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.

→

Towards a todo list

Perhaps we should finally finish arguing over monotheism and moonism? We have too much else to do to fight over one word. I'm compiling the other suggestions so they don't get drowned out by the monotheism-tritheism rollercoaster: Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

I'd like to distract you all from arguing about monotheism for a bit to suggest a little reorganization.

The two sections "Beliefs" and "Differences in Beliefs" should become one section simply called "Beliefs", with the following organization:

Jesus -- Covering "Messiah", "Jesus as God and Man", and "Crucifixion and Resurrection".
Salvation
The Trinity -- Covering "Monotheism" and "Holy Trinity", with subsections:
1. The Creeds -- Covering "Nicene Creed", plus more on Chalcedon and the Athanasian. Maybe the bullet-point list should become the full text enhanced with wikilinks.
2. Non-Trinitarians
Scripture -- Covering "Authority and different parts of the Bible" and "Other books held sacred" (both will need some cleanup and there should be much more on the Bible itself than things like the BoM or Eddy's works). With subsection:
1. Interpretation
Last things -- Covering "Second Coming" and "The Afterlife".

This puts everything in a neater, more organized form, avoids stub-sections, and eliminates the awkwardly-titled section "Differences in Beliefs". A.J.A. 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Needed citations

Let's not forget there are still three statements with "citation needed" tags. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife section

"There is, however, some debate on this point [purgatory] within Eastern Christianity.[citation needed]"
"Some maintain that only the righteous will be resurrected. [citation needed]"

History and origins section:

"The monastic life spread to many parts of the Christian empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as many felt[citation needed] that the Christian moral and spiritual life was compromised by the change from a persecuted minority cult to an established majority religion, and sought to regain the purity of early faith by fleeing society."

Comments from the Good article review, including the Holy Spirit

Hi all, Unforunately I have not promoted this article because of problems with certain sections of the article.

The Beliefs section is of particular concern. Many of the subsections in it are single sentences. This is itself a stylistic concern, but I also worry some of the explainations are overly terse and do not present their subject in sufficient depth. The Second Coming subsection is especially terse and seems to side-step much of the detail mentioned in related articles such as Christian eschatology.

The Differences in beliefs section is good. The Worship and practices section could probably be stated in a more concise manner (especially the subsections). The History section is fine. The last paragraph of the Persecution section on persecution by Christians could probably be dropped. The Controversies section could probably be expanded slightly although by that I do not mean it should become a long list of controversies.

Overall, parts of the article feel they were designed by committee. A really good encyclopedia article should not just state facts but offer insight into its subject. Don't be afraid to leave out minor points if it allows you to offer better insight into the core subject of the article.

I hope this helps and please feel free to resubmit the article for nomination in the future. Cedars 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Several of the Beliefs subsections need expanded, such as Holy Spirit, which just says that Christians believe in the Holy Spirit without anything about who he is or what he does. —Aiden 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's Razor Again

Folks, we are wandering again. Can we set aside the section and talk the introduction alone?

Let me recap what we have:

A bunch of sources that say Christianity is monotheistic.
One source that says it is not.

For the first paragraph, that leaves us with:

Not mentioning the issue whatsoever in the intro, which is what the encyclopedias I've checked do.
Finding a way that isn't convoluted to say that Christians confess there is one God, but some non-Christians claim they do not. IMHO, This would be tough, if not impossible, to do in the intro. --CTSWyneken 18:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo quoted from, Encyclopedia Britannic above:

"According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism—of a three-god belief." - "monotheism."

There appears to be a typo in the quote. Is it saying that "it's tritheism-monotheism"?

Also, Britannica does not say that Christianity isn't monotheism, but attributes this assertion to "Islamic doctrine", which isn't a reliable - or verifiable - source on Christianity. We still have not one dead-on assertion from of the sort seen in multiple sources on the other side.Timothy Usher 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote reads: "According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism—of a three-god belief."

The title of the article is "Monotheism". My apologies for the confusion, the title and reference where not clearly seperated from the quote itself. Drogo Underburrow 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No religion has interpreted monotheism in a more consequential and literal way than Islam. According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism—of a three-god belief. There is no issue upon which this religion is so intransigent as the one of monotheism. The profession of faith, the first of the so-called Five Pillars of Islam (the basic requirements for the faithful Muslim), states clearly and unambiguously that “there is no God but Allah,” and in accordance with this principle the religion knows no greater sin than shirk (“partnership”), the attribution of partners to Allah; that is to say, polytheism, or anything that may look like it—e.g., the notion of a divine trinity. The Qur'an declares: “Say: He, Allah, is one. Allah, the eternal. Neither has he begotten, nor is he begotten. And no one is his equal” (112). This profession of faith in Allah as the one god is encountered in a more popular form, for example, in the stories of The Thousand and One Nights: “There is no god except Allah alone, he has no companions, to him belongs the power and he is to be praised, he gives life and death and he is mighty over all things.” In only one respect has the uncompromising monotheism of Islam shown itself to be vulnerable; i.e., in the doctrine of the Qur'an as uncreated and coeval with Allah himself.

From the encyclopedia britannica online. I thought I would copy the entire section for those without access, I think this is ok. Drogo Underburrow 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's looking at it from an Islamic POV. But the definition of monotheism is relative to the belief of the person. So whoever believes there is one God is by definition monotheistic. In this case (an article on Christianity), Christians believe there is only God (even if they're not right about the Trinity) and are thus by definition monotheistic. —Aiden 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I will post later this week (unless someone does it before then) why this "argument from definition" does not work --JimWae 20:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem in a nutshell and I'm sorry if the Christian editors think I am just repeating myself in the face of their repeated refutations or trying to make a point. In actual fact I think we are talking past each other in a way that Archie will recognise. I understand completely what is being said about Christians believing in one God and therefore being monotheistic and I also understand Christians define God within the concept of the Trinity. The problem is that the Christian definition of monotheistic is different in that they define the single God they believe in as three-in-one with each one being whole (the 1+1+1=1 that Gio referred to). The Jewish and Islamic Gods are not defined this way - they are one single entity so there is no debate anywhere over whether they are monotheistic. However there is a debate particularly in the Islamic community about whether the Christian definition of monotheism is valid - a lot of them view it as tritheism as the quotes we have found show. The real question is how we reflect this world perspective in the article in a NPOV way. I appeal to the Christian editors to AGF - I really am not trying to attack their belief system as it really matters nothing to me if they believe in one God or 10. In fact if you are not part of a belief system that has demonized polythestic religions as pagan and therefore primitive/evil you don't see it as any sort of insult to be polytheistic nor do you acknowledge monotheism as somehow superior. Sophia 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said earlier to JimWae, it's better to say 1*1*1=1, or ∞ & ∞ & ∞ = ∞. At the very least, it's better math. However, I do agree that we are talking past each other. Perhaps it's time to move on to other things? We have been talking in circles. Remember that a circle is endless…until you step outside. (No spheres, please, Homestarmy!) Monotheistic or not, it's getting monotonous. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusing a physicist of bad math! You never have taken me up on my offer to "prove" 2=1 (can't manage 3=1 I'm afraid). A break may be a good idea while we all think about how to tackle this. I would suggest in the meantime the article reflect the long term consensus with "monotheistic" in the opening line and it be left alone for a short while. Sophia 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were a binitarian I'd take you up on your offer; but since I believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit, it seems we'd be One short. Also, you know how much I hate binary thinking ;) BTW, I told Jim62sch about the issues du jour. I asked him "Is Christianity monotheism or tritheism?" His answer: "Both." Check our talk pages for more. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but does merely being different than Judaism and Islam make a religion non-monotheistic? Homestarmy 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you believe a human is afflicted with multiple-personality disorder, does that mean you believe they are actually more than one human being? Does three personalities subsisting in a single human mean 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? No, rather: H = {p1, p2, p3}. Three positionally distinct and identifiable members in one set entity. The Trinity is similar, except that all of the "personalities" are manifest at the same time and are conscious of each other. » MonkeeSage « 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of problem with describing God as mentally ill. Anyway, now we've applied arithmetic and set theory. Shall we try geometry as well? Not that it matters. I just think we should stick to English and not go all Humpty Dumpty over our words. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with calling God mentally ill. I don't think God can get off so easy for his massive crimes against humanity, and genocide on an insanity defense.Giovanni33 07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a new take on the "lord liar or lunatic" argument. Sophia 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I think the illness aspect of MPD comes from the disassociation of the personalities from the central psyche, not the from fact of multiplicity; but in any case the Trinity is not MPD. I think the analogy is helpful though, to those who can't seem to grasp the concept of a distinction between "person" and "being", since no one says that a human with MPD is no longer an individual being. We could always use a geometric analogy. . .how about an equilateral triangle: three equal sides and three equal angles (60^o), but only one shape. ;) » MonkeeSage « 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why I linked the word "geometry" to the article on the Shield. The image is public domain, so I may as well include it (pardon the Latin):

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To use the analogy in a different way: there is one idea of shape, and another idea of attributes which belong to shapes. Muslims, Jews and Nontrinitarian Christians hold that there is only one shape whose attributes are "a point moving along a fixed direction and the reverse direction", and which they call "Line". Trinitarian Christians hold that there is only one shape also, but they say its attributes are "three points connected by lines", which they call "Triangle". Thus both are mono-shapists, but they disagree about the attributes of the one shape. Taking "Line" and building on it, doesn't produce more than one shape, only a single different shape. » MonkeeSage « 06:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Differences between Catholicism and Protestants

Although Catholics and Protestants believe in the Son of God (Jesus) redeeming mankind, this would have to be one of the only primary beliefs shared by the two. I believe there should be a very clear distinction between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believe in the virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. They believe that she guides people on the right path, whether appearing in dreams, visions or the like - Protestants oppose this. They experience stigmata, (the supernatural bleeding of hands and feet) - something that Protestants oppose. Catholics also believe that they need to repent to a priest for their sins, that there will be a necessary spiritual cleansing in Purgatory before reaching heaven, they pray to Mary, and they pray to saints. Protestants oppose this. Protestants believe that because Jesus died for our sins,they believe they don't need to go to Purgatory (they are already forgiven when they repent) therefore they don't need to repent to a priest (only to Jesus), they do not believe that Mary can help them, neither can the "saints" because they were ordinary people and they believe don't have the ability to come back to earth to help (God is there to help, not saints or Mary). There are many, many more huge distinctions between the two beliefs. I think that from the very beginning of this article, there should be a very clear and accurate passage stating the major differences between Catholicism and Protestants - (eg. Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans... and so on). Catholicism is much more seperate than any other demoninations. If you would like me to do a lot of research on the differences between Catholocism and Protestans, I would be happy to. Thanks for your time.

Historian Joshua 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Historian Joshua

Why? WHY???

Why is it that simple improvements get reverted over a wording quible? Why does everything have to be pulling teeth?

I'm putting the pictures back. Watch, they'll be taken out again. A.J.A. 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverting your basic improvements because they don't like a single section? [1] Poor you - you have my sympathy. Sophia 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to reverting basic improvements because you thought they were too big [2]. A.J.A. 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Touché! Sophia 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, not getting one's way here? I am sypathetic to your position. Welcome to the big leagues. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did get my way. A.J.A. 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

However he's now on an involuntary community break for 24 hours [3]. Sophia 08:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

monotheism

I'm finding this conversation absolutely ridiculous.

As far as I can tell the definitions are being applied this.

Person X is a monotheist if they believe in one god.
Belief in one god is defined in any way that person X chooses it to be defined.
So effectively this is reduced to: Person X is a monotheist if they claim to believe in one god regardless of what they actually believe.

Several times I've brought up the example that under this definition Zeus worshippers and Hindus are monotheistic. No one is refuting it since after all it agrees with the OED. OK so I typed at command prompt on my mac say "I believe in one god" and wow my laptop now is a monotheist! And if you object to this tell me how it is any different than the arguments above? What is true of the definition being applied that isn't true of my laptop? I asked before and I didn't get an answer. If we are going to define monotheism this weakly then why mention it at all? Why is it not like "Christianity is a religion practiced exclusively by mammals"? jbolden1517 ^Talk 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell the difference between a computer and a person? A.J.A. 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Person X, its about Christianity, there's more than one Christian out there i'd think. And belief in one God is belief in one God, its defined exactly like that, branches and off-shoots of that don't necessarily count as non-monotheistic :/. Besides, who said that Zeus worshippers aren't monotheistic? If they truly do believe in one God then they were monotheistic, but I was under the impression many Greeks believed in multiple ones. Homestarmy 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No its not simply defined as belief in one god, because we have lots of good sources that essentially argue that they misunderstand what it means to believe in one god so badly that they are capable of thinking they believe in one god without actually doing so. This has been countered by saying they claim to believe in one god and that's all that's important. See above.

As for the Hellenists believed that all the gods were emanations of various pantheistic forces. But a good Hellenist could say that he believed that there was "really only one god" in some abstract sense which had no bearing on his practice of worship. And like I said if that's good enough then the term is meaningless (as defined in this article). jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources saying that they "mis-understand what it means" comes pretty much from the perspective of "It means believing in our definition of God only", hardly a unique trait. And if Hellenists actually say that they believe in one God, then they are monotheists. But if they don't, and are pretty clear that they believe in multiple gods, then they are polytheists. If there are semantical issues in Hellenism over this, then this should probably be specified somewhere else in their article. But going back to Christianity, this is the introductory sentence we're talking about, the definitions of words are not supposed to be complicated here, that's why there's a section in the article specifying exactly how Christianity is monotheistic and gives all the little details. Homestarmy 23:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote an old post That say Zeus, and Athena and Hera and Mars were all aspects of the underlying divinity. They were worshipped separately had separate rituals, had separate priesthoods had seperate moral codes had separate opinions... but underneath it all they were just aspects of the same divinity. Under your definition such a person is a monotheist and your answer seems to "yes they are". OK then

Why isn't my laptop a monotheist?

Why bother mentioning it at all since everyone qualifies anyway? jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your laptop is not a monotheist because it doesn't have a mind. Invent artificial inteligence, and perhaps your laptop will become a monotheist. ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your laptop is not a monotheist because it has no ability to have a belief system, it doesn't have a brain, it can't very well believe in much of anything. A religion which believes in multiple deities is polytheistic, and I find it highly unlikely that in the large diversity of hellenistic philosophy that every single hellenist was monotheistic and believed that all the greek Gods were really one, i've never seen such a thing in any history book at all anyway, im just giving you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, now one may think "Aha, Homes has committed a fatal mistake, SURELY some Christians may think that the trinity are compleatly separate Gods? " Well by all means, find them then. Mormons aren't it apparently because we've got a source from them explaining how and why they aren't, and clearly indicating that they believe in one God and one God only in some manner. So I don't know where you'd start looking. Homestarmy 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote some articles on wikipedia Monotheism#Comparison_to_polytheism_and_dualism, Soft polytheism, or getting weaker Henotheism, Monolatrism, Kathenotheism. jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 said that a definition being applied was "Person X is a monotheist if they believe in one god." As I have said, again and again, the definition is the belief that there is one God, not belief in on God. "Believe in" carries a stronger meaning than "believe that there is", as it can (though doesn't have to) imply a certain amount of faith and trust, which goes far beyond the simple "believe in the existence of". The Nicene Creed has "I believe in" when the object of the belief is the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. But for other Christian beliefs (Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, baptism, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting), it doens't use "in".

Oh well, if I go to bed now, will I find when I wake up, that the debate carried on throughout the night as to whether Christians truly worship one God in their practice? AnnH ♫ 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, I got definition switched? Ah well..... Homestarmy 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To to expand upon Jbolden's comments, henotheism is the belief that a pantheon of gods exist, but one worships only one among them; this is found in Hinduism today (it sure sounds like ancient Roman and Greek religious constructs). Modalism is the strict belief in one god; it is nontrinitarian. There was no three distinct persons in the Trinity, just God the Father. It is a bit complicated after that. Some might remember Sabellian who proffered this concept strongly. Monotheism is obviously more complicated than we may have thought. I do believe that we are so ingrained to believe that all Christians are monotheists that it is difficult to conceive of any other term applying to our personal beliefs than monotheism. Regardless, I am ready to see this ended. Are Christians monotheists? Yes, most definitely. Do other labels apply? Yes, it just depends on the person and the church discussed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Most version of Hinduism are actually monotheistic, rather than henotheistic, as all of the deities (as well as the universe and humans) are seen as expressions of the ultimate reality ("all is Brahman "), which is absolutely one. The diversity we perceive in anything is illusory (see Maya (Hinduism), Maya (illusion)), and to overcome it is salvation and realization of the absolute unity of all. The Greek pantheon, as the name implies (πᾶν = "all", Θεὸν = "deity"), was henotheistic. Like Modalism, the Trinitarianism is also monotheistic, it just has all of the persons manifest at the same time, rather than a single person taking on different roles at different times. » MonkeeSage « 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer jbolden's original comment: It is absolutely ridiculous, or at the very least absurdist. There seem to be two factions with two different operational definitions of "monotheism." To wit:

Belief that there is only one God.
Belief in the absolute unity of God, who is the only God.

