Talk:Christianity

Template:Talkheaderlong Template:FormerFA Template:Mainpage date

Christianity has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5


	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	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

Religion, Religion, Religion; I hate that word.

Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Christ. User:Jim Bart

But which Christ are you referring to, there is more than one definition, many of which are not Christian in the slightest. Homestarmy 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the latest episode of "As the Article Turns..."

On today's episode of "As the Article Turns..." an edit war over whether Ba'hai is an Abrahamic religion or not has started. Will administrators lock the page? Will anyone ever take it to the talk page? Why am I asking you all these questions? No, seriously now, why would Ba'ahi be Abrahamic, as I understand it they consider Bahullah or however its accented to somehow be fulfilling some Islamic prophecy as I understand it, but other than that and I think having a favorable view of Jesus, I can't think of anything that directly ties them into another Abrahamic religion. So what's the dealio here? Homestarmy 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They believe Abraham was one of the manifestations of God along with Jesus and Muhammed, etc. --Oscillate 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds relatively Abrahamic to me, plus its listed as Abrahamic in the Abrahamic article, so what's the problem here? Homestarmy 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over whether Baha'i is Abrahamic is irrelevent anyway. This article is about Christianity and the paragraph in question is discussing the similarities between Judaism and Christianity as Abrahamic faiths due to the fact that Christianity draws much from Judaism. It mentions Islam because (aside from having 1.3 billion followers) the Quran also draws much from both Judaism as well as Christianity and is generally regarded as an Abrahamic faith. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of Abrahamic faiths, but simply a couple examples of faiths with similair beliefs in order to provide reference to Christianity. The Baha'i faith is not a major world religion, having only about 7 million followers world-wide, listed as 13th by Adherents.com (below Juche even), and is not truly related to Christianity as Judaism and Islam are considered to be. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, we are not obligated to include every minority or non-prominent viewpoint. Including a religion most Christians probably know nothing about doesn't contribute to an article about Christianity. —Aiden 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a minority viewpoint Aiden...... that's a stated fact. It is related to Ba'hai like Teddy Roosevelt was related to FDR, it wasn't direct, but it was a notable relationship. To ignore Ba'hai as an Abrahamic religion, when it is, is a pure violation of NPOV policy.

KV(Talk) 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as a point of fact. There are other Abrahamic religions as well, such as Samaritanism, plus those whose identity with (though not descent from) one of the three mentioned is disputed, and arguably Mandaeism (though they consider Abraham to have been a false prophet.) The current "Like..." clause is meant only to briefly explain what's meant by Abrahamic religion, and as such serves its purpose. As a direct descendent of Islam, Baha'i's inclusion is implicit, as is Ahmadiyya and a few others. Not to say that Baha'i can't be added. I was only trying to get the point as simply as possible. This language is also found in Judaism and Islam.Timothy Usher 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Baha'i Faith needs to be mentioned in the lead, as there's no benefit to this article or the reader in understanding the sentence. I just want to clear up some points or misunderstandings regarding the Baha'i Faith that were mentioned above. Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah fullfilled both the Christian and Islamic prophecies regarding the Second Coming of Christ. Baha'is believe that the Bab fulfilled the Islamic prophecies of the Mahdi. Furthermore, Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is a descendent of Abraham. Now in regards to the prophets, Baha'is do believe that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, along with Baha'u'llah come from the same Abrahmic God. In this sense, the Baha'i Faith has been considered Abrahamic in many regards. Again I don't think the Baha'i Faith should be mentioned, just clearing up some points that were brought up. -- Jeff3000 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction--POV problems

I've attempted to change the intro because of NPOV problems. The original introduction favors the following POVs:

That Christianity is monotheistic. Most Muslims, many Jews, and some modern Christians, and many historic Christians would disagree, a constituency reaching into the tens of millions, which should not be ignored. You can't say, consistent with NPOV, that Christianity IS monotheistic. The best you can do is to say that its adherents generally consider it to be monotheistic.
That Christianity is centered around the New Testament. The New Testament was not compiled until centuries after Jesus. Certainly the Apostles, which had no New Testament, were Christians. Moreover, there are, and were, Christianities centered upon writings which are not part of the New Testament. These constituencies number in the tens of millions.

The fact that dictionaries favor these POVs doesn't make it appropriate to favor them here in Wikipedia. We can do better, folks. That's what makes Wikipedia unique, and according to Jimbo Wales, NPOV is NON-NEGOTIABLE. COGDEN 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tried, but we lack acceptable sources for the statements. Perhaps you can help us here.

KV(Talk) 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the numerous archives of this very discussion. There has been provided numerous scholarly, historical, and dictionary sources that have confirmed that Christianity is monotheistic, not by POV, but by definition. Monotheism by definition is the belief or dogma that there exists one God. This definition rests solely on the belief of the person, not on a third parties views of that person's beliefs. If Christians believe their religion is monotheistic, they are by definition monotheists. You can also refer to virtually any Christian creed that will confirm that Christian dogma rests on the belief in one God. I'm not going to go through this debate again as every point that needs to be made has been in the past. Please see the archives before stirring this up again. —Aiden 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, please refer to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. This article generally reflects the beliefs of most Christians, and includes various subsections for differing views. According to Wikipedia policy, we are to describe the mainstream view, which rests on belief in the current canon and rejects the apocrypha, mentioning these less prominent views accordingly. —Aiden 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs can be false, even beliefs about belief. Consider that Mormons believe that they're Christian, yet this is controversial among many mainstream Christians. Likewise, Christians believe that they're monotheists, but this is controversial. Al 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Sure beliefs can be false, but the definition of monotheism rests solely on belief. Whether or not Christians are right about the Trinity, or even right about the existence of God is completely irrelevent. Monotheism is a belief not a fact, and if Christian dogma and belief says there is one God in three, they are by definition monotheistic, regardless of whether or not they are right. We have provided countless sources supporting this position as well as brought in several Muslim editors (including an administrator) who confirmed that although Islam does not agree with the concept of the Trinity, it is not a violation of NPOV and does not establish the Trinity as fact by saying that Christians are monotheistic. Again, I recommend you read the archives. —Aiden 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight doesnt' say that we only describe the mainstream view, it says that we give less emphasis on the lesser views. The second we find a specific source that mentions that the Cainites believed in more than one god, that whole sentence has to be rewritten.

But, as for the scriptures, it is more accurate, closer to the ideal of NPOV as well, to include the fact that it's based off more than what is in the New Testament. See WP:NPOV#Religion

KV(Talk) 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COgden, it may be easier in this article to expend effort in expanding the body of the article rather then attempting to change the introduction. It has been a long source of debate on this page. I don't disagree with your edits or your comments; rather I support them. However, I do believe historic Christian theology, which is a clear majority in the world, gets the limelight at the introduction. I do not feel that the body of the text becomes their sole domain. If the majority always ruled this would really be an article soley about Roman Catholic Christianity. If you are going to focus on something, focus on the body to ensure that a representation of diverse beliefs is present.

I am also not interested in the silly edit wars about who is Christian and who is not. Religionists, all of us, are too prone to think we must protect our ""own"" turf and seldom realize that we have far more in common than what separates us. It is not pretty as the history of this article will attest, but it is reality. Saul was convinced of the rightness of his cause as he was involved in stoning Christians. Funny that he could not have been more wrong, but he was convinced until he heard that Voice. I digress, for now please review the body and expand as you think best. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question as to whether or not Mormons are Christian depends on what exactly you have to believe in order to be a Christian. There is a valid difference of opinion over that. Dictionaries won't say whether or not you have to believe that Jesus was eternally begotten, or that he was consubstantial with the Father, or that he had two natures but was only one person, or that he really performed miracles. However, dictionaries do tell us that monotheism means the belief that there is one God. (Note that they don't say that it means that that belief must be perceived by others as reasonable or logical.) Anyway, as Aiden points out, we've been through all that, so let's hope the edit war doesn't start again. AnnH ♫ 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In NPoV fashion, we report that Christians believe their belief is monothestic. I believe the sentence in the intro captures this. Likewise, if Mormons believe they are Christian, we report that they believe that. As for the NT sentence, the intro does not say that the NT is a sacred text, or that it is the only sacred text in Christianity. Detailed points on this are appropriate in the article body, where at least one text considered sacred by some Christians is not even mentioned. Gimmetrow 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we report that Christians believe their belief is monothestic." You're going way out on a limb there. Surely we can only say that some authors say most people who self-identify as Christians claim to believe their belief is monothestic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion" does not capture that? Gimmetrow 03:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the plain statement, "Christianity is a monotheistic religion, centered on the life and teachings, etc." If the reader wants to know more about monotheism in particular, or religion in general, they can follow the links. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we apparently report in POV fashion that Muslims are monotheistic in Islam. On the Islam talk page, the only discussion about monotheism was somebody asking whether most Muslims accept the Christian claim that we are monotheistic, and an editor answered yes. So it seems either Wikipedia has been compleatly hijacked by anti-NPOV warriors, or saying that religions are or are not monotheistic is simply a matter of verifiability.... Homestarmy 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue is that people like to argue about religion as a pastime. This is a non-issue. Belief is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception - thus if a movement builds itself around "belief x," by definition it believes what it claims to believe. This isn't a POV: It's a definition of the movement itself, which by its nature is constructed on an articulated POV. Again, if one wishes to highlight equally unverifiable criticisms of Christianity's construction of monotheism, take it to Criticism of Christianity or to Trinitarianism or monotheism, not an article which actually describes Christian belief, history, and praxis. Fishhead64 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a matter of fact, what in tarnation are all those references doing about Christianity being monotheistic? Apparently they didn't get the message....Homestarmy 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In NPoV fashion, we report that Christians believe their belief is monothestic." The definition of monotheism is the belief. You're proposing we basically say "Christians believe that they believe in one God", which as MonkeySage put it, is nothing but verbal tautology. —Aiden 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion" does not capture that? Gimmetrow 03:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Aiden, this is most unusal for you, and is presumably only a slip, but you've fallen into the Drogo/Giovanni definition of monotheism. It means the belief that there is one God, not the belief in one God. So what's being proposed is "Christians believe that they believe that there is one God", which either, as you say, is tautological, or carries an implication that they don't really believe that — they only think they believe that. I remember a priest telling me that he didn't believe there was such a thing as an atheist, as the so-called atheists he knew were obsessed with God, and talked about Him all the time, in a sense "protesting too much". Should we all charge over to the article on atheism and say that atheists believe that they believe that there is no God? AnnH ♫ 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since comments are still mocking my statement, but seem to be ignoring my very next sentence, again let me say that the intro line "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" captures the essense well enough. The issue that some critics do not consider Christian belief monotheistic, or that some Christian theology may have been bitheistic or tritheistic, may merit some place in the article body. Gimmetrow 20:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we already inserted material about the dispute in the trinity section or the criticisms thing somewhere? Homestarmy 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of bahai.

Should bahai be mentioned? it's as much related to christianity as islam is. Pure inuyasha 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section, On the latest episode of "As the Article Turns...". —Aiden 20:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should mushroom omelette be mentioned? It's as much related to Christianity as a lot of the stuff people here seem to be obsessed with... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopic Bookworm (talk • contribs)

i'm sorry, but bahai has much more related to christianity than a mushroom omlette. Pure inuyasha 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions?

How has christianity divided into so many denominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.133.194 (talk • contribs)

Much of it had to do with disagreements over the councils that took place in the early Church. —Aiden 14:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it has to do with the nature of religion itself and in particular of Christianity. It's open to a wide area interpretation and thus given to an an almost infinite number of variations, even among basic doctrines once held to be sacrosant. This combined with a tendency for sectarianism and dogmatism yields bitter splits, each grou and version delcaring that they are the only one "true" Church. This tendency for intolerance also helps to explain the great bloodshed that accompanies Christianity thoughrought its history.Professor33 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I notice I am not allowed to edit the main article. Its a pity its closed off to new editors. The article could benefit from the imput of a greater diversity of thought. How long would someone need to be a member in order to edit?Professor33 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many of the denominations split precisely because they did not want to be dogmatic whatever-negative-word-your-using whoevers, and especially to protray the "virtues" of tolerance (And I use the term virtues very lightly) and whatnot, see Unitarianism. Homestarmy 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these are the exceptions to the rule. A good example is unitarianism, which is notable for its large degree of tolerance, a minimizing of essentials, and a repugnance to formulated doctrine. They are more in line with the humanism and freethinking of anti-religionists. However, Christianity in the main has as it dominant character historically, as s I have described. Even the puritans arriving in the US and setting up a settlement, fleeing from persecution, were particularly intolerant.Professor33 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add on to my reply, but we edit conflicted :/. On the One true church thing, im fairly certain several more mainline protestant denominations do not specifically refer to themselves as the "one true church", but rather take a position that all who belong to the Body of Christ are part of the "One true church", which is even more fundamentalist really than churches which claim that only they are the way. Furthermore, then there's non-denominational churches which have risen about 1,000 percent in population lately, (0.1 percent to 1.7 percent of the population or something, weee! :D) which of course by definition can't be the "one true church" when they don't even align themselves with a church in the first place. Nextly, i'd like to use an analogy on this whole "Christians through history did some bad things" argument, let's say your standing in front of two people who are friends with each other. One of them punches you in the face. Do you punch the other person in the face and say "Your friend punched me in the face, that's your fault!"? Homestarmy 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about an ideology so the analogy is flawed. Christians may like to separate themselves from their conduct and past but they tied to it by the adherence to the nature of their religious ideology. This helps explain their behavior for both past and present as a religous movement. Do you doubt that any ideology which is embraced by a group is a major factor in understanding its historical actors? People act according to their world outlook. If the ideology tells them that those who differ from you are incarnations of the devil, then you literally dehumanize your opponents and this allows you to gleefully engage in all these "bad things," which are pretty horrible when you look at the specifics. Also, other aspects of religion allow for great manipulation, hence it has always been at the service of one or another political interest or movement, under the banner and justification of their conception of God. Professor33 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the mainstream churches and ideologies that behave in this way ignore the real teachings of Christianity like love and peace (John 13:35). Let's not paint with too broad a brush here. Jesus said people would recognize his followers by their "fruit". --Oscillate 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they would say you ignore the real teachings, which may not emphasis the same points or interpretation of "love and peace." The religion has made peace with notions violence and war. The point is that it's almost anything you want it to be, anything can be justified by refenced to an interpretation of it religious texts, esp. the Bible. It's just a matter of what the society allows in terms of its current political and social climate, and the variety of the sect which represents a specific orientation. In this way, we can understand religion as a certain type of vehical through which different agendas can thrive. Its the nature of this vehicle which allows these political and social movements to indeed thrive and mobilize in a why it may not be able to without a religious ideology hence its inherent danger, leaving notions like "love and peace" as merely lofty sounding rhetoric. This is true for just about everything and anything else which always attribute altruistic goals to itself as part of its propaganda, despite the reality of its practice. Professor33 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if you judge the entire religion as such, or imply that all members of Christianity are bloodthirsty hypocrits or that none live up to the standards in the texts they live by, you are being far too broad. --Oscillate 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse no one is saying that. That would be absurd. But Christianity certainly has proven itself fully capable and compatible with such behavior. And, that is due to the nature of the ideology, which lends itself into whatever purpose that is needed given the variables that I mentioned.Professor33 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point you are making, Prof33? Replace religion with almost any social construct and the same would hold true throughout history. We are human and we like us'ins and we don't like those'uns. Has it not always been the case with humanity? I am not sure there is a group that lasted for any extended period that did not fight to "protect" it self.

