over 'messiah'--the OED gives the primary sense (Israel's prophesied saviour) as capitalized, and the extended sense (a zealous leader) as "now usually" lc. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In this context Messiah is a title. I would capitalize it as we did with Son of God. --^StormRider 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the OED's reporting of general conventions doesn't trump Wikipedia's own explicit conventions, but I think messiah is a bit of an edge case anyway. I won't object to it staying upper-cased. Ilkali (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an explicit convention on the capitalization of messiah? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but we have explicit conventions on categories of words. Ilkali (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you link me to that, please? Just for policy-enrichment. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the most relevant stuff. Ilkali (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Hah, it actually does mention messiah. The point of contention, though, is whether it's being used in the article as a common noun or a title. Since it's modified by the adjunct prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, I'd say it's pretty clearly a common noun. Ilkali (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But its not, because it refrs to THE Messiah. There is only one Messiag prophezied in the Hebrew Bible according to Christianity, and Jesus is the Messiah according to this belief. What is your logic that its lower case and a common name? Each time it is said, it refers to one person only, but this a tangentGabr-el 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Common nouns and titles don't work the way you think. We say Barack Obama is the President of America, but also Barack Obama is the first black president of America. The noun phrase in the second sentence (first black president of America) could only refer to one person, but it's still a common noun so we still use lower-case president. It's the same thing for this use of messiah. Ilkali (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I think it's a title there is only one President of the United States and only one Messiah.

Don't assume what I am thinking; read my arguments for what they are:

• messiah in common terminology is lower cased
• messiah in terms of Jesus Christ is not common terminology (for he is one, and he is, as far as Christianity concerned, the Messiah)
• Therefore messiah for Jesus should be capitalized. Gabr-el 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the title the Messiah which references Jesus. There is also the common noun messiah, which denotes all possible messiahs. We use uppercase for the first and lowercase for the second. Do we agree so far? Now, what you're apparently saying is that because in Christianity there is only one messiah, any use of the word in the context of that one messiah is automatically use of a title, not a common noun. If that's accurate, then: What makes you think English works this way? Ilkali (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is only one Messiah, period. To the Jews and the Christians THERE IS ONLY ONE! There is a difference between messiah (hebrew for annointed one) and The Messiah predicted by the Bible. That's where the distinction is made. Anyone can be a president, but there is only one President of the United States. Yes there are many messiahs (if the word is used to mean an annointed king), but there is only one Messiah (spiritual savior or king over all the Israel depending on religion). Is that acceptable? Soxwon (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's saying there are multiple messiahs in the Christian faith. This is about a subtle linguistic distinction between different kinds of noun. Ilkali (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the MoS link. So you're saying that because "the messiah" is modified by "prophesied in the Hebrew Bible", it is a common noun here and should be lc? So conversely, if we truncated the sentence at "the messiah", it would be a proper noun and capitalized? I can see that, and if you're really sure that's the intention of the policy, I'll concede. I don't see why we shouldn't use the OED's implicit guide, though. In English, messiah is capitalized when it is refering to the saviour prophesied in the OT, and is lc when it is used in a more general sense. Shouldn't we just mirror English usage, rather than proscribing use? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"conversely, if we truncated the sentence at "the messiah", it would be a proper noun and capitalized?" Well, in that case it could be either a title or a common noun, and we'd probably want to capitalise it according to whichever reading the average user would make.

