![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Whats the difference between protestants an catholics?
I was reviewing an edit today and noticed that scriptures were being used to support interpretations; this fails to meet the Wikipedia policy. All scripture references should be replaced with secondary sources that support the statements being made. Even though some of the statements appear to be clearly supported by the scriptures, I think they still fail to meet policy as outlined in WP:OR. Thoughts? -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The Christianity article is criticized for being too long, and I agree. There is a great deal of redundancy created by topics that have separate articles. Much if not most of the information presented in considerable detail in this article is duplicated in the Main Article on that topic. Examples: agape Trinity Scripture and others. I propose that these topics, though very appropriate for the article, each be shortened here to an overview paragraph and the reader be referred to the Main Article on that topic. Opinions please. Thanks. Afaprof01 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If someone hasnt already noticed, there is an out of place first-person comment in section 2.1.1 Christian Love (Agape) Section. As I have just joined Wikipedia today i cant edit this article. is it locked? would someone mind if they reformmated or deleted the said comment?
thanks - Darthpotterbob 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the origin of the word Messiah assumed to be from Mashiakh (meaning Annointed) rather than in the more similar sounding Mashia (meaning savior). Greek has a kh sound but no 'sh'. It seems more likely to me that Messiah is simply helenized Mashia (as it's an exact transliteration) rather than mashiakh, which would necessitate them mysteriously dropping the kh sound, though it exists in their language too. Thoughts? Basejumper2 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make an edit to this page. It says it's semi-protected, but I can't edit it even after I've created an account. OneQuickEdit 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
When did that get in the lead? I haven't payed too much close attention to this article, but that seems like a rather vauge statement, even if referenced. And what's with the random quote? I don't even know what its talking about. Homestarmy 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The page begins with two generalizations that are subject to huge dispute, namely that Christianity is monotheistic and has been developing for four thousand, nee two thousand years.
Christian monotheism is significantly less pure than Muslim or Jewish versions, lending one to question if monotheistic is a definitive, let alone completely accurate, description of the Christian religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christian denominations range from a seeing a pure unity to, as Richard Swinburne has suggested "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods." (See the Trinity page.) Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic, but it certainly isn't "monotheistic enough" to treat the issue as a. an inarguable fact b. a definitive, introductory part of the Christianity article.
Not a single human being two thousand years ago, let alone four thousand years ago (!) referred to themselves as a Christian. Traveling back in time, you would fail to meet a single person who could even have a hint of understanding to what you refer. To claim that Christianity has been evolving for four thousand years is, at least without further justification, quite strange. I assume the implication by saying four thousand years is that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. This however, is itself a controversial claim, from within and without Christian groups.
These are HUGE errors, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.226 ( talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The "gradually developed for 4,000 years" is eclectic nonsense. You might just as well claim Christianity has "gradually developed" for 40,000 or 400,000 years. It's arbitrary. Regarding monotheism, it's true, Christian theology has always struggled to remain monotheistic. The emphasis here is on struggled. It has taken them some 600 years to somehow get to grips with Christology. The question didn't suddenly make sense in the 7th century, but people just let it be because it was simply impossible to say anything new or interesting on it at that point: "God is triple and yet single, don't ask us, we've quibbled about this for six centuries, let's just say it is a matter of belief". dab (𒁳) 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Bwildasi made a needed change, but the coding isn't finished - it needs to be changed so that the refererences can be links to the actual Bible texts trying to be referenced. Can someone do that for me since I can't do that myself? See line 8, in "Beliefs", reference numbers 14and 15 at present. Signaj90 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no bullet for the 'And Reformed' churches
Four main divisions:
-Roman Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodox (/Oriental Orthodox)
-Protestantism
And Reformed
Greetings all. I wish to propose two major overhauls of information in this article. As a matter of practicality, I am going to split this up into two discussion sections.
Concerning the overhaul of the structure of this article, my ideas are put forward solely to address the issue of redundancy within the article. I want to hear if people see merit in this or if they think that the issue of redundancy should be addressed differently.
Proposals:
Proposed 2nd section:
2. History
Again, for context, this is taking sections 2, 3, 5, and 6, and making them one continuous section for the purpose of making clear and eliminating redundancy as well as excessive length.
Comments?
Signaj90 (
talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a lead image to be consistent with the other religions. I will propose a few below (please feel free to add). Yahel Guhan 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would recommend 7 (or 1, but 7 is better). These are the only ones that can really only be associated with Christianity, and are the most ecumenical.
Carl.bunderson (
talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism? 1 & 2 are decided NOT Roman Catholic. 3 is almost cetainly an Anglican church. 4 is a painting of Abraham (!?!), 6 and 8 are the only two that are decided Roman Catholic, although 7 would probably not be represtative of all Christianity. That said, none of those images gets it right. A new suggestion # 12. I have boldly added 12 to the article while the debate continues, do not see this as a statement that the subject is closed. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Really, other faiths? Which ones? I think you are mistaken. BTW see also Islam. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The cross is already on the Nav box which appears at the top of the article. If the image is to be a simple cross, we should just leave the nav box at the top and be done with it. A crucifix or ressurection painting would be better in my opinion, but would likely be deemed too "Roman Catholic". Carl, what would not be Roman Catholic? If you think #9 has the pope's finger prints on it, this could be a very long process. 9 is my compromise choice, I stand by 12, though.
BTW I am in no way biased in favor of, nor particularly against, Roman Catholic symbolism. -- Secisek ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a lead image would be nice. The first photo of the plain cross would be OK, but I think a resurrection image might be better, for example #14 LotR ( talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This article gets much traffic and we are certain to get more opinions very soon. -- SECisek ( talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day, Christiainty is about Christ and his resurrection, so the best image will probably be a Christ Pantokrator one. A
Christian cross would of course also do, but there the specific shape almost invariably betrays a certain sub-denomination. A medieval example like the
Cosenza one might be a solution. I also like the
Ravenna Christ they chose at Jesus (dating to the 6th century, it predates the Great Schism). Alternatively, a resurrection icon like
this Greek one?
dab
(𒁳) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So, have we agreed on something? A resurrection image? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any legitimate sample images so that we can proceed with this? LotR ( talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a little low res. -- SECisek 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I kinda like this one. It isn't a resurrection image, but it does reflect the power and humility of Jesus. Bytebear 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone insists that christianity is the dominant religion in Europe, but it simply isn't. I'm coming from the Netherlands, which is a pre-dominant non-religious country with a christian minority. That is the case in most European countries. Officially i am Roman-Catholic, but i don't believe in god. Here is a map of the believe in god in Europe: File:Europe belief in a god.png Daanschr ( talk) 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pretty map. Can you provide the source? I think I've seen it before, but not sure where it comes from. And that leads to the more important point here...editors should not change numbers or stats in articles based on their personal observations or anecdotal accounts on who goes to church or how religious they think their fellow-citizens are. There are obviously many ways to define who is a Christian (or Jew or Muslim)... it can arguably be based on who is baptised, or who adheres to the core beliefs, or who attends services; and is it based on self-reporting, surveys, census data, etc. If there is a reliable source, then it is appropriate to be relied upon. Official census data, government surveys and the like trump Daanschr's views on who qualifies as a Christian. If there are legitimate criticisms of certain data, then that may very well be appropriate to note. However, we can't get into a debate of what makes a Christian a true Christian...there's not enough room in cyberspace for that discussion. We should use the data that exists. Even Daanschr states that he is "officially" Roman Catholic. The article doesn't say that those described as Christian are card-carrying, church-going, 10-commandment-abiding followers. That's the mistake of editors who want to dispute the data. If it's necessary to explain how that data is compiled, what it includes or any issues with the data-gathering procedure, that's a separate issue. -- Anietor ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
NPOV isn't the issue here, unless you are challenging the neutrality of sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The real issue is to support a point using reliable, verifiable sources. Numerous secondary and tertiary sources with recent publication dates make the same assertion, namely, that Christianity is the largest religion in Europe.