Now, has been noted, the second faction is debating not only other editors, but with dictionaries both English and Greek. The first faction is using the English language, as described by various dictionaries. The second faction has gone Through the Looking Glass and joined up with Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

No one is disputing that the Trinity is unique among Abrahamic monotheisitic relgions. There is no reason not to say so in the article. Does that mean that Christianity is not monotheistic? No, because the word "monotheism" has a more general meaning, the first definition given above. There are other, perfectly good English words that have the second definition, which is after all a subset of the first definition. Of course, if the second faction wishes to join Alice on her adventures, they are free to do so; just don't confuse Humpty Dumpty language with English. Remember, too, that all the King's horses and all the King's men are waiting for you to fall. On this side of the glass, "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," and monotheism ("mono" one + "theos" god) simply means "Belief that there is only one God." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep your side is defending greek polytheism / Zeus worship, Wicca and Hinduism as monotheistic and our side is twisting language? The OED misdefines many math terms and English language mathematicians have no problems saying that the OED describes common usage of words not technical meanings of words. jbolden1517 ^Talk 04:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

jbolden1517: Please list the various ontologically separate gods who are allegedly worshipped by Christians. » MonkeeSage « 04:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I myself never said anything about the Greek pantheon or Hinduism. I don't think anybody said anything about Wicca until jbolden brought it up. It seems that different groups of Wiccans are either ditheist, monotheist or polytheist by their own profession: either two gods (Gaea and the horned god), one god (Dryghten) or many gods (the Celtic pantheon). "They may also be animists, pantheists, or indeed anywhere within the broad spectrum of Neopagan forms of worship." So, it depends on which Wiccans you are talking about.

Again, such professions are the only aspect of any belief that's empirically testable. You can't read my mind and say that my concept of God is really three gods, or whatever). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is part of why sociologists of religion focus on the practice of religion -- of which the recitation of creeds is only one tiny part. Religion has vast social and experiential importance, but the details of a creed are chiefly of interest to theologians. (Consider how difficult it would be to explain to today's Christians the homoousion/homoiousion controversy of antiquity -- while issues of practice, such as whether to use rock music in services, or whether women may be ordained, are much more apt to excite people's interest.)

This isn't to say that the intricacies of religious belief are unimportant -- merely that because they are more subjective and more esoteric, they are always going to give rise to unsettleable controversies such as this one. By subjective I mean that Hasan and Wei-hua can always bicker about whether Sebastian and Mary believe x or y, and insist that Sebastian and Mary are wrong in their statements about what they believe. (As we have seen, all manner of people seem to be willing to tell Christians that they are wrong about what they claim that they, as Christians, believe.) By esoteric I mean that to most adherents, points of doctrine are usually something to memorize and recite rather than something to understand in great depth and historicity. People are taught, "We are good because we believe in a Trinity" or "We are good because we don't believe in the Trinity", and they are taught to recite prayers in one form or another; but in practice these are chiefly formulas.

So it seems to me that it is much more favorable to Wikipedia's purpose to let believers' claims of what they believe stand ... and to spend our time and energy working out good explanations of what believers do; that is, what is entailed in religious practice. --FOo 05:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, some sanity. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that is exactly what editors like myself want: "let believers claims of what they believe stand." No one knows what they believe. We only know what they say they believe. So, we can only say the fact: they claim to be monothesistic. That is factual. Saying they are in fact monotheistic is making the further claim that they are correct about their claims. That is not allowed (and we don't know that---its a POV). To do that would be to take sides and say all others who disagre are wrong. Again, not allowed. So, indeed, let believers' claims of what they believe stand as claims--not declared truth.Giovanni33 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As Jews, Samaritans, Muslims, Bahaists, and Zoroastrians also claim to be monotheistic. Any monotheistic religion is defined by the claim to be monotheistic. By your standard, there are no monotheists, only those who claim to be. By the very same standard, there are no atheists, only those who claim to be. POV works both ways. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if atheist said they are without a belief in God (a-theisit), but then worshiped some supernatural beings that look and act just like people would think of as a God, then I'm sure others would look at this and say, "no, they are still theists, since they worship these other god-like creatures while denying that they are gods, hence they are a form of theism not atheism." If such a POV existed about this hypothetical "atheist" groupd, would it be correct for Wikipedia to take sides and label this group as "Athesist," or simply report that adherents claim not to hold belief in God? I say the latter.Giovanni33 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Supernatural beings like the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Sure, they say it's a joke, but maybe they secretly believe? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Islam, as the article in Encyclopedia Britannica attests, Christians believe in three gods. Therefore, whether Christianity is monotheistic or not, is disputed. In matters that are disputed, Wikipedia articles cannot pick who is right. Therefore, it is wrong to state as a fact that Christians believe in one God. What they believe is a matter of who you ask, and should be presented as such in the article. Monotheism is indeed defined by the dictionary as believing in one God; whether Christians do believe this is disputed, with the core tenet of Islam saying that they do not believe this. Drogo Underburrow 07:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And I have cited other sources that say that other Muslims believe that Christians worship one divided god (not three gods), and mistakenly associate Jesus with one of the divisions. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, this statment can only support "some Muslims believe" - and even so it'd be better off more directly sourced. Unspecified Muslims are not reliable sources for Christianity.

We've still yet to see a reputable scholarly source, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, flatly state that Christianity is not monotheistic, which is what is needed to justify a hedge.Timothy Usher 07:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I provided a scholarly source that articulated an argument that exists which purports Christianity as a form of polytheism akin to other religions labeled as such. There is a grey area in what kind of believes deserve the label "monothesism," so in the case of disagreement we can not takes sides but only characterize the claim as a claim, which means providing attribution.Giovanni33 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, you also confused polytheism with a form of exclusive monotheism: that while there is only one God, there also exist lesser spiritual beings (angels, demons, daevas, djinn, &c) which are expressly not gods. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But they are not human, either. So what are they? If they are supernatural creatures who can preform miracles, then why are they not demi-gods? A rose is still a rose by any other name, no? It smells and looks the same. Giovanni33 08:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Category error. A rose is a rose but a rose is not a tulip. You can't say that all supernatural creatures are gods, any more than you can say all natural creatures are humans. My pet cat is not a human being, even though that cat is indeed a natural creatue. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I indicated last night before I went to bed, I knew that when I got up, I'd find that people had shifted from the dictionary definition "the belief that there is one God" to something like "the worship of one God" or "the belief in one God", and would have completely ignored the distinction.

Let's look at it this way — many pro-life people say that pro-choice people "know deep down" that abortion is the murder of a baby. It would be very easy to find a published source for that. Would the people in favour of the "supposedly, so-called, self-styled monotheistic" wording find it appropriate to go to the pro-choice and abortion debate articles and mess around with the wording on what pro-choice people "believe"? I think not. AnnH ♫ 07:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The simple solution would the be same as is required here. We would report only what they claimed to believe. We would state it as a belief they held. That would be clear. We would not state it as a fact that they were infact "pro-life' or the other labels, "pro-birth" ,"anti-choice," "anti-women reproductive freedom," etc. There are many POV's that come with a label. We can not choose the label that is correct when there is disagreement over it applicability. What we can do is report who claims what. Christians claim adherence to a doctrine of monothesism, and hence assert belief in one true God. This is pefectly ok to state as a fact as it does not take sides but reports what they claim. That they claim it is a fact we can establish. We can never establish what people think and interpret their beliefs in only one way out of many ways and state that one way (what they claim) as the correct way (taking sides by reporting their stance as a fact--not as a stance they claim).

Your exmaple of using words like "supposedly, so-called, self-sytled" is not what anyone is proposing (straw man fallacy). Those words are "weasle words" which appear to be netural but really take a side. But the other exteme is taking a side saying that their claims is true and a matter of fact (when others disagree) Both extreme are not allowed under the NPOV guidelines.Giovanni33 07:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I know that you really believe that "Both extreme [sic] are not allowed under the NPOV guidelines?" I can only say that you claim to believe it. Perhaps you really agree with Ann, but only believe that you disagree. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't know for certain however my claim that I made has a non-stated premise (that I claim this belief), as its clear that its my POV. Infact, that I write it here is evidence that I alone claim it (as I sign it with my name). Note I am not making a statement about someone else's belief as a statmetn of fact. You are correct to say, "Gio claims that this is not allowed under the NPOV guildelines." Yes, I do. But, because I claim it does not make it a fact. Even if you did not say, "Gio claims..." it would still be clear that this is only a claim, a POV since you are talking about Gio's belief. When we say "Chirstianity is monotheisitc" we are making the claim in the article of fact, of a truth of the POV, since in this way we are reporting it as an objective fact of the religion. This is different than quoting a Christian claiming the fact. Giovanni33 08:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is beside the point. Monotheism is the belief or doctrine that there is only one God. Belief aside, Christianity is monotheistic by doctrine. That is an objective fact of the religion: just look at the doctrine. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not besides the point, its part of the point. You can not say "beliefs aside," since that is part of the definition: what are the beliefs of Christianity? According to some POV's they do believe in more than one god since they view and characterize Christian belief as belief in more than one God. Is their POV wrong? That does not matter, since its a POV. There is no wrong or right in these matters of belief, they are just different interpretations based on semantics and how one understands the body of beliefs that is Christianity. How Christians view of themselves is notewothy and should be central, but not the last word. Nor, more importantly what they say should not be stated as necessarily the truth. Its just their POV, and therefore should be reported as their POV. Otherwise we are taking sides.Giovanni33 08:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition is "belief or doctrine," not "belief and doctrine." With "or" you need only one, not both. Anyway, a doctrine is simply a statement of belief. Christian doctrine is that there is only one God, ergo Christianity is monotheistic. This is true regardless of your POV, my POV, or Papa Smurf's POV about that doctrine: the doctrine exists, objectively. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, ask: but would we be likely to find any reputable scholarly source - say, an acknowledged expert on the abortion debate - flatly stating that pro-choicers know "deep down" etc.?Timothy Usher 07:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we reading minds again? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

An acknowledged expert on the abortion debate? If by that, you mean a scholar who studies the debate but isn't actively involved, then no. You'd get many pro-life people, including very prominent ones, saying it — people like Fr Frank Pavone. But with regard to the Christians worship many Gods argument, you won't get a scholarly source that says that. You'll get some Moslems (who, like pro-lifers, have their own agenda) saying it. And Moslems are no more experts on what Christians believe than Fr Pavone is on what pro-choicers believe. But in any case, as I have said again and again, the question is not about how Christians are perceived to worship God. The question is whether or not Christians believe that there is one God. Every time I bring this up, someone just goes back to the old argument about Christians worshipping the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and how that kind of worship couldn't be monotheistic, and completely ignores the question of whether or not Christians believe that there is one God. At most, we have a few examples of Moslems denying that the Trinity could be One God. We don't have any sourced examples of people denying that Christians believe that there is one God. And it seems that the only people who want to deny that they belive that are two editors on this page who say that we can't know what they really believe. It's highly ironic that those same two editors inserted into the Hitler article that Hitler "received the sacraments devoutly" as a child, and that as an adult he "felt he was still a Catholic even if he didn't go to Mass." So we can know the inner mind and disposition of Adolf Hitler, but we can't know whether or not Christians actually believe in seventeen and a half gods while pretending to believe in one? AnnH ♫ 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine and belief

Let's look at the Oxford definition again:

Monotheism — The doctrine or belief that there is only one God (as opposed to many, as in polytheism)

We can debate the nature of belief until protons decay and never make any progress on the article, since we cannot read minds. But look at the other side of the definition: is it Christian doctrine that there is only one God? Absolutely. That, by definition, is monotheism. Chrisitianity teaches the doctrine that there is only one God. Therefore, Christianity is a form of monotheism. Therefore, Christianity is monotheistic.

If anyone doubts this statement, I can easily show you the doctrine. Remember, too, that the definition is "doctrine or belief," not "doctrine and belief." The long debates over the nature of belief are essentially meaningless. Christianity is monotheism by doctrine. That is sufficient.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True, the dictionary defines it as, "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God." If it was only the doctrine that there is one God, then the question would be easy to answer, however the word means, also, --Giovanni33

"It's "doctrine or belief," not "doctrine, also belief." This is where your argument breaks down. Doctrine alone satisfies "doctrine or belief." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

an objective belief in only one God. --Giovanni33

"Objective belief" is an oxymoron. Belief is subjective. What is objective is that the doctrine exists, the doctrine is taught by Christianity, and therefore Christianity is monotheistic. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The question, therefore is a question of describing and interpreting what Christians believe in totality, based on what they say they believe. This must include not only what Christians say about the issue, but others, too. Do all outside observers agree that its an accurate description of the beleifs? Does anyone else look at these self-professed believes in their totality, as a body of religious beliefs, and conclude that depite what Christians say, they do in practice worship and believe in more than one supernatural entity, and hence are really a form of polytheisism (polytheism in denial)? In that case its a matter of being monotheisitic in name only---or just a matter of POV/interpretation. It is is just what they claim, therefore, the language should be, "regarded by...', or "according to...". When many people look at the many God-like creatures that Christians worship, its clear there are more than one god, however one tries to tie them all together in one. Its a matter of interpretation, of POV. I agree its regarded by most as monotheistic, and self-defined as such, but I do acknowledge is not a universal POV, and other POV's assert that its a form of polytheism, as the source I gave earlier in the Oxford Journal of Theology stated. The real point is: Is there another POV that interprets the self-professed beliefs of the religion in a way that allows them to conclude that its not monotheisitc? The answer is yes. Therefore, we should not take sides but have language to reflect that its not a fact but a POV, hence: "widely regarded," "self-defined," "held to be by adherents," etc There are many wordings. Something as simple as "Christians hold to the doctrine of monothesism," an assertion of belief in one god." Giovanni33 08:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is all meaningless because you've confused "or" with "also." Christians hold to the doctrine of monotheism, ergo Christians are monotheistic. The definition is "doctrine or belief," not "doctrine, also belief."Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism—of a three-god belief. - the Encyclopedia Britannica

The EB is a reputable, scholarly source. If this is not accepted as a case of a source stating that according to Muslim belief Christianity is not monotheistic, then I'm afraid that people simply refuse to see what they do not want to see. It is quite clear that there is a religious dispute here, and that stating the Christian version, that Christianity IS monotheistic, (as opposed to the Muslim version, that Christianity is tritheistic) as fact is unacceptable on Wikipedia, not even in an article about Christianity. There is a dispute here, and its disgraceful how editors deny that anything is being disputed, and that therefore the article is not required to adhere to NPOV and state: Christians assert that Christianity is monotheistic. Drogo Underburrow 08:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All of which means nothing more than that Christianity is not Islam. Also, Christian doctrine is what makes Christianity monothestic, just as Islamic doctrine is what makes Islam monothestic. This is true regardless of what Christians or Muslims or anyone else assert. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And pro-choice people assert that pro-choice people believe that abortion should be legal. And feminists assert that feminists believe that women should be allowed to vote. But — Hitler "felt he was still a Catholic."[4] Drogo, since you declined to explain on the Hitler talk page how stating as a fact what Hitler believed could be justified, perhaps you might like to explain here why it's okay to state as a fact what Hitler believed but "disgraceful" to state what Christians believe? AnnH ♫ 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Its perfectly fine to report what people believe, which can be stated as a fact--as long as its a claim of their belief that is stated as a fact. Thus, we report what Hitler claimed, (and that is the language that is used). But by the same token we must attribute the lable of "monothesism" to those who claim it and not state that belief as a fact that is true, objective, and correct. This is the big difference. To simply say "Christianity is monotheistic" is the latter, to state "Christianity is considers itself monotheistic" is the former.Giovanni33 09:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not Christianity claming that it is monotheistic; rather, it is Christianity claiming that there is only one God. Christianity is monotheistic by definition because it is a Christian doctrine that there is only one God. This is true, objective, and correct regardless of how anyone considers Christianity. Remember, the definition is not "also," the definition is "or." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, Giovanni, Drogo did not insert that Hitler stated he was still a Catholic, or that a particular writer says that Hitler felt he was still a Catholic. He inserted, as a fact without qualification, that Hitler "felt" he was still a Catholic. Check the diff again. He even inserted that Hitler "maintained to the end of his life that he was a Catholic", and ignored my request for an example of Hitler maintaining that towards the end of his life. And what about your completely unsourced, POV, original-research insertion of "Hitler received the sacraments devoutly" as a child? How can you justify that while protesting about the simple fact that since Christianity teaches that there is one God, it is by definition monotheistic? (By the way, people are still twisting the "belief that there is one God" definition into "belief in one God".) Of course, Hitler arguments would be a bit off topic here, if they didn't show that the same editors will insist on policy (their interpretation of it) when they it serves their purpose and ignore it when it doesn't. AnnH ♫ 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, all this means is that we are all only human and prone to make errors. We also all have our own bias. I think we should assume good faith and not interpret this simply as editors conciously using policy only when it serves their POV. In anycase, this making a point is not helpful here but distracts from the article.Giovanni33 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So assume good faith. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, what you say is not true, but I'm not going to discuss what should be discussed on the Hitler talk page here, nor am I going to reply to your ad hominem arguments. Muslims believe, according to the EB that Christianity is not monotheistic, but tritheistic, therefore it is not a fact that Christianity is monotheistic, but a matter under dispute. Therefore this article is guilty of taking a matter under dispute and asserting it as fact when it says "Christianity is a monotheistic religion...." Drogo Underburrow 09:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you say it should be discussed at the Hitler talk page. My understanding was that you refused. AnnH ♫ 10:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo: "The EB is a reputable, scholarly source. If this is not accepted as a case of a source stating that according to Muslim belief Christianity is not monotheistic, then I'm afraid that people simply refuse to see what they do not want to see." - yes, it is a reputable source. But what does it say? It says Muslims believe so-and-so. So (although I am quite certain this is a misrepresentation of the most learned Muslim belief) it can be cited as a source for Muslim belief, as in the controversies section.