I agree that religion in general has also exhibited the characteristics that you describe. However, you conveniently leave out all of the good that religion has done throughout history. Is it evil? Of course not. Can it be used for evil purposes? Of course, but trying to make religion "tied to it by the adherence to the nature of their religious ideology" is stretching. It is a nice conversation, but I don't know where you are trying to end up...religion did bad things becuase you think it teaches adherents to be bad and thus all religion, Christianity in particular, should be stamped out as a social evil. I know it started out to be an answer to a question about why so many denominations, but it has morphed into something else.

BTW, the answer to the question could easily be tied to everyone having one sacred book, but having different interpretations of that same book of scripture. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is true. Not all social constructs, i.e. ideologies are equal for their accomodation to being highjacked by different radically different adgendas. I think the professor has a valid point that is particular to religious ideology in general and Christianity in particular-- hence its great diversity ranging from all ends of the political, social, and economic spectrum. Even Hitler could adopt it as a successful vehical for fascism. So even if other ideologies can posses similar characterisitics, none does it easier than a religious one given its method of authority, lack of verifiablity, faith, blind obedience, and irrationality in general. If you can get people to believe in absurdities with a religious mindset, you can get them to commit atrocities with great glee and ferver. This is an argument of anti-religionists who do say that all religion is evil, because no religion is based on knowledge, they are all based entirely on beliefs arising from and out of, superstitions and ignorance. That statement is true of every single religion, but some are more so than others. The worst problem with religion is that Religion, and the Religious, claim to irrefutably know, what cannot be known, usually on the basis of "Divine Revelation" , which thing, of course, is neither provable nor disprovable. The very worst feature of these claims is how very many of the religions and their adherents will gladly kill you if you question either their statements or their authority to make them. So its this dogmatism, lack of doubt, and its twin, intolerance together with being able to mold it for any purpose that gives it its particularly dangerous social character. Does this mean it can do not good? Ofcourse not. Does this mean we ought to try to wipe it out? Well, while that might be desirable as an outcome it would be oppressive as a direct goal. Instead it should be attacked at its root: education and alientation. As Marx said, its an opiate of the people, symptmatic of a psychological need that is lacking. To quote him, "To demand that people abandon illusions of their condition is to demand that conditions that need illusions should itself be abandoneded."Giovanni33 23:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gio, let's look at it. Political groups have been every bit as bad as any religion for destroying the preceding group in power and those who reject their ideologies. Marx and his philosophical offspring, communism, has a particularly bad history of literally destroying all who oppose their "liberation" of the proletariat. Let's look at sovereign nations; they too have been pretty good throughout history of destroying everyone not like them. Tribal affiliation, family groups, etc. fall into the same category and all have been equally as bad throughout history. Economic confederacies have been particularly bad when threatened or as a method of expanding their base of operations. Can you think of one social construct that has been completely benign throughout history? I can't, but I might be missing something.

I like what you said first, "ideologies are equal for their accommodation to being high jacked by different radically different agendas." Attempting to make it particularly facile for religionists is just trying to find a scapegoat for the radical, power hungry individuals. You name the construct and you will find a radical that has abused it to allow "him/her/them" to be in power and lard it over their fellow man. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my sentence is missing a comma, note that it should be "Not all social constructs, i.e. ideologies, are equal for their accomodation to being highjacked by different radically different adgendas." My point was that they were not all equal. Some are more suited than others for being molded with all the worst features that allow the worst in us, and to take advantage of this. Marxism is a good example of my same point: turning Marxism into a religion, or treating it as a religion. This is what caused Marx to once say, "I am no Marxist!" Infact, these so-called Marxists did treat the ideology as a dogma esp. when they treated it as a State-religion, much like Constantine did with Christianity with he adopted it as the ruling ideology for the empire. But, unlike what Constatine did with Christianity, which can be said to be the main and dominant form consitent a valid interpretation given the texts and nature of the ideology, the same can not be said for Marxism, which can clearly be shown to be a perversion of the world view. In otherwords, since it is not a religion it should not be treated as a religion. My contention is that the elements in any religion that define it as such is part of the problem with the nature of the ideology and that is an inherent part of it, without which it ceases to be a religion. Any social construct that emphasises blind faith and disregards critical thinking, valid and sound reasoning (logic), and standards of evidence, is likewise guilty of an equal failings. It is just that religion makes for an esp. useful and successul means to effect such evils on a mass scale--not that other ideologies, in particular nationalist ideologies (which are more often than not merged with religious ideology), can not do the very same. As for another world outlook which does not and is far less likely to lend itself to such evil is Secular humanism based on a scientific world view. Not that they can not be abused. Anything can, potencially. But what is interesting is that when it is abused and corrupted its done so in a manner that clearly refutes not just its ideals, and doctrines, but goes counter to its own methodology as well. This is not the case with relgion. Its the religious method itself that is idenfitied with the corruption of the other social constructs, because its precisely such a world view and method that is needed in order to get people to do the great harm that we have witnesses unleased against our fellow man: unreason, dogmatism, intolerance, blind obedience, lack of critical thinking, acceptance of propositions without adequate evidence. These are the necessary ingredients for any recipe designed to do these things that most of us consider to be great social evils.Giovanni33 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you put it that way, its a really good thing all religions aren't the same, whew.... Homestarmy 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you and I GIO disagree with history, but we do disagree on our deductions. Religion can be manipulated and has been. However, I would contend that religion is misused by individuals and their followers who misunderstand relgion; Christianity in particular. You are more prone to paint faith with an evil brush. You contend that religion can be abused more easily than other other social constructs; however, that is not a proven fact, but a belief you have created with many others that are suspicious of relgion. Regardless, just because something can be abused does not make it evil. You are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I happen to believe that the baby is worth keeping. There is truth in almost all religions (I am not familiar with one that does not have some truth, but there could be one).

Relgionists crucified Christ; it would not surprise me today if he were to come among us again as a mortal that religionists would not again crucify him. In truth, I don't think we are so differnent today than we were 2000 years ago. In the name of religion many are persecuted, held in disdain, and cast out from different societies. However, I would contend that these are not true followers of Christ. They may know the name, but their hearts are far from the gospel of the Savior. I also have hope and know there are many, in different religions, that do much good. I hope that is a good is something you come to recognize and appreciate. ALso, they are good because of their relgion and not in spite of it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's call the No True Scotsman fallacy. Look it up. Oh, and if you read what Gio's saying, you'll see that what sets religion apart in terms of potential for abuse is its reliance on faith and rejection of logic and evidence. This unique feature allows religions to be unencumbered by the distractions of truth. Anyhow, that's what Gio appears to be saying. Al 05:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and to answer Strom, above, I'll try to make myself more clear. Religion is dogma and contains features which predispose it to abuse in a way that other social constructs without these failings (its defning methodology) do not. Note that this does not mean that they can not be also abused. They can. Its a question of looking at the respective ideology and method, and seeing what part of that core element is to be blamed for how it can be used or abused. I argue it has a great deal to do with it, that it lends itself to it. Also, note that it does not mean good can not be done, either under its influence. I recognize that potencial for good, too. This is not my argument, nor affects it. But my argument is not that its just a matter of bad leaders who can abuse a doctrine-- its that the "baby" is the core of what makes a religion religious that is the problem, the danger inherent to the nature of the thinking. That is not just the water, which can be thrown out to save what is the core. No, the core is part of the problem that you can't get rid of without changing what it means to employ a religious mind-set since that religious method (with its attributes asexplained before) constitute an essential defining character of the ideology. In order to effectively thow out the water but save the baby it would need to test all its beliefs under the rigors of the scientific method and reject those beliefs that are not warrented, i.e. what a rational mind would do adhering to logical methods of investigatng reality. It would have to adopt a conviction that its dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. It must be ready to declar itself fundamentally wrong, and flawed. Claims must be able to be verified. It must be supported by logic and rationality. Indeed, it must place reason, evidence, and the scientific method as a central commitment--to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism in seeking understandings of reality, solutions to human problems and answers to importantquestions. It just have a constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. I suggest that to do all this, we end up with something that can not be called religious by nature. Therefore, since this is what I think need to be thrown it, it IS the baby that needs to be thrown out and only some of the water is good to be saved.Giovanni33 09:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gio, I believe I understand your point, I just diagree with it. The scientific method, just saying makes one feel a superior intelligence. "I have determined this is true by scientific deduction." The problem Gio is man's ability to think what he thinks is true by scientific deduction is limited by his own finite understanding. Looking back on science it is quite funny how completely backwards they have got things...I suspect they still do in many areas. Do not get me wrong, logic, reason, even scientific deduction have a place; but it is not the end all of things. I acknowledge that many of the things you are stating about religion are true, but we will have to agree to disagree on other points. Religion and faith has a place in the world. Let's move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheistic Religion

I noticed there was some debate whether or not Christianity should be described as a monotheistic religion because some think the Trinity is contrary to monotheistic theology. A simple solution would be to write to the effect of "Christianity professes monotheism", because that won't be contested by anyone, or at least I hope it wouldn't be contested. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I and other editors argued, or the alternative "self-defined," but those who have a certain POV that it IS monothesistic want to state it as a fact in the article, not that it is a POV of the adherents, hence, "professed monotheism," which would open the possiblity that there are other legitimate POV's on the nature of the belief. In order to make this NPOV edit stick we would have to get maybe at least 5 more editors here to balance the other side, or else all this debate will go around and around on the talk pages only.Giovanni33 02:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic task is to define persons, places, and things as objectively as possible. Monotheism is the exclusive belief in one God. For Christians there is no God but one (1 Cor. 8:4). That is sufficient to classify Christianity objectively as a monotheistic religion. The Christian God is "simple" and "uncompounded" in his essence. To say that Christianity is anything other than a monotheistic religion is to make it into another religion. The only requirement is the belief and worship of but one God alone, and that is what Christianity does.--Drboisclair 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were it so simple. That problem is that "one God" comes out looking more like three gods than one. If I were to say I believe in one color, the color Red. But then I also say I also believe in Blue and Orange, but this is just a version of Red--I only believe in one color! An outsider can look at that and say, ok, they profess uni-color belief, but I can see how others might look at those sets of beliefs and come to a conclusion that they are multi- or tri-colored in their beliefs. Since Wikipedia must be NPOV it should simply report what each signifiant group says: what Christians say about themselves and how others outside the faith look at it. What makes Christianity the religion it is might very well be, as you say--the professed belief in one god, but this does not stop it from at the same time professing belief in more than one god in other manners. The two are not mutually exclusive in a religious body of beliefs that are largely contradictory anyway. Such is the nature of the beast.Giovanni33 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Giovanni, is is that simple, except for those who are trying to dispute that Christianity is monotheistic. The reason it is that simple is, as I have explained again and again and again and again on this talk page, that the standard dictionary definition of monotheism is "THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS ONE GOD" not "the worship of one God". I don't know whether you keep forgetting this or whether you are deliberately ignoring it. If the definition of monocolourism is believing that red, blue, and orange are one colour, and I believe that they are one colour, then you can't say that I'm a tricolourist based on the fact that you think I'm looking at three colours. AnnH ♫ 09:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with that argument. But things are not always as simple or clear cut as a dictionary definition provides. Also, we only know that the stated beliefs are, we don't know what is really believed (since we can't read people's minds). But looking at the beliefs, if one part says one god, but other parts suggest more than one god also as a stated belief, then does not the plural understanding have any weight or value, if not take over the singular pronouncement? Is monothesism merely the dogmatic assertion of a stated belief irespective of other stated, professed beliefs that could negate it? Is it possible to negate it if Christians openly say there are many gods at the same time they say there is one god? If not then the label monotheism just beomes another dogmatic assertion independant of the truth of the matter: is it a real belief in one god within the whole body of religious beliefs for the respective religion simply on the basis of an assertion that it is? This seems to just be saying that if Christians say its monotheistic then it MUST be so no matter what the reality is. For the reality is what they say it is despite the evidence to the contrary. Is that part of the definition, also?Giovanni33 09:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a massive Christian global conspiracy to misconstrue what is inside a Christian's head?

Why not stop at monotheism? Maybe Christians "really" believe that the moon is green cheese - but they never tell anyone else, or for that matter, each other. Maybe Jews "really" are Christians and everything they state and profess to the contrary is an elaborate (albeit convincing) self-deception. I'm tempted to state that Giovanni "really" believes that Christians are trinitarian himself - he seems to have stated otherwise, but I choose to remain unconvinced by his assertion.

On a more serious note, the "reality" is that monotheism is the belief in one God. The evidence to the contrary would be belief in more (or less) than one god. And unless we have a "secret hidden beliefs extractor", we'll have to take the lake of professed belief in more than one god as evidence of lack of actual belief in more one God.Slac speak up! 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the professed beliefs are contradictory on this point as in many instances the professed beliefs are in other gods or god-like creatures. Just taking the professed beliefs--all of them on face value--its hard to say that there is only belief in one god objectively speaking. I agree it doesnt have to make sense, but to call soemthing objectively a belief in one god as a religion in whole seems to me to be taking just one interpretation of the Christian belief---those of the Christians themselves---and saying that other interpretations by outside parities are wrong. Should wikipedia take such a stance? WOuldnt it be both more accurate and NPOV to simply stated "professed monoth...?" After all that is still accurate and not controversial since that is exactly the case: Christians professed or self define as monotheistic.Giovanni33 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Contradictory" is a POV. I see it very difficult to, for example, say of an agnostic "although they are a professed atheist, it's pretty clear from their beliefs that they believe in God". And anyway, do such contradictions exist in Islam? How is it NPOV to state of Islam "Islam is a monotheistic religion" and of Christianity "is professed to be monotheistic"? That implies a value judgement right there. And this could not logically end with monotheism. Do we have to state that scientists believe that Ockham's razor eliminates creationism? Or must we say that scientists state that they believe that (since some are of the view that anti-creationism is a Satanic conspiracy?) The hedges under this proposal must be multiplied indefinitely. Slac speak up! 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory could be a POV for some matters where there are grey areas and matters for inperpretation. One god vs. more than one may be one of those grey areas, where it is a matter of POV. This is all the more reason not to take any one POV as the truth on the question. Certainly there are many things in the bible which are outright contradictions and this is not POV but fact. I don't know enough about Islam to make any arguments about how its represented on that article. But if they suffer from the same problem then it should also be corrected. Two wrongs don't make a right. I do know that Muslims dispute the notion that Christianity is monothesisitc, while they say they are. Should Wikipedia be in the possition to say Muslims are wrong and Christians are right? Ofcourse not. Dont mix up religion and science. The two are totally different animals. Ockhams razor is not a matter of subjective belief, its a logical principal, a tool for choosing one theory over another. And, with science we can dismiss those scientists who are creationists since creationism is not science, its not a scientific theory, and it is contrary to the scientific method and principal in every way. No serious scientist would take such a religious belief seriously on the same level as they would a scientific theory. With science it all about the objective evidence and peer review, verifiablility. Either the evidence fits or it doesn't. If it doesn't then throw it out for the one that makes the best sense and strongest case given all the data that is known. This is why the majority of scientists can agree on things. Those "scientists" who hold to creationist ideas are the extreme lunatic fringe and they are not taken seriously at all within the scientific community. With religion it is about a stated belief, its not about truth. With science is is about finding the truth, however much our conciousness always lags behind it.Giovanni33 10:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gio don't bash your head against this wall any more. We have a classic religious vs humanistic definition clash. You and I have a humanistic out look and define people by what they do not what they say - ie they may say they believe in one God but they have what we could consider a contradictory way of defining this. Religious people tend to define someone by what they profess to believe in even if they then act in an incompatible way. According to Christian teaching you and I are destined for hell and no amount of being a good person or helping old ladies across the road will change this. Only changing what we believe will improve our eternal prospects. Sophia 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it would seem fair that having more good points than bad points means we deserve to go to heaven; unfortunately God requires perfection. If we can't make ourselves perfect, we must find a way to be declared perfect in God's sight. Jesus took the punishment for our sins. If we believe this, that is good, but intellectual assent is not enough. We must put our trust/faith/committment in Him. (i.e. He must own us). I think many people forget this second part. They think, now that I've recited the special prayer I have a free ticket to heaven and can now go and do whatever I want for the rest of my life. ^ross ^nixon 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on those who do not believe that Christianity is monotheistic to show how it is not monotheistic. It is that simple. To those alleging that Christianity is not monotheistic, da, your POV is showing. According to the dictionary definition of monotheism Christianity is monotheistic. Talking about colors you can see that white light can be refracted into Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet, so it appears that one color is seven colors. All this is is an attempt to bash Christianity. Here is a good comparision: those disputing that Christianity is monotheistic are like those who dispute that an elephant isn't a mammal.--Drboisclair 13:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And those who know nothing about physics should avoid using the properties of light as an example. Actually what we call light is just the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the unaided human eye. What we really see is a continuum of spectra not discrete colours - we just identify the ones that the we can see the clearest. Now there's a great pantheistic analogy! To go completely off topic - there are actually only 6 colours but as 6 is the number of the devil Newton had to throw in indigo to bring it to a godly 7.