That said, I think that there is opportunity to improve both this article and the article on Christianity in Europe by discussing recent trends in church attendence, religiousity and decline in traditional denominations/growth in smaller denominations. Perhaps you want to research the subject and contribute to the appropriate sections in these articles? Majoreditor ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I move the contested sentence here:
It is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, Southern Africa, the Philippines and Oceania. [1] [2]
Daanschr ( talk) 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We are nearly in an edit war, but i will try a different argument and wait for the results. The Encyclopedia Britannica provides a countdown of the number of christians in Europe. The Dutch government provides a comparisson between Holland and major other European countries on the amount of religiousness. This article on christianity uses a high amount of christians (Encyclopedia Britannica link) as a standard to determine that christianity is predominant in Europe. A sentence before that states that christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. If the high amount of christians are used, even people like me who are only a member of a church without believing in many of the dogmas, than the definition of a christian can't be someone who believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. This would account for a part of the christians, but not all of them.
Either we say that christianity is predominant in Europe, but that a lot of christians don't believe in the christian dogmas, or we will have to take a close look to the comparisons between European countries on the believe in certain christian dogmas to determine wether dogmatic christian believe is adherred to by a majority of the Europeans.
If the discussion on this topic can't be held in a civil way, then i will regard this as an edit war and will ask for mediation. Daanschr ( talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica
This gives something of the references used:
Adherents. As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person's religion is what he or she says it is. Totals are enumerated for each of the world's 238 countries following the methodology of the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (2001), and World Christian Trends (2001), using recent censuses, polls, surveys, reports, Web sites, literature, and other data.
It supposedly describe the adherents of all major religions, but why does it state than that it uses sources like World Christian Encyclopedia and World Christian Trends. These are not neutral sources if used to determine the adherents of all religions and irreligiousness. Daanschr ( talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Incredible. By that samer line of reasoning we should through out cited references from Encyclopedia Judaica and other tertiary sources. Majoreditor ( talk) 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It does appear that we have a storm in a teapot here! The encyclopedia cited is a reputable source and is appropriate to use in this article. The church membership has been demonstrated and supported. Daanschr, your issueis that members of respective churches may not believe the doctrines of their respective churches. That is a different issue entirely. I lived in France for a few years and the French are almost all Catholic, but not many actively attend church or believe the doctrines of their church; however, they remain Catholic.
I have edited the article to state that Christianity teaches rather than Christians believe. Does that satisfy your issue? -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Without detracting from Stormrider's solution, I don't think the issue is adequately settled. Despite Daanschr's poor approach of deleting Europe from the list, I think there is a valid point although not necessarily the one that Daanschr is pushing.
I think it would be useful to clarify what is meant by "number of Christians". Is that based on an objective survey (i.e. a non-church affiliated survey), is it based on self-identification as Christian or membership in a church? Clearly, these will yield different numbers and no single approach is "right". They are all valid measures and tell us different things.
Daanschr's point is that being a member of a church doesn't mean you are actually Christian. I disagree there. A person who self-identifies as Catholic but doesn't go to Mass and doesn't agree with the doctrine on abortion is still a Catholic. In addition, a person who self-identifies as a Christian but isn't a member of a church is also a Christian.
If we are going to provide any numbers at all and do any kind of comparison to other religions at all, then we need to work harder to get to sources that can be considered reliable. At the same time, we need to make sure that we provide good "apples to apples" comparisons and make clear what counting criteria were used.
-- Richard ( talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?
Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully request consideration and discussion on the entry of the word " Bible " in all text ....... My desire is to see it always written as " Holy Bible " , as is properly titled on most all official publications of it ......... There is sound reason for applying the word " Holy " in conjunction with "Bible " .......... The word " Holy " can only be attributed to the One which is Holy , and all consenses must certainly resolve that " One " , is God ...... Since the Holy Bible from beginning to end of it's text is unquestionably refering and relating to " God " , the word " Holy " is applied to it denoting that singular possesive characteristic of " God " ......... thank you . Pilotwingz 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If we may consider the publishers ( eg: Thomas Nelson Publishers - Nashville , and host of others verifiable as well )of the book called the " Holy Bible " by the publishers reference to it , and conceed that those publishers are the experts of their publications ( eg: Holy Bible ) , then we indeed have the ' experts say ' already accounted for ......... Further , if we look up the word 'Bible' in an official dictionary ( Encarta , Websters , etc. ) and conceed to accept their definition of that word 'Bible' ( again as "expert" of their publication ), we will find it always is described as a " Holy " book , regardless of which Bible in the world is being discussed ......... Further , the root meaning of the word bible is ' book ' , and the placing of the word " Holy " before it decribes the books content ( refer to the expert citations previously mentioned ) , thus the proper and complete title " Holy Bible "........ no one is asking you to make judgement this way or that in reference to the word " Holy " , that has already been done and is a matter of historical record .......... thank you Pilotwingz 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The book is properly titled , the Holy Bible.......... I did not give it that name , it's authors did .......... no matter who the word holy offends , no matter who believes a thing is holy or not so , no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks , the book is properly titled , the Holy Bible .......... it always has been and that is what it should still be called this day ............ you all have argued over what one believes or dosen't believe ............ I have argued that the book commonly called Bible , is properly titled , the Holy Bible ............ I have stated verifiable fact .......... I did not invent it ..... Pilotwingz 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If i may, Holy does not mean Good or any of the meanings commonly associated with it. It means seperate or apart, and as such the title Holy Bible does not promote the book more, it simply describes what it is My two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.77.241 ( talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally does not attach honorific epithets to names. For instance we refer to "the Pope", not to "His Holiness the Pope"; likewise we refer to "the Qur'an" and not to "the Noble Qur'an". The word "Holy" in "Holy Bible" is an epithet of this sort, and as such, we should not use it when normally referring to the work in question. The work is commonly known as the Bible -- by believers, scholars, and everyone else -- and this expression should be used, sans epithets. -- FOo ( talk) 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2007/s07100011.htm
Christians in China are about the 4% if the total population, and they grow as the total population grows. They're a small minority in a country populated by nearly 1.3 billion people.