"Shouldn't we just mirror English usage, rather than proscribing use?". Well, how about pronouns? It's common English practice to capitalise them when they refer to divine beings, but we don't do that either. The problem is that these practices are primarily used by members of the religions in question, and Wikipedia's use of them could be seen as implicit endorsement. It has to be written from a secular viewpoint. Ilkali (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am not totally sure I agree with you, but I'll acquiesce. I don't think it has to be capitalized, so let's not. And you can respond to the following or not; I'm fine with your position, so its a moot point, and only for the sake of argument: I'm not sure the pronoun situation is analogous. Messiah is (virtually) always capitalized when used by Christians; but Him/him is not nearly so ubiquitous. I see plenty of things written by Catholics which don't capitalize it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He's the only messiah, there are no messiah before him, there are none after him - are you still going to hold to the false idea that its still somehow not capitalized? What are the conditions then if not?Gabr-el 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, I was just trying to help explain Gabriel's reasoning. Soxwon (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The fact is, this article is about Christian belief, which interprets the Hebrew Bible referring to the one and only Messiah. Fact. Beyond disputation, but clearly not bias. Gabr-el 03:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, in English the word 'messiah' can mean more than just Christ. This isn't ChristianWiki; we aren't adopting a Christian pov just because this article is about Christianity. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gabr-el, "referring" has nothing to do with it. This is a question of meaning. Ikali's reasoning makes sense. If zie wants to have the word uncapitalized, I for one won't change it. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Christian wiki, its about wikipedia presenting what Christians believe, and its using messiah to refer to one person. Ilkali's reasoning makes sense? Hes just throwing irrelevant red herrings. Gabr-el 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's saying there are multiple messiahs in the Christian faith. This isn't about theology, it's about syntax. It's about how the English language works. Ilkali (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)\

That's an irrelevant appeal to authority there. Why are you talking about how the English language works? No one here is doubting the mechanism of the English language, we're debating how the word Messiah is used. Its used to refer to one. What's your point Ilkali? Gabr-el 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"That's an irrelevant appeal to authority there". The English language is an authority now? If it is, it's a pretty damn important one! "No one here is doubting the mechanism of the English language, we're debating how the word Messiah is used". Used... within the English language. Can we agree that this dispute is over whether one particular use of the word messiah (ie the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible) is a common noun or a title, and that it would be capitalised if the latter and not if the former? Ilkali (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some instances of the word "messiah" that refer to the general use, fine, de-capitalize these, as per wikipedia. But there are some referring to the Messiah etc. These should remain capitalized per wiki rules. Gabr-el 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a really silly discussion and I am not sure that I have yet grasped Ilkali's position. When, in Christianity, speaking about Jesus Christ is messiah ever used as a common noun? He is the Messiah; it is a title, a designation of being the one prophesied of old. I looked at other on-line encyclopedias just to make sure that I had not missed the "secular" position that some have asked for: Encyclopedia.com uses Messiah, Britannica.com uses Messiah and even acknowledges as a title, Encarta also supports this same usage. Frankly, these types of arguments often are not so much about proper English usage, which capitalizing is proper written English, but more about POV and having an axe to grind. To write this properly is to state that Jesus is believed by Christians to be the Messiah, the Christ prophesied of old or any other similar language. The point is that Messiah, Christ, Mighty King, Counselor, King of Kings, Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father; these are all capitalized not because one is Christian, but because one is using proper grammar and acknowledging the beliefs of those who follow Christianity. I find it incredibly strange that this is even being discussed; it is as some are seeking to nit-pick and create silly arguments to support a POV while draping it in the guise of neutrality. Stop it and quite being silly. --^StormRider 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"When, in Christianity, speaking about Jesus Christ is messiah ever used as a common noun? He is the Messiah; it is a title". Consider these sentences:

• The Messiah is a messiah
• The Messiah is the only messiah of the Christian faith
• The Messiah is better than the messiah of [other religion]

In each of these, the first instance of messiah is indisputably part of the title the Messiah. The second instances are all common nouns. It's the same kind of thing as the following:

• King Arthur was the best king ever
• The President is the first black president

You've referenced a lot of encyclopedia entries, but they just show that messiah can be a title, which I've never denied (in fact, I said so long before you did).