What it doesn't say is that Christianity isn't monotheistic. It says that a generic third party doesn't believe it to be. And what you need to meet WP:V isn't a source that says someone else believes it's not - as that doesn't establish that second-hand someone as a reliable source, even when the reporting source (EB) is - but a reputable source that says so itself. Compare the pro sources - they don't say, so-and-so believes Christianity to be monotheistic, but rather, on their own authority that it is monotheistic.Timothy Usher 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll say again that the definition of monotheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God (as opposed to many, as in polytheism)." Notice it's "doctrine or belief," not "doctrine, also belief" as Giovanni took it. The word "also" never appears in the definition.

There are two kinds of "or." Exclusive or is satistified by either of the following:

Doctine, not belief
Belief, not doctrine

Inclusive or is satisified by any of the following:

Doctrine, not belief
Belief, not doctrine
Both doctrine and belief.

It can be the last one, but it doesn't have to be. By either definition, doctrine is enough to satisfy "doctrine or belief." What makes any religion monothestic—whether that religion is Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai, Zoroastrianism or any other—is the doctrine that there is only one God. We cannot read beliefs, which exist in the mind. We can read doctrines. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this for those who want to qualify the statement that Christianity is monotheistic. Let's also qualify the same phrase in Islam, on these grounds: many Christians claim that Islam worships the wrong God (very easy to document) and that there is only one true God, the Trinity (also very easy to document) — that means Islam is atheistic; only one God, they don't believe in that God, therefore they are atheistic. Short of qualifying the phrase in that article based on Christian belief, I remain adamantly against qualifying the expression here based on the alleged Muslim belief. » MonkeeSage « 11:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We're digressing here (or we were, before edit conflict)

Let's get back to Giovanni's point. I have a few questions for him:

As I mentioned above, the article on Islam describes the religion, without qualification, in the introduction as monotheistic. Do you believe that this phrasing should be changed?
If no, and if, as I take it from what you have already written, your objection is on the basis that "some people" dispute Christianity's description as monotheistic, what/where is that source (and no, I'm not paying attention to Brittanica here, since I believe that's an indadequate, secondary attribution)? Going on from this, how should this source be used in reformulating the introduction?
Finally, how then do we resolve the dichotomy that we now put an introductory hedge into the article on Christianity but not on e.g. Sikhism? Slac speak up! 10:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All good points. As I've been saying, religions are defined by their doctrines. The doctrine that there is only one God is enough to define any religion as monotheistic, by definition. Despite Giovanni's gambit, the word "also" does not appear in the definition, which is "doctrine or belief." We've been led into a rhetorical trap by debating beliefs, which we cannot verify without telepathy. We can, however, easily read a doctrine that has been printed in English.

Re:Islam and Sikhism. Careful. I made much the same point earlier, only I referred to Zoroastrianism rather than Sikhism. Some people misunderstood this as an invitation to attack Zoroastrianism. Why the hedge on Christianity and not those other religions? It's simply an asymmetric controversy, made even more asymmetric by invoking hypothetical Muslims. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whistle Everybody out ot the Pool!

Folks, all of this is beside the point. What do the sources say?

Second, this is a passionate discussion because, for Christians, monotheism is a central doctrine, upom which Christians base much of their doctrine. If you question that, you are challenging their faith. Consider how Muslims would feel if the critique of some Christians that Sufis are panthesist or that the observation that the Angel of the Lord speaks as if he were God in Exodus 3 makes them bitheists.

I'm not sure why this is a big deal for non-Christians, however, but it must be for some reason, or we would not have this debate. I don't understand why they care what Christians believe.

So, back to what we have. We have several sources that point blank call Christianity monotheistic, one that says some Muslims question this. How do we do this, practically speaking? Can we start with new proposals to these facts on the ground? --CTSWyneken 11:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Say that some Muslims question this, cite it and put it into the Christianity#Controversies section. I've already done this myself. We can also say something in the article about how the Christian, and especially Trinitarian Christian, concept of God differs from that of other monotheistic and Abrahamic religions. I doubt anyone disagrees with this. The real dispute is whether or not to refer to Christianity as monotheistic in the intro. I see no reason not to, especially since Christianity meets the dictionary definition of monotheism: its doctrine is that there is only one God. Obviously, others disagree. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We have two sides. Therefore, its very clear that we use NPOV language to describe that Christians think Christianity is monotheistic while Muslims think its tritheistic. There's no need to state in the introduction that Christianity is monotheistic, so simply leave that word out. In the body of the article, describe the doctrine of the Trinity and how Christians believe that makes their religion monotheistic, and how Muslims believe that Christians profess monotheism but actually believe in three gods. It is really simple. Drogo Underburrow 12:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that not all Muslims think that it's tritheistic. Some Muslims would say (as I have cited) that "Tritheism" is a Christian or secular misunderstanding of Muslims' real objection: that God is not divided and that Jesus is not God. Has anybody else even read A Concise Reply to Christianity? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Drogo, we have two sides: the Oxford English Dictionary side, which says that monotheism is the belief or doctrine that there is one God (regardless of how that belief is shown by the form of worship) and the Humpty Dumpty side, which says that monotheism can mean whatever we want it to mean. Personally, I'd rather go for the dictionary definition. AnnH ♫ 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If we take monotheism out of the intro here, be sure we remove it in Islam as well, so we don't appear to favor any group. But since it is a defining doctrine of both systems, it should probably be in the intro to both. » MonkeeSage « 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really appalled at the rhetoric being used here. I will repeat for those who may not see it in the mass of verbiage on this page:

According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism—of a three-god belief. - from the Encyclopedia Britannica

So AnnH, you called Islamic doctrine "the Humpty-Dumpty" side? You called the Encyclopedia Britannica "the Humpty-Dumpty" side? How interesting.

Now, on the issue of having the word "monotheism" in the intro, there is no special reason to have it there. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not have the word in the intro to its article. Here is the intro from the EB article:

Christianity - major religion, stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God) in the 1st century AD. It has become the largest of the world's religions. Geographically the most widely diffused of all faiths, it has a constituency of some 2 billion believers. Its largest groups are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Protestant churches; in addition to these churches there are several independent churches of Eastern Christianity as well as numerous sects throughout the world. See also Eastern Orthodoxy; Roman Catholicism; and Protestantism.

This article first considers the nature and development of the Christian religion, its ideas, and its institutions. This is followed by an examination of several intellectual manifestations of Christianity. Finally, the position of Christianity in the world, the relations among its divisions and denominations, its missionary outreach to other peoples, and its relations with other world religions are discussed. For supporting material on various topics, see biblical literature; doctrine and dogma; Jesus Christ; sacred; worship; prayer; creed; sacrament; religious dress; monasticism; and priesthood.

No one is saying that all Muslims believe anything. But we have an authoritative source that says what Muslim doctrine is; and it is very clear that we are discussing a central doctrine of that religion. We can either change the intro to make it clear who is speaking, or we can eliminate the word "monotheism" from the intro. But it is a NPOV violation to state the Christian version of things as a fact in the intro. Drogo Underburrow 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Drogo, I most certainly did not call Islamic doctrine "the Humpty Dumpty" side? The Second Vatican Council stressed the respect the Catholic Church has for Islam. We woship the same God. The "Humpty Dumpty side" is not the side that follows Allah, or the side that follows Jesus. The Humpty Dumpty side is the side that tries to make an English word — in this case "monotheism" — mean just what it wants it to mean. I have no doubt that many Moslems, many Christians, and many atheists are guilty of Humpty Dumpty-ism on occasion, but certainly I wouldn't dream of calling Islamic doctrine "the Humpty Dumpty side". And I didn't call Britannica the "Humpty Dumpty side" either. Britannica is not trying to redefine the word "monotheism" to make it mean something different. Britannica just points out that Moslems reject the idea that the Trinity could be One God. Britannica does not say that Moslems deny that Christians believe that there is one God. Nor does it deny that monotheism means the belief that there is one God.

Additionally, what Moslems believe about what Christians believe is not part of Islamic doctrine. Catholic doctrine includes many things, like the Real Presence, the Oneness of God, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc., but whether or not Catholics think Moslems are allowed to eat pork is not a Catholic doctrine. Fundamentalist Protestants believe in the Virgin Birth, the redemptive nature of the Crucifixion, the impossibility of losing salvation once you have accepted Christ, etc., but if they think that Catholics think Mary didn't need a Saviour, that's not part of their doctrine. The doctrines of a religion are about what that religion believes, not about what that religion believes that other religions believe. AnnH ♫ 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I don't know if you are just not following the discussion or you don't understand: Stating Christianity is monotheistic is not establishing ANYTHING as fact except the belief of Christians. The definition of monotheism is simply the dogma or belief that there exists one God. Saying "Christianity is monotheistic" simply states "Christians believe there is one God." This is not even disputable (see the monotheism section.) Now, if Christians BELIEVE there is one God, they are by definition monotheistic. This does not establish anything as fact. It doesn't attempt to prove there is a God nor does it attempt to prove that the Trinity is even logically sound. No, it just states that Christians believe there exists one God. We are simply describing a belief, just like we describe the Christian belief in Jesus, nothing more. —Aiden 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you are the one that isn't following the discussion, not I. It is Muslim doctrine, according to the EB, that Christians believe in three gods, not one; hence the statement "Christianity is monotheistic" is being challenged, and cannot be stated as fact. It is being disputed what Christians believe. Drogo Underburrow 14:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And if I may add, this is not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and im fairly certain the Muslim objection is in the article already anyway. Does the EB even say which part of "Islamic doctrine" specifically states tritheism anyway? Because there's more than one part, some Muslims follow only the Qu'ran, some follow both it and the Hadiths, there must be some more specific information. Homestarmy 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, again, according to the definition of monotheism: all it takes to be monotheist is for someone to believe there exists one God. Please refer to ANY Christian statement of faith or any Christian for that matter. All will tell you there is one God. Now, of course Islam has a differing opinion over the Trinity, but that has no bearing on what Christians believe (this article is after all about Christians). And since Christians believe they serve one God, or one God exists at all, they are monotheistic. What an outsider believes about their belief has no bearing on the definition. I don't see why you're still repeating the same argument that has been disproven by more dictionaries than I can shake a stick at. —Aiden 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All this is well and good. But let's move to the exit. RUN! HIDE! A V-V-VOTE PROPOSAL! --CTSWyneken 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote on How to Describe the Monontheism in Christianity Issue

How we mention that Christianity is a monotheistic religion in paragraph One?

This "poll" is inherantly biased, stating that the dictionary agrees with one of the choices. It doesn't, but stating that it does makes the poll results invalid. Furthermore, this issue involves NPOV, which is not subject to voting. Editors cannot vote that an article violate NPOV. Drogo Underburrow 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend holding off on this poll until after we get the opinions of some Muslim editors. —Aiden 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all

Not at all If we do, we have to mention both sides. This would be awkward to do. --CTSWyneken 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree per CTSWyneken and other arguments mentioned earlier on this talk page. AvB ÷ talk 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
CTS is so right. Avoid any problems in the intro line and address in the monotheism section. Sophia 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Not at all I prefer the construction that I desctibed below: "Christians believe in one God subsisting in three persons - a form of monotheism called Trinitarianism." By following the links, readers will get a fuller definition. Fishhead64 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"""Not at all. I tire of meeting twisted concepts of NPOV and this is a prime example of being twisted. However, I want to move forward and this does not harm the position of Christianity. BTW, the quid pro quo on this is going to HUGE, Drogo! Storm Rider ^(talk) 1:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Not at all as per above.--Drboisclair 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Not at all - For any X, whether a religion is X or not can be examined separately from what its adherents/leaders profess --JimWae 06:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to dictionary

—Aiden 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-Timothy Usher - this vote is itself a violation of WP policy, as WP:NOR and WP:V cannot not be subject to a vote-count of editors to this page.
Comment: No one is suggesting we violate either policy. Keeping it out favors neither side, offers no new research (in fact, it mimics other encyclopedias which do not mention monotheism in the intros of their articles at all). Keep it in and we cite both positions, which, then, draws from sources that can be verified and thus is not OR. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Britannica does not say Christianity is not monotheistic, but only that "Islamic doctrine" believes it to be. EB is a reliable source for the statment, "Some interpretations (as we've seen other sourced takes on this) of Islamic doctrine hold Chritianity to be tritheistic," as per the current mention in the controversies section. But "Islamic doctrine" - especially secondhand generic Islamic doctrine - is not a reliable source on Christianity, and EB isn't presenting it as such. Not one reliable source thusfar has flatly stated Christianity to be tritheistic, compared to a very large number of sources on the other side (which, no doubt, can quite easily be made larger). To make the leap from "Muslims say that Christianity isn't monotheistic" to "Christianity isn't monotheistic" cannot, then, be premised on the EB cite as per WP:V, but rests instead upon the philosophical speculations presented on this talk page. Yet only by that claim can we acknowledge a legitimate POV controversy such as would justify the qualification of the monotheism passage.Timothy Usher 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-» MonkeeSage « 23:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Yes. But if it gets removed here, we can't play favorites and leave it in at Islam, because according to many Christians Muslims are actually atheistic (i.e., they worship a false god who is actually not a god — "we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"—yet we know there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge."). So if we must hedge Christianity according to (alleged) Muslim beliefs, we need to equally hedge Islam according to Christian beliefs. Whatever we decide here must equally apply there. » MonkeeSage « 23:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
AnnH ♫ 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Monotheism, as I have said again and again, is defined in the dictionary as the belief that there is one God. There are no credible sources disputing that Christians believe that there is one God, so those who oppose the use of the word are trying (whether they realize it or not) to pretend that it means the worship of one God. Let's not allow articles to be affected by what a few people would like the word to mean.
Dominick ^(TALK) 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Why don't we ask a Christian? Does a Christian believe there is one God? The Trinitarian discussion does not separate God into three Gods. Saying a Chrisitan is polytheistic would violate the prinicple of least astonishment! Every Christian would be surprised and amused if they were told they were actually polythesitic, just because we would "have to" include that minor criticism into a top level article on Christians. Are people trying to make Wikipedia into a joke by claiming strange unverifiable facts that are going to be laughed at by Joe Blow on the street?
Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) It is the foundational principle of any encyclopedia to report the facts. Monotheism is not a self-styled label but a classification by scholars of religion and Christianity is definitely put into the box. Also, consider the credo is clear. Whether Muslims disagree with that classification (if they do) is irrelevant for the classification and for the intro (it is dealt with further down).