I've lived in China since three months ago. There are not as many Christians as evangelicals-bushist want to believe. This is misinformation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 ( talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If your stats are correct - 4% of 1.3 billion - that means 52,000,000 Christians live in China. Taken as a unified group (which they are not), that would make them the the 4th or 5th largest Christaian denomination in the world. Certainly worthy of note. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not a christian fundamentalist and have little admiration for them, that said the lead does not smack of fundamentalism. I see nothing wrong with it. Can you be specific? -- SECisek ( talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Christianity is not growing, it's fading all over the world.
The article does not assert that a majority of Europeans are Christians. It states that the most practiced form of religion in Europe is Christianity. This is fact. -- SECisek ( talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph because it is not relevant to this article. All it does is expound on Islamic criticism of a particular Christian doctrine, which seems about as relevant to an explanatory article about Christianity as the objections of a Hindu or an atheist. If this paragraph is to be in the article, why not another saying that the Christian belief in salvation is incompatible with the Hindu belief in reincarnation?
OneQuickEdit 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to challenge the first sentence that Christianity is monotheistic. Monotheism means one gos. Polytheism is more than one god. In Christianity you have the Trinity. God and Jesus are separate individuals with different minds and act independently of each other. Jesus was crucified. God was not. God is the father, Jesus is the son. Jesus rose from the dead. God didn't. Jesus was born of a virgin. god wasn't born. Clearly these are separate individuals.
The issue of monotheism vs. polytheism is an objective outside assessment. You count the number of gods.
In order for Christianity to be monotheistic it has to pass the one god test. Trinity means 3 and (3 > 1) therefor it's polytheistic. -- Marcperkel ( talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Christianity involves veneration of many saints cant that be consitered (somewhat) Henotheistic/ polytheistic.-- 76.28.67.224 ( talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The Trinity is the God-head Three-in-One, and One-in-Three. You cannot have one without the other. Christianity is not Polytheistic. It is Monotheist. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.19.14.38 (
talk) 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it funny that you're so involved in religion yet you've not realized that Jesus is not a god. Jesus is the Christ, the savior, the Messiah. Whether or not they're essentially separate or different is debatable, but I find it irrelevant because Jesus isn't a god... --not a registered Wikipedian 17:08, 19 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.82.139 ( talk)
1 Corinthians 8:5-7 (NKJV), "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
When the Bible refers to another god (such as the god of this world, the devil), it is NOT referring to them as divine, worthy of worship/praise, good or holy. Quite the opposite. There is one true God (Deuterononmy 6:4), whom we worship and call divine.
Christianity is therefore monotheistic.
John 8:58: ". . .I AM."
Jesus claimed to be God, and Christians believe Him. The Bible says that He is in Philippians 2:5-7, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."
Hebrews 1:8-10: "But to the Son He says:
“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is God (John 8:58), who became a human (John 1:1), fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies [of when the Messiah would first come] (look through the OT and Gospels for yourself), sacrificed Himself to save "whoever would believe in Him" from Hell (John 3:16), and then rose again three days later (Acts 10:41), ascending to Heaven (John 3:13).
He then sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), who is completely God (compare Acts 5:3 and 5:9).
Now, I'm not going to dispute whether or not this is true, because that doesn't matter here. Whether or not someone believes these things or claims there is no evidence, etc. does not matter. [What] Christians believe is (or should be) classified as monotheism. - ApostleJoe —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact that not all branches of Christianity believe in Monotheism has been deleted and I have put it back in. The fact is that both the Gnostics and Mormons are polytheistic can be confirmed via a simple google search (religioustolerance and catholic.com as well as several videos on youtube come up).
The Gnostics believed in TWO gods-the Demiurge aka Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth (who created this world and was an incompetent evil being) and the supreme creator god (who sent his son Jesus to save mankind from the Demiurge).
Mormonism is also polytheistic as stated by none other than the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 who also accepts them AND the Gnostics as Christian! This is sited in the religioustolerance site and also several youtube videos (such as Story of Mormonism-Real Mormon theology revealed.
Ignoring such facts is a disservice to an encyclopedia. Using personal views to delete such facts is even worse. The facts say that Gnostics and Mormonism are Christian and they are polytheistic and these fact are backed up by the most respected Encyclopedia in the English speaking world. Claiming this is not so is worst than ignorant.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Mormon doctrine diverges from the orthodoxy of established Christianity, particularly in its polytheism, in affirming that God has evolved from man and that men might evolve into gods, that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct beings, and that human souls have preexisted." (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006)
Again, personal views are irrelevant; encyclopedia are for FACTS. The fact is not all Christianity was or is monotheistic. "It (Gnosticism) became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity" [GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm] If anyone had bothered to follow the crosslinks provided you would have found that Mormonism is classed as Christianity in the wikipedia itself and Gnosticism links to Ecclesia Gnostica the modern form of Gnosticism. Since it can be proven that not all branches of Christianity were or are monotheistic the "generally" belongs. Ignoring facts is detrimental to an encyclopedia.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is your reliable secondary independent source: "Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic." ("Polytheism and Christian Belief" by Michael C. Rea _The Journal of Theological Studies_ 2006 57(1):133-148) Some older references are "Hinduism, for example, is described as a polytheism, but is no more polytheistic than Christianity" - Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association. 1942:380 "The person of the Trinity in its old polytheistic form would have to go..." The American Journal of Theology 1920:367. "..whereas Christanity, though likewise of Semitic Origin, has become modified by Aryan influences, and is decidedly Polytheistic." The American Journal of Theology 1885:367 Also in a poll at bestandworst 50% firmly believed Christianity was NOT monotheistic. One of the comments at the debatingchristianity site sums up the situation best in that Saints and angels are not called god but have similar powers as gods in other religions that admit they are polytheistic.