And hey, could you assume a little good faith, please? We could both scream POV if we wanted to, but I'd rather focus on the strengths of our respective arguments. Ilkali (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't yet grasp Ikali's position, then you ought to do all you can to grasp it before responding, especially if you're going to make accusations of being "silly" or otherwise assume bad faith. (In general I don't understand why people don't use the words, "What do you mean by that?" more often in the course of a debate. It could save a lot of headaches.) I can't hope to put it better than Ikali himself did when he brought up the example of president. So I'll just say that pointing out that Messiah can be a title or that messiah refers to Jesus in this case is besides the point. There is a difference between sense (or meaning) and reference, and this has little to do with reference. (I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on reference and noting the distinction that Frege drew.)

For all the virtual ink that has been spilled over this matter I have yet to see anyone opposed to Ikali's change speak one word that is relevant. I can only assume that this is because there is no reasoned argument against his position. (If you think I'm wrong, by all means show me!) Because Wikipedia has a guideline that isn't being followed in this matter, I conclude that the only proper thing to do is go with Ikali's edit. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do we have consensus on the matter of Son of God? In the phrase the only begotten son of God, can we agree that son is a common noun and shouldn't be capitalised? Since we're talking about him being the only male offspring, not the only thing with that title. Ilkali (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the original issue, and the edit that brought it up, it does seem like a gramatically legitimate usage of capitalization. In other words, the editor was correct. Can we move on now? Bytebear (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this matter isn't nearly as clear as the situation involving messiah. The trouble is that only begotten is a very literal rendering of a Greek word that does not mean only offspring. Some translations say, "One and only," but this is also somewhat misleading, since the author presumably wasn't denying that Christians are children of God. I won't insist that this is a title, but I can't say with any confidence that it isn't. My recommendation would be drop the words only begotten altogether, because, again, this is a very literal rendering that tells us neither what the original Greek meant nor what most modern Christians believe. If we must include the words only begotten in the article, we need to be prepared to explain them, and that sort of discussion isn't appropriate for the lead. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's all just choke on gnats for a while; it is undoubtedly amusing for some of you. First of all, Son of God is also a title for Jesus. You may want to review the article [of God], which also explains that it is a title and we are using it as a title in the article. Just like we are using Messiah as a title. If you want to make it crystal clear for all readers, then change the language to state Christians believe Jesus was and is ...

I find things silly when they are brought up ad nauseum. I find things silly when articles that have 50 archived pages and have been so heavily edited as this page and editors ignore all past effort and begin tinkering with issues that are so fundamental to the topic that it demonstrates, or comes very close, arrogance. The intro is a shadow of what it once was and not for the good.

AGF is a vital policy we should follow, but it is also appropriate to call a spade a spade. This is silly; edit it until you can agree that it is a title, capitalize the word and move on.

Only Begotten is also a title. Does anyone read anymore? How about take a break, read all other articles having to do with Jesus Christ on Wikipedia, pay particular attention to his titles, and then begin to edit this area. There seems to be a gross lack of knowledge about this topic and an interest in taking novel approaches. Sgt., a sanctimonious approach does not work well with me. It is best to be direct and frank; more importantly be genuine. Now, let's forget about each other and limit the conversation to the topic. --^StormRider 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"First of all, Son of God is also a title for Jesus". You're bringing up the same objections that I already addressed in my reply above. Son of God is a title, but son of God is a normal noun phrase with compositional meaning. It is possible for either or both to be used within an article on Christianity. The modifier only begotten suggests this is the standard compositional form rather than a title, because modifiers like that generally don't apply to titles.