Back to the article - no this is not a bash at Christianity - it is a reasoned observation by people who do not accept the definition of the trinity as compatible with monotheism - something some Christians also struggle with. To me (and many Muslims) your theology is internally inconsistent. I assume this is recognised by the church powers that be which is why they make it a central tenet of faith. If you don't have faith then we have no reason to believe that 1+1+1=1. We are talking across each other as usual so I'm advising Gio to drop this as it's pointless - we're using the same words but talking a different language. Sophia 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Muslims rightly challenge is whether (Trinitarian) Christianity conforms to Tawhid. This is not just that there is only one God, but that he is unified in nature, is absolutely above and is nothing like his creations, etc. It has always been understood that Christianity fails these strict requirements. The word "monotheism", on the other hand, was coined by Christians and has always been understood to include Christianity in its definition, in contrast not to Islam or Judaism but to paganism.

Giovanni's criticism, whatever its merit, is best aimed at the sources which have been restored (minus a few Christian websites and History for Kids) to support the word "monotheism"; ugly as they are, they're again proven necessary. What is needed is not for us to debate the reality of the situation on the talk page, but for Giovanni (or anyone else) to produce a reliable source which states otherwise. At that point, we may say there is a dispute, and discuss how best to characterize the opposing views. Until then, it's all original research.Timothy Usher 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The burden of proof is on those who do not believe that Christianity is monotheistic to show how it is not monotheistic." Why? I'm not saying whether or not I believe Christianity is monotheistic, but I do believe this conflict can be avoided altogether by just saying what I suggested above. This is not the place for discussions on the Trinity so no one really has to prove whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. It is, however, the place for reporting others findings about it. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that says Christianity's definition of monotheism is unique. [1] Sophia 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some books: [2], [3], [4]. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my multiple Gods. How many times are we going to have this debate??? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He who must not be named, I guess this an important topic to discuss. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have shown befeore with sources that it is disputed, so the POV should not be stated as if it were fact universally held to be true, but a POV where there are other legitimate interpretations for. For a more scholarly source here is the Oxford Journal of Theological Studies on the question of Polytheism and Christian Belief; by Michael C. Rea, University of Notre Dame, Indiana; Online ISSN 1477-4607 - Print ISSN 0022-5185 Copyright © 2006 Oxford University Press http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/57/1/133 I quote (to read the full article, you need a subscription):

"Christian philosophers and theologians have long been concerned with the question of how to reconcile their belief in three fully divine Persons with their commitment to monotheism. The most popular strategy for doing this—the Social Trinitarian strategy—argues that, though the divine Persons are in no sense the same God, monotheism is secured by certain relations (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) that obtain among them. It is argued that if the Social Trinitarian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then Christianity is not interestingly different from the polytheistic Amun-Re theology of Egypt's New Kingdom period. Thus, Social Trinitarianism should be classified as a version of polytheism rather than monotheism."Giovanni33 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit clash - Gio you beat me to it!) The paper from the Journal of Theological Studies (April 2006) is a very good Rs. [5] In fact KV will enjoy that one as it links to the egyptian polytheism. Sophia 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you all are saying that I can believe in one God, but not be monotheistic (believing in one god)? I'll have whatever you're having, please. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. :) Would it be ok to post the full article? I don't because AnnH would consider it abuse of talk page, but my main concern is that its a pay per view article and so it might violate terms of use--but the abstract is freely available to see thta it is indeed a scholarly POV.Giovanni33 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're saying that you can believe that you believe in one god, but you might be wrong. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that others who think you are wrong are not necessarily wrong themselves in thinking your wrong. The solution to fix this ongoing issue is incredibly simple, which is why NPOV guidelines exist.Giovanni33 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm not a Christian (which I never said I was :-)), believe in one God, you would say that I am not monotheistic? I'm so confused. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a Christian we don't know what you are so we don't know if your beliefs are more consistent with a concept of monotheism or polytheism.Giovanni33 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's cute you think you know what I believe. Not quite. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never assumed to know what you believe. I used "you" in a general sense; plus I don't think he who must not be named ever declares a religion for himself in the movies. If "you" (again - general sense) said that you were monotheistic and also believed in the Trinity, then some people would say you're not monotheistic. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the right link Gio the browser downloads the whole paper for free. LV remember that self definitions are fraught with dangers otherwise all the nutters who say they arewould be Jesus. Sophia 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we couldn't say "this dude believes he is Jesus"? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course we can, in the same way we can say "Christianity believes itself to be monotheistic", but I would rather not phrase it that way. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so while of course we wouldn't say, "this dude is Jesus", we could certainly say "this dude believes he is Jesus". But we wouldn't say "this dude believes he believes he is Jesus", right, because we can't define other people's beliefs for them, right? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what we are showing is that belief in the trinity and monotheism are considered mutually exclusive by some. As can be seen above some Christian editors consider this an attack on their faith in which they are not completely wrong as they are required to not doubt or question these things - otherwise it's a ticket next to me and Gio on the bus to hell. How to deal with this is currently one of wikipedia's very weak points. Sophia 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could say "this dude believes he believes he is Jesus", but it would be unnecesary, because other people agree with him (so we could also say that other people believe that this dude believes he is Jesus). In the case of the Trinity and monotheism, we can't do that. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we began to discuss this, several weeks ago, I pointed out that the definition of montheism is not "the worship of one God", or "the worship of one God in a way that non-believers find logical", or even (and this is important) "the belief in one God," but simply "the belief that there is one God". I'd type up a post stating that, and quoting the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary, and a smaller Oxford Dictionary of Modern English. Other dictionaries were quoted as well. Despite that, every time someone in favour of the "allegedly, so-called, self-professed monotheistic" argument would post something about how it's not clear that Christianity is monotheistic because other people don't find their belief in the Trinity consistent with monotheism. I would post again that monotheism does not mean the belief in one God, but the belief that there is one God. I'd go off and have dinner, and when I came back, I'd find another half dozen posts saying that since Christians believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they can't really worship one God. I'd explain the definition again, and within minutes, there'd be another post saying that belief in the Trinity wasn't consistent with worshipping one God. In desperation, I began to use ''''' so that the dictionary definition "belief that there is one God" would appear in bold and italics. I'd go off again, and when I came back, it would be as if I hadn't bothered to provide the definition. On one occasion, I even wrote, after I had posted the definition for the umpteenth time, that I knew that when I came back, the definition would have been completely ignored — as if it didn't exist. (And it turned out that I was right.) It wasn't that people were deciding that they knew better than the dictionary what monotheism meant; it was just that they didn't acknowledge that the dictionary said that, or even that I said that the dictionary said it.

I don't mind if people haven't been part of this talk page and they don't know about the dictionary definition that I provided again and again and again. But it gets a bit boring read the same "Christianity isn't monotheistic because even though they say they believe in one God, they seem to worship three" argument from people who were part of the original argument. This morning, when I saw the dictionary definition being ignored again, and the familiar argument was being made, I decided that I wouldn't just do bold and italics. So I did bold, italics, upper case and large font, and I explained that the standard dictionary definition of monotheism is "THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS ONE GOD" not "the worship of one God". Based on that, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but I'm beginning to wonder what size font I should use so that people will stop arguing from the position that monotheism means something different. Or maybe I should use different colours. Any suggestions? AnnH ♫ 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what we ourselves conclude here; we're not supposed to do original research. It matters what people in other sources conclude, and you can't change those sources that say Christianity's claim to monotheism is questionable. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're back to wikipedia's weak point - we have conflicting sources but one group of editors will admit no controversy. What do we do? I've opted for "give up" as I can't see a way round that doesn't involve a lot of bad feeling.

As an aside to this I would note that "NPOV" doesn't exist outside of what the consensus of editors defines it as. Slac speak up! 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - wikipedia's weak point - a self selecting sample of editors are unlikely to hit NPOV on controversial subjects. Sophia 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the structure of this argument you'll see a particular theme. First we're asked to provide reliable sources which we have. The argument then changes to (basically) "it doesn't matter what they say as they are wrong". So I repeat - what do we do?? Answer - Give up and go edit something less controversial instead. Sophia 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say read WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Contrary to popular belief, we do include the fact that some critics disagree with the term "monotheism". And this is enough. We do not want to give undue weight to the minority that claim Christianity is not monotheistic. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what we have is so contorted it does not conform to NPOV. Sophia 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the less contorted alternative? The thing to stress is that the article can and should and does cite people and viewpoints that portray Christianity as not (properly) monotheistic. The expository problem is that diving into a theological car crash in the first half-sentence of the article is undue weight, and is what is given rise to this contorted debate. Slac speak up! 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the monotheism section of this article - it works so hard to not say some people think Christianity is not monotheistic - hence the NPOV problems. Sophia 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote, Sophia, that the article's subsection be edited to reflect the real conflict as seen by opposing scholars. It should be stated bluntly, boldly, and with references. I am against changing the intro in any way to accomodate this disagreement for the reasons stated by AnnH. As long as your edit is well written it will stick and it will not be deleted.

As a LDS I constantly and consistently contend with other Christians (newbie editors mostly, but not always) telling me what I believe; however, they do it with "references", some trivial, some complete falsehoods. It is not that big of a deal, but it does get tiring.

I do not know a single, sholarly Christian that with a straight face can say that the concept of the Trinity is perfectly understandable. It is not understandable, it is contradictory; but remember that it is also a mystery. Mysteries can not be understood by the majority of people, they must be accepted on faith.

Sophia, you are sadly accurate. Christian history has shown that Christians are vastly more concerned with what one believes than with one's actions. There is great wisdom in the simple statement, "by their fruits you shall know them". We are far more prone to condemn another for their beliefs regardless of the evidence of their good heart manifested by their actions. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really shouldn't be about trying to tell people what they believe. An encyclopedia should report all issues without bias - ie if you don't accept the mystery of the trinity then its claim of monotheism is defined in what is considered by some a unique and contradictory way. I haven't edited the paragraph yet as I can't think of a way to explain this without offense. I keep hoping a more knowledgeable editor add this written in a better way than I could!

