Talk:Christianity/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Dispute-In-a-Nutshell

side A

Esmehwp, Thatso, Giovani + others

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

side B

A criticism section of the religion as a whole should not be added for, but rather, a section about internal disputes that have led to the many denominations and variations, for this would provide both criticisms held of certain forms of Christianity, and a better perspective of Christians in general, and how they have shaped their religion.

discussion

This is a rather awkward section all of a sudden. Right before its creation, Esmehwp went into a bit of a rant against those that diagree with him, ending by saying he was esentially withdrawing from editing this article. (See [1]) Then his comments were self-deleted from the talk page, so they don't even appear. I'm not sure if that means he withdraws his withdrawal, just regretted his comments, or what. But I think this Dispute discussion would have been appropriate a few days ago. Now it may not be necessary, and may just open up some old wounds. If others disagree, feel free to comment here. By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Side B advocate. --Anietor 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"Bible worshiping worms?"[2] I tried to remove the criticism section from Islam as well, for the same reason: it's unencyclopedic.Proabivouac 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...he's ba-ack. And with some more classic comments about "this is the way its going to be" and "discussion finished". That's not the way things get resolved, Esmehwp. And deleting your prior comments once you're called on them (See [3]) and deleting everyone's comments from your own discussion page won't hide your true colors. Please either talk in a civil respectful manner, or follow through on your previous "threat" to give up on us. --Anietor 06:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Esmehwp, the only difference between the version you agreed with and the current version is these sentences [4]. These don't really add anything to the article because they just say: there are criticisms of christianity and nothing beyond it. If you replace "Christianity" with any other religion and "Church" with their organization, you'll get a valid statement. So, please let me know why is that so important in changing your views about the neutrality of the article? --Aminz 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

dont take me too seriously i cant help teasing

Esmehwp 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Str1977's changes.

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

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

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

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

Persecution section

I am not sure if (at least some part of) this section really belongs to this article. This article is about Christianity and not the deeds of whoever happens to be Christian. Many of the persecuters probably had other motives (economical, political, social, etc etc) and, furthermore, they may not have been Christians by definition (follow teachings of Christ) as opposed to a Christian by conviction. --Aminz 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Rereading the article I think there is too much that comes from a particular branch within Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole. Persecution is a particularly messy problem because most Christan persecution came from other Christan groups under the charge of Heresy. For example, the Gnostics were persecuted for their beliefs as were Mormons. In fact, some Christians even try to denigh these groups are Christian because of their polytheistic teachings. The article is getting a little unwieldy and perhaps so effort at pulling some denominational stuff out into separate articles is in order.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim a lot without substantiating it. Gnostics were not persecuted on a large scale by other Christians as they flourished way before Christians had any power (of course there are instance of Gnostic groups later own who were persecuted). Mormons definitely were not persecuted very much by others, even if only because they left. In both cases the classification as Christians is controversial at best. If they groups are polytheists they definitely are not Christians. It is strange that you think such a classification as worse ("even") than persecution. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but everybody but right wind fundamentalist theologians accept that Gnostics and Mormons are Christian groups even though they have polytheist beliefs (The Encyclopedia Britannica, religious tolerance and many other sources admit this). The persecution of any form of Christianity that did not conform to local views is well documented and doing googling will produce reams of articles. The Mormons left because they were persecuted (the [Light Planet] fully documents this. Similar articles regarding Gnostic persecution can also be found. As I have said before you don't need references out the wazoo to show the sky is blue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bzzzt! Mormons, polytheistic? WP:RS please. What you really need is a reliable seconard source identifying Christianity as being sometimes polytheistic. Oh, I've said that before, haven't I? Time to do it, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Begotten

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the God in Christianism was created?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately for your theory, the most radically skeptical positions have been repeatedly discredited by archeology (e.g., [7]). A.J.A. 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jpers36 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Look it.

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity

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

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

Mormon spin and the love of controversy

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

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

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

There are two parts to your obfuscation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this [8] "It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead." - Gordon B. Hinkley

Bytebear 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Also before you revert my changes about "God is a spirit", read this [9]: "Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. Jesus’s declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body." - Gordon B. Hinkley.

Bytebear 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk page

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

Lol yeah it does...I <3 the Lord!! (had 2 say that sorry...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.210 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)