"let's forget about each other and limit the conversation to the topic". I wish you would! Ilkali (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"My recommendation would be drop the words only begotten altogether, because, again, this is a very literal rendering that tells us neither what the original Greek meant nor what most modern Christians believe". Seems sensible. Ilkali (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should have "son of God", not "Son of God". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Only Begotten"

I'm going to suggest that we remove the phrase only begotten from the lead for the following reasons:

1. AFAIK there's no widespread agreement among Christians as to how the Greek word so translated (monogenes) ought to be interpreted.
2. The vast majority of Christians do not believe it means what a literal interpretation of only begotten suggests -- that is, the majority don't believe that the Father literally begat Jesus. As evidence of this, consider that someone felt the need to explain (in the references!) that the view that Jesus is "only begotten" is compatible with Trinitarianism.
3. The only way to avoid lack of clarity when it comes to the phrase only begotten is to explain it, and the explanation would be too lengthy in a lead for an article on Christianity in general.
4. If we drop the words only begotten, the phrase Son of God will unambiguously be a title, and we can end the debate over whether it should be capitalized.

If we must use the phrase only begotten, we should do so in the main text. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to have all titles of Jesus in the introduction; the intro is/should be a cursory review of the article itself. I also agree that titles may be covered in detail in the body of the article. --^StormRider 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most people who were not raised in, or in proximity to, the Christian faith would have little chance of understanding what is meant by only begotten. If we're aiming for clarity in our text, I would support removing it from the lead and having a comprehensive explanation later in the article.

Incidentally, even without only begotten, we still have to make a choice on capitalisation. the son of God (composite phrase) and the Son of God (title) are both valid descriptions of Jesus. Ilkali (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, Ilkali. I shouldn't have said that the removal of the words would make it unambiguously a title. I suggest we accomplish that by leaving it capitalized. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we can drop "only begotten" from the lead, returning it iff it becomes blue-linked, with an entire, non-stub article dealing with the term. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian percentage by country

The image under the Salvation article titled Christian percentage by country is clearly false and misleading. The image represents percentages of the population that has ever been baptized which it clearly states in the description. But since everyone on the internet is lazy (just admit it and embrace it) very few are going to look at the description. No-one else but a christian and the Christian Church would allow such a criteria as proof of once belief in Christianity (if that, I don't think many christian would admit that being true). The picture should rather be renamed into "percentage of population in a country that has ever been baptized". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quhana (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In my experience most of the editors of this article, Christian or not, are very interested in truth and in working with people who believe differently than they do. I think you'll find being strident here is counter-productive. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're right, and it represents numbers of baptisms rather than numbers of active Christians (which seems to be the case, from the image summary), then we do need to make a change. Do we know the source of the statistics? Ilkali (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Quhana, are you saying that these people who were once baptized now no longer claim to be Christian? Do you have any references for that? I would think that some exist, but getting it quantified is difficult. Is being baptized not demonstrating some degree of belonging to Christianity?

One of the major problems with any effort to demonstrate actual membership numbers is defining who is a member of a given church. Almost no church can keep these types of records and coordinate reporting to a central source. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life publishes a survey annually (I think) that does assist in quantifying church membership in the US. How do we measure membership? Is it attendance? Is it just baptism or some other action of joining? Is there is a difference between practicing and belonging? Is it important to show these differences? If someone was once a Christian how do they stop becoming Christian? How do we account for these changes? --^StormRider 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"are you saying that these people who were once baptized now no longer claim to be Christian?" If you want to contest this, the burden of proof is on you; we can't present "number of baptised citizens" as "number of Christians" unless we have hard evidence that they're the same thing. And you're not going to get that evidence, because, as we both know, a lot of people who are raised Christian do not remain Christian. Heck, a lot of people are baptised and not even raised in the faith, because the baptism is just a traditional part of the culture.

"One of the major problems with any effort to demonstrate actual membership numbers is defining who is a member of a given church". Yes, it's difficult. But that doesn't justify pretending one statistic is another statistic. Ilkali (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not supportive of keeping the language or changing. My edit was an attempt to address the question of reporting membership numbers in general. This conversation comes up periodically because some editors, like the one above, shows an interest or concern. If we are going to change language, let's attempt to write it as cleanly as possible so that when an editor reads it in the future, there is not a problem. As an aside, I don't really trust any worldwide organizations to report any legitimate numbers; it is just too difficult to do in a precise manner. --^StormRider 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then we need to agree on two things:

• Is it worth keeping the graph if all it reports is percentage of baptisms? It's particularly notable information in the Baptism article, but it's less directly relevant here.
• If we do keep it, what description should we use? How about "Percentage of baptised citizens by country"?