On the wall of the church where the kids sing in the choir (a very nice no pressure open minded church!) is the quote "God wants spiritual fruits - not religious nuts." I like that alot. Sophia 09:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to some of the reactions of my comments above. 1) I do not appreciate the ad hominem snipe that I should not speak about physics: white light being refracted by glass prisms. 2) The definition of Monotheism is: ""the doctrine or belief that there is but one God." This is from Webster's Dictionary. Christianity confesses in its Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God ..." and there is volumes of explanations about the Christian doctrine of God that conforms with God's revelation of Himself in the New Testament. Any fair and impartial encyclopedia would allow an expert on Christianity to define what it is. Now we are told that Encarta or Grolier or Britannica does not have Wikipedia's sterling standard of NPOV, but by insisting that opponents of Christianity define it according to their bias is hypoctitical if it is called NPOV. Only Christianity nowadays has to suffer itself to be ridiculed, lampooned, and degraded. Let someone try to do the same to Islam or Judaism or Buddhism. Of course, I can see that editors have the NPOV sense to leave the article as it stands that Christianity is a MONOTHEISTIC religion like all other encyclopedias have it. Even though they do not have such an admirable standard of NPOV as Wikipedia. This argument is pointless because no amount of rhetoric will convince those who are set in their own POV.--Drboisclair 13:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drdoisclair, your forte is not in science, as I've corrected you before when you asserted that atoms were only theoretical and we have not been able to see them yet. :) With color, it's not true that seven colors equal one color. White and Black are not really colors at all in the technical sense. White is somtimes described as an achromatic "color" because it contains all the different and real colors of the visible spectrum, which together are percieved as "white." But each color has a distinct energy frequency. In this analogy 'white light" is polytheism--it has many colors combined with it--NOT ONE. So if someone believed in white light they believed in the many different and distinct colors in the specturum. Hence they would be believers in poly-colorism, not mono-colorism.Giovanni33 20:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I can see that editors have the NPOV sense to leave the article as it stands that Christianity is a MONOTHEISTIC religion like all other encyclopedias have it." Actually, Encarta does not label Christianity as monotheistic. I don't have access to Brittanica, but I would like to see how they deal with this issue. You also say "Only Christianity nowadays has to suffer itself to be ridiculed, lampooned, and degraded." I think that makes it clear that you haven't edited Islam-related articles. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, I think we have agreed to a solution...leave the intro to read Christainity is a monotheistic religion and then later in the controversy section. I think this proposal takes care of everyone's objectives. Sophia, please take an initial stab at it and then we will pitch in to assist and refine. Is that acceptable? Let's not continue to beat this horse. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, I understand what you mean about articles on Islam. I appreciate the civility with which you and Giovanni33 respond. I can see that you want to tackle this issue objectively; however, you do not see that it is a minority opinion that Christian monotheism is not monotheism per se. I wonder, respectfully, if either of you is trained in theology. I think, Giovanni, that you are well trained in philosophy. There is some difference to theology. I have 10 post graduate years in theology with a graduate masters, so I am not a "layman" when it comes to theology. Christians take the New Testament very seriously. It is not a matter of thinking out the doctrine of the Trinity out of our heads. Since we believe that the New Testament comes from God as, BhaiSaab, you believe that the Qu'ran comes complete as your miracle from Allah, so we are compelled to make sense of what God says in his word. As pointed out Christians began as a sect of Judaism, our Lord was Jewish. They took seriously the holy Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Adoschem is our G-d, Adoschem alone", or "is one." The New Testament reveals that there are one, another, and another who share deity. The Father is usually called God, the Son is called Lord, but sometimes God, and the Spirit is called both God and Lord. They are three distinguishable suppostita (subjects). They share together their reality or their being: you cannot have one without the other two. They are one: Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and "You, Father, are in me and I in you." This is unity of essence or being. The three of us as people BhaiSaab, Giovanni, and Drboisclair are perfectly three persons with essences completely separate from each other. This is not true of the God of the New Testament. We have tried to describe the teaching as one God in three Persons and three Persons in one God, but as you can see comparing it to what we commonly say is a person is a problem. Some of our theologians like Karl Barth and Karl Rahner have pointed out that sometimes our talk about the Trinity borders on believing in three gods instead of one. Much of the time we have an easier time in saying what God is not rather than what he is. This is called "Apophatic Theology." Suffice it to say that Christians try to speak as clearly about God as they can but sometimes language fails them. Read the Athanasian Creed. It gives you a clear understanding of what we say about the Trinity. Each of the three Persons of God cannot be spoken of as separate in being from the other two, so however we may be permitted to speak about the Persons it may not be in any way that denies the perfect Unity, which is God.--Drboisclair 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a go at adding to the section later but it requires a little work as I want to make sure my refs are good. In brief I feel the section needs to show that some Christians also reject the idea of the trinity, that the Christian definition of monotheism is considered unique, and that Christianity is considered polytheistic by some - not just tritheistic due to the concept of a supernatural evil (the devil) and saints/angels etc. I intend to be as succinct as possible to not give these views undue weight but for completeness they do deserve mention and links where appropriate. I won't sulk if anyone beats me to it! Sophia 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about POVs, it is about definition. As Musical linguist has stated, the definition of monotheism rests solely on belief, not on fact. Saying that Christianity is monotheistic does not imply that any doctrine or Christian belief is true; it does not imply that the Trinity is one God and not three. No, it only states that Christians believe there is one God. Now, regardless of whether the Trinity is one God, three, or ten, all that monotheism hinges on is belief. The Trinity could be 1,000 gods, but if Christians believe there is only one there, they are by definition monotheistic. Requiring that we state Christians believe they are monotheistic is like saying Christians believe that they believe there is one God. That (as Monkeysage said) is verbal tautology. Monotheism is the belief. It is in no way a violation of NPOV to say Christians believe there is one God--that is standard X believes/say Y. —Aiden 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And others believe the way Christians define their religion is wrong. We can and should quote that for NPOV. Sophia 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by that: that some think that the Christian religion is wrong (which is a truism not worth mentioning) or that Christians define their religion in a wrong way (which IMHO is not includable either, since a belief is what it is - it can be factually incorrect, it can be illogical, but saying that a belief is not that belief amounts to saying "No, you're not!") Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Christianity and all the issues within and without it. It is not quick guide to what Christians have to say about their religion. So yes - disagreements by others with how core beliefs such as monotheism are defined are relevant and should be included. Sophia 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, stating Christianity is monothestic does not say that it is right nor does it convey a POV. Let's assume that the Trinity is in fact 3 gods and Christians are wrong. Let's say that is a FACT. However, at the same time Christians believe the Trinity is actually one God (even though we know they are wrong). Do they worship one God? No. They only believe there is one God. Are they monotheistic? Yes. Belief is all the definition of monotheism hinges on. It is not concerned with practice or actuality. Whether or not they are right is irrelevent. —Aiden 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, Aiden. People have been trying to explain the difference between belief and worship for a long while, but no one seems to listen. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the great sacred cows of Christianity; there is one God and no other God. I can understand how people are getting rather "taxed" by the issue. However, we, as in everyone, have already agreed to state that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Continuing to defend or argue that it really is monotheistic seems pointless. Call the troops home the war has been conceded, there is no further conflict.

It is appropriate to do just as Sophia has stated; to give a countering viewpoint in the controversy section. It does not matter what other people think about your religion; you know what you believe. It is okay that others feel differently. Believe me, I know just how difficult this is. I deal with other people telling me what I believe and how wrong I am to do so weekly if not daily. It is okay that others think and feel differently. The fact that others think Jesus Christ was simply a nice man in no way diminishes the fact that he is the Savior of all. Let's pull back, give Sophia some time to edit and leave this alone for a while. I know Sophia seems like she would prefer others to write it, but I know that she is estatic, overjoyed even, to expend the effort to do so. I just feel off my chair laughing Sophia. I do appreciate that you are willing. Let's move forward now; there is nothing to defend. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are being ironic Storm Rider as believe it or not really I don't like conflict. I always hope that when I've explained my position others will understand even if they don't agree. I completely get the point that a Christian believes in one god but also maintain that in an article about Christianity all significant views should be included. I haven't edited yet as I've been busy in real life and I need some undisturbed time to think about this - something most editors will relate to I'm sure. And yes - I really would be more than happy to let someone else up their edit count with this hot potato. Sophia 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be ironic would require a degree of intelligence beyond me. I was merely trying to introduce a bit of levity at the end. However, I also acknowledge that for historical Christianity this conversation is sacrosanct. As can be seen by the continued conversation this is very dear to denominational and individual theologies. I do not believe the Nicene Creed just developed out of thin air, but was a reaction to many influences, not least among them the simple question "How do you believe in one God and yet have a Son of God who is not God?" This question of the singleness of God has cost the lives of untold numbers of people who dared to dipute it.

At times I play martyr a Latter-day Saint. It is a rare Christian who does not begin by condemning my beliefs rather than attempting to uncover how much we have in common. I find this particular topic of great interest; I have never thought of myself as anything but a monotheist. However, this causes a great many other Christians to want to debate the issue. It is interesting because now the shoe is on the other foot and historical Christianity is being accused of not being monotheistic. Their reaction is very similar to my own; few things cause me more anquish than to have another person tell me what I believe and then condemn me for what they have projected upon me as my beliefs. I am not stating that that is what you are doing or proposing to do, but rather the effect may be the same.

Sophia, I value your comments and your participation. I first asked you to do these edits becuase I honestly believe you were the best person to do the job. I would encourage you not to be too concerned with being too offensive as you mentioned above. Be bold in this matter and state the counter point strongly.

My personal belief is that Christianity, in all its diversity, can be incomprehensible at times. It can be illogical; sometimes it is based upon the mere fantasy of its adherents. Regardless, the first thing that Christians are supposed to be are seekers of truth. Once having found those truths they need to take up their cross, not so the world sees, but that their Father in Heaven will see, and live a life in union with the Holy Spirit. It is something that all Christians fail at to one degree or another, but that should never provide an excuse for ceasing to try.

I truthfully look forward to your comments and I will support you in this endeavor completely. If you desire to work in unison, just email me and we can work together. All of our lives are busy and we should be able to help one another. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Rider, I just have to say I was amused by the 'great sacred cows of Christianity' reference, seeing how it stems from Hinduism. :-) Wesley 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, I saw you smile when you wrote that. I was being more than just a little irreverent, but not malicious. We take ourselves too seriously sometimes on this page and I hope my levity, though misguided possibly, did not offend. Your comment made me laugh. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I belong to a religion that features numerous supernatural beings. Of these, several are or in the past have been worshiped by fellow members of my faith. Our holy scriptures clearly refer explicitly to different deities. Many members of of my faith pray to supernatural beings for their direct unmediated assistance. Despite this I claim that I belong to a monotheistic faith. Am I necessarily right in my claim? Am I justified in getting annoyed and offended if other people question my claim? (I'm sure everyone will catch the significance of these questions)

Many Hindus claim to be monotheistic. Does that claim settle all argument for Hinduism too?

The fact that I describe myself as something is not necessarlity good evidence that the description is objectively accurate, however much I believe it. Suppose I genuinely believe myself to be God: does that settle the question of whether I am or not? Nostick 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't settle it. But if I find a plethora of good references from reputable sources which state you are God, then it does settle it. As I think many people are fond of saying about the NPOV thing, "Wikipedia looks for verifiability, not truth". Now, the truth is that Christianity is monotheistic, it is quite verifiable that it is monotheistic, it has been verified to be monotheistic with a plethora of references. I think it quite nice that both truth and verifiability match up with each other quite nicely in this instance. Homestarmy 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if good sources exist that disagree with your self definition then in an article about Christianity they also should be included. The biggest joke in all of this is that the obsession with being defined as monotheistic is caused by the demonizing of pagan religions by Christianity. Why should believing in one god make your religion better than others. Why is it considered an attack to be called polytheistic? I've been told that as an atheist I have a faith and belief system and although I disagree it doesn't make me feel attacked (misunderstood maybe) nor do I think these views should not be in the article on atheism as they are verifiable and significant. Sophia 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference is the nature of the statement in question.

If Nostick claimed to be God and that claim would be spraypainted on every hill and roof top on the American contintent, it still wouldn't be true.

However, the term monotheism is clearly defined as the belief in one God. And since Christians state their belief in one God (excluding the theory that they are lying, which no one here is claiming) their religion is ipso facto monotheistic. Others might contest the logic or the coherence of their monotheism and for this we have the controversy section.

As for Hindus: if Hindus at the same time state to belief in a plurality of gods and to belief in one god, we have two contradicting statements and hence no clear profession of monotheism (though there is a way to included those Hindu monotheists in the respective article). Also, there are Hindus that do not make such monotheist statements.

Finally, Sophia, where is anyone demonizing someone or thinking themselves better. I believe Christianity is a better religion than Hinduism not because it is monotheistic but because it is true. If there indeed were many gods, monotheism would not only not be better but blasphemy.

The "attack" character lies in two aspects:

1) The insinuation that Christianity is not what it says it is. It is like, on a different level, an altercation. A: "I like strawberries" - B: "No, you don't"

2) The issue is used by Muslims as an attack on Christianity, as Islam stresses more than any other religion the oneness of God. So, Sophia, your complaint should be directed to the Muslims making that point, not to the Christians responding to it.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest joke in all of this is that the obsession with being defined as monotheistic is caused by the demonizing of pagan religions by Christianity. This is patently false. Christianity 'inherited' or continued the belief in one God that began in Judaism (meaning the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses et. al.). While Abraham affirmed belief in one supreme God as opposed to belief in various local gods (poly- or henotheism), early Christians believed in one God as opposed to the Roman pantheon or as opposed to the Gnostic system of various aeons and other spiritual beings. When some Gnostics tried to make their belief system compatible with Christianity, making out the 'Father', 'Holy Spirit', 'Jesus' and 'Christ' to be different aeons, Christians contradicted them saying they believed in just one God. This wasn't for the sake of "demonizing" the pagans, but for the sake of clarifying what Christians do and do not believe, and of course Christians think this is the truth, else they wouldn't believe it. If anyone is demonized in the process, it's a side effect, not the goal. Wesley 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the extra material discussed above. I hope it doesn't offend anyone as this truely is not my intention. I just want to see the article balanced and complete - maybe broadening sections such as this is what's needed to get it to FA status. Sophia 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution

Whilst I thank LV for the citations (even though some don't exactly pass the RS test) I was actually looking for a quote saying that anti abortion violence and the troubles in Northern Itreland are persecution by Christians. Certainly the NI claim I have never seen - I live in the Uk so we do see the local news on issues there. This quote starts with the weasley "some people" - always a bad sign for NPOV and reliability. Sophia 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism refs

The point of me finding all those refs was that nobody could use the excuse "Well, the statement isn't backed up that thoroughly, that's an excuse to edit war over it because its not very verifiable!". I know of no reference policy which discourages or outlaws heavy referencing for obviously contentious statements. Most of the books I added because they were used as references in other references, so I went on the assumption that they back up the claim of the sentence, that and they have "monotheism" in the title and apparently involve Christianity. The "History for Kids" site I put in because it was apparently written by some collage history professor, but if people think its too immature or something I won't complain much. Homestarmy 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV pushing I removed

Okay, since my dear friend Gio chose to revert my removal of blatant POV pushing that had slipped in during the last few days, I will explain. The passage is:

"Scholars differ on the extent to which the developing Christian faith adopted identifiably pagan beliefs, such as the date for Christmas, the Sol Invictus cult, the Labarum, and ritual and priesthood of the Ancient Roman religion such as the Pontifex Maximus.^[1]"

There is no problem about the first part (not bolded), and the date for Christmas could be acceptable. However, the following (all of them recent additions) are sheer nonsense:

the Sol Invictus cult: Christianity has not adopted a Sol Invictus cult - it may have adopted certain symbols and other elements (one of them arguably the Christmas date), but that's not quite the same
the Labarum: is not in any way pagan but a field sign made by Emperor Cosntantine the day he converted to Chrsitianity. It doesn't contain pagan iconography but the two Greek letters Chi and Rho. Hardly pagan!
the priesthood of the Ancient Roman religion: was not adopted Christianity, as we don't see any Salii or Flamen moving around in churches. Instead we have bishops, presbyters and deacons - offices that existed since the first century. It was Paganism under Emperor Julian taht adopted the organisation of the church - but that attempt was short-lived.
Pontifex Maximus: yes, after the Emperor had resigned that title it gradually was adopted as referring to bishops and most of all, the Roman Pope. But that's a mere archaism that got stuck. There is not continuity of the office, as the PM had quite a different job from the Pope.

As a sign of good-will I (and because I did not intend to remove it) I will not re-delete the passage about "only legal religion" that Gio appearently loves so much.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like problems to me, what does Gio say about all this? Homestarmy 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only real reason that I reverted was because I saw Str1977 also removed the part "I love so much," which was not mentioned in the edit summary. I know he has removed that part before on occassion, so when I saw he did it again, the result was my revert in whole including the other removals which, I am ok with either way at this point (leaving in with some minor corrections, per above, or taking out, also per Str's explanation)--as long as the part that I love so much is not removed. Giovanni33 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Gio, case closed. Let me assure you that this time it was unintentionally. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Christianity

Would it be possible for someone to create a map similar to this one representing distributions of Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians worldwide? —Cuiviénen 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the CIA factbook thing the picture mentions give information on Christianity I suppose it's possible.... Homestarmy 21:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History section paragraph

Str, I did cease to participate in mediation, true. But you never did participate, instead you refused to make any compromise and ignored the mediator's request to formulate a compromise version. I made several concessions, even if small, and you made none. Bigger concessions from me may have followed if you would have actually worked with me in mediation. My version is superior as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, all of which override even editor consensus. It will remain until something better comes along. And without you actually compromising, that will probably not be happening any time soon.

KV(Talk) 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies for thinking that you didn't post here (as I wrote in my edit summary).

But still, KV, my point stands. You completely ceased to participate in mediation but before that you didn't actually interact with my proposals. I never saw you making real concessions or aiming at a compromise. Your only concessions were first: to include statements "Some believe otherwise" or "Some disagree" with "your" version, and second: after much, much bickering to leave out irrelevant details. However, double mentioning of certain things and chronological nonsense still persist (and don't tell me that you book says so, because a) it surely doesn't and b) if it does, it is still wrong).