You may argue the early ones but not the Michael C. Rea article-it is a scholarly paper in a per-reviewed journal.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The point made about Gnostics and Mormons is getting a few things wrong:
As I pointed out there is NO original research as there were referred sources. Here are relevent quotes from them:
"Are Mormons Christians? Yes, Latter-day Saints are indeed Christians." Are Mormons Christians
"Further, while these three gods rule this world and receive honor and obedience from earthly creatures, there are other worlds, each with its own god or gods who are as supreme in their spheres as our three gods are in ours." The Mormon God: Just One of the Guys
"The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge." [Gnosticism: Ancient and modern http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm]
Doing some more research I found these little gems in the space of about 5 minutes: "Worthy Mormons may become gods to create, rule over and receive worship from their own worlds some day." mormoninfo.org
"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them." [ http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/15-37#15 DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132]
"Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a "plurality of gods"—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church." Catholic Answers The Gods of the Mormon Church
"President Spencer W. Kimball stated that “You are the sons of God, [that] you are the elect of God, and you have within your [grasp] the possibility to become a god and pass by the angels … to your exaltation”—possibilities which seem beyond ordinary imagination—yet the promises are divine." LDS
I imagine if I spent more time I could find even MORE proof of Mormonism's polytheistic views and that it is considered a Christan faith. Come one guys, its not that freaking hard to find this stuff and the last link is from the LDS's own freaking website. What more proof do you freaking need?!-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting sources, Grubb. A random animated story on YouTube and some anti-Mormon web sites? Seriously, you're making our job of discounting your own POV very easy. Thanks for that, at least. I hope we can all move on to serious, good-faith and legitimate issues about improving the article now. -- Anietor ( talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
While interesting none of this explains why both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote about a head God bringing together a grand council of Gods Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young. Even if your view of one God is such that from an outsider POV it looks like he has MPS (Multiple Personal Syndrome) out the yin yang I can't see how any monotheist could write something like that. So far all we have gotten to "explain" this is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors about misinterpretation of the Trinity. Until someone can explain the grand council of Gods passages used by BOTH Joseph Smith and Brigham Young you are just wasting our time.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mark 12:29-30 (one of the four canonical Gospels): "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Genesis 1:26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis mine) LotR ( talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is all very interesting, but definitely not the place for this conversation. There are plenty of message boards on the internet where this could be discussed. Our primary concern is what the vast majority of sources report, and they state that Christianity (including those with variant views such as the Mormons and Gnostics) is monotheistic. If you want to assert otherwise in Wikipedia, please publish your views in peer-reviewed journals and/or through reputable publishers and then convince enough authors and experts of your view to move outside of the extreme fringe. Vassyana ( talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem we have is that people are not in agreement about terms. Further, we are trying to apply terms that are rather limited to something, that, even in debate, is not limited as we are. It is like trying to use dog barks to describe people. It just doesn't work Hideousdwarf ( talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Hideousdwarf
Perhaps we should not classify it in terms of Mono/Poly theism. Monotheism in my opinion is clearly not what Christianity is. However it is also clear the the Christian majority is in denial. If this is an encyclopedia then it's about facts and we can't just publish something that clearly is wrong. So maybe we should remove the issue.-- Marcperkel ( talk) 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In the article suddenly two sections called "Catholic" and Protestant" appear. They seem to deal mainly with biblical exegesis and hence should be sub-sections to the "Scriptures" or even the "Interpretation" section.
In the "Catholic" section, the sub-section header "literal" should be removed as a) the following talks not merely about "literal" exegesis, b) the length doesn't warrant a section break, c) there is no other sub-section following.
In the "Protestant" section, the subsection "creeds" and "afterlife" are not specifically Protestant at all. Probably this is a mistake in the format of the section headings.
I suggest that the structure is changed:
* 1 Beliefs o 1.1 Jesus the Christ o 1.2 The Death and Resurrection of Jesus o 1.3 Salvation o 1.4 The Trinity + 1.4.1 Trinitarians + 1.4.2 Non-Trinitarians o 1.5 Scriptures + 1.5.1 Interpretation + 1.5.1.1 Catholic + 1.5.1.2 Protestant o 1.6 Creeds o 1.7 Afterlife and Eschaton * 2 Worship and practices etc.
Does anyone object? Is this controversial? If not, could an admin please make this minute change?
Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I see is that there is not just two divisions in Christianity. Even early on you had the Paulines, Nazoreans, and Gnostics. Around the 4th century you had the Roman Catholic-Byzantine(Orthodox) split and then in the 15th century the Roman Catholic-Protestant split. The Protestant side is a real headache as interpretations are all over the theological map; certainly nothing that even remotely could be simplified down to generalities.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Among Protestant Denominations http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm] for a very brief tip of the iceberg look (I can't even call it a thumbnail). [Christian Universalism] in the form of the Universalist National Memorial Church is a case in point.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you make some good points about the structure, Str1977. I don't know if I would classify this as a "minute" change, though. I wish the block would be lifted so we can go forward with your suggestion instead of having to rely on a random administrator (not a dig on admins, just would prefer if editors with some history in this article could deal with it directly). Have you requested the block be lifted? I suspect that once the proposed change is made, there will be some tweeking to do, so it would be nice if we had the freedom to do that. I'm hoping the issue that caused the block is now behind us. -- Anietor ( talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic should still be mentioned, at least in the small blurb underneath the link to Catholic. I just feel they are misrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.188.165 ( talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the Second Helvetic Confession, contains the following:
but these seems to be a comment by someone quoting the Confession. This should be fixed. Str1977 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
12/15/2007
The article is far too complex, too lengthy, too heady and omits a simple definition of Christianity which can be done in a single sentence. Each of the factions should have a one sentence description in simple terms that a 5th grader can understand. While I am not asking for removal of complex or lengthy portions, I am asking that TOC portions be added that point to simple one sentence definitions.
Simply Defined
Catholic Protestant Eastern Orthodox
Why loose the subject in a pile of high-ended speech and block younger less educated from understanding this topic?
Jesus didn't mean for Christianity to become a political chess game filled with a whole new vocabulary.
Put simply, Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that he alone has the power to save people from sin and death guranteeing resurrection and eternal life in Heaven with God.
No one should be required to have earned a PHD to understand a Wikipedia topic that was meant to be simple.
It would be a good idea to link the Simple Wikipedia article someplace on the mainspace page of Christianity. You might also consider an article like Introduction to Christianity which is between the Simple Wikipedia version and the advanced version, the way we did on Introduction to evolution, which is between the Simple Wikipedia article and evolution, or Introduction to quantum mechanics, and so on. I am going to push for Introduction to intelligent design as well. -- Filll ( talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you can also do is to place a separate link in italics about the LEAD, the way we did on Introduction to evolution. I am not sure it is easy to find in that big list of articles in other languages.-- Filll ( talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The discsussion currently taking place here and here. Abtract ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a section "Criticisms" linking to Criticism of Christianity. Surely that is an oversight? Abtract ( talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen, Yale University Press,2006 This book should be added to further reading, as this historical study tells of how Jesus, a son of God, a divine hero, became Jesus the ONE and only BEGOTTEN Son of God. This is a story all to itself and a central part of the doctine of the ancient Christian church. This did not happen over night as is commonly thought. It was decreed, but still was not accepted by all early peoples who called themselves Christians, Arianism Kazuba ( talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental issue with the layout of the section on Persecutions. The first paragraph seems well suited to the issue of persecution of Christians in history. I would actually argue that it should be close to the first paragraph in the history section (though that is outside my current proposal). However, since this purports to be a section on the basic history of Christianity, this seems remarkably like an in depth analysis of an intriguing aside. Such a detail ought not be in this article, which is supposed to be very summary in nature.
Bottom line proposal: Edit out needless detail about the French revolution and pagan temples, put them and the references to Judaism into another section of this or another page, and put the early church persecution at the beginning of the history section, since it came before the beginning of the items which kick off the history section.