Yes, with qualification

I was not voting yes, I was protesting against the poll Drogo Underburrow 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, why not just cut the phrase after yes? I didn't put it there. In practical terms, does it really change which option people would choose? --CTSWyneken 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like a comment as well, personally, I like the dictionary definition standard like we have now, but I am not too opposed to something like KV's old suggestion, or even the one I tried (Though it was more a bit of taking brutal advantage of the wide array of references than anything), which did have qualification. There should be an even/or thing for a good poll i'd think. Homestarmy 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Invite some actual Muslims to comment

This has been done. Thank you, Aiden. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Then we can know for sure if Muslims see Christianity as tritheism, or as fractured monotheism, or whatever. We don't have to rely on the EB; we can go straight to the source ;)
I'm favorable to this idea in itself, however random Muslim wikipedia editors don't qualify as verifiable reliable sources on Christianity: in fact, we are once again violating policy by engaging in original research. So it can be interesting, but it can't bear directly on the topic of debate.Timothy Usher 22:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is that some nonChristian, nonMuslim editors have been mischaracterizing their own POV as the Muslim one, thereby claiming a false concensus with hundreds of millions of people. That's why it's important to have Muslim opinions from Muslim editors on this page: it demolishes the strawman. It doesn't have to be OR: Muslim editors can point us to appropriate Muslim sources. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I've been pushing for the inclusion of the Muslim POV, when my own POV is that Christianity is monotheistic, such as with Ancient Egypt and Hinduism. But it does need to be discussed, even if briefly.

KV 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My objection is not to mentioning their (sourced) opinion(s), but to the notion of popular opinion as a reputable source bearing on findings of fact. For example, if I poll Americans and ask, did Thomas Jefferson own slaves, and 70% say no - then suppose I find an EB article that says "most Americans don't know or don't believe Jefferson owned slaves" - it doesn't mean we can hedge every mention in the article in order to be "NPOV". What Muslims believe Christianity to be tritheistic are simply wrong, according to WP:V, as no reputable source on Christianity agrees with them. It's not "POV" to state facts as such, even if a large of number of people vociferously disagree, so long as the dissenters aren't reputable sources on the topic at hand.Timothy Usher 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) I want to hear what some of them have to say myself, learning can be nice, maybe i'll learn something useful in the meantime anyway.

Consensus already exists on this issue, negating the need for a poll

And besides, Polls are evil. I would like to state at this point, since Drogo keeps bringing it up, that the source offered (Britannica) to support the hedging argument is second-hand and in adequate. It itself does not cite sources. Instead, it uses weasel words. Slac speak up! 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
there is no consensus........ actually, read consensus.

KV 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I doubt most Encyclopedias hold themselves up to Wikipedia's standards :D. But, this is not much of a problem, let me go rally up some more encyclopedias. Homestarmy 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
KV, please don't assume I don't know what consensus means. CTSWynken set this poll up because she/he believes neither side has a hope of convincing the other. Consensus is not the eradication of all forms of differening opinion, but the recognition that there is an opinion that is generally considered best out of all. My opinion is that this page's contributors generally consider the existing page setup adequate. Slac speak up! 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What we have is not consensus, there is not a general feeling that one way is the correct way amongst editors. There is a steep division and that does not constitute a consensus. I am to assume you mean well, and therefore I could only assume that you don't know what consensus means. Consensus isn't a majority, it's an overwhelming consent of everyone....... which we obviously do not have. Not everyone's views have been taken into account in the current version.

KV 00:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I gotta agree with KV on this, I think some of us really lean towared maybe 2 different solutions as opposed to it being done this way or that way. Homestarmy 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick recap (i.e. I'm Lazy)

Can somebody fill me in briefly what the main dispute is here? From what I can see it is over the inclusion of monotheism in the lead, right? With some saying that since some people say it isn't monotheism, it shouldn't be included, right? As of this timestamp, what is wrong with the issue? It seems like it is handled appropriately. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. Several editors began removing the word 'monotheist' from the intro or changing the sentence to 'Christianity is a religion, considered monotheist by its followers..." Several other editors brought in dictionary references, all of which defined monotheism as The dogma or belief that there is one God and thus had a problem with saying basically "Christianity is a religion, believed to believe that there is one God by its followers". In relation to Christian dogma, nearly all statements of faith state belief in one God. Some editors claimed that Muslims (although I don't believe anyone provided a source) claim Christian belief in Trinitarianism amounts to tritheism (and thus isn't monotheism.) But those who followed the dictionary simply stated outside opinions have no bearing on the dogma or belief of Christians, and since they think they serve one God (even if they're not right), that belief alone qualifies them as monotheists, since the definition is after all just a belief that there is one God. Thus, the definition really doesn't require anyone to prove anything, nor does it convey anything as fact. It simply states the belief of Christians, nothing more. And that's where we are: round and round in circles. —Aiden 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I provided a source that showed that Muslim doctrine contests the claim that Christians believe in one God. Monotheism is the belief in one God. Christians say they are monotheistic. Muslims say that they are not. Christians do not believe in one god, but believe in three is the Muslim claim. Outside opinion does matter, as they are saying that Christians do not believe as they claim to. It doesn't matter who is right in this dispute. NPOV says that in issues like this, the article stays neutral. Right now the article is not neutral, it says that the Christians are right and the Muslims are wrong, by stating as a fact, that Christianity is monotheistic. Drogo Underburrow 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I have stated again and again and again that opponents of the word "monotheistic" keep changing the definition. And I have explained that "believe that there is one God" is not synonymous with "believe in one God". And yet you (in particular) and others keep coming back and bahaving as if the argument is over whether or not Christians believe in one God and worship one God. And then I remind people again that it's whether or not they believe that there is one God, and I go to bed or go out for a few hours, and find when I get back to the computer that people are still arguing about whether Moslems believe that we worship one God and serve one God. It doesn't matter if Moslems deny that. Show me reputable evidence that Moslems say that Christians believe that there is more than one God, not that Moslems believe that Christians serve one God.

I'm going to dinner now, and I bet when I come back, if my post has been answered, the answer will be an argument about how many gods Christians believe in and worship and serve and the question of how many gods Christians believe there is/are will just be treated as if I hadn't raised the point. AnnH ♫ 18:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're telling me that if I am a Christian and I believe there exists one God, a Muslim can tell me, "No you don't. You believe there are three" and I now have to qualify my belief according to what a Muslim says about... my belief? Strange. According to dictionaries, whatever I believe is what constitutes whether I am monotheistic or not. I don't see anything in there about how my views are perceived by others. Drogo, do you deny that Christians believe they serve one God? —Aiden 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You say you believe in one God. Muslim doctrine says you don't. You say you are monotheistic. Muslim doctrine says you are tritheistic. It is not true that the dictionary proves you believe in one god. The dictionary has no idea what you believe. You say you believe in one God, and Muslim doctrine says that you don't. I don't deny that Christians believe they serve one God; but Muslim doctrine says that Christians do not believe in one God. If you insist on saying that Christianity is monotheistic, when Muslim doctrine explicitly says it is tritheistic, then you are violating NPOV. Drogo Underburrow 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, it is not Aiden's claim or the claim of "Islamic doctrine" that counts, but the claim of reputable scholarly sources on Christianity. EB is only a source for "Islamic doctrine claims...".Timothy Usher 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! No campaigning within 20 meters of the polls! ;-) --CTSWyneken 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I'm telling you now, I believe there is one God. You are seriously contending that someone else can tell me what I believe? —Aiden 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! "I don't deny that Christians believe they serve one God." There you said it. Now please crossreference this with the definition of monotheistic (Dogma or believe that there is one God) and explain how you reconcile the previous sentence and your insistence that Christians are monotheistic only according to themselves. "According to me, I believe I serve one God, but according to Muslims, I believe I serve three." You are making a lot of sense. —Aiden 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your poll is biased, CTS. It begs the question, saying "according to the dictionary"; Besides, its not 'according to the dictionary'. The dictionary does not prove what Christians believe. The dictionary states that monotheism is the belief in one God. Muslims say that means them, and not Christians, who believe in three gods. Aiden, I said I didn't deny it. Muslims do. They say you believe in three gods, and you can claim all you want that you believe in one god, and they say you don't. Drogo Underburrow 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, the way I see it is thus: If I were to find some source by some fundamentalist Christians that said Muslims believe their god was fake and Muhammad was a fire-breathing lizard, we should go to that article and remove any reference to Allah, change the Muhammad article to include this belief, and remove anything else that contradicts what this source said? Monotheism is the belief in one god. Christians believe in one god. They believe in a three-in-one god, the Trinity. Just because some Muslim source you provided (did you?) doesn't understand the full concept and mystery of the Trinity (and who can fully?) doesn't mean that Christians are not monotheistic. We don't label Opus Dei a cult, just because Dan Brown says it is. We may include that "critics hold that...", but that doesn't mean we remove the label of "international prelature" just because one author states something. We don't write that the Nation of Israel is the spawn of Satan just because some extremist Muslims believe that. Our job around here is to give the best explanation of and description of any particular topic. The best description we have of Christianity is that since they unceasingly believe in one god (monotheism), they are monotheists. But it would only be right and NPOV to, later in the article, include the fact that some criticize this belief by stating that "the belief in the trinity means they aren't..." (which this article does). As I can see it, this article handles the matter very well. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is already included in the controversies section, mind you. —Aiden 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort writes, "Christians believe in one god." No, they don't, says Muslim doctrine. That is the issue. Will the article say this as a fact? It can't, as that would be saying that Christians are right on this issue. It doesn't matter if Muslims misunderstand. It doesn't matter if they are wrong. They dispute this fact, and therefore its not a fact, for Wikipedia purposes. That is what NPOV says. Drogo Underburrow 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is not whether they believe in one God; the issue is whether they believe that there is only one God. Aiden and I have been saying that for days, and every time anyone comments underneath our posts, he or she completely ignores that point, and starts arguing about how many gods Moslems think we worship. AnnH ♫ 18:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I don't doubt that Muslims think Christians serve three Gods. But do they doubt that Christians believe they serve one? No. And according to every dictionary we've seen, all it takes to be monotheistic is to believe there is one God. Heck, Muslims could be right! Christians could really serve three Gods! That doesn't matter. If Christians (personally and dogmatically) believe there is only one God, that's all it takes to qualify them as monotheists. Some Christians consider Islam a pagan religion, does that mean we have to qualify the word 'monotheist' in the Islam article? No. Why? Because Muslims believe they serve one God. Now, we can of course say that in the controversies section, but by definition Muslims are monotheist because of what they believe about God and themselves. —Aiden 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to believe as you do. But then I saw that Muslims say that Christianity is not monotheistic. So, even if I believe that it is, because it fits the dictionary definition, that doesn't matter. Muslims say its not monotheistic. Maybe Muslims don't know what the dictionary says. It doesn't matter. They say its not monotheistic, and that is all that counts. Its not up to us to decide that the Muslim view is unreasonable or wrong, or misguided or misinformed. Drogo Underburrow 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Drogo, you have a flawed interpretation of WP:NPOV. It doesn't really matter what an outside source says. Do we disregard it totally, of course not. But the fact remains, we don't use outside opinion to influence our best description of a topic. Like I said before, Just because some Muslim source you provided doesn't understand the full concept and mystery of the Trinity doesn't mean that Christians are not monotheistic. We don't insert that God hates fags just because Jim Phelps says God does. "But guys, Jim Phelps said so!" It doesn't really matter. We don't just disregard the beliefs of millions to suit one source (which, if you could provide again would be very helpful). Some Fundamentalists believe that Islam is Satan worship. So do we now remove reference to Allah from the Muslim article? No. We don't disregard the beliefs of millions to suit a fringe belief. You must understand this. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment as I've seen this pop up a few times here: It's absolutely possible for someone to understand the concept and "mystery" of the Trinity and yet disagree 100% with very solid, real, justifiable reasons. Disagreement is not equivalent to just 'not understanding', as if in the moment someone understands they will agree. --Oscillate 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash 3 times!)Wikipedia can state a POV as long as it's attributed to someone. Quotes say Christianity is monotheistic and other quotes say Musilims do not accept this. All anyone has been saying is that we must say Christians think they are monotheistic rather than write the article as if Wikipedia says this. Simple as that. Sophia 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But AGAIN, monotheism is a BELIEF, not a FACT. Saying "Christians believe they are monotheistic" is exactly like saying "Christians believe that they believe that there is one God." That makes absolutely no sense. —Aiden 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know how to repond to that in a way that you will not find insulting but all I will say is yes- that is exactly how things are. Christians believe they worship one God via the a concept of a trinity that many (even believers) do not understand or accept as valid. Sophia 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's irrelevent to the fact that they nonetheless believe there exists one God which is of course the definition of monotheism. —Aiden 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort, no one is saying to put in the article that Christianity IS NOT monotheistic. What I object to is saying that it IS monotheistic. We have to stay neutral, saying neither one. Instead, we state that Christians believe that their religion is monotheistic, and other religions, such as Islam, disagree. Drogo Underburrow 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I believe that Christians don't believe Jesus was divine. They believe he didn't actually die on the cross. He didn't actually exist. Therefore, we must re-write the entire article because stating these things is POV in your opinion. I think I got it now. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to know something, does the EB even specify what this un-named doctrine of Islamic people is? Because my Muslim friend at school was looking over my shoulder at this argument and he didn't say a word about "Yea, that Drogo Underburrow, smart guy, your such a polytheist man....". Homestarmy 16:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up on the page, I copied the entire section from the EB. I assure your Muslim friend I am not a polytheist, and ask him not to insult me, as coming from a Muslim that is being very insulting, Muslims consider polytheists to be grave sinners and think its ok to do all sorts of bad things to them, like kill them. Drogo Underburrow 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood him, Drogo. His friend was mocking you, not calling you a polytheist. —Aiden 16:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant that if hypothetically he were to say that, it would of been in the context of him calling you a smart guy, (non-mockingly), and in the context of proceding to call me a polytheist, since I am a Christian :/. But your EB article didn't seem to specify the doctrine, it just said "Islamic doctrine says" without seeming to be more specific. Homestarmy 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth is most people don't understand it all and don't care either way. Let's leave it alone for a week and all go do lots of other article edits then come back when we've all had time to think it over some more. Sophia 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort, the article cannot state it as a fact that Jesus was divine. The article must simply state that Christians believe he was divine. The article cannot state as a fact that Jesus existed. It can only state that the vast majority of scholars assume he existed in some form. The article cannot state as a fact that he died on the cross; it can only state that the Gospels say he did. etc, etc. Drogo Underburrow 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But what you're arguing for with "monotheism", Drogo, is the same as arguing that the article should state that Christians believe that Christians believe that Jesus was divine, and that scholars assume that scholars assume that he existed and that the Gospels say that the Gospels say that he died on the cross. AnnH ♫ 18:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking it could say all those things, but it would probably violate policy :D. Homestarmy

Christian editors are being very unreasonable on this issue. Here's why: they want the article to state as the very first thing their POV as a fact, that they are monotheists, and shunt to the end of the article a statement that disagrees, expressed as only an opinion. Drogo Underburrow 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are monotheists, what do you expect us to do, say "Ah, who cares about that "Thou shalt not lie" business anyway, let's say that our monotheism isn't a fact just to appease our invisible muslim friends, weee!" I mean come on, surely there is something you believe strongly in (That doesn't include being NPOV) that you know would be entirely dishonest and deceptive to equivocate and downgrade meanings over? Homestarmy 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, the article cannot state as fact that Jesus was divine, nor can it state as fact that there is one God. It can however state that according to Christianity, there is one God. That is exactly what stating "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" does. It says, "Christians believe there is one God," nothing more. —Aiden 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo:

The Encyclopedia Britannica is not Muslim doctrine.
It in no way violates NPOV to identify the Christian POV as the Christian POV. However, let's not mischaracterize the Christian POV. The Christian POV is not "Christianity is monotheistic." Rather, the Christian POV is "there is only one God."
It is an objective fact that Christian doctrine states that there is only one God. By definition (doctrine or belief), this is monotheism, regardless of anyone's POV.

Well put. Slac speak up! 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But most important of all:

Why is this argument being made by people who are neither Christian nor Muslim? As we should not mischaracterize the Christian POV, let us also not mischaracterize the Muslim POV. Let Muslims speak for themselves. Do not put words in their mouths! So, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, according to Islamic doctrine (which doctrine?) the Christian dogma is a form of tritheism. According to an actual Muslim, it is not Muslims who say that Christianity is tritheistic, but Christians who say that Muslims say that Christianity is tritheistic. Do you see the problem? Encyclopedia Britannica is not Muslim. Thetruereligion.org is explicitly Muslim :"An enlightened guide to Islamic beliefs, culture and civilization." If we are going to cite the Muslim POV, let's cite the Muslim POV. Let's not cite the Encyclopedia Britannica citing the Muslim POV is such a way that Muslims themselves call a mischaracterization!
To put it another way, if you cite the EB, you are not citing Muslim doctrine or the Muslim POV; rather, you are simply citing the EB. Do not mischaracterize your sources. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Total rewrite

Okay, Drogo has a point. Let's rewrite this entire article. Here are some things that the article needs to change:

That it is monotheistic. (obviously)
That it is a religion. (what if it's really a cult or a sect of Judaism?)
That it's centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. (There are some things he taught that aren't followed by Christians, and he may have not really existed anyway)
That it's recounted in the New Testament. (We don't really know who wrote the books and how true they really are)
That Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah. (some Christians just think he was a really groovy dude that wore sandals)
That they refer to him as "Jesus Christ" (some call him JC, Jesus, Lord, Lamb of God, and many others)
That there are an estimated 2.1 billion Christians and is the world's largest religion (it's only an estimate, and again, with that "religion" word. And what about all the people who believe in invisible beings that wander the world with us? What about their religion?)

