Talk:Christianity/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Please, cool down

I politely request that people tone down the rhetoric and, if necessary, take a breather. We're all trying to do our best to improve Wikipedia, and sometimes things do get heated and there are POV conflicts, but that's no excuse for incivility. This is not directed at any single editor, but rather a general appeal. If we're just arguing and flinging out accusations, we're not focusing on productive consensus building and constructive criticism, which is what should be our focus on the talk page. Vassyana 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page is quite horrible at the moment, and I don't want to blame anyone in particular. I think everyone who's involved should be prepared, for the good of the encyclopaedia, to stop, even if there's a remark you feel is unfair, that you haven't answered yet. ElinorD (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I echo the above sentiments hope we can get back on track soon as usually we do work well together in an atmosphere of mutual respect - well most of the time :-) Sophia 07:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An apology to Str1977

A few days ago, I made a snide remark in response to Str1977's comment that "there was no consensus" to remove the text of the Nicene Creed from this article. My response was made on a good faith assessment from the discussion at the time that the consensus seemed to be running 7-8 for removal and or 1 or 2 against. The results of the straw poll seem to indicate that the sentiment is running approximately 2-1 for removal of the text. Thus, it seems that Str1977's comment that "there was no consensus to remove the text" is at least partly correct in that the sentiment to remove the text is far from unanimous. And thus it was inappropriate for me to cast aspersions on his motivation for making it.

That said, it should also be apparent that "there is no consensus for keeping the text". What we have here is "a failure to reach consensus". And, in the meantime, the article remains protected. What we need now is to find a way to reach consensus.

It is my feeling that it is not really critical to have the text of the Nicene creed in the article. An easy solution would be for those who favor including it to explain why it is critical i.e. why the article would be incomplete and unencyclopedic without it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Nicene creed and have it so memorized that I often accidentally insert bits of it when we recite the Apostle's creed. But, why is it important for it to be in the article? If it doesn't represent all of Christian belief then why fight so hard to have it included here?

--Richard 18:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My view exactly. I don't understand what's at stake here. Would someone please explain why the text needs to be here in its entirity, when it is available for perusal at Nicene Creed? Fishhead64 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Richard, your apology (if it is indeed needed at all) I fully accept. My main concern was always that this shouldn't be changed at will by one (or even a few, but one in particular) editor. If any proceedings result in the removing of the entire text, I will glady yield. Str1977 (smile back) 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Towards Consensus (Nicene Creed)

Reading the comments here, I have a few questions:

  1. What are the essential elements of the creed that need to be addressed in the article?
  2. Should the creeds section focus on the creeds themselves or the place of creeds in Christianity?
  3. Why the Nicene Creed over all others, such as the Apostles' Creed which is arguably more ecumenical?

Comment. It seems as though the general consensus is moving towards the removal of the Nicene Creed. However, to prevent edit conflicts and ending back at a similar point, we do need to address the above questions, in my opinion. (It's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.) It makes no sense to rush to unprotection agreeing and tolerating the removal of the full quote, only to end up in conflict over what to then do with the section. Please answer under the appropriate section just to keep the differant questions seperated for clarity. Vassyana 08:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Essential Elements

  1. I believe the essential element that distinguishes the Nicene Creed is the emphesis on Christology. (Comparable say to the Chalcedonian Creed's emphesis on Christology or the Athanasian Creed's focus on Trinitarianism.) Vassyana 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Creeds Focus

  1. I think the creeds section should briefly touch the emphesis of the major creeds (as it does with all but the Nicene) and provide an overview of why they are important. Importance being measured in an objective and historical sense, as opposed to the sentiment and attachment some may feel towards them. Though certainly some mention of such sentimental attachment has a place. Vassyana 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Why the Nicene Creed?