--
Signaj90 (
talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Whats the difference between protestants an catholics?
I was reviewing an edit today and noticed that scriptures were being used to support interpretations; this fails to meet the Wikipedia policy. All scripture references should be replaced with secondary sources that support the statements being made. Even though some of the statements appear to be clearly supported by the scriptures, I think they still fail to meet policy as outlined in WP:OR. Thoughts? -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The Christianity article is criticized for being too long, and I agree. There is a great deal of redundancy created by topics that have separate articles. Much if not most of the information presented in considerable detail in this article is duplicated in the Main Article on that topic. Examples: agape Trinity Scripture and others. I propose that these topics, though very appropriate for the article, each be shortened here to an overview paragraph and the reader be referred to the Main Article on that topic. Opinions please. Thanks. Afaprof01 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If someone hasnt already noticed, there is an out of place first-person comment in section 2.1.1 Christian Love (Agape) Section. As I have just joined Wikipedia today i cant edit this article. is it locked? would someone mind if they reformmated or deleted the said comment?
thanks - Darthpotterbob 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the origin of the word Messiah assumed to be from Mashiakh (meaning Annointed) rather than in the more similar sounding Mashia (meaning savior). Greek has a kh sound but no 'sh'. It seems more likely to me that Messiah is simply helenized Mashia (as it's an exact transliteration) rather than mashiakh, which would necessitate them mysteriously dropping the kh sound, though it exists in their language too. Thoughts? Basejumper2 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make an edit to this page. It says it's semi-protected, but I can't edit it even after I've created an account. OneQuickEdit 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
When did that get in the lead? I haven't payed too much close attention to this article, but that seems like a rather vauge statement, even if referenced. And what's with the random quote? I don't even know what its talking about. Homestarmy 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The page begins with two generalizations that are subject to huge dispute, namely that Christianity is monotheistic and has been developing for four thousand, nee two thousand years.
Christian monotheism is significantly less pure than Muslim or Jewish versions, lending one to question if monotheistic is a definitive, let alone completely accurate, description of the Christian religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christian denominations range from a seeing a pure unity to, as Richard Swinburne has suggested "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods." (See the Trinity page.) Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic, but it certainly isn't "monotheistic enough" to treat the issue as a. an inarguable fact b. a definitive, introductory part of the Christianity article.
Not a single human being two thousand years ago, let alone four thousand years ago (!) referred to themselves as a Christian. Traveling back in time, you would fail to meet a single person who could even have a hint of understanding to what you refer. To claim that Christianity has been evolving for four thousand years is, at least without further justification, quite strange. I assume the implication by saying four thousand years is that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. This however, is itself a controversial claim, from within and without Christian groups.
These are HUGE errors, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.226 ( talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The "gradually developed for 4,000 years" is eclectic nonsense. You might just as well claim Christianity has "gradually developed" for 40,000 or 400,000 years. It's arbitrary. Regarding monotheism, it's true, Christian theology has always struggled to remain monotheistic. The emphasis here is on struggled. It has taken them some 600 years to somehow get to grips with Christology. The question didn't suddenly make sense in the 7th century, but people just let it be because it was simply impossible to say anything new or interesting on it at that point: "God is triple and yet single, don't ask us, we've quibbled about this for six centuries, let's just say it is a matter of belief". dab (𒁳) 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Bwildasi made a needed change, but the coding isn't finished - it needs to be changed so that the refererences can be links to the actual Bible texts trying to be referenced. Can someone do that for me since I can't do that myself? See line 8, in "Beliefs", reference numbers 14and 15 at present. Signaj90 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no bullet for the 'And Reformed' churches
Four main divisions:
-Roman Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodox (/Oriental Orthodox)
-Protestantism
And Reformed
Greetings all. I wish to propose two major overhauls of information in this article. As a matter of practicality, I am going to split this up into two discussion sections.
Concerning the overhaul of the structure of this article, my ideas are put forward solely to address the issue of redundancy within the article. I want to hear if people see merit in this or if they think that the issue of redundancy should be addressed differently.
Proposals:
Proposed 2nd section:
2. History
Again, for context, this is taking sections 2, 3, 5, and 6, and making them one continuous section for the purpose of making clear and eliminating redundancy as well as excessive length.
Comments?
Signaj90 (
talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a lead image to be consistent with the other religions. I will propose a few below (please feel free to add). Yahel Guhan 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would recommend 7 (or 1, but 7 is better). These are the only ones that can really only be associated with Christianity, and are the most ecumenical.
Carl.bunderson (
talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism? 1 & 2 are decided NOT Roman Catholic. 3 is almost cetainly an Anglican church. 4 is a painting of Abraham (!?!), 6 and 8 are the only two that are decided Roman Catholic, although 7 would probably not be represtative of all Christianity. That said, none of those images gets it right. A new suggestion # 12. I have boldly added 12 to the article while the debate continues, do not see this as a statement that the subject is closed. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Really, other faiths? Which ones? I think you are mistaken. BTW see also Islam. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The cross is already on the Nav box which appears at the top of the article. If the image is to be a simple cross, we should just leave the nav box at the top and be done with it. A crucifix or ressurection painting would be better in my opinion, but would likely be deemed too "Roman Catholic". Carl, what would not be Roman Catholic? If you think #9 has the pope's finger prints on it, this could be a very long process. 9 is my compromise choice, I stand by 12, though.
BTW I am in no way biased in favor of, nor particularly against, Roman Catholic symbolism. -- Secisek ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a lead image would be nice. The first photo of the plain cross would be OK, but I think a resurrection image might be better, for example #14 LotR ( talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This article gets much traffic and we are certain to get more opinions very soon. -- SECisek ( talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day, Christiainty is about Christ and his resurrection, so the best image will probably be a Christ Pantokrator one. A
Christian cross would of course also do, but there the specific shape almost invariably betrays a certain sub-denomination. A medieval example like the
Cosenza one might be a solution. I also like the
Ravenna Christ they chose at Jesus (dating to the 6th century, it predates the Great Schism). Alternatively, a resurrection icon like
this Greek one?
dab
(𒁳) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So, have we agreed on something? A resurrection image? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any legitimate sample images so that we can proceed with this? LotR ( talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a little low res. -- SECisek 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I kinda like this one. It isn't a resurrection image, but it does reflect the power and humility of Jesus. Bytebear 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone insists that christianity is the dominant religion in Europe, but it simply isn't. I'm coming from the Netherlands, which is a pre-dominant non-religious country with a christian minority. That is the case in most European countries. Officially i am Roman-Catholic, but i don't believe in god. Here is a map of the believe in god in Europe: File:Europe belief in a god.png Daanschr ( talk) 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pretty map. Can you provide the source? I think I've seen it before, but not sure where it comes from. And that leads to the more important point here...editors should not change numbers or stats in articles based on their personal observations or anecdotal accounts on who goes to church or how religious they think their fellow-citizens are. There are obviously many ways to define who is a Christian (or Jew or Muslim)... it can arguably be based on who is baptised, or who adheres to the core beliefs, or who attends services; and is it based on self-reporting, surveys, census data, etc. If there is a reliable source, then it is appropriate to be relied upon. Official census data, government surveys and the like trump Daanschr's views on who qualifies as a Christian. If there are legitimate criticisms of certain data, then that may very well be appropriate to note. However, we can't get into a debate of what makes a Christian a true Christian...there's not enough room in cyberspace for that discussion. We should use the data that exists. Even Daanschr states that he is "officially" Roman Catholic. The article doesn't say that those described as Christian are card-carrying, church-going, 10-commandment-abiding followers. That's the mistake of editors who want to dispute the data. If it's necessary to explain how that data is compiled, what it includes or any issues with the data-gathering procedure, that's a separate issue. -- Anietor ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
NPOV isn't the issue here, unless you are challenging the neutrality of sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The real issue is to support a point using reliable, verifiable sources. Numerous secondary and tertiary sources with recent publication dates make the same assertion, namely, that Christianity is the largest religion in Europe.