Okay, so I've broken down the first three sentences... So perhaps they should read: Christianity is an alleged monotheistic so-called religion centered somewhat on the life and some of teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, if he really existed which may not be true, as recounted in the anonymously authored and highly specious New Testament. Some Christians believe "Jesus" to be the Messiah, if one exists, and thus refer to him sometimes as "Jesus Christ", as well as "guy", "dude", and "liberal". With an estimated 2.1 billion so-called adherents in the "Christian" calendar year of 2001, Christianity is the world's largest "religion" (not counting the invisible beings that are present at all times).

Sound good? Anyone else wanna help break down the rest? Yes, I'm trying to make a point (no, not a WP:POINT). This is an encyclopedia. We describe things. We give them the best possible description and explanation as possible. The best possible description of what Christians believe is "monotheism". We do give critics of this view some time in the article, but we don't change the entire thing just because some disagree with what Christians hold true. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed up your proposed text to make it more encylopedic: Christianity is widely regarded as a monotheistic religion centered on the belief of the stories of the life and teaching of a character known as Jesus of Nazareth, as told in the their book of faith, the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ.

Haha. —Aiden 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is recommending that the article be written from the POV of a skeptic, either. All we are suggesting is that one word be ommitted from the introduction, so that it would read:

Christianity is a religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion.

Then in the body of the article, the issue of monotheism can be dealt with neutrally, neither asserting that Christians are correct, nor that Islam is correct either, but simply both POV's described equally with neither being asserted as correct or incorrect. Drogo Underburrow 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

~~Aiden,~~ this commentary is becoming too personal & too unproductive --JimWae 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) - Guess I did not know who "You Know Who" was. It is still becoming a personality clash --JimWae 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was I, and not Aiden who wrote this. And it is not unproductive, because it serves as an hyperbole of Drogo's argument. And Drogo, if not written by a skeptic, then why not have it say "Christianity is a thing" since all of the other aspects of those sentences have now been challenged as well. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, according to the EB, Muslims doctrine states that Christianity is a form of tritheism. According to an actual Muslim, Christians mischaracterize Muslim objections as a charge of tritheism. Are you saying that the EB is right and actual Muslims are wrong about what Muslims believe?

If you are going to cite Muslim doctrine, it is better to cite Muslims than to cite the EB. The EB is, plain and simple, not Muslim doctrine. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that faith traditions frequently argue against the claims of competing faith traditions, where does this Pandora's box end? Again, I implore, take the discussion to Trinitarianism or monotheism, and just use this article to describe what Christianity is. It claims to be monotheistic. If Christians weren't monotheistic, they wouldn't be Christians, since this is a central tent of faith of Christianity. Whether Trinitarianism is monotheistic or not depends on one's definition of monotheism, not on one's definition of Christianity. Fishhead64 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing articles neutrally is what NPOV is all about. You want religious articles "owned" by their respective religions, with everything presented the way they want it said, and that's not the NPOV way. Articles should read so that you cannot tell who wrote them. If you can tell a Christian wrote the article on Christianity, the article is biased. If you can tell a Muslim wrote the article on Chrisitianity, the article is biased. Ideally, one should not be able to figure out if a Christian wrote the article, or a Muslim, or an atheist. Drogo Underburrow 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea behind Christianity's Trinitarianism is Monotheism. If it was not monotheism, it would be Tritheism. Christianity rejects Tritheism. Christianity's Nicene Creed confesses: "We believe in one God ..." It is just as monotheistic as Islam and Judaism. To some extent you have to allow each religious tradition to define itself. You may want to marshal experts who have the view of Christianity being monotheistic or tritheistic. Trinitarian doctrine states that God has one being or substance. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being or existence. That is orthodox, catholic Christianity. The Nicene Creed also states of Jesus Christ that he is homoousios with the Father: of the same substance or being. I would think that if you had experts who disagreed with that you could put it into a subsidiary section with an entry line like this: "Some scholars dispute Christianity being monotheistic ..." Being an accurate definition of Christianity requires it to be stated to be a monotheistic religion. --Drboisclair 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. One should be able to define Christianity neutrally by describing what Christians profess to believe. But this isn't about what constitutes Christian belief, it is about what constitutes monotheism. Christians believe in one God, ergo they are monotheists. Now, if you want to present the relevant scope of arguments about Trinitarianism and monotheism, do it in those survey articles, or even in Criticism of Christianity - but to present an argument that Christians don't believe what they confess to believe is anything but NPOV, and is a misleading definition of Christianity. Fishhead64 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have kept a distance to most of this banter about monotheism. Drogo, you have points, but you get to it by "twisting" NPOV to meet your personal objectives. Based upon your logic the article on Shiva would need to say he is a false god; Christians do not believe him to be a true god, ergo false god. Does that make any sense? Of course not. Quit being silly.

The concept of monotheism is a bedrock principle of Christianity; it is sacrosanct. Yes, monotheism can be defined in more depth in the article because it is more complex than that simple statement. There are diverse beliefs within Christianity regarding this issue. However, I believe all Christians believe they are monotheistic. This thread needs to stop; nothing more can be said or gained. I can't believe it has not already been said 50 ways to Sunday and still no progress has been made. I achived today and it is already ready to archive this unproductive discussion. If necessary vote on it and move forward. Otherwise, drop it and agree to disagree. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts)

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have Muslim editors working on this article. Couldn't we use some background on the proportion of Moslims who would disagree with the western-world/Christianity-centric definition of monotheism (which encompasses the main Christian POV)? What exactly are reliable sources on Islamic doctrine, and what is the degree of acceptance of such ideas as "Christianity is polytheistic"? I admit I don't know. Possibly superfluously, my point is that we should be aware of and try to prevent possible misunderstandings due to our systemic bias in combination readers that have been taught a different concept. In this case it is by no means necessary to include the term in the lead so we're free to leave it out.

FWIW, I do not believe that the POV of a different religion can ever define a religion, or that the mistranslation of an Arabic word can change the meaning of an English word in record time, linguistically speaking. Likewise, I would be surprised if any Christian criticisms would have a chance to be included in the lead of the Islam article of the Arabic Wikipedia. I'm not even sure it belongs in the body; to me the views one religion's adherents have on another religion belong in the article on the religion whose followers hold these views.

My summary of the problem: This is an English language encyclopedia explaining in English what makes Christians tick. We're struggling with the apparent fact that at least 1 billion potential readers may misunderstand/disagree with the word "monotheistic" if it isn't explained that their concept differs from the western one. AvB ÷ talk 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy solution: "Christians believe in one God subsisting in three persons - a form of monotheism called Trinitarianism." Interested parties can click the link and make their own conclusions. Fishhead64 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the lead? AvB ÷ talk 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep - the sooner, the better :) Fishhead64 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, but almost. It's missing the nontrinitarians and their clear monotheism ("God is not a God of confusion."—1 Corinthians 14:33). --Oscillate 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "The vast majority of Christians believe..." Then under "Beliefs" have a brief sentence about unitarianism. Fishhead64 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it's ok to say "a form of monotheism called Trinitarianism." Does that not just call Trinitarianism monotheism, which was the whole point of contention in the first place? If Christians adhere to monotheism (whatever the form) they are monotheists by definition. If they believe there is one God, they are monotheists by definition. —Aiden 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It simply acknowledges that there are different forms of monotheism. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of rushing in "where angels fear to tread," I'd like to offer a few observations. First, let me say that I am a pastor of a mainline Christian denomination, complete with an M.Div. from an accredited and respected university. I just want people to know where I'm coming from. My own theology is very Trinitarian, and I consider myself to be monotheistic. I could talk about how the doctrine of the trinity arose (at least in part) from the need to reconcile strongly held monotheistic beliefs, with the equally strongly held belief that Jesus was both God and in some sense distinct from the Father. However, this sort of conversation has already been tried, and there is still no agreement.

Sometimes it helps to find a way to "put the shoe on the other foot", and I did this by looking at Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These are two groups who consider themselves to be Christian, but who are considered to be non-Christian by many (most?) mainline Christian churches.

The first paragraph of Jehovah's Witnesses begins: Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious organization (by the same name) who believe themselves to be the restoration of first-century Christianity.
The first paragraph of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't touch the subject, but the second paragraph begins: Members of the church — known as Latter-day Saints — regard Jesus Christ as the head of their church and deem themselves Christians. (I encourage everyone to see these in context).

It seems clear that, in each of these cases, there was some qualification of the group's "Christian-ness"--("who believe themselves", "who deem themselves"). Their belief is described as their belief, not as a simple fact. This seems to me to be directly analogous to we Trinitarian Christians, who "consider ourselves" to be monotheistic. We can argue endlessly about the definition of "Christian" or "Monotheistic". But in an encyclopedia article, it seems reasonable to use phrases like "believe themselves" or "consider themselves". -Rholton 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's ok then, since the definition of monotheistic implies belief as opposed to fact, right? Homestarmy 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough Already

You all are going around in circles. I do not think that Drogo is going to convince the majority nor the majority Drogo. So, please, folks, stop repeating the same arguments. Let's get the results of the vote, see if we have a consensus and then reflect it in the article, if we have one. --CTSWyneken 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a poll. Consensus already shows that monotheism should be included. Polls are just evil. Even eviler when called "votes". --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But sometimes a necessary evil. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Poll Above

Folks, there's a vote on...

#Vote on How to Describe the Monontheism in Christianity Issue --CTSWyneken 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim views on Christian monotheism

I've contacted several Muslim editors whom I respect and hopefully they'll share their opinions with us on this matter. —Aiden 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... what do Muslims believe on this issue? That's an interesting question, and quite possibly one that would require a long answer. I'm no imam, but here is most likely what the Islamic perspective would be: Christianity in its form today is a deviation from Islam. That is, Muslims believe that Islam existed well before Muhammad and the Qur'an. Jesus was once a Jew that diverged from Jewish principles to create Christianity (as far as I know, that's accepted fact). But Muslims believe that Judaism itself was a deviation from Islam, so, applying the transitive property, Muslims believe Christianity is a deviation from Islam. Muslims believe that Jesus (Isa in Arabic) was a prophet of Islam and thus never preached Christianity, but instead that Christians left the Islamic path preached by Jesus to form Christianity. And so, given that deviation, I would have to say that Muslims believe that Christianity is a deviation that become tritheistic. Now as to what should be put in the article? I'd go with saying it's monotheistic. If that's what Christians believe, that's what Christians believe. But really, the wording shouldn't big deal; I doubt it will keep anyone up at night. joturn e r 21:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My: response:As a Muslim I find the Trinity (as written in books) to be a polythiest concept. However, after discussions with Christian after Christian, I have observed their version of God was, in fact, monothiest. It's really confusing.

A quote from the Quran says:

'And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)." '(29:46)

The Quran also says:

'They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah.'(57:73)

Bless sins 21:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Q) Do Muslims view Christianity as tritheistic?

My Answer) I don’t think so. tritheistic says that :”Tritheism is the belief that there are three equally powerful gods who form a triad.” Muslims only believe that ‘’Christians’’ have exaggerated about Jesus in raising him to the position of the creator. Muslims, in my POV, do not see Christians believing in “three equally powerful gods who form a triad”. The Qur’an states that Jesus never claimed to be “God” (capital g) in the first place. The Qur’an a couple of times states that “trinity” is just a saying of Christians of which they have no knowledge. The Qur’an, on the Christian belief of “Jesus is God”, argues that Jesus said: “worship my lord and your lord”. Qur’an also states that “Christians say God (Allah, should refer to God the father) is one of the three”: Qur’an says that exceed not in your religion the bounds, there is no god but the one God; Christ by himself has no power either to harm or benefit people etc. That’s the conception of Muslims about Christians I think.

Q “Even if so, considering Christians still believe there is one God, are they still not monotheistic?

My Answer) Qur’an says:

"O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah Isa son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist! It will be better for you: for Allah is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171)

Hope this helps --Aminz 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic. In Palestine at least, it is widely considered among Muslims (when asked) that Christians are tritheistic, because of the whole trinity concept. These are just general perceptions not endorsed (or denied) by Islamic religious scholars, who usually lecture on the similarities between Islam and Christianity during regular debates with Christian clergymen rather than point out the differences. However, Muslims do not generally dispute that Christians believe that their religion is monotheistic, but they argue that Christians may be deluding themselves by holding on to the concept of the trinity while arguing that there is only one God - Muslims cannot reconcile this dichotomy at all. Joturner's comments hold true in that devout Muslims consider Christians (and Jews) to have strayed from the true will of God, and therefore another prophet (the final one, Mohammad) was sent to put things straight. Christians I've spoken to in the past about this (in Palestine) respond to inquiries about the trinity in that this is a heavenly concept that mortals are not meant to understand (i.e. how one God could have three forms is not something within the capacity of humans to comprehend), and I've also heard arguments such as the trinity is like the three states of water: solid, liquid, and gas, but they are all one compound: water. So again, although Muslims generally agree that Christians 'think' they are monotheists, they are considered to have 'strayed' and thus are not true believers but tritheists in denial. For purposes of this article, there should be no problem describing Christianity as a monotheistic religion for the following reasons: 1- Common use concept, i.e. Christianity is generally considered to be one of the three monotheistic religions. 2- Self-description, i.e. Christians consider themselves to be monotheists and there's not much dispute there. 3- The actual religion itself is an Abrahamic religion based on the one God of Abraham, if Christians actually did stray, that doesn't change what the original definition of 'Christianity' is supposed to be. I'd be happy to respond to any more inquiries. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments from regular editors

Thanks for your input, Bless sins, but can I point out that the question isn't whether or not Christians are right in thinking that the Trinity is One God. (Obviously, you wouldn't be a Moslem if you thought they were!) So I'm asking, not "Do Moslems accept that Christians worship one God?", but "Do Moslems accept that Christians believe that there is one God?" Cheers, AnnH ♫ 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"...no matter how much you claim that the Trinity is One God, it still mixes a human being (Jesus) with God, and thus results in worshiping either a deified human being (Jesus as God) or a micro-god (God with Jesus's human characteristics) and this is not monotheism. You are worshiping a false image not the real God." - from "An Introduction to Islamic Monotheism" at muhajabah.com[[5]] - Drogo Underburrow 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And once again, Drogo is ignoring the fact that the dictionary says that monotheism means the belief that there is one God, and is pretending that it means the worship of one God. I wonder how long this is going to go on for. AnnH ♫ 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a complicated issue, so Drogo should give the full quote: ""Having the correct motivation and annihilating hypocrisy is in fact a lifelong struggle for most people, and so there are very few who have completely perfected their monotheism (tawhid). However, every adult should have the correct knowledge and understanding, and that depends on choosing the right religion. Christians may avoid the outward shirk of worshiping other than God, and they may avoid the shirk of claiming that there is more than one Creator and Sustainer of the universe, but no matter how much you claim that the Trinity is One God, it still mixes a human being (Jesus) with God, and thus results in worshiping either a deified human being (Jesus as God) or a micro-god (God with Jesus's human characteristics) and this is not monotheism." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

