Talk:Christianity and other religions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources

Amin123 -- The reason I suggest that you get a Judaism/Christianity/Bible scholar quote is that the article is fundamentally about Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and, more importantly, for you to get a scholar from these one of these fields would "solidify" your position as something more than a position held by Zoroastrian folks as opposed to something that has more support in broader academia. Your critics (which have included me) would have very little to dispute...it would strengthen your argument here. That's why I've suggested it. KHM03 15:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well R.C. Zaehner was an expert in "eastern religions". Granted he focused mostly on Zoroastrianism, but who else can you expect to find a link between Zoroastrianism and the bible. It would have to be someone who is very familiar with Zoroastrianism to be able to see it's influences in other religions. Furthermore Zaehner is already quoted in the opposing side of the discussion so his views should be acceptable for this side.

But here is someone who's an expert in bible specifically:

"The whole eschatological scheme, however, of the Last Judgment, rewards and punishments, etc., within which immortality is achieved, is manifestly Zoroastrian in origin and inspiration." Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b.

--Amin123 00:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a writer's name for that article in that commentary? I've heard of Peake's but am not too familiar with it. Who wrote that particular article in the commentary (if it's listed)? KHM03 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've looked into Peake's a bit, and there seem to be some reputable scholars associated with it (Davies, Bruce, Metzger in NT; Barr, Bright, Albright in OT...these are some of the undisputable real giants in 20th century Biblical scholarship), so you may be onto something here, Amin123. Can you cite a specific writer? KHM03 00:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That item (quoted above) was written by P.R. Ackroyd. I hope we can resolve this discussion now and include that tiny quote from Mary Boyce with the introduction of her as a "leading Zoroastrian scholar".

--Amin123 06:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Mary Boyce, but I for one would approve the inclusion of the Ackroyd quote. While I don't really know his (or her) work, it seems that he (or she) is associated with some serious authorities. Let's let others weigh in for consensus, but I vote "yay" to the Ackroyd quote. KHM03 10:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Mary Boyce not a "serious authority"? It doesn't really concern me if the Ackroyd quote is included instead of the Mary Boyce quote, although I think it'd be fitting that a distinguished scholar who has spent her life studying the subject be quoted in here. I'd also prefer if the Zaehner quote was removed due to the above discussed inconsistency, but this is not a sticking point for me either.

--Amin123 11:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It would strengthen your argument, it seems to me, given the talk page history, if you cited a scholar of Christianity (who seems to be associated with some very big names) rather than a scholar of Zoroastrianism...it's a Bible scholar supporting your claim, and your argument can use that. Mary Boyce may be the greatest in her field ever, but for most editors here, that field is relatively obscure (not unimportant or anything...most of us are just ignorant of it). I would favor the inclusion of the Ackroyd quote, but why don't we wait a few days to let others weigh in and build a consensus. The Zaehner quote, too, is up to the community; I have no preference either way. KHM03 12:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's a sound plan, let's wait a couple days. --Amin123 13:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Without further adue, I'm taking out the Zaehner quote and putting in the Ackroyd quote. I would like the Mary Boyce excerpt in there instead of the Ackroyd one, but I'll see what others think of the matter first. If someone wants the Zaehner quote in there, put it back in and please explain your reasoning in here.

--Amin123 18:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Fair. Thanks for seeking consensus. KHM03 19:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As to you.--Amin123 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits are ok by me. But could you please add some word who Ackroyd is. Just something like: Wikipedologist Ackroyd states: "...". Thanks. Str1977 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Done! KHM03 21:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Str1977 06:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Religion and politics, Religion and class and Inter-religious Relations

I have created the above pages – contributions welcome (though the Christianity and politics page has already been created).

Can someone set up an archive page for this talk page (and then remove this sentence) as somewhat long?

Jackiespeel 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page to Christianity and other religions

I am proposing moving this article to Christianity and other religions for the purpose of consistency with other religion articles. For example Islam and other religions.--Sefringle^Talk 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and Hellenistic mystery religions

I think there should be a section on the similarities between Christianity and certain Hellensitic cults and the possible influence of the latter on the former. Bobisbob 03:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I half expected

to see satanism on here, now THAT would be a fun topic to read.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

The following was placed in the Relationship with Mithraism and Sol Invictus section:

Contradict|section|about=whether or not Mithraism was known about before 100AD|date=March 2009