  1. I do not think the Nicene Creed should be given too much extra weight compared to the other creeds. However, its central place in mainstream Christian identity and as a common "gold standard" should not be ignored or discounted. Vassyana 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
These are all very good points. As noted above, I think it is important to explain the significances of creeds in a section on creeds. As an example, if I were an English major and I was to read the text of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, I may have the skills necessary to analyze the poem, but I still woudldn't know its historical significance or background. Having the full text is only helpful to a certain extent. In an overview encyclopedia article aimed for non-specialist audience, it would be better to describe the histrory and themes of sonnet 18 than to include the full text (if we had to choose). So regardless if we include the full text of the Nicene Creed or not, I think the more important information is a good background, history, summary, and explanation of the creed's importance than the full text. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Christian theology or the history of this creed myself to feel comfortable enough adding this information (most of my books are about earlier Christian history, though I'll see if Koester doesn't mention the creeds)-Andrew c 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Are we ready to move on to discussions as to how the Creed should be represented in the text instead of a full quote? Vassyana makes good points but I just want to be clear if we have a tentative concensus to move forward. If we do then discussion from this point should revolve aroud NPOV and stylistic concerns. Please squeak loudly if you feel events are moving too fast. Sophia 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is going slow and no one is speaking up, much less loudly. I think we can proceed to agreement per the majority view on this, and note that even the majority of the minority view accepts the majority view, although its not their preference. Therefore, I think we should ask for unprotection and make the changes.Giovanni33 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If the creed is to be removed, then, I think it would be better for someone who wasn't part of the edit war or the inflamed situation here to remove it. Perhaps Jkelly would be a good choice, as he suggested the box, as he didn't revert, and as he didn't vote. It might make it less galling for the losing side! (It wouldn't particularly bother me, but just since this talk page got so heated a few days ago, I think this solution would be more sensitive.) ElinorD (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems silly to me, but whatever works.Giovanni33 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is silly. As I say, it wouldn't bother me who removes it, if it's removed (which I still think is a pity). But since you kept removing it when there was no consensus (without even trying to add the box that Jkelly had suggested), and since that obviously caused a lot of annoyance, I think it would be a very bad idea if you were to be the one to remove it as soon as the page is unprotected. Musical Linguist might be another possibility, as he didn't vote, and he did try to calm things down. ElinorD (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you might have a point there. I hope for someone else to make the edit in question, and insert the wikibox (which I was not sure how to do myself).Giovanni33 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Musical Linguist is a she!!! Actually, I'd have no problem removing it, if that's what the consensus says, but although I didn't vote, I think most frequenters of this page would know which side I was likely to be on. Anyway, I think we could ask for unprotection now. Musical Linguist 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have requested unprotection. Musical Linguist if you would be kind enough to make the edit when the protection is lifted, it would be appreciated. Vassyana 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jkelly is a good choice to make the change (always nice to give someone else a job!). I still think it would good to see the proposed change here first to make sure there are no NPOV issues with the Filioque clause etc. Sophia 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have left a message for Jkelly. Vassyana 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicene Creed replaced with sisterlink box

I was invited to make the edit I had recommended a while ago, and just did so. I'd like to encourage those editors here who have been doing so much thinking about this issue to take a look at our Nicene Creed article. There are some very uncontroversial improvements that could be made there. For example, we currently have "...originally written in Greek, the language of the eastern Mediterranean..." in the article... Jkelly 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Vassyana 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Messiah means "Messenger" in Hebrew

Hello. Thank you for your efforts. In reference to the statement that: Christians identify Jesus as the Messiah. This title comes from the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (māšiáħ) meaning "the anointed one" - the translation of the Hebrew word is incorrect. The literal and correct translation of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (pronounced mo-shi-ach) is "Messenger". Definitely and absolutely does not translate as "The Annointed One".

Thank you again for your efforts. Charlesr44 09:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. "Messiah" means "The Annointed One" in Hebrew. Str1977 (smile back) 11:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You're both right. Read the intro to the Messiah article. Someone please change the article text accordingly. --Richard 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but no. We can't both be right. Charles above proclaimed "Annointed" to be wrong - and that "definitely and absolutely". In doing this, he was in error. There is no need to change the article text accordingly, as "Annointed" is perfectly accurate, as shown by the early Christians translating Messiah into Greek as Christ. Str1977 (smile back) 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Not intending to argue, just point out a couple things. Messiah (meshiach) literally means "annointed". "Annointed" is sometimes used to mean "appointed" (no pun). This can obviously carry connotations of a "messenger" (e.g. an "appointed [representative]"). This literal meaning can be clearly seen in Leviticus for example ("annointed priest"). Malak is the word that literally means "messenger". It is the most commonly used word for "messenger" and is also used as an expression for angels. Just some facts and thoughts. Vassyana 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought Malak meant King. Str1977 (smile back) 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
;o) That's the problem with transliterated Hebrew with vowel inserted. It can be confusing. You are right though. Malak (MLK) means "reign" or "become king" and Melek (also MLK) means "king". Malak (MLAK) meaning "messenger" has an aleph. Vassyana 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, folks. Use this Wikipedia thing. The Greek word Christos from which we get Christianity means "anointed" and is a translation of Moshiach. Other English words from that Greek word include "chrism" and "christen". See messiah and Christ.