joturner and Bless sins, thanks for sharing your views which, I think, are quite informative. Perhaps you could also give some information regarding what would be considered generally accepted reliable (English language) sources on Islamic doctrine? I'm also interested in learning more about the relevance/notability of the source quoted by Drogo Underburrow: www.muhajabah.com/tawhid.htm. AvB ÷ talk 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to recommend that those of us who have been involved in this debate keep this section relatively calm so that our Muslim editors can offer their opinions without having to sift through everyone's bickering (and we can read their opinions that much easier.) Thanks. —Aiden 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another Muslim source (thought I'd beat Drogo to it): The Trinity - a Muslim Perspective "One of the virtues of the Semitic type of consciousness is the conviction that ultimate reality must be ultimately simple, and that the Nicene talk of a deity with three persons, one of whom has two natures, but who are all somehow reducible to authentic unity, quite apart from being rationally dubious, seems intuitively wrong. God, the final ground of all being, surely does not need to be so complicated." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the section above are starting to go down the route of blasphemy (!) which even I would think is inappropriate in the article. Since the Muslim editors so far have not come down full on the side of tritheistic I suggest we drop this whole thread and revisit it in a couple of years when there are more Islamic sources availible on-line. Due to the nature of most editors Wikipedia is hopelessly biased towards western Christian thought and only time and diversity of editors will sort that - no offence intended to anyone as I count myself in that group despite being an atheist due to my background and the culture that taught me how to think as I grew up. As Str1977 showed me - you think you are putting your POV to one side but it's next to impossible for anyone to really achieve that so we should correct what we can but "biggies" like this can only be debated properly when the wikipedia project has more global input. Sophia 07:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading this whole debate and while I was first convinced that we should not state Christainity is Monothesistic as a fact, I know think that the definition is clear enough that we can state it as a fact. However, later in the article under the section, it should be explained that Christians have a peculiar variation of the belief. Also, it should be made clear that Monotheism simply means an assertion of the belief in one dog (the doctrine OR belief), and since its clear they they have the doctrine, they can be justly defined as monotheistic---even while having beliefs in more than one god. So, monothesism and a belief in more than one god is compatible provided a doctrine exists that states beleif in one god (however contradictory). Its not our bussiness to make sense of a religion only to go by what the label legimately refers to (statement of belief, doctrine). So, Christianity is both polythesitic by some accounts (believes in more than one god), but at the same time monotheisitc because it has the doctrin asserting belief in one god.Kecik 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting possition, Kecik. It seems contradictory on the face of it but maybe you do have a point. In anycase ,at least finally, for once, we do not agree. I'm glad.Giovanni33 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank the muslim editors making comments above, and I'd like to remind them that not all of Christianity adheres to the belief that Jesus is God Almighty. --Oscillate 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd first of all like to thank the above editors for their comments. I think these comments illustrate the varying understandings of the definition of monotheism. Due to Muslims' rejection of the Trinity, they no doubt view it as something other than the Tawhid concept of the oneness of God. However, at the same time they recognize that Christians truly believe that there is one God, regardless of whether or not they're Trinitarian or Nontrinitarian. Based on the definition of monotheism and its hinging on belief, I feel it is perfectly fine to state Christianity is a monotheistic religion, although we should definitately mention Muslim (and Jewish) criticisms of the Trinity, which I believe is already done. Thus I recommend maintaining the status quo. —Aiden 15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what we have here are comments by Islamic editors who are walking on eggshells so to speak to avoid offending Christian editors. Joturner for example is currently up for adminship and doesn't want to make any enemies. Drogo Underburrow 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you don't take them at their word. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I will say that this section is more about internal Wikipedia politics than about the issue. Drogo Underburrow 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bringing us back to the original point: find a reputable scholarly source that says that Christianity is tritheistic. Not that some Tongan Hare Krishnas, my mother-in-law and everyone named Cornelius believe it to be, but stated as a matter of fact, or as the opinion of the reputable source itself.Timothy Usher 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no need for that. We are not trying to prove that Christianity is not monotheistic, we only need to establish that some people dispute that it is monotheistic. We already have a reputable source, the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states, "According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism". Since this means its a matter of dispute whether Christianity is monotheistic or not, that is how we have to present it here, not as fact. Drogo Underburrow 18:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But EB does not dispute the fact that Christians believe there is only one God, not three. That alone is the definition of monotheism. —Aiden 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. EB goes further elsewhere, and says that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, stating it as fact. However, Wikipedia operates under different rules than the EB. Because it is Muslim doctrine that the Christian dogma of the Trinity is tritheism, not monotheism, Wikipedia cannot state as a fact that Christianity is monotheistic, as that would be saying that Islamic doctrine is wrong. The fact that the EB does this shows that its editors are biased. Drogo Underburrow 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it shows that EB's editors comprehend the English language. There is no way to substantiate a belief with a second opinion. The definition of monotheism hinges on and only on the belief of the first party. The dogma or belief that there is one God. That's not a POV—it's a definition. —Aiden 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I still want to know what exact "Doctrine" this is, we talking Hadiths or what? If its just a pronouncement by a single imam or something, that hardly counts as a universal or near-universal Islamic doctrine. Homestarmy 14:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

History and origins section is awful

It says that Constantine was trying to force everyone to accept the decrees of Nicea and took part in the council and so forth. While a popular notion, it is not true. Just a few years after the council he revoked Arius' excommunication, and deposed Athanasius, and just before he died to took properties from the Trinitarians and gave them to the Arians, and he stated his intent to restore Arius' bishopric the year he died. His son kept up good relations with the Arians. It also says that after Nicea the Gnostics and everybody else started to be called heretics and persecuted and so on, when in fact the apologists (aka, heresiologist) lived in the early-to-mid second-century. Other like errors follow. I'll clean it up and cite sources tomorrow. But if anyone else has the time, please help. » MonkeeSage « 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The section is in mediation right now, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Christianity. If you don't like it, please participate.

Osiris And Resurrection addition

Before I make this addition, I want to know how people think it should be added in.

Source: Latourette, Kenneth Scott. "Christianity" incl. in Collier's Encyclopedia - 6: Charny to Colonie. New York: Macmillan Educational Company, 1990.

"Polytheistic mystery religions, centering in various Greek gods, were also widespread. All had to do with a god who had been killed by his enemies and raised from the dead. Their ceremonies were secret, and initiates were believed to share in the god's death and to acquire immortality through his ressurection." (p. 394)

I almost want to quote on, since the next sentence has my religion as its third word, but it's not relevant. But anyways, where should we add this information, and can we shorten some of the "According to Budge" stuff and make that into a much smaller sentence like I originally had that, so that this doesn't overwhelm the section?

KV 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this that big old thing you and Str were arguing over in that mediation thing, did that just finish? Homestarmy 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we're fighting over part of the History section. In work for it, I found this information, indeed. But it cannot resolve until he comes off Wikibreak and comments. The other involved parties have made no showing (you, not being involved, made a showing however, which is appreciated) whatsoever.

KV 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like it should go right down into the controversies section to me, its drawing a pretty skeptical sounding comparison there. I didn't read much of that Budge argument because it was so huge and in my point of view it really doesn't matter how similar religions may sometimes be, but is this quote from Budge, this author you've noted right now, and other sources? I just wanna know who's saying it is all. Homestarmy 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was going in the controversies section, but I was wondering if it should be its own point, or part of the Osiris point, and at the top, bottom, or where. This claim is not from Budge though, I have noted the source above. It's from the Collier's Encyclopedia (1990) Christianity article. I only mention Budge to note my desire to cite that it's Budge's ideas once, then properly cite each statement. The section is very large the way it is, and it was designed when Str wanted to make every one of those quotes attributed to Budge (imo to make it look like Budge was not reputable). Simple rewording could shrink it down without losing content.

KV 01:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like all that complicated an idea to me, however, it looks like its not necessarily related to Osiris, so I think it would have to be set apart from that. Is mentioning Budge very necessary, or do you think just the Collier's encyclopedia idea should go in such an argument? Homestarmy 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Budge should be mentioned once in attribution, not four times, one for every statement. I think the idea itself is certainly of note, since there are so many parallels between the two figures, but I also originally had one or two sentences for the four.

KV 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section is gone........ somehow.

KV 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am quite upset.... Talk:Christianity/Archive_31#Removal_of_Osiris_passage concerns the original removal, and the objections to its removal were never answered..... I don't see where else it was discussed. It was well cited, topical, and seemingly removed against what consensus was displayed and during the time I tried to stay out because there was way too much activity over the whole monotheism thing for me to even follow in my limited time.

KV 01:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff: [6]. No, it was not discussed, it looks like a unilateral action. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also found that... right after AJA did it unilaterally and Timothy Usher reverted, and both of us discussed why that should stay. By Aiden. I'll have to readd.

KV 02:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting Osiris and the Resurrection

The old version is:

Some argue that because the role of Jesus is similar to that of various mythological figures said to have died and risen again, these may have been the inspiration for Christianity. E. A. Wallis Budge compared Christianity to the cult of Osiris, who he said was born mortal, murdered, and reborn as an underworld god equal to Ra (whom he considered the monotheistic God of Egypt). He also drew analogies between the Ancient Egyptian belief in Resurrection (which gave rise to the practice of mummification) and the Christian belief. Budge argued that the Egyptians may have been the best prepared for Christianity by such beliefs ^[1]. Conversely, the Coptic Church claims that the tale of Osiris, and similar parallels, was given by God to the pharoahs to prepare people for the coming of Jesus. ^[2]

We should look to shorten it without losing content. I'll make suggestions tomorrow myself.

KV 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

KV's Suggestion

A specific example is that of Osiris. E. A. Wallis Budge compared Jesus to Osiris, who was born mortal, murdered, and reborn as a god equal to Ra (considered the monotheistic God of Egypt). He also drew analogies between the Christian Ressurection and Ancient Egyptian Resurrection (which gave rise to the practice of mummification) . Budge argued that the Egyptians may have been the best prepared for Christianity by such beliefs ^[3]. Conversely, the Coptic Church claims that the tale of Osiris, and similar parallels, was given by God to the pharoahs to prepare people for the coming of Jesus. ^[4]

13:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, once this is in line, I intend to write an article specifically on Osiris and the Ressurection.

KV 13:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't say Osiris was you can only say whom he said was. —Aiden 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "monotheistic" bit is misleading as Ahkenaten's experiment was short lived and very controversial. Sophia 16:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian monotheism does not consist of only Akenaten, at least not in the view of all Egyptian scholars. I would have to relook up hte page this is specifically is said on, but Budge had put forth much evidence that Ra was another monotheistic god beforehand. Polytheism and monotheism existed side by side, with the more educated you were, the more likely you were monotheist. The monotheist God of Ra, which was hugely misunderstood by Egypt's neighbors, and even large portions of Egypt at times, was much like the Trinity, only a lot more complex, and including a negative deity or two. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, make up one God who has those three aspects. Now, Thoth, Isis, Set, Asar, Nut, Amen, Anpu, and thousands of others all make up Ra (evidenced in many writings), who has all those hundreds and thousands of aspects. Of course Hinduism is another such parallel.

Now, perhaps when you probably don't want to immediately stomach the fact that Egypt was monotheistic (which polytheism lived aside the monotheism), realize that it's the same misunderstanding that leads many to not think Christianity is monotheistic. And yes, I do understand that the accusations of people thinking Egyptian religion is solely polytheistic should be mentioned, only because Wikipedia looks for verifiability, not truth.

KV 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That might be your view, KV, but it is not undisputed fact. Hence, dePOV it or keep it out (as actually not very relevant to the issue raised here) or say "supreme god" (though that is probabbly a Heliopolis-POV - Ptah worshippers will disagree). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, it's less disputed among scholars, to my knowledge, than whether or not Christianity is monotheistic, whether Jesus had kids, and certainly not as much debate as whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters.

KV 13:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, you are entitled to retain your opinion, but IMHO you should reconsider various things. I don't know any scholar who would dispute that Christianity is monotheistic, hardly any scholar who would state that there is any evidence for Christ having children. No one doubts that Jesus had "brothers", though there's disagreement about how these brothers are related to Jesus. OTOH, classifying Egyptian religion as monotheistic (aside from Aton-religion) is quite controversial and of the same quality as Hindu claims to monotheism. Because of such claims some theologians have questioned the usefulness of the general definition of monotheism. In any case, a montheism which would encompass both Hinduism and the Egyptian religion are hardly relevant to the omnipresent debate whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, they are monotheistic in the precise way that Christianity is monotheistic. All three have One God which has many individual aspects. It just happens that Christianity has only three.

KV 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, I am sorry that you don't understand the Christian concept of God, but that might be escusable for a non-Christian. However, don't make the mistake of drawing conclusions from that lack.

In Christianity, God is not one god with three aspects. It is God existing in three hypostases (the Latins used "person" for that, but the meaning of that term has changed since then): God the Father, from whom His Eternal Word/the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed. All three are co-eternal and of one substance, each fully God (and not just part of the deity). Of the three hypostases one (the Son) became man in Jesus Christ.

The Egpytian view (or rather the monotheist strand in the Egyptian religion) is quite different. Starting from the Heliopolis genealogies, you have Ra - who is Atum - generating Shu and Tefnut, who in turn generate Geb and Nut, who in turn generate Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephtys. Later Egpytian religion saw all these as emanations of one God (Ra) but that was hardly the case from the beginning, since the gods I have mentioned are respectively: Sun, Air, Water, Earth, Sky and the cultural heroes (and anti-heroes) with wives. Since you claim expertise, I want to ask you, KV: are all these gods (and yes, the Egyptians saw them as different gods, while Christians have not considered the three hypostases as three gods) co-eternal or has there been a time when the one or the other has not existed or came into existance. For me, it appears to be so, at least with the Osiris generation. Also, I guess this monotheos-Ra could emenate in countless other gods, couldn't he? The Christian God however is, was and ever will be three hypostases - no more, no less.

Before you cry: that's your view, let me say: no, that's the Christian view on one hand, and the Egyptian view (as deduced by yours truly) on the other hand. If I am wrong on the Egyptian view, please enlighten me since I am (for obvious reasons much more knowledgable on Christianity than on a religion that has not existed for almost two millenia).

Anyway, our whole discussion on this is IMHO irrelevant to any part of the article. If you want to include the monotheistic claim for the Egyptian religion, that might be superfluous but you can chose to include it. However, since in my book the view is hardly uncontroversial, it needs to be disclaimed. That makes it long and ugly but so be it. Accuracy comes before beauty. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism and Henotheism

This may be helpful to consider since Pharaoh Ankhenaton is brought up.

Monotheism. The exclusive belief that there is but one god coupled with the exclusive worship of the same.
Henotheism. The exclusive worship of one god coupled with the belief that there are or may be other gods that exist as well.--Drboisclair 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add too that Ankhenaton was a henotheist, not a monotheist.--Drboisclair 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Long ago, Judaism was henotheistic, not monotheistic. It changed. Drogo Underburrow 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has always been monotheistic, but proto-Judaism is known by some scholars as "Yahwism." I disagree with you here, because I hold to the view that Yahwism was also monotheistic as per Moses. The Hebrew Scriptures do speak of those within the nation of Israel who were henotheists, but the heart of Yahwism was monotheistic IMHO. The Shema states, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one"--or "the LORD alone"-- (Deut. 6:4). The Ten Commandments state, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Deut. 5:7) (the word for "before" can also mean "besides," Hebrew roughly transliterated: "al-penai")Drboisclair 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where "the LORD" is actually YHWH, of course. --Oscillate 19:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, --Drboisclair 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the references above to be "God" instead of "god". As per above, the Bible mentions other "gods" - beings in superior positions or power, but only one God Almighty. --Oscillate 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It should only be capitalized when it's a proper noun, and lower case when it's a common noun. It should have nothing to do with religious meaning, just use plain correct English rules. The situation is with nouns that can be either proper or common, depending on usage. Since 'god' as a noun can be either proper or common, then its capitalization is based on that usage. It is extremely rare that a proper noun would follow an indefinite article (a or an). It's far more likely for a proper noun to follow the definite article (the). Examples of an entire class of exceptions: I bought a Big Mac and fries. I gave my son a Game Boy for Christmas. Take a look at how I capitalize the word mom in the following sentence: I told my mom, "Thanks, Mom, for being the best mom ever."Giovanni33 00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

True, they had no other gods, but that doesn't mean they didn't think those gods existed. I forget the group that worshipped the god that they wouldn't mention by his real name, but instead used the term "Lord" or "Ba'al" to refer to him outside of their land, so foreigners didn't know the real name to take his favor. They built in Jerusalem, a temple for Ba'al, and the Jews took it seriously and killed them all and destroyed the temple. Now, the Jews by no means think that the ten commandments apply to everyone, they believe they and the other 1000 or so mitvah apply to Jews, and Jews alone. The rest of the world only has to accept the 9 commandments of Moses because the rest of the world only agreed to that earlier covenant. If we can handle not eating meat from a living animal, we can pretty much get to heaven. Their problem was not then, that was another god being worshipped by non-jews, but that it took place IN Jerusalem and probably the temple rivalled that of the local storm god, Yahweh. Now, of course we have the issue of whether or not Christians realize this...... (Cainites did) .... and of course most Christians also don't realize that Yahweh was originally believed to have only been worshipable at the Temple of Solomon, where was laid the Ark of the Covenant, in which Yahweh laid with the tablets upon which were written the Ten Commandments. The idea of jews going to synagogues to worship Yahweh when abroad (which some made their homes in Greece, Egypt, Rome, etc) was seen as blasphemous. Of course, eventually it became accepted.