Ilkali (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

De-sermonification

Articles on Christian belief have a tendency to to rely on language commonly used within the faith, which makes a certain kind of intuitive sense but leads to problems. In particular, it contains esoteric language in place of plain English descriptions, which makes things unclear for those without pre-existing familiarity with the faith, and it involves flowery, grandiose language. I have some examples from the current revision of the article:

• "teaching that individuals are completely incapable of self-redemption, but the grace of God overcomes even the unwilling heart". The meaning of the bolded section isn't entirely clear, but the tone is even worse.
• "to bring about salvation from sin". What does it actually mean to be "saved" from sin? Are we talking about forgiveness and admission into heaven? Then we should say so! It's fine to use terminology from within the faith, but it's better to use plain, descriptive language in the lead.
• "As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again". Why don't we just say he came back to life? Talking about "rising" to life and "defeating" death imparts undesirable positive connotations. Also, what meaning is added by the adjunct As fully God? Does the reader need to be reminded that normal humans can't do this?
• "that God can give the confidence that a believer in Jesus as the Christ has truly received salvation". Wouldn't Jesus Christ or just Jesus do? And truly? As opposed to falsely receiving salvation?
• "the Spirit proceeds from the Father". "Proceeds from"? What?
• "the Son being eternally begotten of the Father". As opposed to temporarily begotten?

We should be aiming for precision, neutrality and clarity, and these snippets do not exemplify that. Ilkali (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, though I take issue with your last two examples. When talking of the Spirit proceeding, it is a technical term, and meant to distinguish it from the generation of the Son. I'm not sure what you'd like to use instead, though if you have a suggestion, I'm up for discussing it. And specifying "eternally begotten", as oppposed to "begotten", makes it clear that it is something that happens in eternity, rather than temporally; ie that it happens in eternity and not at a particular time. It's important to Christianns, and I don't think its terribly confusing. Though I suggest that for clarity (and explanation) we wikilink it thusly: "eternally begotten of the Father". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"When talking of the Spirit proceeding, it is a technical term". Do you think the meaning of that term is clear to people not familiar with the details of Christian theology?

So we're using eternally as a synonym for atemporally? Given that the former has a wider range of meanings, I'd suggest the latter is a better bet. Ilkali (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that proceeds and eternally begotten are technical terms, and we'd be doing the reader a disservice if we replaced them with common language that isn't equivalent, I agree. But I'm not sure this justifies keeping the language. After all this article is an overview of Christianity, not Trinitarianism, a doctrine that millions of Christians reject. Couldn't it be enough for this article to explain the Trinity using terms like coequal, a term whose meaning is transparent, at least to anyone who knows Latin roots?

On a marginally related note, is there any church that teaches that "the Son and the Spirit proceed" from the Father, as the article currently does? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, what meaning is added by the adjunct As fully God? Does the reader need to be reminded that normal humans can't do this? Good question. It's also blatantly pro-Trinitarianism or, less likely, pro-Oneness. While I don't mind mentioning that most Christians are members of Trinitarian churches when it's appropriate, we shouldn't let the article become a forum for having Trinitarianism preached at every moment.

I'd say go with all the changes that carl doesn't object to. As for the ones he does object to, I'll have to think about them more. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The "proceeds from" does not seem like a problem; at least not for me; however, the "eternally begotten" phrase could easily be interpreted as denominationally specific. If it is to be used, it should be explained; many readers do not have your religious background and thus make achieving your understanding doubtful.

Fundamentally, I agree that care should be used when using Christian lingo. Clarity need not be limited to a secular description of Christianity, but the use of language that adequately explains Christianity to readers who may have a limited understanding of this religion. --^StormRider 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)