The word for "messenger" in Hebrew is mal'ach, which is translated into Greek as aggelos (pronounced angelos) and from which we get "angel". --FOo 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian POV

A lot, and I mean a lot of this article is written from a Christian POV.

  • "Christians identify Jesus as the Messiah" assuming there is such a thing as "the Messiah"
it's not just Christians who assume such a thing. the concept specifically referred to comes from Judaism and there are other religions with a similar concept called by different names. r b-j 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Many Christians consider the death of Jesus, followed by his resurrection, the most important event in history." assuming Jesus existed, died, and was ressurrected
most major claims are qualified with "Christians believe". it gets pretty wordy if every tenet of the faith was qualified with such. the size of the article would double. it's the same as if you were to go to some other article of a group of people with a common belief system. people reading this understand the context, this is about Christians, who they are, where the movement came from, and what they believe, not what is undisputed scientific and historical fact. r b-j 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't just write "according to the Gospels" our "Christians believe/consider/understand" here and there.

Why not? --Richard 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Christians understand salvation as a gift by unmerited grace of God, who sent Jesus as the savior."

Understand salvation as? Very weak. I appreciate the attempt at controlling the bias but that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. Why not just write "Christians believe salvation is a gift by unmerited grace of God, who sent Jesus as the savior." Notice how "our salvation" all of the sudden becomes assumed? And consider the phrase "a gift by unmerited grace of God." Who would understand what that means if they are not Christian? No one uses the word "grace" very much anymore. You could rewrite it as "a gift from God which they believe to be unmerited." There is no need to repeat "who sent Jesus as the savior."--24.57.157.81 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than this. There IS a neeed to mention "who sent Jesus as the savior". In fact, we need to back up quite a bit.
The real problem, as I see it, is that we jump right to salvation assuming that the reader understands what salvation is and why it is needed. There is no discussion of "the Fall from grace" (i.e. Adam's original sin) that necessitated the need for salvation in the first place. There is no discussion of the Christian stance that Jesus provides salvation which is not considered (according to Christian theology) to be possible within the Judaic framework of laws.
Now that my attention has been drawn to the section on "Beliefs", I see that it is in serious need of restructuring and expansion.
--Richard 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. This article has to describe Christian beliefs, right? Yes, Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah. The National Socialism article doesn't state Nazis believe Aryans to be the Master Race, assuming such a thing exists. I'm really at a loss to see what the problem is. Chrisitianity considers Jesus' resurrection and divinity as important topics. They consider his life important. They use the Gospels as the basis for their beliefs about him. Yes, they could be wrong in doing so - but as an encyclopedia we're not obliged to characterise beliefs mildly disparagingly, but objectively (and disputes sympathetically). It is objectively the case that Christians believe these things. PS. "no-one uses the word 'grace' much these days" - Christian theologians have been using the word "grace" for 2000 years. And NPOV means not being time-specific or presentist. Please, can you provide alternatives that address the problems that you see with the article Slac speak up! 06:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with the other points - beliefs are beliefs, and we cannot add a caveat to every belief listed on the wiki - that would be absurd and its clear its a religious belief from the context - I do agree strongly with the objection to "understand". It implies this is not a belief at all, and those who do not believe it simply don't understand it, which is very POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the Christian religion, and as such, is very well written (and I was not a major contributor to this since I arrived on scene after most of it was already written). An encyclopedia article does not need to assume a priori the materialist world-view, nor does it have to provide mathematical proofs before stating what is otherwise considered fact. As some other editors have commented above, we do not require on other pages statements such as "Plato, assuming he existed, was a Greek philosopher," "Confucius, if there was such a man, was an Eastern philosopher," "Mohammad is considered God's Prophet by Muslims, assuming (1) there was a Mohammad, (2) Allah is God, (3) there is a God, and (4) prophets exist." The fact of the matter is, the historical existence of Jesus is well accepted, and that Christian dogma proclaims him to be the Christ (aka, Messiah). LotR 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In an article about a belief-system, it is not necessary to constantly bracket each statement of belief with "Adherents believe that ..." when it is obvious that beliefs are being discussed. It is necessary only in introduction (to point out that Christianity is a belief-system) and when contrasting one view with another (for instance, Christians believe such-and-such, while Buddhists believe something different; or Presbyterians believe thus-and-so, while Baptists believe some-other-thing). --FOo 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