That said, I think that there is opportunity to improve both this article and the article on Christianity in Europe by discussing recent trends in church attendence, religiousity and decline in traditional denominations/growth in smaller denominations. Perhaps you want to research the subject and contribute to the appropriate sections in these articles? Majoreditor ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I move the contested sentence here:
It is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, Southern Africa, the Philippines and Oceania. [1] [2]
Daanschr ( talk) 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We are nearly in an edit war, but i will try a different argument and wait for the results. The Encyclopedia Britannica provides a countdown of the number of christians in Europe. The Dutch government provides a comparisson between Holland and major other European countries on the amount of religiousness. This article on christianity uses a high amount of christians (Encyclopedia Britannica link) as a standard to determine that christianity is predominant in Europe. A sentence before that states that christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. If the high amount of christians are used, even people like me who are only a member of a church without believing in many of the dogmas, than the definition of a christian can't be someone who believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. This would account for a part of the christians, but not all of them.
Either we say that christianity is predominant in Europe, but that a lot of christians don't believe in the christian dogmas, or we will have to take a close look to the comparisons between European countries on the believe in certain christian dogmas to determine wether dogmatic christian believe is adherred to by a majority of the Europeans.
If the discussion on this topic can't be held in a civil way, then i will regard this as an edit war and will ask for mediation. Daanschr ( talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica
This gives something of the references used:
Adherents. As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person's religion is what he or she says it is. Totals are enumerated for each of the world's 238 countries following the methodology of the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (2001), and World Christian Trends (2001), using recent censuses, polls, surveys, reports, Web sites, literature, and other data.
It supposedly describe the adherents of all major religions, but why does it state than that it uses sources like World Christian Encyclopedia and World Christian Trends. These are not neutral sources if used to determine the adherents of all religions and irreligiousness. Daanschr ( talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Incredible. By that samer line of reasoning we should through out cited references from Encyclopedia Judaica and other tertiary sources. Majoreditor ( talk) 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It does appear that we have a storm in a teapot here! The encyclopedia cited is a reputable source and is appropriate to use in this article. The church membership has been demonstrated and supported. Daanschr, your issueis that members of respective churches may not believe the doctrines of their respective churches. That is a different issue entirely. I lived in France for a few years and the French are almost all Catholic, but not many actively attend church or believe the doctrines of their church; however, they remain Catholic.
I have edited the article to state that Christianity teaches rather than Christians believe. Does that satisfy your issue? -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Without detracting from Stormrider's solution, I don't think the issue is adequately settled. Despite Daanschr's poor approach of deleting Europe from the list, I think there is a valid point although not necessarily the one that Daanschr is pushing.
I think it would be useful to clarify what is meant by "number of Christians". Is that based on an objective survey (i.e. a non-church affiliated survey), is it based on self-identification as Christian or membership in a church? Clearly, these will yield different numbers and no single approach is "right". They are all valid measures and tell us different things.
Daanschr's point is that being a member of a church doesn't mean you are actually Christian. I disagree there. A person who self-identifies as Catholic but doesn't go to Mass and doesn't agree with the doctrine on abortion is still a Catholic. In addition, a person who self-identifies as a Christian but isn't a member of a church is also a Christian.
If we are going to provide any numbers at all and do any kind of comparison to other religions at all, then we need to work harder to get to sources that can be considered reliable. At the same time, we need to make sure that we provide good "apples to apples" comparisons and make clear what counting criteria were used.
-- Richard ( talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?
Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully request consideration and discussion on the entry of the word " Bible " in all text ....... My desire is to see it always written as " Holy Bible " , as is properly titled on most all official publications of it ......... There is sound reason for applying the word " Holy " in conjunction with "Bible " .......... The word " Holy " can only be attributed to the One which is Holy , and all consenses must certainly resolve that " One " , is God ...... Since the Holy Bible from beginning to end of it's text is unquestionably refering and relating to " God " , the word " Holy " is applied to it denoting that singular possesive characteristic of " God " ......... thank you . Pilotwingz 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If we may consider the publishers ( eg: Thomas Nelson Publishers - Nashville , and host of others verifiable as well )of the book called the " Holy Bible " by the publishers reference to it , and conceed that those publishers are the experts of their publications ( eg: Holy Bible ) , then we indeed have the ' experts say ' already accounted for ......... Further , if we look up the word 'Bible' in an official dictionary ( Encarta , Websters , etc. ) and conceed to accept their definition of that word 'Bible' ( again as "expert" of their publication ), we will find it always is described as a " Holy " book , regardless of which Bible in the world is being discussed ......... Further , the root meaning of the word bible is ' book ' , and the placing of the word " Holy " before it decribes the books content ( refer to the expert citations previously mentioned ) , thus the proper and complete title " Holy Bible "........ no one is asking you to make judgement this way or that in reference to the word " Holy " , that has already been done and is a matter of historical record .......... thank you Pilotwingz 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The book is properly titled , the Holy Bible.......... I did not give it that name , it's authors did .......... no matter who the word holy offends , no matter who believes a thing is holy or not so , no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks , the book is properly titled , the Holy Bible .......... it always has been and that is what it should still be called this day ............ you all have argued over what one believes or dosen't believe ............ I have argued that the book commonly called Bible , is properly titled , the Holy Bible ............ I have stated verifiable fact .......... I did not invent it ..... Pilotwingz 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If i may, Holy does not mean Good or any of the meanings commonly associated with it. It means seperate or apart, and as such the title Holy Bible does not promote the book more, it simply describes what it is My two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.77.241 ( talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally does not attach honorific epithets to names. For instance we refer to "the Pope", not to "His Holiness the Pope"; likewise we refer to "the Qur'an" and not to "the Noble Qur'an". The word "Holy" in "Holy Bible" is an epithet of this sort, and as such, we should not use it when normally referring to the work in question. The work is commonly known as the Bible -- by believers, scholars, and everyone else -- and this expression should be used, sans epithets. -- FOo ( talk) 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2007/s07100011.htm
Christians in China are about the 4% if the total population, and they grow as the total population grows. They're a small minority in a country populated by nearly 1.3 billion people.