Nonetheless, I am still open to compromise. Please include a short treatment of Nicea in the proper place, if you will (Though personally I think that's overdoing one event).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this slow edit war between you two over the last few days and would ask you both to iron out your differences here if possible as if an admin catches sight of this the chances are the article will get locked again - something we all wish to avoid I'm sure. Sophia 10:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree, Sophia. I wish he would have been constructive during mediation and I still wish he would be so now. I am open for compromise. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to arbitration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Christianity

KV(Talk) 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound overly blunt, but it seems KV is done with trying to be constructive with you Str :/. But just to add, I think you both should remember, the Arbitration Comittee doesn't like interfering in content disputes, only the conduct of editors and whatnot can be decided on, they won't stop any of the rest of us from changing the section to say something else if we don't do it while breaking civility and whatnot regardless of how anybody feels about their preferred version.Homestarmy 17:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a real stand off between these two so anything to break that will be good. If the Arbcom won't interfere I'm sure they will suggest a way forward. Sophia 20:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it appears that the case will be rejected as a content dispute. Homestarmy 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

From experience, edit wars seldom accomplish anything beyond wikistress. One option would be to protect the page until involved editors can reach an agreement on how to resolve their differences and proceed. Another option would be to do that without being forced by a page protection. The choice is yours. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem quite done for now :/. Homestarmy 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Damacles hangs - what will happen next? I suggest that KV and Str once more bullet point their issues and we all pitch in. To KV and Str - sorry guys as I know you've been over this a million times with each other but some of us have lost the plot. Sophia 06:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sophia a summary, in bullet points in which each side of the dispute describes their arguments, is an excellent idea, as it enables non-involved editors to understand the nature of the dipute and hopefully bring some unexplored perspectives for resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will post a condensed version of my reasoning in the next few days. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I am making a start with an explanation.

The two versions now in question can be best seen in the following diff, which I created especially for this aim:

[6]

If I am talking about "my version" and "KV's version" or "his version" it is only within the confines of our disputes. I don't wish to imply that only KV would adhere to "his" version, nor that I had written "my" version all by myself. In fact, it has been the result of a long process, involving many editors and many POVs. Regulars at this page will agree with that.

0. One difference not visible here is the fact that KV repeatedly introduced the CE style, disregarding the longstanding pracitice on this page. But that should be solved easily.

1. Length! We are trying to be concise, and KV's version bloats (IMHO unnecessarily) the section.

2. "My" version has been the long-standing version and hence it should be the basis for further improvements (there is always room for that). However, KV has chosen to disregard the existing structure of the section. That doesn't mean that "my" structure is necessarily better, but it means that we shouldn't change it without good reasons. To explain the structure:

Paragraph 1 covers the origin of Christianity, its split from Judaism (making it a religion of its own) and a few early features.
Paragraph 2 covers the spread of that new religion, its contact with the culture of the day and two results: theology and inculturation (or, as some like to call it the adoption of pagan practices).
Paragraph 3 (the disputed one):Theological disputes and how the Church dealt with it. Concepts of Heresy and Orthodoxy.
Paragraph 4: Christianity legalized, privileged and eventually made state religion. The results from that. Emperor's involvement, their aims and the result of this.

In my version there is a small overlap from para 3 to para 4: a foreshadowing that after the legalisation doctrinal disputes intensified and doctrine became more definite. However, IMHO in principle the process remained the same. The Emperor's involvement is dealt with in para 4.

3. KV is bent on including more on the Council of Nicea. I object, as I think this would be higlighting one single event (though it is an important event) too much. There's no dispute that the Council should be mentioned and linked. I am willing to compromise but then KV should clearly say (and seek consensus) for what he wants to include, adapt it to the section's structure. (And he should avoid controversial details like the number of bishops present, especially if he contradicts the traditional number "318", as the sources sometimes only speak of the 318 fathers when reffering to this council. Also the current wording still implies Constantine to be a bishop.) However, we must take care of the length.

4. "the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common creed, but actual beliefs varied widely"
The term "various churches" here remains ambiguous and during mediation KV has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue of whether this means local branches or denominations. For this reason I preferred "conflict within and between the local churches"
"shared a common creed" is also at least ambiguous an contradicts the next wording "but actual beliefs varied widely". Also, actual is introducing a (quite silly) POV that the supposed creeds were somehow dishonest. All in all, the diversity in early Christianity has already been covered in paragraph 2 and "my" version uses the word "diversity" as a conjunction between para 2 and para 3.

5. A smaller, but still important point is the explanation of Orthodoxy and Heresy and the issue of whether the one was defined in contrast to the other or the other way round. I have come to the conclusion that the latter dispute is due to a misunderstanding. I have repeatedly asked KV to comment on this but he hasn't so far.

6. "Prior to Nicaea, churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations, which the Eastern churches still did not"
This is a linguistic gem. It sounds, to be blunt, childish and taken from a very simplistic Roman Catholic catechism class rather than from a scholarly work. I preupposes that churches should obey Rome (whatever that maybe, the context would suggest the Emperor, though of course the Pope is meant) - the RC position is actually more complicated. It suggest that Nicea changed anything in that regard (as "prior to Nicea" implies "after Nicea") when in fact the Pope's primacy was not affected at all. It suggests that the Eastern Churches never "obeyed Rome", which is also inaccurate. It has nothing to do with the actual events and the issue of theological disputes.

7. "Constantine continued to authoritively control church policy for the rest of his life, forcing unity amongst the various churches." - Again, this is already covered, in better language ("authoritively" does not mean in an authoritarian manner but based on authority e.g. intellectual authority) in para 4 (where it belongs structurally). It also highlights one Emperor too much (what about his successors) and also misrepresents his actions (his son was much more intrusive, but KV's wording is already superlativ)

8. "After Arianism, the primary target at Nicaea, was declared heretical other Chrstian sects began to be declared heretical as well. These were to include Gnosticism, Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism."
This is chronological nonsense, as all these heresies actually preceeded Arianism: Gnosticism 2nd and 3rd century, some remnants in the 4th century; Simonianism: actually not notable, 1st century; Marcionism:2nd century; Ebionitism: actually mentioned in para 1, in the context of the Christian-Jewish split; Montanism: 2nd century, no longer an issue in the 4th century

9. That KV carelessly shoved his edits into the existing text without regard for the existing structure is highlighted by the last line of his version. He writes "Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization." (copied from "my" version) after he has talked about Arianism and the Council of Nicea (which actually constitute that intensification) and the even earlier heresies.

I do grant KV and have always done so, that he can provide two books as references (after a prior wrongheaded attempt to use the Hiram Key). I don't have English church history books at hand. However, I doubt that these books would contradict "my" version and would only support KV's version as it stands. Also, the issues of how to structure the section, how to word certain issues cannot be answered for us by any book.

This has become longer than I expected, but that's the way it goes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom case has been rejected. Please comment anyone. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't see how this has escalated into such a big conflict. The problem seems to rest on exactly how involved Constatine was in "authoritively" setting church doctrine. I have no problem with either version, though I think the version on the left side of the diff. page is more concise, but doesn't mention Constantine by name. I think by simply adding "...legalization [by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine]..." would solve the problem. —Aiden 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Aiden. The escalation is a mystery to me too. I don't have a problem with your proposed addition. In fact, it includes the wording "newly converted" (that KV loves very much) in a way that makes it accurate. He was "newly converted" (not going into the debate with those that dispute his conversion was "real")) when he (and Licinius) legalized Christianity (313) - he was not "newly converted" when he took part in the Council of Nicaea (325). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a hybrid I worked up to see if we can solve the issue. Let me know what you think:

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine led to internal conflicts; the sects of Early Christianity shared many common beliefs, although some contentious differences remained^[2]. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view") in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, ecumenical councils were regularly held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion, the first of these being the Council of Nicaea in 325.

—Aiden 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraif this doesn't work.

the "variety" passage is already covered in the second paragraph.
the intensification passage is missing, but I think this can be easily added.

The rest is okay - whether "included" or "include" is better I leave to native speakers.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine led to internal conflicts; the sects of Early Christianity shared many common beliefs, although some contentious differences remained.^[3] Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, such disputes intensified. By the fourth century, ecumenical councils were regularly held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion, the first of these being the Council of Nicaea in 325.

How about that? BTW, 'included' is grammatically correct as the sentence is past-tense. —Aiden 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehem, Aiden, you didn't address my criticism (variety passage). I propose the following, based on your last version:

I forgot to address that "by the fourth century ecumenical councils were regularly held" is not accurate. There were two ecumenical councils in the 4th century (and the second one is actually only declared later to be ecumenical). I addressed that problem in my version (this way only mentions Nicaea as the starting point, whereas the former declared that something had become common by a certain point in time):

Theological diversity led to disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching and to conflict within and between the local churches. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, such disputes intensified. This led to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils - held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion -, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I see what you're saying and I think we're getting somewhere. However, I think it might be a bit redundant to say "disputes intensified" and then begin the following sentence with "this lead to insternal strife". I think it's already implied there is internal strife due to "disputes intensifying". Also, I think the first sentence works better KV's way--at least it sounds better. Tell me what you think of this:

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine led to internal conflicts; the sects of Early Christianity shared many common beliefs, although some contentious differences remained.^[4] Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, such disputes intensified. This culminated with the establishment of ecumenical councils—held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion—the first of these being the Council of Nicaea in 325.

—Aiden 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to delete the term "Chruch aurthorities" and just lead the sentence with Bishops and local synods condemned...? Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Rider, could you please explain your reasoning behing that?

Aiden, please read my posts carefully. You are still not addressing the "variety" passage! (I have taken the liberty to format it into bold letters in your last post, in case you don't know what I am talking about.) I agree about "intensify" and "strife".

So, pending Storm's reply, I will post another suggestion:

Theological diversity led to disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching and to conflict within and between the local churches. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine, such disputes intensified. Ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325, were held to debate theological issues and reach clearer dogmatic definitions, thereby restoring unity.

Note that the last sentence is the result of some experimenting and shifting back and forth, in order to pack all this info into a sentence without being repetitive. What dou you think?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry I misunderstood you because I didn't see the word "variety" in the paragraph. :) None-the-less, I think the above version reads nicely and is a good compromise. Now we need to see what KV says. —Aiden 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on everyone, I hope I'm not throwing a spanner into the proverbial works, but is it correct to describe Constantine as "newly converted" at the time of the Edict of Milan? My understanding (my history of the early church books are at home) was that Constantine may not have been baptised until his deathbed. I understand that Constantine made some use of the Sol Invictus cult after the Battle of Milvian Bridge. My suggestion is perhaps something along the lines of "Constantine, supportive of Christianity since the Battle of Milvian Bridge. That's clumsy and awkward: could there be a better-worded version? Slac speak up! 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that expression causes any trouble we can always leave it out. However, replacing it with something else, something wordier is no good.

Now, for your objection: Constantine may not only have been baptized until his death bed. That fact is undisputable. However, that doesn't say anything about his conversion. Infant baptism wasn't was widespread then as it is now and notable Saints were only baptized as adults (e.g. Basilius). Constantine postponed his baptism as back then being Emperor and being a Christian were still seen as not wholly compatible.

Now, there will always be speculation about the veracity of his conversion, but these are all speculations (hence we needn't grace them in such a byword) - for what it's worth, he publically adhered to Christianity after the Milvian Bridge. We cannot look into his heart.

Yes, he also tolerated depiction of himself as Helios or on the Constantinian Arch in Rome. The Sol Invictus thing, this brain child of Aurelian, is greatly overestimated IMHO. Constantine adhered to it before the Milvian Bridge, after that Christianity gains prominence in his iconography, propaganda and legislation, and his involvement with the Church, first regarding Donatists, then regarding Arians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, my reasons are centered on the statement "Church authorities" followed by explanation bishops and synods. When used in this way I interpret it to mean that WIKI is taking that position that there already was a unified, cohesive group that spoke as one, which is POV. By removing the term church authorities and by just starting with Bishops and synods we sidestep any possible POV issues and accurately state that bishops and synods did label/accuse other theologians as heretics. Thanks for your consideration, but it is one I feel strongly about. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm,

though I disagree with your observation that "a unified, cohesive group" is implied
though I think historiography shows that these were the Church authorities (though still on the way to unity and very much geographically isolated)
though this was no mere labelling (as fortunately the text in question doesn't claim)

I have no objection to leaving out the word Church authorities. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a very legal manner in saying "yes". I understand and do not take your compliance to my request to be in any way your explicit approval of any other inference; that you continue to maintain a strict foundation on orthodoxy, and though you continue to maintain that the stating Church aruthorities, further clarified to be bishops and synods, is not a mere label and is not meant to claim such; I thank you all the same for said concession. Str, you have me laughing at this point and I hope you also are able to laugh at this response. We are getting far too serious people. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, people Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Slac speak up! 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Storm, I was laughing and in fact I was smiling when I wrote it.

No climbing, I promise. And certainly not the Reichstag (unless I can wrap it up in a box and transfer it to a better place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did some good work here and want to ask whether we should implement the changes? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All systems go. —Aiden 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted it, with only very minute stylistic tweaks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to invite KV to participate in the discussion instead of blindly reverting. He hasn't chosen to participate in the recent discussion (which lasted longer than a weeak and had various editors of different POVs collaboratin) and hence cannot now complain that the consensus looks different from what he would have. Still, reasonable changes are always possible and he should make his case right here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

The article complies to all criteria of the GA but one which is because of the presence of the NPOV tag. I would also be concerned about stability but the article is really stable for such a controversial subject. Lincher 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a generous assessment. Jkelly 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. GA awarded. Lincher 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions on Christianity's Pagan Origins

I tried to add some useful and enlightening information about the origin of some of Christanity's more established practices, but it was quickly deleted. I went back through my post and replaced sentences such as "Christianity is" with sentences like "It is commonly accepted that Christianity is" to remove any Point of View confusion. Any individual that deletes my entry now, I feel that they would be doing so on the basis of their feelings towards Christianity and not the goal of creating an accurate encyclopediac entry. If you feel you have a legitimate arguement for why my entry SHOULD be deleted, please, feel free to discuss it with me here. -Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.45.132 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 July 2006.

It was deleted and rightfully so. We have been through this a thousand times and a NPOV treatment of the substantial points is already included. What we don't need is pushing this POV beyond perspective, or even introducing clearly incorrect statetements, including false claims of "has been proven", or weasel words. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried multiple times to add relevent information pertaining to Christianity, and it keeps getting deleted. I tried to enter a discussion, but my DISCUSSION WAS DELTED. Whomever is doing this, I have a proposal for you. Instead of trying to silence me and bury your head in the sand, as you know doubt would have done during an encounter with Galileo, you come on this page and tell me WHY you deleted my entry, WHY you think it doesn't fit, and WHAT exactly is in error with it. If you do not, and continue to delete my entrys with prejudice, I will have no choice but to believe you to be an ignoramus of the highest caliber, and I will continue to espouse as much on this discussion page no matter how many times you delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.45.132 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 July 2006.