KV 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"1000 or so?" I had always heard there were 613 mitzvot. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The number slipped my mind, and I was thinking it was larger, 613 though, I know that's right when I see it. But yeah, one of those 613.

KV 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, I would disagree. I believe there were many temples throughout ancient Israel; the main temple was in Jerusalem. Further, Christians do read and are educated and knowledge is not yet restricted; let's just agree what you are presenting is not "secret" knowledge. Ancient Israelites acknowledged other Gods and some Isarelites worshipped other gods (they tended to get into to trouble when they did; their god was a jealous one). However, the religion of ancient Israel was monotheistic in that all other gods were false and beneath worship.

The definition of henotheism seems be fluid. My understanding is that henotheism is the belief that their are many gods; they are known and identified. It is not simply the thought that others may exist, but rather there is a definite pantheon from which to choose. A henotheist chooses which god to worship or which is their primary god. A significant difference from admitting a possibility that other gods exist, but are not known, identified or named. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If we look at Synagogue#History, we see that they were by no means any temples throughout Ancient Israel, besides the Temple of Solomon, dedicated to Yahweh anyways. So, we find that the editors of Synagogue, that seems hammered out by many, "The article Synagogue (history) has 244 non-minor edits by 49 registered users"[7]. But you seem to be focusing on what you believe, rather than when seeing a contradictory view, backing it up. The second that you saw that you believed I was wrong about what the nature of the synagogue was, you shoudl have found a source rather than simply stating you believe something different. Likewise, I found a definition of henotheism: "Belief in one god without denying the existence of others." [8]. So neither Drbois's nor your definition, is correct. This is also the reason for WP:V, so we don't go based off of individual editors' beliefs.}

KV 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Storm Rider: my definition of henotheism does not contradict yours. It is not an either/or but a both/and. Henotheism closest to monotheism would be as I described while henotheism closest to polytheism is as you described. In my definition I did not say that they had not identified other gods. I have to admit that your definition is more in line with the working definition used by historians, theologians, archaeologists, anthropologists, et. al. Henotheists as I have defined would be like the present day Mormon church. They are not monotheists because they believe that there are many gods out there, but they strictly worship one God. Their religion has also been characterized as modern day Gnosticism. Instead of the home of the gods being "Barbelo" as in Gnosticism of the 2nd Century C.E. it is "Colab".--Drboisclair 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term "Colab", but I suspect you mean "Kolob". It is found in the Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon book of scripture. Kolob is the name of the star closest to where God the Father resides. Beyond its proximity next the Father, it has no significance in Mormon theology. God the Father is the only God that resides there. Those outside of Mormonism have used the label henotheistic for Mormons, but for the term to be accurate it would have to mean that if there is any acknowledgement of any other gods. This definition is awfully loose and I suspect all people who study religions would be caught in that net. Hinduism is appropriately termed henotheistic; they don't just speak of other gods, they "know" there are other gods because a pantheon exists from which to choose.

KV, it am still searching the reference. I would never just spout off beliefs without having a reference. This article demands a higher level of scholarship, no? Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To follow up on that, though, the Hindus cannot be considered henotheists because they worship all of the other gods of their pantheon. They must be considered polytheists. BTW, thankyou for the further info on the Mormons. I have read that they say that Kolob is the "home of the gods."--Drboisclair 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They need not be considered polytheists...... in fact they don't call them gods, they call them devas. By that mindset, Christianity must be considered henotheistic or polytheistic, because they are different aspects of Brahma in the same way that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of the Christian concept of God. Now, certainly, they can be considered polytheistic, and such claims should be noted in that article, the same with Christianity. In the interest of NPOV, as there are various views on the matter, both should mention both sides and the debate around it, though not in excruciating detail. That's the point. And in this explanation, perhaps both religions can begin seeing their similarities and Hindus will not call Christians polytheists in the same way that Christians will not call Hindus polytheists.

KV 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that some schools of Hindu thought were far different in regard to what they worship than other schools which may certainly make the claim of monotheism? Homestarmy 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, that may be true, but it certainly is the same with Christianity. Compare the Cainites to the Baptists.

KV 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the article starts with "Christianity is" not "Christianity was" :). Homestarmy 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler still is. Even though Adolf Hitler was. We are to be covering ALL of Christianity as per WP:NPOV#Religion.

KV 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article is mostly "is" and History of Christianity is mostly "was." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." This article is both is and was.

KV 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Long articles often get split off into separate articles. Hence History of Christianity is a separare article. Both points of views are still presented. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easy.

Father God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, are one, worship the Spirit, because God the Father is Spirit, Jesus Christ is the same Spirit, whom he recieved when he was baptised. "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me..". And The Holy Spirit lives in those who believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, who sits at the right side of the Father, yes this is the same Spirit in all, the Holy Spirit. Remember this, If you blaspheme against the Spirit "..you will never be forgiven..". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.209.97.34 (talk • contribs)

That sounds an awful lot like Adoptionist heresy. A.J.A. 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Luke 4:18 Jesus says: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me", not that he was the Spirit of the Lord. Also, the parallel vrse of Mark 3:29 is Matthew 12:31, 32 where Jesus says: "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven..." So blasphemy against the Son is not on the same level?

Also, regarding Jesus being "in the Father", look at John 17:20-26, where he says regarding the apostles "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." So, if Jesus meant that he was the Father when he said he was "in the Father", is he asking for the apostles to be the same as God? Easy you say? Easy to see that Jesus is not God, yes. --Oscillate 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the first verse of John makes it so clear: "And the Word was not God." Oh? What's that you say? A.J.A. 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. It's not easy really, because people can interpret this however they please and in matters of theology its very difficult to prove anything one way or another. —Aiden 14:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, this is true. Theological bias exists even when one thinks otherwise, whichever interpretation one accepts. However, there should be solid reasons for and understanding of one's choice of interpretation. --Oscillate 15:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Greek phrasing used there is "The Logos was with the Theos, and Theos was the Word", a predicate noun not preceeded by an article, a phrasing used many other times throughout the Bible and translated as a quality, not an identity (John 8:44; Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6). There have been many translations noting such and thereby translating it as "divine" or something similar. At the very most, the translation depends on context. Look at the context: "The Word was with God". Tell me, what is the identity of the first "God"? Is it the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity as a whole? Then who is the second "God"? Did John change the identity of "God" in mid-sentence? --Oscillate 14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So you believe in another, who is not God, but has the "quality" of divinity. That's polytheism. A.J.A. 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the Bible calls others "gods", including Satan and angels and human judges. (Psalm 82:1; John 10:34, 35; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 8:5,6). At 2 Peter 1:4 others can "participate (or partake or share) in the divine nature." There is only one God, but many "gods", like Paul said. --Oscillate 15:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul was talking about pagan Greek figures like Zeus and Apollo. Do you really think Jesus belongs in that category? A.J.A. 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

John 10:34, 35 is Jesus quoting scripture anyway; plus, Satan is called the "god" of the world in a serious sense. Feel free to discuss on my talk page. --Oscillate 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand these things, although you think you do, but one day you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.209.97.34 (talk • contribs)

I think, Oscillate, John's phrase is the very essense of the Trinity: that each part is with God and God at the same time. —Aiden 15:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the Biblical support for such a status. John 17:3 - "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."; 1 Timothy 2:4 - "[God] who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Now, if it's so important for us to have accurate knowledge of God and Jesus, why would Jesus come to earth proclaiming such, and then pretend like he was talking to Someone else, praying to Someone else, directing people to somone else, having that Someone else speak to him from Heaven...when the whole time it was him and he was just tricking people and he never really died at all! And then, after his resurrection, gave visions of Jesus and God as separate, with no mention of the Holy Spirit, and inspired Bible writers to speak of Jesus as still subordinate to God after his resurrection to Heaven. I don't see the support. Jesus' response to those who said he was equal to God was "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing." (John 5:19) --Oscillate 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, no offense, but I do see Biblical support for such a status. John 10:28-30-28 "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." I mean you know, it doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Basically, there's not many ways I can see this working, either Jesus was compleatly God and there are now a ton of condradictions in the NT to deal with, was compleatly a man and was lying right here, making Him not sinless, which wouldn't matter anyway since He couldn't of withstood the punishment for the world whether sinless or not if He wasn't God, or is both God and a man. Similarities to greek whatever-it-is aside, I see nothing that seriously makes it impossible for Jesus to both be God and a man at the same time. Homestarmy 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cut and dry"? Again, yes Jesus said he and the Father were one ("hen"), and he continued to say to the Father at John 17:21,22 in regards to his apostles "that they may be one as we are one." Is Jesus saying the apostles should share the same essence, being 12 parts of the same Apostle? Cut and dry? The same Greek word is used at 1 Corinthians 3:6,8 to describe Paul and Apollos as "one" ("hen"). Are they in the same relationship as a Trinue God? "One" in purpose and unity. It's simple - Jesus is not God and there are no contradictions in the Bible about it. It's a dangerous thing to take lightly. --Oscillate 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. What the Bible says and how it should logically be interpreted really isn't the issue here. --Ashenai 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It can continue on my talk page if anyone wishes. --Oscillate 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be preferable. I guess any section titled "it's easy" (if unprovoked) is not really worthwhile on an article's talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

God or god

I've seen Alienus revert from God to god....... but I have to note that God is used when there is one, and only one.... if we were saying they were henotheistic and worshipped only one god, that would be proper capitalization. I know for myself, that when Budge talks about the monotheistic God of Egypt, he uses God....... when he speaks of one of it's aspects, such as Thoth, he says god. Though I appreciate the attempt towards NPOV, I don't think NPOV applies to that capitalization. Especially since it should then be linking to god (male deity) not god. KV 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this to the native speakers (since in German we capitalize all nouns) except for this: KV's take seems to be right. If the article is talking about God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense it should be "God", if it is God in the sense of other monotheistic religions or of a sort of the one divine origin behind all other gods it should be "God" too, if it is individual deities such as Toth or Mars it should be "god". However, KV, that doesn't change the problem with Egpytian monotheism we discussed elsewhere. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No Purgatory in the Bible?

It should be noted that no mention of purgatory appears in the Bible, whatsoever.

I think that phrase would be disputed by Catholics. 64.178.145.150 02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how exactly do they dispute it? Homestarmy 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of scriptural verses quoted by the Catechism in support of the existence of purgatory. Off the top of my head, one that springs to mind is Mt 12:32, which, in translations I'm familiar with, mentions that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven neither in this age or the age to come, implying thus that certain sins can be forgiven in the age to come. I don't have my copy handy, but I can find some more references for you later if you like. My perspective is that this statement is contentious enough to be removed. Slac speak up! 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick search has unearthed 1 Cor 3:15, 2 Tim 1:16-18, and 2 Macc 12:44-46. Slac speak up! 02:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholics say Purgatory, Protestants say glorification (but that second article needs work!) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. A.J.A. 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense or not, that's how we read those verses. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's "we"? I've never heard of glorification as equivalent to Purgatory, and I've never heard any of those verses read to mean we have to go to Purgatory (only 'round here we call it "glorification"). The whole idea of Purgatory is that people haven't done enough penance before death, so they must do some more before they enter Heaven itself. Protestants have no theology of penance, therefore no Purgatory. A.J.A. 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bible does not directly mention purgatory anywhere, Church leaders simply tried to make sense of some things and came up with the concept of purgatory. It may or may not exist, but it is completely founded on OR in the Church. There is no policy, CHRIST:NOR. Hopefully that clarifies.

KV 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi KV. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church does not constitute original research. Catholics interpret these passages as referring to purgatory - this is an objective fact. Hope that clarifies Slac speak up! 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that I myself count as OR, but I've never really thought of those verses as even hinting at the existance of purgatory, it simply looks to me like the sin simply won't be forgiven without saying one way or another whether other sins can be forgiven. Homestarmy 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Several verses speak of a 'purifying flame' as well that the Church sees as referring to purgatory. I'm with User:Archola; I believe the difference between purgatory and Protestant views on 'glorification' is easy to overstate. The doctrine of purgatory pretty much states that the sinful are purified before entering heaven; the exact how isn't much gone into. Slac speak up! 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not OR for the article, but for the church it is. I'm not saying it's not based on facts (i.e. passages in the bible) but it is OR.

KV 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

When you start calling stuff in the real world "OR", you need some fresh air. A.J.A. 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I might respond that the idea of sola scriptura is OR :-). Slac speak up! 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the article seems extant :). Homestarmy 04:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian Statements of Faith that do not espouse ONE God

I believe that the Unitarians, some of whom believe in Christ, have creeds that do not affirm ONE GOD per se. Certainly they disagree with the trinitarian view.

I believe that the Latter-day Saints have believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate.

Arian Churches (and there are some) consider Christ to be worthy of worship, but they rank him as inferior to God.

So these are a few examples you asked for. The worldwide "Body of Christ" has very little that it is unanimous on. Please revert back in recognition of this diversity.64.178.145.150 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello 64, please stay serious. All these groups affirm the belief in one God. They, however, disagree with others (mainstream Christianity) about whether the divinity of Christ can be reconciled with that monotheistic belief. They don't think so and hence reject the divinity of Christ in different ways. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LDS believe that the Godhead are separate beings, but they believe in one Godhead. Many LDS scriptures state One God. As a Latter-day Saint I have never doubted the divinity of Jesus Christ nor been taught any doctrine that would cast doubt on His actual divinity. Without being the Son of God he could never have left the tomb.

I would be careful about claiming who rejects the divinity of Christ in any degree. I suspect you would never find a LDS who rejects the divinity of Christ; it goes against everything we believe about the Savior to suggest he was more man than god. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Storm, I was not referring to the LDS in my above post because they are a special case. I don't want to explain this again since the last time I did we had a major argument without any hope for reaching an agreement. My post referred to Unitarians, Arians, JWs or similar groups. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does have to cover the mainstream, and LDS are explicitly described as standing rather outside the mainstream of Christianity. The existence of Christian groups who deny a doctrine may not prevent it being a Christian doctrine: there are self-professed Christians who reject practically every doctrine you can think of, even the existence of God. Myopic Bookworm 11:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Myopic Bookworm is correct. I'd like to point out, lest we forget, that there are Christians who are at the same time Atheists, as well. This article should mention the great diversity of Christians, and not take a POV that those outside the mainstream not really "Christian,' as in the No True Scottsman fallacy.Giovanni33 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of my comment: I would hold that because atheism is so radical a position within Christianity, it should be discounted when giving an account of mainstream Christianity. I would refrain from covering explicitly, in an article on mainstream Christianity, any doctrine which is seriously radical, eccentric, or restricted to an extreme minority, including self-professed Christians who espouse atheism, bitheism, tritheism, docetism, Gnosticism, scriptures subsequent to the close of the original canon, re-incarnation, the identity of Jesus with alien lifeforms or Tibetan mystics, or the Second Coming of Christ in the person of a sect's founder. I would include doctrines which are held by some mainstream Christians and rejected by others, such as papal supremacy, biblical infallibility, predestination, millennialism, reverence of icons, theistic evolution, etc. Myopic Bookworm 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"No true Scotsman is Chinese" is not a fallacy. A.J.A. 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a review of the fallacy No True Scotsman is in order. If something like being a Scottman and Chinese are exclusively contradictory, then yes, its not a fallacy. I clearer example is statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction. The falacy is, as an example:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."

Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

To further quote the article on the subject: "Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand." A perfect example of this is the below user who states that "Mormons aren't Christians." If I point out to him that they certainly claim to be Christians, even if out of the mainstream, he would no doubt reply that they are not "true Christians." That is why I made some edits today including the qualifier "most" before defintive statments about "Christians believe...", but I see it was reverted. I guess those that do not adhere to the maintream Christian beliefs are not true Christians, eh?Giovanni33 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're Chinese, you can admire the Scots, you can wear a kilt, you can eat porridge without sugar, but you can't actually be Scottish. A meat-eater can call himself vegetarian just as easily as an atheist can call himself Christian, but both are simply abuses of the language, even if a meat-eating vegetarian can get a vegetarian club somewhere to let him join. That's because eating meat contradicts the definition of a vegetatian. What you're doing here is objecting to there being any definion of "Christianity" at all. But it makes no sense to have an article about nothing, so the reductio of your position is simply deleting the article. A.J.A. 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a definition but you fail to admit is that the definition is quite broad and open to various groups which believe vastly different things, some of which can be termed Atheisitic (although they would not be either typically Christian or typically atheist). A famous idiosyncratic atheistic belief is that of Thomas Altizer. His book The Gospel of Christian Atheism (1967) represents the view that God has literally died, or self-annihilated. According to Altizer, this is nevertheless "a Christian confession of faith" (p.102). Also, other, unrelated practitioners of Christian atheism may include Liberal Christian atheists who follow the teaching of Jesus, but who may not believe in the literal existence of god. Are we to deny these self-professing followers of Jesus who call themseleves Christians the label Christian? On what basis? That they think God has now died, or that Jesus was not supernatural, but follow his teaching and those of other mainstream Christians? Certainly they fit within the definition of Christianity by some of the looser definitions of the word. While this may not work for Vegetarians eating meat, it doees work for Christianity since the latter is not clear-cut but is a matter of varying interpretations. We know what meat is. Christianity is not like meat. Its a diverse belief system. Therefore we must adopt a broad definition. To fail to do this is to engage in the Not a Scotman Fallacy. Also, note that this view does not mean we should not focus on the maistream, traditional beliefs. It only means we should not exclude other versions of Christianity. There is no such thing as a one true Christianity anymore than there ever was such a thing as a one true Orthodoxy, despite what traditional conservative Catholics would like to believe. Indeed the great positivist luminaries in all earnestness encompassed a Catholic Church which would retain all its ceremonies and ecclesiastical structures, whilst transforming into a purely atheistic church, much in the same way that Christianity has co-opted the organizational traditions of the native faiths it has encountered around the world, and through the ages. But, when it does so, it transforms itself yet still retains its theological trappings that act as an umbrella under the label Christian. If the religion survives it will continue to split into many more sects, and thus it continues to diversity. Again, there is no one True Christian. Such a creature does not exist, never did and never will. Giovanni33 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A tribesman briefly speaks with a missionary. The missionary tells him that Christianity is simply what he calls the truth, but doesn't have time to explain further. The tribesman, sure that he already knows the truth but very impressed by this strange visitor, begins calling his tribal beliefs "Christianity", and it catches on. The entire tribe are now, by their own lights, devout Christians. Are they actually practicing a form of Christianity, or not? A.J.A. 04:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Depends how long and how deep the traditions with their professed Christian beliefs have taken root. If its based soley on a missionary briefly speaking called it simply the truth, and that is the extend of his understanding of the religion then the answer is no. If after that the native people for years found and establish a viable Christian institutions such as churchs, adopt all the traditioanl Christian ceremonies and ecclesiastical structures, profess following the Christian religious texts such as the Bible, proclaim their belief that Jesus Christ is their personal savior, etc, then yes, obviously they are Christians. This is irrespective of how they interpret the bible and how they mix in Christian beliefs with their native pre-Christian beliefs (which is what has always happened). And, they are Christians even if their interpretation is outside of the maistream, i.e. atheistic.Giovanni33 14:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mormons aren't Christians. User:Dubc0724

Anonymous contributor: you have a misunderstanding here. Those Christian groups that deny the Trinity almost universally do so because they deny the three-ness part, not the one-ness part. In other words they maintain that there is only one God, and because they reject the Trinity they either say that Jesus (and the Spirit) are not God, or that they are exactly identical with God the Father. LDS may be an exception. I frankly don't understand their doctrine, and I was certainly told recently by an LDS evangelist that they believed in two Gods, Yahweh and Elohim. But I would hesitate to make a definitive pronouncement based on that. DJ Clayworth 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Elohim is another name for God the Father. Jehovah, or Yahweh (which is not used as often) is another name for Jesus Christ. Both terms are used interchangably within the chruch.

Within LDS theology there are seemingly conflicting thoughts; about as conflicting as the Trinity sounds to many people. LDS Scripture states there is one God, or one Godhead. That Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost. The complexity evolves in the recognition of God the Father, his Son, and the Holy Spirit as being separate beings. Together they form one God as the Book of Mormon states. Though they are separate they do not stand independent from the other. LDS would be comfortable with statement that God the Father is God and Jesus is god. Most LDS would state they are one in purpose, thought, and will.

From everything that I have studied about the Trinity there are definite differences. LDS believe they are separate beings and that the Father and Son both have tangible bodies; not just the Son. These are significant differences, but at the end of the day I feel there is more in common than what separates the two schools of thought.

Myopic, I agree that the majority of the article should cover the majority of Christianity and the mainstream should be backbone of the article. If you felt I was stating otherwise, I have miscommunicated badly. A Christian group that denies God would be an exception indeed.

Dubc0724, thanks for sharing. Definitions can be odd things. When we twist them enough they begin to fit our own understanding; however, the word then loses its value to others because the originally meaning has been lost. My recommendation is to stick with original definitions. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And LORD God is another name for... ? A.J.A. 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

LORD is a substitution for YHWH that properly belongs in the Bible the way God had it written. --Oscillate 23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a point here. A.J.A. 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:A.J.A., your statement reminds me of the Thomas' statment in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God". Here the doubting Thomas is made to understand that Jesus was the Christ, the risen Lord. What Thomas says is vitally important for all Christians. It is just as important as the Savior's question in the ninth hour on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". (Matt. 27:46) I do not see a conflict between these "statement/question" and LDS doctrine or theology.

If your point is meant to argue what is true, this is not the place for it. I am more than happy to share thoughts on LDS concepts and beliefs, but if you are looking for a "your church is obviously wrong and mine is right" conversation, I am not interested. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Right over your head.

One person had half of it. Most English translations of the Old Testament follow a convention that makes the English terms for God transparant to the Hebrew names, if you know the convention. LORD means YHWH. God means Elohim. LORD God means YHWH Elohim. So if YHWH means Jesus and Elohim means the Father, then who's YHWH Elohim?

I might suggest whoever came up with your identification between the OT names and the persons of the Trinity didn't know what he was talking about, but that would mean your church is obviously wrong and you're not interested in that. Personally, I would be very interested in avoiding damnable heresy, but hey. A.J.A. 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Between me and thee, let God be our judge. May you continue to have confidence in your position of being saved from damnation. Again, glad that you have found something you identify as truth, but keep it on your personal page and out of articles; it is not the place. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You had no trouble expounding your position on who Elohim is here, but as soon as I point the problems with it, suddenly it should only be in my "personal page". A.J.A. 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right over your head again, it is beginning to a pattern. You have not made a point on Elohim; your point has nothing to do with my beliefs or the beliefs of anyone else for that matter. You attempt to draw everyone of a different faith than yours into the typical playground argument, "My dad is better than your dad". You have a faith; great, enjoy it. You have that right. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord as we see fit. It has nothing to do with what you think is right or true. The difference between us is I don't judge what others believe or its inherent value. Your actions speak so much louder than your words that I have a pretty good idea of your Master. May you two continue to walk together. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but, Storm Rider, you must admit that the identification of the name "Elohim" with God the Father and of the name which I will not utter with Jesus Christ is a doctrine quite unique to Mormonism. Were not also the archangel Michael and Adam involved? Cheers anyway, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

STR, Yup, they are one and the same in Mormonism. My point is that this is not the place for identifying the "truth". I don't even think this article is the place for the conversation; these are mysterious that have nothing to do with salvation. It fits under the umbrella "Oh, that's interesting", but after that it serves little purpose to anyone. The topic of the names of God is similar; no where in the New Testament does it say we must know his specific name to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is interesting information, but that is as far as it goes.

Wow. You accuse me of behaving badly, then you imply my master is Satan, then you openly curse me to continue walking with Satan. But you're not judging others, and that makes you so much better. A.J.A. 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, you have been very active in this article and on others of attempting to ridicule Mormon beliefs. That is great to have an opinion; I am happy you have one. However, it is not the place of WIKI to state which is the true religion, faith, etc. When you go there, I have stated clearly that it is unacceptable. Now about my insinuation, very simply, if the shoe fits where it, if it doesn't don't worry about it. We chummed these waters enough, move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bubba". Mormons sure are nice people, aren't they?

You directly asserted the identification. You didn't even say "Mormons believe..." You just said "Elohim is another name for God the Father." I simply pointed out a problem with the identification, and you cursed me. Not used a bad word, cursed. Now you want to just brush it off and drop it -- which I guess makes you the polite one here, whereas pointing out that you stand revealed as a very hateful (indeed wicked) person makes me rude and not nice. So be it.

Proclaining yourself happy the other person "has an opnion" is utterly insufficient. People have reasons for their beliefs and these matter. A wrong opinion on these matters is a very bad thing, both eternally and, as you've demonstrated, in your character. A.J.A. 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Returning for a moment to the original examples given: I believe that the Unitarians, some of whom believe in Christ, have creeds that do not affirm ONE GOD per se. Certainly they disagree with the trinitarian view. I believe that the Latter-day Saints have believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate. Arian Churches (and there are some) consider Christ to be worthy of worship, but they rank him as inferior to God

The unitarians originally emphasized the oneness of God, over and against their understanding of the Trinity. Today only 10% of unitarians consider themselves Christians; either of these two observations would be enough to remove them from consideration here. The LDS belief system looks sort of polytheistic to me and others, but to them it is not, so we need to acknowledge that they also emphasize belief in one Godhead just as trinitarians affirm belief in one God. The original Arians believed that Jesus was a highly exalted but created being, separate from God; they did not believe he was equal with God or that he was another god. I'm not sure what modern Arian churches were meant, but I doubt that they or any other Christian sect would explicitly name more than one god whom they worship; as yet, no credible examples have been given as far as I can tell. Wesley 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wesley. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

references in the lead in?

It seems highly unusual to have references in the lead in. After all, the lead in is just a condensed version of the article, and presumably, any point in the lead in will be covered properly in the article itself. joshbuddy^talk 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you missed about two weeks worth of debate over inclusion of the word monotheism. —Aiden 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, you just can't win.Timothy Usher 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss the debate. Writing a lead-in with extensive citation is in essence, putting the cart before the horse. The lead-in is a function of the article. You've included the concept of monotheism, but oddly enough, the article's inclusion of this concept is not cited, instead the lead-in is. This sort of inconsistency makes it difficult to follow. I don't mind moving the citations myself, just wanted to supply some sort of rationale so no one would get taken unaware. :) joshbuddy^talk 02:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did make it a ref name format, can't it just be in both places at once? Homestarmy 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats a valid point. I thought of that as well. But it would appear that having a lead-in without citations is best practice generally, in as much as its followed by several scholastic journals. I'm still trying to get some clarity on what's the best practice for wikipedia, but it seems rather odd that a lead-in would need any sort of verifiability. joshbuddy^talk 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it seemed odd to many of us that there needed to be so much verifiability for "Monotheism", but that's just how the discussion turned out. Homestarmy 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in a normal article, it would be odd to have citations in the lead. But the "anybody can edit" nature of the wiki means that it is likely someone will come and edit it out and we'll be back at a long... discussion... over it again. Refs preempt many an edit war. --CTSWyneken 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

I have revised the two section "Beliefs" and "Differences in Beliefs" in line with my Talk comments above. The revision is at User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Beliefs. A.J.A. 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll make some edits to relay my suggested changes, nothing major.

KV 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Real Size of Article

The actual size of this article, as determined by copying the article, including image text and [edit] buttons, but missing the templates, references, see also, and external link sections as well as any wikiformatting, which I considered the actual article a viewer will read, and then saving it as a .txt file, is 35 kb. Wikipedia suggests 30-50 kb for a featured article, so we can have up to 15 kb more, just for the record. KV 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The most common way to save articles to your computer is IMO to save the HTML without the pictures. This currently results in a file of 132 KB. Just for the record. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

132 KB? Uhh, im sorry, but that doesn't sound right. Homestarmy 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We want to know how much Wikipedia would consider the text without markup......... The ideal length is then 30-50 kb, and we're at 35..... Christianity is certainly a type of article that would reach at the upper end of that spectrum. Now, the reason for this is purely, and solely, for stylistic reasons, because someone would read approximately 30-50kb of text before getting tired. We are lacking pictures for that purpose too, there's not nearly enough of them. To suggest that we're at 132, that would mean we have to cut the article in more than half....... and then how would you figure out how much is html and wiki markup? KV 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KV on this point. When I look at the Christianity article entries for other encylopedias such as Brittanica and Encarta, they are many pages long. I like the current size of the article but feel if something of value can be added, we have the space to do so. If we need to remove anything it should be the overkill with the references cited for Monothesism in the notes section. We need only one or two reputalbe refences, not 20. Giovanni33 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, I was wrong: 132 is what my system told me after I saved the article to my hard drive. However, on second thought, the WP guidelines reference to the size of the source text and hence this should be used. So I retract my "132" and say instead that this page is "52 KB" long, according to WP.

As for the whole issue: I don't think there is much to add - the disputed versions are more or less of the size. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We could use the extra space to expand on some of those 1 sentence or so summaries of other articles at the beginning of the article..... Homestarmy 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Str, it uses the text without wiki formatting, there is a lot of formatting on this page, in fact, 17 kb worth. The stress that it's without wiki formatting because it's about what someone can handle reading, not how many actual bits anymore. Some articles will have little wiki formatting, while others will have a lot. KV 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My last comment on this rather unimportant issue: we should not look for stuff to include just because we still have space left. If we have something to include we should consider to organize it best. Hugh I have spoken! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Once again, this heavily vandalized page has been semi-protected to eliminate random repeating vandalisms by anons. If anyone disagrees with this, let me know.--MONGO 08:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the average time for vandalization to remain?

KV(Talk) 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Unless the editor who placed this posts here pretty fast to explain why it should be removed. I can't see anything more major than the usual differences of opinion - have I missed some big bust up? Sophia 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I posted a POV at the top is because you have to be honest with this article. Read it. The whole thing (which I read) is POV. To not have a POV warning at the top is like saying that everyone supports Christianity. Leave it there. Because taking it away is just shoving religion down people's throat. Andy Blak 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Andy, that is a start, but when posting a tag you need to explain exactly why the tag is valid and what you think needs to change before you would support removing the tag. Now be specific about what and how you would change the article to further improve it.

It is assumed that when reading an article about Christianity, it would be similar to any other article about a religious subject. You might want to try reviewing how other encyclopedias write similar articles before going any further. I look forward to your assistance in improving the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?!?

Ok... why is this page up for deletion... just another forum of vandalism I guess? Pure inuyasha 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion nomination is not vandalism. all allegations are Wiki Policy and Wiki legal. Andy Blak 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

umm.. no. you're just trying to downplay christiany on wikipedia. utter POV and vandalism. shame on you. Pure inuyasha 23:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you shame me? You dont even know me. Every bit of my allegations were Wiki Policy. Read it and weep. Andy Blak 23:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a propaganda article. if this is then a heck of a lot of articles here are propaganda. I could argue that the article on switzerland is propaganda using your logic. Pure inuyasha 00:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inuyasha, I know you're upset, but please try to stay cool. Andy, simply asserting that something is "wiki policy" is not good enough. You have to talk it through with other editors. In fact, edits like these indicate a pretty serious violation of policy on your part. Please act in good faith. Slac speak up! 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, this guys blocked now. he was spamming the articles on atheism, satanism and satan for support for the deletion... quite sad really... Pure inuyasha 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now. He's said he's sorry. Pure inuyasha 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

^ Budge, E. A. Wallis (1900). Egyptian Religion. Kessinger.
^ Egypt: Land Of The Gods] (DVD). United States. 2002. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |crew= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |distributor= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
^ Budge, E. A. Wallis (1900). Egyptian Religion. Kessinger.
^ Egypt: Land Of The Gods] (DVD). United States. 2002. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |crew= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |distributor= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

[1] Budge, E. A. Wallis (1900). Egyptian Religion. Kessinger.

[2] Egypt: Land Of The Gods] (DVD). United States. 2002. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |crew= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |distributor= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

[3] Budge, E. A. Wallis (1900). Egyptian Religion. Kessinger.

[4] Egypt: Land Of The Gods] (DVD). United States. 2002. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |crew= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |distributor= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Towards a todo list

Beliefs

Needed citations

Afterlife section

History and origins section:

Comments from the Good article review, including the Holy Spirit

Wiki's Razor Again

Differences between Catholicism and Protestants

Why? WHY???

monotheism

Doctrine and belief

We're digressing here (or we were, before edit conflict)

*Whistle* Everybody out ot the Pool!

Vote on How to Describe the Monontheism in Christianity Issue

Not at all

Yes, according to dictionary

Yes, with qualification

Invite some actual Muslims to comment

Consensus already exists on this issue, negating the need for a poll

Quick recap (i.e. I'm Lazy)

Total rewrite

Enough Already

Link to Poll Above

Muslim views on Christian monotheism

Comments from regular editors

History and origins section is awful

Osiris And Resurrection addition

Rewriting Osiris and the Resurrection

Monotheism and Henotheism

It's easy.

God or god

No Purgatory in the Bible?

Christian Statements of Faith that do not espouse ONE God

references in the lead in?

Beliefs

Real Size of Article

Semi-protected

POV tag

Deletion?!?

Whistle Everybody out ot the Pool!