I've lived in China since three months ago. There are not as many Christians as evangelicals-bushist want to believe. This is misinformation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 ( talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If your stats are correct - 4% of 1.3 billion - that means 52,000,000 Christians live in China. Taken as a unified group (which they are not), that would make them the the 4th or 5th largest Christaian denomination in the world. Certainly worthy of note. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not a christian fundamentalist and have little admiration for them, that said the lead does not smack of fundamentalism. I see nothing wrong with it. Can you be specific? -- SECisek ( talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Christianity is not growing, it's fading all over the world.
The article does not assert that a majority of Europeans are Christians. It states that the most practiced form of religion in Europe is Christianity. This is fact. -- SECisek ( talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph because it is not relevant to this article. All it does is expound on Islamic criticism of a particular Christian doctrine, which seems about as relevant to an explanatory article about Christianity as the objections of a Hindu or an atheist. If this paragraph is to be in the article, why not another saying that the Christian belief in salvation is incompatible with the Hindu belief in reincarnation?
OneQuickEdit 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to challenge the first sentence that Christianity is monotheistic. Monotheism means one gos. Polytheism is more than one god. In Christianity you have the Trinity. God and Jesus are separate individuals with different minds and act independently of each other. Jesus was crucified. God was not. God is the father, Jesus is the son. Jesus rose from the dead. God didn't. Jesus was born of a virgin. god wasn't born. Clearly these are separate individuals.
The issue of monotheism vs. polytheism is an objective outside assessment. You count the number of gods.
In order for Christianity to be monotheistic it has to pass the one god test. Trinity means 3 and (3 > 1) therefor it's polytheistic. -- Marcperkel ( talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Christianity involves veneration of many saints cant that be consitered (somewhat) Henotheistic/ polytheistic.-- 76.28.67.224 ( talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The Trinity is the God-head Three-in-One, and One-in-Three. You cannot have one without the other. Christianity is not Polytheistic. It is Monotheist. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.19.14.38 (
talk) 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it funny that you're so involved in religion yet you've not realized that Jesus is not a god. Jesus is the Christ, the savior, the Messiah. Whether or not they're essentially separate or different is debatable, but I find it irrelevant because Jesus isn't a god... --not a registered Wikipedian 17:08, 19 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.82.139 ( talk)
1 Corinthians 8:5-7 (NKJV), "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
When the Bible refers to another god (such as the god of this world, the devil), it is NOT referring to them as divine, worthy of worship/praise, good or holy. Quite the opposite. There is one true God (Deuterononmy 6:4), whom we worship and call divine.
Christianity is therefore monotheistic.
John 8:58: ". . .I AM."
Jesus claimed to be God, and Christians believe Him. The Bible says that He is in Philippians 2:5-7, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."
Hebrews 1:8-10: "But to the Son He says:
“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is God (John 8:58), who became a human (John 1:1), fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies [of when the Messiah would first come] (look through the OT and Gospels for yourself), sacrificed Himself to save "whoever would believe in Him" from Hell (John 3:16), and then rose again three days later (Acts 10:41), ascending to Heaven (John 3:13).
He then sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), who is completely God (compare Acts 5:3 and 5:9).
Now, I'm not going to dispute whether or not this is true, because that doesn't matter here. Whether or not someone believes these things or claims there is no evidence, etc. does not matter. [What] Christians believe is (or should be) classified as monotheism. - ApostleJoe —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact that not all branches of Christianity believe in Monotheism has been deleted and I have put it back in. The fact is that both the Gnostics and Mormons are polytheistic can be confirmed via a simple google search (religioustolerance and catholic.com as well as several videos on youtube come up).
The Gnostics believed in TWO gods-the Demiurge aka Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth (who created this world and was an incompetent evil being) and the supreme creator god (who sent his son Jesus to save mankind from the Demiurge).
Mormonism is also polytheistic as stated by none other than the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 who also accepts them AND the Gnostics as Christian! This is sited in the religioustolerance site and also several youtube videos (such as Story of Mormonism-Real Mormon theology revealed.
Ignoring such facts is a disservice to an encyclopedia. Using personal views to delete such facts is even worse. The facts say that Gnostics and Mormonism are Christian and they are polytheistic and these fact are backed up by the most respected Encyclopedia in the English speaking world. Claiming this is not so is worst than ignorant.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Mormon doctrine diverges from the orthodoxy of established Christianity, particularly in its polytheism, in affirming that God has evolved from man and that men might evolve into gods, that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct beings, and that human souls have preexisted." (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006)
Again, personal views are irrelevant; encyclopedia are for FACTS. The fact is not all Christianity was or is monotheistic. "It (Gnosticism) became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity" [GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm] If anyone had bothered to follow the crosslinks provided you would have found that Mormonism is classed as Christianity in the wikipedia itself and Gnosticism links to Ecclesia Gnostica the modern form of Gnosticism. Since it can be proven that not all branches of Christianity were or are monotheistic the "generally" belongs. Ignoring facts is detrimental to an encyclopedia.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is your reliable secondary independent source: "Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic." ("Polytheism and Christian Belief" by Michael C. Rea _The Journal of Theological Studies_ 2006 57(1):133-148) Some older references are "Hinduism, for example, is described as a polytheism, but is no more polytheistic than Christianity" - Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association. 1942:380 "The person of the Trinity in its old polytheistic form would have to go..." The American Journal of Theology 1920:367. "..whereas Christanity, though likewise of Semitic Origin, has become modified by Aryan influences, and is decidedly Polytheistic." The American Journal of Theology 1885:367 Also in a poll at bestandworst 50% firmly believed Christianity was NOT monotheistic. One of the comments at the debatingchristianity site sums up the situation best in that Saints and angels are not called god but have similar powers as gods in other religions that admit they are polytheistic.