Hello, Patrick. First of all, when making a new post to any talk page (discussion page), please add it to the bottom not the top of the page. You can do that either by opening the "edit this section" box for the section that's currently at the bottom, and then starting a new section, using == at the beginning and end of the heading or by clicking the + sign at the top of the page, just beside "edit this page". Secondly, could you please sign your posts on talk pages. You do that by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message; they will expand into your signature plus the time and date. Thirdly, if you intend to edit regularly, you might consided registering an account. It makes it easier for us to be able to remember, when we see an edit, that you were the person who said such and such a thing on the talk page yesterday. Because of the dificulties with remembering who you are when you remain anonymous, I can't comment on your deleted posts on the discussion page. I'm not aware of anything having been deleted. Your latest post, with phrases like "an ignoramus of the highest caliber" could legitimately be deleted according to this. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure who you are anon or what you've been up to, but my first suggestion would be to show us references for whatever it is you want. Homestarmy 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who deleted Patrick's addition and rightfully so.

"It is widely accepted that many of Christianity's beliefs and practices are based on earlier religions."

No, it is not widely accepted. And we have already covered that theory in the history section.

This sentence originally read: "It is widely accepted (much moreso by secularists and Non-Christians) ...", repeated the old ploy to colour a certain opinion in a postive way and to disqualify the opposition. This is a weaseling tactic, it doesn't conform in this case with reality, nor is it relevant what "secularists" say - this is supposed to imply a "secular view", which is neither the same nor actually a possible view.

Christmas, a Christian holiday said to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ has been proven to be based on an earlier Roman holiday known as Saturnalia.

First of all, Christmas is not said to celebrate Christ's birth - it does celebrate Christ's birth. It is up to those celebrating a feast to define what they are celebrating. They can't be wrong by definition.

And no, it is not proven to be a Roman holiday. Various cultures place holidays on certain astronomically important dates. In this case it is the winter solistice. Christians chose this for symbolic reasons (Christ, the light of the world, entering the world when it is darkest), as well as to counter the competition of pagan festivals. Still, that doesn't make it the same festival. Of course, we have discussed this before.

"In fact, it is generally known by religious scholars that Christ's birthday actually falls closer to the beginning of the year."

Every utterance about Christ's actual birthday is (maybe educated) speculation. "Closer to the begining of the year" is ambiguous and nonsense. The main point raised against 25 December is the presence of shepherds, which however is not solved by a January date. All in all, this discussion is not really on topic here, as this is the main article on Christianity.

"Christianity either borrows from or shares with much of paganisms symbols and idols."

An unproven claim stated as a fact. The choice of examples also is revealing:

"The "Virgin Mary", a sacred idolic female statue which the faithful pray to, is a common element found in many Polytheistic and Monotheistic religions.

I never heard of Mary playing a role in other religions except for Christianity and Islam. Certainly not Paganism. Mary is not an "idol" but was a Jewish girl.

"The much popularized "Jesus Fish" is know by archaeologists, anthropologists, and other educated individuals to be based on a Babylonian symbol used to represent the god Ichthys."

So, the Babylonians had a god called by a greek name? Again, this is nonsense, ichtys is an acrononym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour" in Greek. That other religions might use a fish as a symbol is of non consequence.

Ichthys was the lover-son of the ancient Babylonian sea goddess Atargatis, and was known in various mythic systems as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Pelagia or Delphine.

What a load of nonsense. Are we still in Baylonia? Babylonian/Sumerian gods are rather called An, Enlil, Enki, Utu/Shamash, Ishtar/Inana, Dumuzi/Tammuz, Sin etc.

"The word also meant "womb" and "dolphin" in some tongues, and representations of this appeared in the depiction of mermaids."

And now we are way of from anything remotely related to our topic, which is Christianity.

Patrick also added:

"This "Holy Trinity" is what causes many religious scholars and educated individuals to believe that Christianity is a Polytheistic rather than a Monotheistic religion."

On the contrary, religion scholars classify Christianity as monotheistic. Only some Muslims have a big fuzz over this and we have covered the point of contention already as a distinct point in the Controversy section. With "educated individuals" the editor probably means himself.

Hoope that suffices as a discussion. I will not delve into the fact that the addition was also substandard linguistically. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this more or less amounts to, to me, is that some of the people who spend the most time editing this page don't "like" what I added. The additions I made to the page have proven references and I included links to other wikipedia sites to illustrate as much. If you make the claim that my writings are "unsubstantiated", then surely anyone could make that claim about almost anything on the page. You can't "pick and choose" what to believe and what not to based on how the information makes you feel(Well, actually, maybe you can, but I need something more.). To go over your diatribe bit for bit, I'll give you some useful counterpoints which, hopefully, will be very enlightening to you.

1. What is your definition of "widely"? Because you know, that's a relative term. You may not KNOW a lot of people that believe Christianity has pagan roots, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. Do you know how many Non-Christians there are in this world? What do you think THEY believe about Christianity? It may not be a widely accepted fact to Christians but it is to most everyone else that knows anything about it. And I even removed the parenthetical statement I made afterwards, even though it was relevent and accurate, because it didnt sound very encyclopediac.

2. I can and will change "generally accepted by" to "believed by some". I concede to your arguement in that respect on the basis of my first point (see above).

3. On the topic of Saturnalia, this Roman holiday is said to be a time of "gift giving, drinking, and merriment". That sounds a lot like Christmas to me. Saturnalia also started the traditions of Christmas Trees and Mistletoe. Ever hear someone around Christmas time go "You know, those Christmas Trees originally started as a pagan practice."? That's Saturnalia they're talking about. All I my text says, if you re-read it, is that Christmas is BASED on this holiday. The part about the birth of Christ is an add-on. Today, the people that run our world are taking Christ out of Christmas and focusing the importance on the consumerist gift trading portion. Do you think its possible that back then, these other factors of the celebration were minimized by the people in charge so that Christ could be "brought in"? Just as Christ is being minimized today so that the gift giving can be brought to higher importance? As for the part about Jesus Christ's birthday, I changed my text to represent the ambiguity of this date.

4. On the subject of the Virgin Mary. Websters very first definition of an idol as "1. A. An image used as an object of worship. B. A false god." We could debate letter B all day, but I don't see how you could debate the first part. Also, I see where there may have been some confusion in my original post. The "Virgin Mary" isn't the actual idol found in other religions, the God-Mother takes many forms and many names, but she is always either the Mother of God or the mother of his mortal representation.

5. Ichthys is the Greek name given to the Babylonian god, whos original name is unkown. If you read further you can see that he was associated with Greek Gods because this being and his symbol were used by other religions even (debatedly) Christianity.

I apologize for my inability to use the discussion page, this was the first time I've ever had to do it. I hope this may have cleared up any confusion on your part, and you can now research Christianity's pagan origins with an open mind. -Patrick 67.114.45.132 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You can't assume that all non-Christians think Christianity has pagan roots. I would guess that most non-Christians worldwide have no particular opinion about it one way or the other.

3. The relationship between Saturnalia and Christmas is debated. Their dates are close, but not identical. As for the gift giving, ever hear of Saint Nicholas?

4. No Christian group worships or encourages worship of Mary. There might be a few pockets of syncretism here and there where that actually takes place, but overall, Christians who do honor Mary consciously make a big distinction between honoring her and worshipping God. In other religions, is the God-Mother thought to have been created by her son, as Mary is considered to have been created by Jesus, and is portrayed as worshipping Jesus and not the other way around?

5. A fish is a very basic symbol. Connecting the ichthus symbol used by Christians to a Babylonian fish god is just silly. Wesley 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply:

I grant you that there is influence from paganism on Christian iconogrpahy (e.g. Mary with child or a Fish), or calendar (Christmas date). But that doesn't mean that these things themselves derived from paganism. Pagan Romans for instance never celebrated the birth of the Messiah (as that concept was unknown to them).
Please don't employ reasonings along the lines of "they believe to celebrate/believe X but in fact they are doing Y" - even if I happen to celebrate a friend's birthday on the wrong day (because I noted it down wrongly) I am still celebrating that friend's birthday and not my evil neighbour's, who happened to be born on that other day. If Christians believe in one God that makes them monotheistic, even if some think that incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity (look into the archives, there are hecatombs of discussion on this issue).
Note that scientific proof is something more than what you can offer. Also, note that Wp articles are not proper reference.
I don't pick and chose my beliefs. I am a Catholic. I don't go to the Cafeteria (at least not to this cafesteria).
"It may not be a widely accepted fact to Christians but it is to most everyone else that knows anything about it." - isn't that a tautology, if you claim that those knowing about it agree with you. All in all, yes, there are such theories and hence we have included a reference, but you are definitely overstating the case.
... in particular with your examples: the origin of the fish symbols is exactly what I have written - it has nothing to do with Babylonian gods or they hypothetical Greek translations.
People like to take any opportunity for merrymaking, so there's no point for assuming a connection because of this. Merrymaking is certainly not the core of Christmas. Christmas trees were invented only in the 16th century and popularized only in the 19th century. There is no link. (Apart from the fact that I have never heard of a Saturnaliatree) Claiming otherwise is "inverted puritanism".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please refrain from deleting parts of prior discussion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, some advice:

Please don't meddle with prior discussion by deleting parts of it.
Please keep the page's structure intact. There's no basis for starting a new section or for using a different name.
Please be mindful of WP:3RR. Your last posting was your fourth revert today. I will not revert you, since I have already reverted three times today, and I will not report you, since you are a new editor and might be unaware of these rules. Which gives you the opportunity of self-reverting. Please be reasonable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to bring the relevent portions to the top of a heading so I'll just give this portion it's own section. My posts were all moved and deleted too, so I assumed it was ok. I'm not exactly sure why that was ok and my edits to make the relevent information more accessible aren't, but I hope that my inability to edit a wikipedia page doesn't (it shouldn't) detract from your opinion on the merits of my arguement. 67.114.45.132 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not okay. Your posts on the talk page were not deleted (you were the one deleting posts) - they were moved to the bottom, because on talk pages, new posts belong at the bottom. Re why your edits were IMHO wrong, read the discussion here. As long as you now stop to meddle with the talk page structure, I won't waste a thought on it again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Patrick:

Despite the claims you are posting: there is no "Virgin Birth" in any form of Paganism, i.e. an instance where a woman (=female human) gives birth without having had sex (hence remaining a virgin) with either a deity or a male human. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly is reassuring to talk to someone who has the exact beliefs of every prehistoric religion memorized, but I have to debate you on this one point in particular. We see Virgin Births all the time in our pop culture. Fantasy and Horror movies abound with this theme. Is it so hard to believe an ancient pagan religion came up with the same idea BEFORE christianity? 67.114.45.132 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, I have not travelled prehistory (no one alive has) but our claims must only go us far as we know. Now, I grant you there might have been a hitherto unknown early culture in whose hypothetical mythology virgin births happend three times a week, but we don't know anything about that and hence we cannot use that information we haven't got. Why I think Virgin Births are uncommon phenomena that need a proper evidential basis; even primordial men knew about the hows of procreation, especially since it involves blood flowing. I don't have to explain this to you? "Is it so hard to believe ..." But where's the evidence? Now, don't Leda or Isis me, as they were not virgins and the latter not even human! "Fantasy and horror movies", ha? Could it be that they incorporate a bit of Christianity in them? (Not having seen these hitherto hypothetical horror movies - wait, Star Wars comes to mind, but for that read the previous sentence.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you believe other things can copy Christianity, but you don't believe Christianity, perhaps, copied early pagan religions? Mimics pagan religious practices, just like people have taken orignial Christianity and made it into something else (the Protestant reformation, for example). You seem to have a very one sided view in which Christianity invented every single religious practice we have in the modern world. 67.114.45.132 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe that Christianity could not have copied other religions. I do believe it hasn't done so, which is a different thing. And you provide no evidence for that. The examples you bring are either spurious or relating to peripherical things like the Christmas date. And no, Christianity did not invent everything. There are countless practices that have nothing to do with Christianity (or Judaism, which for the issue at hand is not a different religion), e.g. Temple prostitution (still practised in India), occultist divination etc. Then there are certain practices that Christianity (or some forms of it) has adopted from other religions. I really don't have a problem with that, as long as they are compatible (or made compatible) with Christianity. And there are things that Christianity rejected from other religions because they were not comptatible. In how certain developments were aberrations from Jesus' teaching or legitimate developments is a matter of POV. To reiterate my main point: it is possible but it has to be proven first. And you give no evidence. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, 67 Patrick. Let's go through some of the points.

It is widely accepted . . . Is it? Who says so? If you stop 100 people in the street, and ask them, how many people will say that that's something that they already accepted (not just something that they believe when you tell them)? And even if you found that most of these hypothetical 100 people did accept that, it would still be in violation of WP:Weasel.
. . . that many of Christianity's beliefs and practices are based on earlier religions. I object to "are based on". If I wrote a book "based on" Pride and Prejudice, it would mean that I had carefully read P & P, and then invented a new story, perhaps with new characters. On the other hand, it would be possible, without ever having read P & P, to write a novel free of plagiarism, where a lively, vivacious girl takes a dislike to a rich man because he comes across as very proud, rejects his marriage proposal, later discovers his goodness, and falls in love with him and marries him. In that case, the new novel would not be based on P & P; it would show similarities with it, or have some points in common with it. My own Christmas pudding is based on one that a (now deceased) employee of my father used to make. In other words, it's not just a coincidence that there's so much overlap in the two recipes. To say "based on" therefore suggests that Christianity is not true (which goes against our WO:NPOV policy as much as suggesting it is true would), and that it was invented by people who read up about pagan religions and then used some of the material in their "invention" of the story of Jesus. If Christianity is true, then Judaism before it was true, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that some religions prior to the founding of Christianity had incorporated elements of Judaism. If Christianity shares with some pagan religions a belief in Creation, in life after death, in punishment for sin, etc., it does not mean that Christianity's beliefs are based on those pagan religions.
Christmas, a Christian holiday said to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ has been proven . . . Str1977 has dealt with that. We do celebrate Christ's birthday on 25 December; we don't merely say that we do. Nor do we claim that He really was born on 25 December.
The "Virgin Mary", a sacred idolic statue which the faithful pray to . . . The Virgin Mary is not an idol. Nor is she a statue. There are statues of the Virgin Mary, but they are distinct from Mary herself, just as a photo of you is distinct from you. Her statue is not an idol in any Christian religion (unless there are some really obscure fringe groups that I haven't heard of; certainly, no mainstream Christian denomination has "idols". Most Protestants do not pray to Mary. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians do pray to her (though not with adoration); they do not pray to her statue.
is known by archaeologists, anthropologists, and other educated individuals . . . No, it's not "known" by them; it may or may not be "believed" by them. Since you're using weasel words, and not citing sources, I can't comment. "Other educated individuals" is extremly POV, implying that people who are educated will believe that, and that people who don't believe it can just be disregarded as semi-literate individuals.
There were also signs of careless copyediting.