"Christians identify Jesus as the Messiah" assuming there is such a thing as "the Messiah"

This is ok with me as long as Messiah is linked to explain that concept, which makes clear that its a belief not a fact of existence.

"Many Christians consider the death of Jesus, followed by his resurrection, the most important event in history." assuming Jesus existed, died, and was ressurrected

The problem I have with this is "followed by his resurrection," "the most important event in history," implies it is a fact, instead of a belief--while we can assume Jesus existed since most historians assume that he did, although even this is not so clear, and the operative word here is that they "assume," the resurrection is not an event that any historians assume to be true. Instead is a religious belief. Instead I propose the text read: "Many Christians consider the accounts of the death of Jesus and his resurection to be the most important event of the story." Ok, I know people are offended by my preference for story (even though story could be true or false--is not history a true story?), so feel free to choose another less offensive word, "account?"

You can't just write "according to the Gospels" or "Christians believe/consider/understand" here and there.

I'm ok with the above except "understand," that word implies that its a question of understanding instead of simply belief.

"Christians understand salvation as a gift by unmerited grace of God, who sent Jesus as the savior."

This is an example. "Understand" should be changed to "believe." Also, "who sent Jesus," is from the POV of treating God as an accepted fact instead of a beleif. To fix both of these problems I propose tying in "believe with "and" thusly: "Christians believe salvation is a gift bestowed by their god and that he sent Jesus to be the savior," --or something along those lines.Giovanni33 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"Many Christians consider the accounts of the death of Jesus and his resurection to be the most important event of the story." That sounds as if the fact of someone sitting by the fire telling a story is what matters. An account is not an event. The event related by the account is the event. I have no problem with changing "understand" to believe". "A gift bestowed by their god" is unacceptable. It suggests that Christians acknowledge that there are other gods. ElinorD (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm how about, "Among Christian beliefs, the death of Jesus and his resurection, are held as the most important events." I'm ok with removing "their," even though Christians do acknowlege other religions and hence other gods. In fact, in the bible it has god speaking, saying, 'there shall be no other gods before me," no? This means there are other gods, albeit false ones according to Christians. But, we can remove "their" and only say "A gift bestowed by god...." since its assumed that we are talking about a Christian god.Giovanni33 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never yet heard of a false God that is in actual, deified existance. Acknowladging that concepts exist isn't the same as affirming the concepts. Homestarmy 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Christians do acknowleged other gods. They have to, in order to distinguish their own from other conceptions and religions. But this doesnt mean acceptance or affirmation.Giovanni33 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but you said "This means there are other gods", rather than "This means there are other concepts of gods", with the former indicating henotheism rather than monotheism. Homestarmy 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps the problem is that somebody decided to do a little personal Biblical exegesis of their own to henotheism in the Judaism section, in an attempt to imply that the situation in question implies that Judaism, and by implicit extension Christianity, is henotheistic. I would of removed it outright, but I presume that wouldn't of been met with high acclaim. Homestarmy 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, never mind, the whole paragraph about that in that article was just added in by an anon, so I presume no discussion took place, and so I just removed the thing. Homestarmy 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I think it should be made clear that Christians do not acknowledge other gods. It is one thing to acknowledge that non-Christians worship other gods but that does not mean that Christians acknowledge the actual existence of those other "false gods".