You may argue the early ones but not the Michael C. Rea article-it is a scholarly paper in a per-reviewed journal.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The point made about Gnostics and Mormons is getting a few things wrong:
As I pointed out there is NO original research as there were referred sources. Here are relevent quotes from them:
"Are Mormons Christians? Yes, Latter-day Saints are indeed Christians." Are Mormons Christians
"Further, while these three gods rule this world and receive honor and obedience from earthly creatures, there are other worlds, each with its own god or gods who are as supreme in their spheres as our three gods are in ours." The Mormon God: Just One of the Guys
"The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge." [Gnosticism: Ancient and modern http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm]
Doing some more research I found these little gems in the space of about 5 minutes: "Worthy Mormons may become gods to create, rule over and receive worship from their own worlds some day." mormoninfo.org
"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them." [ http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/15-37#15 DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132]
"Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a "plurality of gods"—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church." Catholic Answers The Gods of the Mormon Church
"President Spencer W. Kimball stated that “You are the sons of God, [that] you are the elect of God, and you have within your [grasp] the possibility to become a god and pass by the angels … to your exaltation”—possibilities which seem beyond ordinary imagination—yet the promises are divine." LDS
I imagine if I spent more time I could find even MORE proof of Mormonism's polytheistic views and that it is considered a Christan faith. Come one guys, its not that freaking hard to find this stuff and the last link is from the LDS's own freaking website. What more proof do you freaking need?!-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting sources, Grubb. A random animated story on YouTube and some anti-Mormon web sites? Seriously, you're making our job of discounting your own POV very easy. Thanks for that, at least. I hope we can all move on to serious, good-faith and legitimate issues about improving the article now. -- Anietor ( talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
While interesting none of this explains why both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote about a head God bringing together a grand council of Gods Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young. Even if your view of one God is such that from an outsider POV it looks like he has MPS (Multiple Personal Syndrome) out the yin yang I can't see how any monotheist could write something like that. So far all we have gotten to "explain" this is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors about misinterpretation of the Trinity. Until someone can explain the grand council of Gods passages used by BOTH Joseph Smith and Brigham Young you are just wasting our time.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mark 12:29-30 (one of the four canonical Gospels): "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Genesis 1:26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis mine) LotR ( talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is all very interesting, but definitely not the place for this conversation. There are plenty of message boards on the internet where this could be discussed. Our primary concern is what the vast majority of sources report, and they state that Christianity (including those with variant views such as the Mormons and Gnostics) is monotheistic. If you want to assert otherwise in Wikipedia, please publish your views in peer-reviewed journals and/or through reputable publishers and then convince enough authors and experts of your view to move outside of the extreme fringe. Vassyana ( talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem we have is that people are not in agreement about terms. Further, we are trying to apply terms that are rather limited to something, that, even in debate, is not limited as we are. It is like trying to use dog barks to describe people. It just doesn't work Hideousdwarf ( talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Hideousdwarf
Perhaps we should not classify it in terms of Mono/Poly theism. Monotheism in my opinion is clearly not what Christianity is. However it is also clear the the Christian majority is in denial. If this is an encyclopedia then it's about facts and we can't just publish something that clearly is wrong. So maybe we should remove the issue.-- Marcperkel ( talk) 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In the article suddenly two sections called "Catholic" and Protestant" appear. They seem to deal mainly with biblical exegesis and hence should be sub-sections to the "Scriptures" or even the "Interpretation" section.
In the "Catholic" section, the sub-section header "literal" should be removed as a) the following talks not merely about "literal" exegesis, b) the length doesn't warrant a section break, c) there is no other sub-section following.
In the "Protestant" section, the subsection "creeds" and "afterlife" are not specifically Protestant at all. Probably this is a mistake in the format of the section headings.
I suggest that the structure is changed:
* 1 Beliefs o 1.1 Jesus the Christ o 1.2 The Death and Resurrection of Jesus o 1.3 Salvation o 1.4 The Trinity + 1.4.1 Trinitarians + 1.4.2 Non-Trinitarians o 1.5 Scriptures + 1.5.1 Interpretation + 1.5.1.1 Catholic + 1.5.1.2 Protestant o 1.6 Creeds o 1.7 Afterlife and Eschaton * 2 Worship and practices etc.
Does anyone object? Is this controversial? If not, could an admin please make this minute change?
Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I see is that there is not just two divisions in Christianity. Even early on you had the Paulines, Nazoreans, and Gnostics. Around the 4th century you had the Roman Catholic-Byzantine(Orthodox) split and then in the 15th century the Roman Catholic-Protestant split. The Protestant side is a real headache as interpretations are all over the theological map; certainly nothing that even remotely could be simplified down to generalities.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Among Protestant Denominations http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm] for a very brief tip of the iceberg look (I can't even call it a thumbnail). [Christian Universalism] in the form of the Universalist National Memorial Church is a case in point.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you make some good points about the structure, Str1977. I don't know if I would classify this as a "minute" change, though. I wish the block would be lifted so we can go forward with your suggestion instead of having to rely on a random administrator (not a dig on admins, just would prefer if editors with some history in this article could deal with it directly). Have you requested the block be lifted? I suspect that once the proposed change is made, there will be some tweeking to do, so it would be nice if we had the freedom to do that. I'm hoping the issue that caused the block is now behind us. -- Anietor ( talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic should still be mentioned, at least in the small blurb underneath the link to Catholic. I just feel they are misrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.188.165 ( talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the Second Helvetic Confession, contains the following:
but these seems to be a comment by someone quoting the Confession. This should be fixed. Str1977 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
12/15/2007
The article is far too complex, too lengthy, too heady and omits a simple definition of Christianity which can be done in a single sentence. Each of the factions should have a one sentence description in simple terms that a 5th grader can understand. While I am not asking for removal of complex or lengthy portions, I am asking that TOC portions be added that point to simple one sentence definitions.
Simply Defined
Catholic Protestant Eastern Orthodox
Why loose the subject in a pile of high-ended speech and block younger less educated from understanding this topic?
Jesus didn't mean for Christianity to become a political chess game filled with a whole new vocabulary.
Put simply, Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that he alone has the power to save people from sin and death guranteeing resurrection and eternal life in Heaven with God.
No one should be required to have earned a PHD to understand a Wikipedia topic that was meant to be simple.
It would be a good idea to link the Simple Wikipedia article someplace on the mainspace page of Christianity. You might also consider an article like Introduction to Christianity which is between the Simple Wikipedia version and the advanced version, the way we did on Introduction to evolution, which is between the Simple Wikipedia article and evolution, or Introduction to quantum mechanics, and so on. I am going to push for Introduction to intelligent design as well. -- Filll ( talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you can also do is to place a separate link in italics about the LEAD, the way we did on Introduction to evolution. I am not sure it is easy to find in that big list of articles in other languages.-- Filll ( talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The discsussion currently taking place here and here. Abtract ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a section "Criticisms" linking to Criticism of Christianity. Surely that is an oversight? Abtract ( talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen, Yale University Press,2006 This book should be added to further reading, as this historical study tells of how Jesus, a son of God, a divine hero, became Jesus the ONE and only BEGOTTEN Son of God. This is a story all to itself and a central part of the doctine of the ancient Christian church. This did not happen over night as is commonly thought. It was decreed, but still was not accepted by all early peoples who called themselves Christians, Arianism Kazuba ( talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental issue with the layout of the section on Persecutions. The first paragraph seems well suited to the issue of persecution of Christians in history. I would actually argue that it should be close to the first paragraph in the history section (though that is outside my current proposal). However, since this purports to be a section on the basic history of Christianity, this seems remarkably like an in depth analysis of an intriguing aside. Such a detail ought not be in this article, which is supposed to be very summary in nature.
Bottom line proposal: Edit out needless detail about the French revolution and pagan temples, put them and the references to Judaism into another section of this or another page, and put the early church persecution at the beginning of the history section, since it came before the beginning of the items which kick off the history section.
--
Signaj90 (
talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)