AnnH ♫ 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Ann. I read the wikipedia entry on weasel words and can add cite-able sources with a modicum of research. As for the points you made, it seems as if the discussion has devolved into a debate over definition. What about "thou shalt not worship graven images"? Is praying to a statue of the Virgin Mary considered worshiping a graven image? That's debatable. And you say that sharing those similarities doesn't mean that Christianity is based on pagan beliefs and practices. That's debatable too. Do you really think that Christianity just "came together" one day? Or do you think dozens, maybe hundreds of people collaborated and decided what would best "sell" their religion? To simply dismiss my points really shows a lack of deep thought on the issue, and with all this talk about a "nuetral" point of view, maybe some of you should practice what you preach. -Patrick 67.114.45.132 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, it is not one or another translation of the biblical text that counts but the original. ... which doesn't warrant your interpretation of "graven image". This is concerned with idols - images of different Gods. Christians don't worship Mary as a godess, hence it is not idolatry per se. Some practices might indeed become idolatrous (but you would have to look at what the person actually intends and does and thinks about his actions) and some Christians reject images alltogether. However, that is a matter of dispute between Christians and hence POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pagan Origins

Patrick is right about the many common pagan doctrines which are virtually identical to Christian doctrines. Ofcourse the Pagan ideas pre-date the Christian ones. There is no reason to think that the new religion did not borrow and absorb it from earlier religions it was surrounded with at the time it was growing and formulating its own beliefs. This is a topic of a lot of scholarly research and I think it should be expanded upon in this article. Maybe a section called "Possible Pagan Origins of Christianity" For instance, just taking one example, the Virgin Birth. The impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology. A pagan myth of virgin birth may also underlie the disputed verses from Isaiah: It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman'; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin'. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, "`Almah in Isaiah 7:14", Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.)

This philological reasoning seems to raise four possibilities: virgin birth is a pagan concept that Christianity has 1) taken from contemporary paganism; 2) taken from pre-Mosaic paganism through Isaiah; 3) taken from contemporary paganism and justified from Isaiah, who took it from pre-Mosaic paganism; 4) produced independently of all forms of paganism, though sharing similar vocabulary. If pre-Mosaic paganism supports Isaiah, and Isaiah supports Matthew and Mark, paganism has anticipated Christianity, perhaps because God was preparing the way for Christianity or because, as some Church Fathers argued, the Devil was blasphemously imitating Christianity. On the other hand, if paganism does not underlie Isaiah, there are several possibilities. Perhaps virgin birth was invented separately, first in paganism, then in Christianity. Perhaps the idea of asexual conception was so different from the idea of conception through sexual intercourse with a deity that there was little or no borrowing in either direction. Or perhaps, despite the earlier date of the Ugaritic text, virgin birth existed first in Judaism, without any other instances than this one, and was borrowed by paganism. The obvious difficulty with this idea is that virgin birth was much more prominent in paganism, where it occurs in many myths in many different areas, than it was in Judaism, where it occurs (if at all) in a single verse late in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the argument that virgin birth was a Jewish concept first borrowed by paganism and later incorporated into Christianity was first made by Justin Martyr in The First Apology of Justin, written in the second century. Justin also made this argument in his Dialog with Trypho, in which he debates with a Jew called Trypho:

"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by Jupiter's intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the Devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? ..."[7]

Justin was clearly not referring to any Ugaritic texts, as these texts were not known in his day; he was referring to Greek paganism. That the Devil is responsible for the similarities between paganism and Judaism is not generally accepted by modern scholars, partly because the Devil's influence would be impossible to disprove. The Devil could not, for example, imitate Christianity or Judaism before either existed, without violating the generally accepted historical rule that a culture cannot be influenced by a culture that does not yet exist; even though in point of fact it is likely that if "the patriarch Jacob" existed, he was contemporary with the inscriptions at Ugarit. In a similar vein, it might also be argued that God had chosen to out-do these earlier human myths, all as part of his Plan.

Christian apologists point out that if in fact the writer of Isaiah intended to borrow the idea of a virgin birth from an older pagan tradition, we might expect to find Isaiah using more explicit language to indicate that a virgin was meant. However, if Isaiah had borrowed the story from pagans, he might be expected to speak in the same way as the pagans, and that is what he does, according to the scholar quoted, who notes the "remarkable" similarity of the Ugaritic and the Hebrew. However, Isaiah may speak the same way as the pagans simply because he came from a similar sociological and semantic context. If Isaiah received a new prophecy direct from God, on the other hand, he had no tradition to conform to, and he could have expanded the meaning to make it completely unambiguous. That he did not choose to make it unambiguous is thus an apparent difficulty for the Christian interpretation of the text, though the ambiguity could be seen as being intended, if one supposes that God had a dual purpose for the text (i.e., to serve one function in Isaiah's time and another function later). Isaiah's prophecy departs from the Ugaritic version of the virgin birth by having the female be entirely human, whereas in the Ugaritic culture, the virgin was another deity, on par with the male; but this is exactly what might be expected if the myth were borrowed from paganism, since Judaism has only one male deity; a female deity in a borrowed myth might thus conceivably become a female human.NeoOne 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say, similarities between Paganism and other things most certainly are not limited to religion, similarities also exist in just about everything in the world. Believe it or don't, but not only were pagans human beings, but im a human being too! The similiarity is remarkable, how can it possibly be a mere coincidence! Going by this logic, i'd better start re-evaluating everything I know about life, the universe, and everything..... Homestarmy 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not unique either. You are related from other animals in the animal kingdom. You did not come out of thin air. You came from earlier forms of humans. There have been many human species. If you are to study Humans we have to look at the earlier forms of humans, too, which we grew out of through the process of evolution, and survival. The same thing goes with these bodies of myths. Its important to have a historical undertanding, esp. when myth is elevated into a religion.NeoOne 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, just when you gave me enough to think about, now im a monkey's uncle? When will the madness end? Stop the merry-go-round, I wanna get off! But wait, if im similar to a monkey, and im similar to a pagan because im human, doesn't that make all monkey's pagans? It could be a whole new missionary field! Homestarmy 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call this madness, Homeostarmy? You can't get off. You are who you are only because of what has been. We did not spring into being, or drop from the sky. We evolved. Ideas evolve too, esp. myths. Legends can be traced back, and they morph, memes. What I did was just use an analogy. Religious ideas are not unique because they too, like other things, evolve from earlier times. Ideas are borrowed and live on, esp. those ideas the represent a mythic archeotype. Religions that are still alive share this with earlier religions, which are now dead. Its like language. Latin is dead, English is not. But, within English we can see the many borrowings. We are humans but we did not come fully formed as a species. We evolved from earlier forms of man. We can not divorce ourselves from this connected stream whether in the realm of mythic ideas (religions), or that of nature. We are only blind when we fail to see things are not original, but morphs of earlier forms. To deny this in this age of scientific knowelege is indeed what should be called the maddness! Indeed, to say that there Christianity did some have any significant origin from Pagan ideas is akin to saying that Man did not come from ape!NeoOne 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called it madness because I was being sarcastic. I've heard this argument before, didn't feel like spending an hour or two critically examining it, so I decided to lighten the mood. The evolution of ideas has nothing to do with the process of natural selection taking a toll for millions of years, one is conceptual development, the other is biological. Your argument seems to say that any idea which has religious basis and has some similiarities with other religious ideas must be based on an older idea, cannot be original in any fashion, and therefore they must all be fake. Since pagans were humans, and my body structure is similiar to that of a pagan, then by this logic, (since as you say, biological evolution is so similiar to ideological progress) my body doesn't exist and is clearly based on nothing more than my pathetic attempts to bring myth into reality, all for my self-centered comfort of thinking that I have a body. And to think, I wasted all that time getting dressed this morning, when nothing apparently existed to dress, how unscientific of me....Homestarmy 00:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Anderson,

First of all, stop using inflammatory edit summaries.
Then you wrote: "There is no reason to think that the new religion did not borrow and absorb it from earlier religions it was surrounded with at the time it was growing and formulating its own beliefs." This is a perfectly inadequate basis for the additions in question. There might be no reason to definitely preclude such borrowing (apart from the antipathy of Judaism and Christianity to Paganism) but that doesn't show that there actually was borrowing. Not everything that could conceivably happen also does happen.
Also, you simply assume that there is such a pagan Virgin Birth myth. I have never heard of it and the examples you give don't provide any Virgin Birth. Yes, there are many stories about a diety impregnating a woman (female human) but none of these happened through a Virgin Birth/conception. I guess Zeus would not have been very interested in fathering a son by a mortal mother without having "his bit of fun" with her. He certainly has so in all the myths.
Finally, you use Isaiah as if it were clear that he referred to some "hypothetical" Ugarit Virgin Birth. That reasoning has a couple of wide gaps: 1) Was there a Ugarit Virgin Birth myth (including one involving a deity and a human female who gets pregnant without having had sex - your account seems to point to two deities at least and you don't give any evidence that they didn't have sex)? 2) Did Isaiah know about it? 3) Would Isaiah use it? 4) Did Isaiah actually intend to say "Virgin" or did he intend to say "Young woman" (which doesn't preclude a deeper, typological sense of his prophecy unknown to him - after all, he is only the messenger) and related to that: Did Isaiah intend to refer to a birth comin up soon or the birth of the Messiah.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the factual contents of what I said. Once read, you can't say you've never heard of a virgin birth outside of Chrsitianity. True, the impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology, but so are virgin births. A pagan myth of virgin birth suggests by the evidence to underlie the verses from Isaiah. As explained the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. The Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman'; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin'. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, "`Almah in Isaiah 7:14", Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.)

Based on this, the virgin birth is a pagan concept that Christianity has 1) taken from contemporary paganism; 2) taken from pre-Mosaic paganism through Isaiah; 3) taken from contemporary paganism and justified from Isaiah, who took it from pre-Mosaic paganism; 4) produced independently of all forms of paganism, though sharing similar vocabulary. If pre-Mosaic paganism supports Isaiah, and Isaiah supports Matthew and Mark, paganism has anticipated Christianity. This was evident to some Church Fathers, which is why they argued that Devil was blasphemously imitating Christianity!! On the other hand, if paganism does not underlie Isaiah, then perhaps virgin birth was invented separately, first in paganism, then in Christianity. But, it was not original, and comes afterwards, based on the evidence. It is possible, despite the earlier date of the Ugaritic text, that virgin birth existed first in Judaism, and was borrowed by paganism, but this is problematic and not common sense. The obvious difficulty with this idea is that virgin birth was much more prominent in paganism, where it occurs in many myths in many different areas, than it was in Judaism, where it occurs (if at all) in a single verse late in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the argument that virgin birth was a Jewish concept first borrowed by paganism and later incorporated into Christianity was first made by Justin Martyr in The First Apology of Justin, written in the second century. Justin also made this argument in his Dialog with Trypho, in which he debates with a Jew called Trypho.

Justin was clearly not referring to any Ugaritic texts, as these texts were not known in his day; he was referring to Greek paganism. That the Devil is responsible for the similarities between paganism and Judaism is not generally accepted by modern scholars--needless to say! The Devil could not, for example, imitate Christianity or Judaism before either existed, without violating the generally accepted historical rule that a culture cannot be influenced by a culture that does not yet exist.

Christian apologists point out that if in fact the writer of Isaiah intended to borrow the idea of a virgin birth from an older pagan tradition, we might expect to find Isaiah using more explicit language to indicate that a virgin was meant. However, if Isaiah had borrowed the story from pagans, he might be expected to speak in the same way as the pagans, and that is what he does, according to the scholar quoted, who notes the "remarkable" similarity of the Ugaritic and the Hebrew. However, Isaiah may speak the same way as the pagans simply because he came from a similar sociological and semantic context. If Isaiah received a new prophecy direct from God, on the other hand, he had no tradition to conform to, and he could have expanded the meaning to make it completely unambiguous. That he did not choose to make it unambiguous is thus an apparent difficulty for the Christian interpretation of the text. Isaiah's prophecy departs from the Ugaritic version of the virgin birth by having the female be entirely human, whereas in the Ugaritic culture, the virgin was another deity, on par with the male; but this is exactly what might be expected if the myth were borrowed from paganism, since Judaism has only one male deity; a female deity in a borrowed myth might thus conceivably become a female human.NeoOne 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind editors here that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please keep the inflammatory rhetoric to a minimum. I'd also like to remind editors that this is an article that should be written in Wikipedia:Summary style. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of scholarly books discussing early Christianity in the context of Greek Paganism, the arguments of which should be discussed at Early Christianity. There is no need to attempt to persuade each other of the truth of any particular historical narrative. We're only here to summarise the work done already by experts on the subject. Jkelly 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at Early Christianity. There have been attempts there by others to mention the possible influence of paganism but they are also reverted and not allowed a mention. Would you support me if I were to try to include mention of different possible pagan influences into the Early Christianity article? From what I have seen only biblical accounts there are allowed in.NeoOne 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I just looked at Early Christianity. Every single statement is referenced directly to the Bible. That is certainly a concern. Can I make a suggestion? Use User:NeoOne/sandbox to begin working on a re-write that exemplifies our principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view using brilliant prose. Unfortunately, the "Scholars" list in the article isn't going to be of much help; a modern university textbook would probably be the place to start. Write it in such a way that nobody could question that it was an improvement. Then get consensus to replace our current article. What I'm proposing is a huge task, but it will certainly be of much greater benefit than trying to insert a new section into what is otherwise largely a summary of the New Testament presented as fact, plus several paragraphs on Bauer's argument. Jkelly 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent suggestion, Jkelly. I am not sure if I have the free time to do this myself, but If I do I will try that method. In my opinion that articles needs an overhaul. The earlier version of the article were much better but seemed to bend too far in the other direction. No doubt what we have now there is a reaction to it.NeoOne 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Anderson, you didn't understand me (and in accordance with Jkelly's admonition I will keep it short): You didn't provide any pagan parallel of a virgin birth. I did indeed read your post but nothing of it contained a human virgin giving birth after conceiving from a deity, let alone the God. What I have seen is deities having sex with human females, impregnating them in the course, or male deities having sex with female deities. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must be reading different things. No point to repeat myself.NeoOne 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am, maybe I am not. Which god did you say impregnated a human female whithout having sex with her? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The particular lunar dieties with the virgin brith that I speak of are from Nin-gal, a Sumerian lunar goddess. Very few Sumero-Accadian deities penetrated into Canaan and Egypt. Nikkal is an exception attested in Ugarit and Egypt (UH § 18.1310). She is also called Ib or Nikkal-and-Ib in this poem from "Ugaritic Literature – A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts, Cyrus H. Gordon, pp. 63-64, (Rome, 1949):

I sing of Nikkal-and-Ib 
Hrhb, King of Summer
Hrhb, Estival King
When the Sun sets
The Moon rises
A virgin will give birth
To the Ktrt
Daughters of shouting
Swallows.
Lo a maid will bear a son
answers/sees lo for his love she is
for her flesh, my blood
And wine like/and one wed

These are inscribed Ugaritic clay tablet, said to be from around 1400 B.C.E., is pre-Mosaic. It is, according to Professor Gordo, pre-Isaianic. The consensus among scholars is that the Mosaic era dates to around 1400-1300 B.C.E. There are many sections of the clay tablet, which ofcourse are not legible. NeoOne 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Mr Anderson, I was right. You have nothing to say on virgin births. If I may quote you: "The particular lunar dieties with the virgin brith that I speak of ..." Bingo, you talk about deities - I am talking about female humans. And BTW, the only linguistic parallel (obviously judging from translation) in that text it "a maid will bear a son", close second: "a virgin will give birth" (which is only linked via content) - but still these are deities interacting and not humans. Case closed. Take it where you will but let be elsewhere. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are still "virgin births" if we want to say among dietieis (humans were often treated and regareded as dieties), or between regular mortal humans. The concept is not original. That is the point. It must not be identical in very manner but the main concepts itself or obviously much older. Take another case: Zoroastrians ( 6000 BCE-600BCE). This oldest of revealed religions influeced many other religions. According to its theology his birth was predicted and that attempts were made by the forces of evil to kill him as a child. (Again a similarity with the attempted killing of Jesus tradition and that of the Moses tradition.) He preached monotheism in a land, which followed an aboriginal polytheistic religion. He was attacked for his teaching, but finally won the support of the king. Zoroastrianism became the state religion of various Persian empires, until the 7th Century CE. (www.religioustolerence.org)

These concepts of heaven and hell, of the Saviors to come, the Virgin birth of the final savior, the Final Judgment, the Bathing of the world by Fire, the final battle between good and evil, the final defeat of evil and the resurrection of the dead - these are all Aryan Zoroastrian concepts which filtered down into Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also from Zoroastrianism would come the Mithra Cult. A worrier god born of a virgin mother, he would become the Roman sun god and the official god of the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine (baptized on his death bed) would worship this god and seemed to confuse the sun god with the later Son of God. The Christian Virgin Birth story originates with Mithraism and is unsupported in the Old Testament.