We acknowledge that there are Hindus and that they worship Siva and Vishnu but we do not acknowledge the existence of Siva and Vishnu.

We could go into a long discussion about the meaning of the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" but, in a nutshell, this harks back to a period when Hebrews lived in a time of polytheism and monotheism was an emerging concept. Thus, early Judaism may have been henotheistic but Christianity is not.

--Richard 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It bears repeating: An encyclopedia article does not need to assume a priori the materialist world-view. Christians believe in God, not "god," which is factually inaccurate. The term "God" has a pretty specific meaning, which among other things, and unlike the term "god," refers to a monotheistic deity. LotR 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting stuck in semantics with the word "acknowledge" which here means only an awareness and recognition of other gods, not an acceptance that the claims are true. Obviously Christians dont hold that other gods are true, i.e. they really exist in the real world. God is a concept. Its an idea. However, one can believe its something tht exists in the real world, and this can only be stated as a belief. So when a god is accepted as true, it means the claim of the god as being real is accepted. So there are many gods, or rather many beliefs of gods, only one of which Chritians think is real. Note the word "think" is real--not know. This satisifieds the NPOV requirments, but it explains the difference between Christians acknowleging many gods but disregarding them all except the one they believe to be the one and only true god. That they only belive in one god should already be clear in that the religions falls under the category of monotheism. So to say "their" god it refers to the Christian concept of God---and this is made singular hence not "their gods."Saying "their" only distinguishes it from other gods from other religions. It makes no claim that Christians believe in them.Giovanni33 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, first, let's start by agreeing that Christianity is monotheistic and not henotheistic. The comment about "thou shalt have no other gods before me" is an anachronistic red herring.
Second, Christians don't "think" their god is real, they believe it and in a theological sense, they know it to be true. You can argue that we should use "think" but it's an awkward phrasing when it comes to religion. "believe" is a better word to use.
Third, should we say "God" vs. "their god"? I can see the arguments for using "their god". If we were describing the religion of an aboriginal tribe which had no name for their god, we would definitely use the phrase "their god". However, when describing a major world religion which does have a name for their god, then it seems more appropriate to use the name of the god. After all, if you were describing Satan worshippers, you would say "Satan" more often than you would say "their god". If you were describing a cult of Siva or Vishnu, you would use the name of the god more often than you would say "their god". I don't see "their god" as being an important way of maintaining NPOV. For comparison, consider the articles on Judaism and Islam. A quick glance suggests that the phrase "their god" is not used throughout.
As a side note, I am a bit perplexed by the use of "God" in the Islam article. I would have thought that it would have been more appropriate to use "Allah" throughout that article.
--Richard 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no disagreements with anything you said above, Richard--except they don't "know" it to be true in any sense, they only believe it to be true. The only reason we dont have to use "their" god here is because this article is not comparing religions and hence does not need to identify whose god we are talking about. Its assumed its the Christian god. But, saying 'their god" in another context doesnt imply that Christianity is not monotheisitic. That was my only point.Giovanni33 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Richard, "God" and "Allah" are both "correct". One is simply English and the other Arabic. Arabic-speaking monotheists of other faiths (such as Judaism and Christianity) use the word "Allah" just as English speakers use the word "God". Just a side note. Vassyana 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A comment on Richard's comment "I don't see 'their god' as being an important way of maintaining NPOV." Saying "their god" or "god" would produce quite the opposite result in fact. In the common English/Western idiom, this phrasing quite simply represents the materialist and minority POV that there are no deities. The NPOV way of referring to the Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) deity is God. LotR 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


OK, this is an article talk page, not a religious discussion board so we shouldn't go too far in getting into philosophical debates. I understand and agree with Giovanni33 that no one can really "know" that Jesus Christ was resurrected and ascended into heaven.