There can be many arguments of a thing which does not make them contradictions as they are just that; arguments. I've reworded the section to reflect these may be arguments and may not be factual information. Until a source is found which can definitely state one way or the other, I suggest wording this section to reflect that there are many differing opinions as to when Mithraism was known. This can also be an issue of acceptance rather than definitive knowledge. It really isn't contradiction as there can always be more than one opinion of a thing. It seems as it may be contradiction, but it is more an issue of lack of proper citation. Thanks so much. Kjnelan (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

removed sentence

Hi! As you may have seen, I've added the sources for some claims, like Justin Martyr's views of mithraism, and then I found the source for plutarch's account on cilician pirates. Now I'm going to remove the following:

, and Mithraism and Sol Invictus became popular in the Roman administered regions before the advent of Christianity{Citation needed|date=July 2009}

The main problem is not that it's been unsourced for several years now, but it is just wrong. "Roman administred regions" is half of europe and all the mediterranean. Mithraism never gained empire-wide acceptance (and christianity needed 5 centuries to reach the whole area of the empire). Also, Mithraism and Sol Invictus are completely different set of beliefs: one is romanized zoroastism, the other is just a feast that honors Jupiter. The fact that they are both in the same sentence treated as interchangeable terms makes me doubt of the reliability of the original author. 190.229.69.58 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A second thread: on the credibility of Ronald H. Nash. I don't think it is self-published because when you search google one of the top results is Ronald G Nash R.I.P. dated 2006, and there are some places that talk about him as a great professor and writer. I think it is enough to consider him reputable and, being blod, I'm going to remove the {verify credibility} and {self-published}. Feel free to include them again if I'm doing it wrong or there is some other wikibureaucracy to do first.190.229.69.58 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What Christians "Generally Believe"

The article says "Generally Christians believe that religious pluralism is heresy and contradicts the Bible.[1]" This seems to be sourced from a small evangelical branch. Most Christians in the world are Catholic, so if we want to use the word "generally" we ought to put what the Catholic church says here, not the simplistic statement cited. Moreover, this put under the heading "Classical Christianity." The beliefs cited are nothing of the kind; it is of a modern Protestant group. I don't think they are representative. Changed it anyway for accuracy's sake to "Evangelical Christians believe that . . . " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.237.156 (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Christianity and Atheism

Shouldn't we write something about the relationship between Christianity and Atheism (and other philosophies like Agnostic)? The Fading Light 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As atheism and agnosticism are not religions, such commentary does not belong on this page. The relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, an atheist religion, already exists. There may be room to address the relationship with other atheistic faiths, but I doubt there would be much to say other than speculation. --Skyhawk0 13:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Buddhist atheists. They do believe in a salvation(Nirvana). They have many religious traditions. They seem to be very spiritual for atheists. Anker99 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

23:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)162.213.194.50 (talk)== Christianity and Islam ==

I changed references to ‘Christ’ in the “Relationship with Islam” section to ‘Jesus’. This makes the article more openly readable, rather than just viewing things from a Christian perspective. Since there were references to Islam’s view of Christ, such as “Christ is acknowledged and respected by Muslims”, the wording seemed inappropriate considering Muslims don’t believe Jesus IS the Christ. --Skyhawk0 13:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a general comment. This section is still very POV. For example,

However, while Islam relegates Jesus to a lesser status than God — "in the company of those nearest to God" in the Qur'an, mainstream Christianity believes quite firmly and without question that Jesus is God, one of the three hypostases (persons) of Christianity's Holy Trinity, equally God as are the Father and the Holy Spirit.

is probably better phrased as something like

However, while Islam regards Jesus as strictly a prophet ("in the company of those nearest to God" in the Qur'an), mainstream Christianity regards Jesus as divine, a part of God (see Trinity).

--Mcorazao 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, I see a problem here which is that there are two main sects of Islam and out of those sects there are some rather deviant beliefs and practices as well. I mean what you say is the "true" Islamic belief BUT a lot of Sunni rituals and practices are not from Quran (Quran being the one true reference for Islam, the Muslim Holy Book). For example, many Sunnis wash 3 times before praying and many wash their noses out. It does not say in Quran to do this. Shiates on the other hand have been influenced by the Ayatolla dictators and many DO pray to Muhammad's relatives etc. They pray 3 times instead of 5. It says in Quran to pray 5 times a day. Sunnis usually pray 5 times.

So what is written about Islam already noted here is what Muslims are supposed to believe according to Quran, but somewhere, maybe not on this page but noted and leading to another, you should talk about the deviation BOTH these sects are having. Especially in Iran where the Ayatollas tell Iranians that they are not allowed to read Quran because they won't understand it and they must listen to the Ayatollas that do.

Quran is specifically meant to be read personally as its meant for there to be different interpretations. The Quran enlightens each person differently.

There is no viable reference I have for what is going on in Iran other than I lived there. Its not a place for free discussion. Maybe someone else who knows what I am saying can contribute. 162.213.194.50 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Helen