Back to the stories of Zoroastrianism {(yes, I said STORIES (hehe)}, Ahura Mazda will send the saviors (Saoshyants) who will teach men righteousness and fight evil. The world will be cleansed (with fire) by God, all men and women will be judged, evil destroyed, etc. Marriage is celebrated very strongly, in particular marriage that produces beautiful children. Unlike Christianity, which considers the pain of childbirth a punishment for sin, this is a celebration of new life, a gift from God.

Fire is worshiped as a symbol of God. (Light). Ahura Mazda prohibits sexual perversion such homosexuality, prostitution, etc. along with infanticide (abortion) and intermarriage with outsiders. (Non-Zoroastrians) They do not consider non-Zoroastrians as damned nor see conversion to Zoroastrianism as necessary. They don't accept converts; one must be born into it. Ahura Mazda knew the Devil (Ahriman) would attack the spiritual world (Minoi), so He created the material (Geti) world, then the first man and finally Fire, which entered into the Creation and gave it life. For the 1st 3000 years, the first man lived a perfect life, worshiped God, etc. Then the devil arose from the darkness and attacked the world and killed everything including the first man. (Zoroastrian time consists of four 3000-year periods before the world ends.) However, new life arose from the dead. From the body of the slain first man, both man and woman came forth. Man and women were united in divine love. God had brought love and children into the world. The Devil became trapped in the material world. The battle between good and evil thus goes on until the end time, when God will send His Savior and defeat evil once and for all. This savior will be born of a virgin, but of the lineage of the Prophet Zoroaster who will raise the dead and judge everyone in a final judgment.

These concepts of heaven and hell, of the Saviors to come, the Virgin birth of the final savior, the Final Judgment, the Bathing of the world by Fire, the final battle between good and evil, the final defeat of evil and the resurrection of the dead - these are all Aryan Zoroastrian concepts which filtered down into Judaism, Christianity and Islam.NeoOne 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..says the NeoOne. Only now he has slipped away from paganism to Zoroaster. But since all of (possible or alleged) influence of Z. went through Judaism, it is off topic here. We dicussed this a year ago. And I am afraid that whether your virgins are human or divine makes all the difference: deities in different myths can do all kinds of things, so there's nothin unusual about virgin births. Human females, if I may tell you, do not generally give birth while still a virgin. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mr Anderson, with your overly long posts you have scared away Patrick, who started this. I wonder what he would say to your stuff. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-resistance to evil

The following passage was added to the "beliefs" section, describing it as one of the "main guidelines of christianity".

By his Sermon on the mount, Jesus taught his followers not to resist evil, to forgive crimes committed done by one's adversaries, love them and pray for them. Thus, if one would truly follow Jesus' teaching, one should not hinder criminals from committing crimes nor save their victims (thus 'resisting the evil'). However, Twelve basic schools of thought on these issues have been listed. The Absolutist View, relying on sermon text and taking it as it is, rejects all compromise and believes that, if obeying the scripture costs the welfare of the believer, then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation. All the precepts in the Sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. Proponents of this view include St. Francis of Assisi and in later life Leo Tolstoy. The Oriental Orthodox Churches fully adopt this position; among heterodox groups, the early Anabaptists came close, and modern Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites come closest. Owing to the contradiction between the extremist guidelines of the Sermon, most Christians do not follow these rules.

However, this section is misplaced (in between Trinity and Crucifixion/Resurrection), too elaborate and oneside. A section along the line of "fighting evil with good" would be more fitting. There is also a logical fallacy involved, when the section reads: "almost all Christian groups have developed nonliteral ways to interpret and apply the sermon, so as not to surrender before evil" - if almost all Christians do not believe this, then it is not a "main belief" of Christianity in the first place, but highlighting a minority view (and the mentioning of a few persons and groups confirms this). People might (or not) regard this fact as an aberration from Jesus' teaching, but the topic of this article is Christianity as it exists.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

almost all Christian groups have developed nonliteral ways to interpret and apply the sermon, so as not to surrender before evil" - if almost all Christians do not believe this, then it is not a "main belief" of Christianity in the first place

i think you miss the point. You know the word 'fundamentalism' -- most of the believers do not act as their teaching fundamentally requires them. in its essence, Jesus' sermon called people for non-resistance, and tolstoy has wisely shown that it is the kernel of real christianity. However, as with many other ideologies, people living in the real world look it hard to follow such extreme commands, and hence the christian majority who do not act in concordance with the sermon commands. I do think that a rewording attempt would help to remove the ambuigity.--Advocatus diaboli 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En contraire, Advocatus. I rather see the point, but think it is twisted logic to say that they disregard their teaching while saying at the same time that they teach something different. You might think a certain interpretation of the Sermon to be the only correct one but it is merely your view and, in WP terms, POV - the same goes gor Tolstoy's observations about "real Christianity". As I said, Christianity is what it is.

We simply describe that, give the main beliefs shared by most Christians, describe how Christianity got where it is. You may view it an aberration from Christ but again, that's strictly your interpretation.

If you think "that a rewording attempt would help to remove the ambuigity" (and note it is a POV problem, not an ambiguity) hy do you simply revert. I explicitely moved the passage to the talk page for discussion. Here is the place to discuss and if there is a solution we will then post it to the article. Your reverting is a denial of discussion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the above paragraph is not the best, I do think we need to dedicate a section to Christian beliefs derived from Jesus' teachings and other NT books. Right now we are talking what Christians believe about God, Jesus, etc., but little mention is made of fundamental Christian beliefs such as loving your neighbor as yourself, turning the other cheek, or even paying tithes. —Aiden 15:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Aiden. This is why I moved the stuff over from the article. However, it should not be along the lines of "this is what Jesus taught (using a mock fundamentalism) and here is how Christians have perverted it". The point of departure for this article is always "Christianity as it exists". The thought of "answering evil with good" might be a good starter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religion

Since this been repeatedly removed, I want to explain the sentence. Aiden wrote: "The paragraph is discussing Christianity's Jewish origin only." That's not actually true - the term Abrahamic religion is often used to refer to the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Therefore there is a reference to it in the intro. The three are included since they are the ones meant by that term. Removing Islam is not only wrong because of its size but also because the term AR is actually derived from Islamic thought. To put it bluntly, Jews and Christians don't consider Islam to have anything to do with Abraham (except mediated by Judaiams and Christianity) - the term nonetheless has prevailed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph exists solely to highlight the historical origins of Christianity in Judaism. Islam came after Christianity and is thus entirely irrelevent to this paragraph on Christianity's origins. Likewise, the 'Abrahamic faith' sentence also exists solely to highlight the common ancestry of Christianity as based on Judaism. As I said in my edit summary: "It [the sentence] is comparing Christianity to Judaism, not Islam. There are Abrahamic religions other than these 3, such as the Baha'i Faith. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." —Aiden 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai is not classed among the Abrahamic religions. Str1977 is absolutely accurate; Abrahamic means Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I'm replacing the text. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the Abrahamic religion article? —Aiden 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai faith is actually a conglomeration of other faiths that highlight the 'oneness' of God and thus derives its teachings from holy books that include the Torah and the Koran but also the teachings of Buddha (or at least that's how I understand it). In contrast, Islam is considered to be the final word of God given to the descendants of Abraham himself (the descendants of Ishmael). In fact, the holiest day of the year in Islam is not the feast after Ramadan, but is the festival of the Sacrifice that commemorates Abraham's almost sacrifice of his son (in Islam it's Ishmael, in Judaism its Isaac, you all can battle this one out) but his hand is stayed by an order from God. Abraham is also the builder of the kaaba along with Ishmael. Abrahamic religions are thus always considered the monotheistic religions acquired by the very descendants of Abraham, the Jews and the Muslims. The Christians are just an extension of Judaism, evidently, so they get the honorary title as well. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden, you are mistaken. The paragraph does not solely exist "to highlight the historical origins of Christianity in Judaism". It starts out with that, then continues to the parallels with Judaism, concluding with the additional relationship to Islam (which is different from the relationship to Judaism). Without Islam the Abrahamic sentence is pointless, as the relationship to Judaism has already been covered and as the term originates in Islamic thought. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... And whether Bahai is an AR or not is of no consequence for this. Aiden is right in saying this is not (or rather needs not to be) an exhaustive list. The sentence declares Christianity to be an AR and mentions the two other promiment ARs - the one is important for the aforementioned origins (of Christianity in Judaism) but also of the origin of Judaism in Abraham, the other for its sheer bulk and for its coining the term in the first place. Bahai, whether an AR or not, is a rather smallish group. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977 is correct: Islam should be in that sentence for the reasons he has outlined. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, in what way does the paragraph conclude with a comparison to Islam? We've got sentence after sentence about the Jewish roots of Christianity, yet you contend that Islam should be thrown into the last sentence simply because it is prominent? I agree it's prominent, but it isn't relevent. Ramallite: I agree with you, but in the same respect as being ultimately derived from Abraham, the Baha'i Faith can be considered AR as well. (And a bit off-topic but since you brought it up: why (and how) would Abraham have built a shrine to pagan gods? I know, I know, it was only corrupted later.) —Aiden 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the relationship to Islam should go unmentioned? If so, why?

If we mention the term AR then Islam must be mentioned, for the reason I outlined above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it should go unmentioned. I simply said it is in no way relevent in this paragraph. —Aiden 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is relevant in this sentence. If you are very strict about this, we could always make the AR sentence into a paragraph of its own. Sounds a bit awkward but if it pleases you ... Or we can keep it as it is and not worry about the last sentence being about ARs including Islam despite the upper part of the paragraph being concerned with Judaism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centered on what?

We used to have "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, and New Testament accounts of his life and teachings." That was, if I recall properly, stable for a long time. Then we had some aggressive reverting and puppet attacks. [8] [9] [10]. Just in the last day, a new variety slipped in [11], stating that Christianity is "centered on both God, and the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the Gospels." I have definite problems with that version. First of all, Christianity teaches that Jesus is not just the Son of God, but is also God (God the Son). The fact that we talk about the Second Person of the Trinity as being the Son of God, but don't talk about the First Person of the Trinity as being the Father of God does create an unfortunate implication that Jesus is not really God, or at least that he is not as much God as the Father is. But we should avoid anything that makes a strong implication of something that is contrary to Christian teaching. Also, as many of us argued repeatedly (check the archives!) Christianity is centered on the Person Jesus, not on his life or on accounts of his life. Finally, I have problems with mentioning God and Jesus, first because it implies that Jesus isn't God, but secondly because, if we take it that "God" in this context means the Father, and that "Jesus" isn't intended to deny his divinity, it's illogical to state that Christianity is centered on the Father and the Son, or on the Father and the life and teachings of the Son. It's like making the sign of the Cross: "In the name of the Father and of the Son, Amen". The Holy Spirit is every bit as much God as the Father and the Son, according to Christian teaching. The current wording messes up things badly, but my suggestion would be to go back to the previously-stable version: "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, and New Testament accounts of his life and teachings." Or, even better, "referred to by Christians as Jesus Christ" or "whom Christians call Jesus Christ". "Known as" is a little bit like saying, "His name is William, but he's always known as Billy." I'd welcome comments, but the current version is not acceptable. AnnH ♫ 08:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concurr with Ann. The sentence right now sounds awkward, has the implications mentioned by Ann. On the other hand, we don't specifically mention God since the life and teaching of Jesus include God. Other religion articles do not start "God and ..." either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done it. I do realize that agreement from one person does not make a consensus! But I had to change it to something, as what was there was unacceptable, and I recall that many people agreed with "centered on Jesus" some months ago, and others have either left or are being investigated for puppetry. I didn't put "whom Christians call Jesus Christ", because the next sentence has something like that (which was not the case back in April). AnnH ♫ 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, Ann, I think that the long-standing version was "centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament". Remember, your current version reintroduces the POV that Gio wanted to push (at least in a mild version), that of Christianity being centred on a book. I know you know that this isn't an accurate depiction. What about "... Jesus of Nazareth and his life and teachings, as recounted ..." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being fully awake. Fixed. AnnH ♫ 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, you two. —Aiden 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recounted vs presented

Jim has changed recounted to presented. While I don't have any problem with this, I wanted to point out that by definition recounted is to narrate the facts or particulars of and may not necessarily imply existence of Jesus. —Aiden 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recounted has a connotation of being basically factual - making it POV about how accurate the NT is about the events (not just his existence). Presented takes no position on the truth of the events. There is no reason NOT to have presented. Presented was stable in the article for many months some time in the past --JimWae 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't have a problem with presented, but it appears some editors do. How about recorded? —Aiden 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts

As far as Christians appearing first in Acts, I am guesssing that is based on the order of presentation in the NT, rather than on any firm agreement on which books were written first? http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm Dating the NT - list of opinions of scholars. Perhaps you guys mean:

According to 11:26 Acts 11:26 in the New Testament, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (Greek accusative Χριστιανούς; Christianous).

Of course, first use doesn't always stick - and the Romans calling them Xns was likely at least AS important--JimWae 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about which book was the first to use the term but when and where the term was used first - Acts is the source for that information, namely that this happened in Antioch, which is also sensible given the Hellenistic character of the city. Jerusalemites would have used a Hebrew/Aramean term rather than a Greek one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I have adjusted the sentence to what it was actually trying to say. The meaning of the former version, if taken literally, is actually not very relevant, as you wrote above "based on the order of presentation ...", and any other meaning would have to remain very shaky. BTW, according to my bible version, the term Christian only appear in Acts 11 and 26 and 1 Peter 4 (with the later the only occasion were it is unambiguously adopted by a Christian speaker - Acts has "they were called" and "Agrippa said". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Pagan context (Christianity) Religionfacts.com. URL accessed on July 3 2006.
^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)

[1] Pagan context (Christianity) Religionfacts.com. URL accessed on July 3 2006.

[2] (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)

[3] (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)

[4] (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]