I should comment though that religious epistemology is such that, within the framework of a religious system of beliefs, believers "know" certain things to be true. Much of Western philosophy is based on proving the existence of God and "knowing" certain truths about morality. Admittedly, philosophy has moved on since those days but religion is ultimately about "knowing" things about God and his relationship to mankind. You may not believe that Christians really "know" these things to be true but that's because you are an unbeliever. (No offense intended, I'm just describing the "lay of the land". If you don't believe, then the whole epistemological framework of the religion falls apart and you can't talk about "knowing" anything because you don't accept the framework.) --Richard 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And so, it should be stated somewhere in the article that Christians believe that they "know" things to be true because they are revealed in the Scriptures and, in some cases, through church tradition. --Richard 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, how can someone merely believe that they know something and yet still know something? Seems a bit non sequitorish to me, and besides, to know something doesn't mean that other people have to acknowladge that what we know is true, and I presume Gio is certainly in no haste to think that Christians know much of anything theologically related that would be the truth. Homestarmy 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am probably not the person who is best equipped to make this argument as I am not well versed in philosophy, epistemology or religion. Nonetheless, I will give it a layman's treatment and maybe someone who understands this stuff better can do a better job than me. So here goes...
Homestarmy's question presupposes that there is a difference objective, scientific "knowing" about the truth and "mere" belief which is something less as in "I believe that X is true (but I'm not sure)". This is not what is meant by religious belief. When religious people say "I believe that X is true" they mean "X is true and I affirm that truth by my personal belief". Yes, we are aware that our belief is not provable according to the principles of logic and science but, as Kant argued, we assert that religion is outside the domain of logic and science and therefore not required to satisfy those criteria of "proof".
For Christians, knowledge comes from the authority of the Scriptures which we believe by the grace of the Holy Spirit sent by God. For Catholics, this knowledge also includes the authority of church tradition.
Christians "know" that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. It is not just a "mere" belief. For Christians, it is as much a truth or more of a truth than the assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow.
The word "mere" is inappropriately applied to belief. Belief is not something less than scientific knowledge but, in fact, something that we are more sure of and place more trust in than "mere" scientific and empirical knowledge.
You may not subscribe to this view of truth and knowledge but that is because you are not a believer. (Once again, this is said without any offense intended. This is just a statement of fact. If you are a believer, you would most likely subscribe to this model of truth. If you are not a believer, you are less likely to do so.)
NB: I am not arguing that everything Christians believe IS true or that YOU should believe it. However, it is important that you understand how religious thinking works because there is a disconnect between the way you seem to think about religion and the way believers think about religion.
--Richard 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What's this "scientific knowing of the truth"? As someone who watches Evolution related talk pages often, i've always been under the impression there's no real truth involved in any science and its not even a bad thing per se, its just ideas which will (supposedly) work correctly as models when applied to reality. But I have to say, for someone who has a disconnect between the way I think and the way religious people think, I sure get religious looking results for those quizfarm worldview things, and have some pretty religious looking userboxes on my page, perhaps i'm using the wrong ones? Homestarmy 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Homestarmy is essentially correct here. There is no "proof" or even "truth" in science, and even the "facts" in science are subject to change and refinement, and have error bars on them. If a person wants proof or truth, then one should be looking in mathematics or logic, not science. Even then, the "truths" or "proofs" in mathematics and logic are strongly dependent on the axioms which are assumed at the beginning. What science does is provide parsimonious explanations for data (which are measurements or observations, and are the "facts" in science). These explanations are only temporary, and are expected to change as more data becomes available. For example, the theory of gravity is an explanation for why things fall when we drop them. It has been replaced many times, and theories of gravity were produced by Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and Einstein (among others). It now appears that the Einstein theory of gravity is going to fail too, and be replaced as well. So the "knowledge" or "belief" in science is of a fundamentally different nature than the knowledge or belief that one encounters in religious faith. Scientific facts and scientific "truths" and scientific "proofs" are sometimes mischaracterized by the media, the general public and educators. Part of the difficulty arises because science has proved very successful in producing models that predict certain behaviors of systems. Once a prediction appears fairly reliable, it can form the basis of a technology. Then well-meaning enthusiasts have a tendency to oversell science and what it really is doing. One does not have to delve very deep into quantum mechanics to realize that science is not producing more than just some vague impression of reality, and that as humans our ability to comprehend this reality is very drastically limited. --Filll 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe I was sloppy in my phrasing about "scientific truth". I was trying to avoid writing out the long version.

I said at the beginning of this that we could get into a long discussion about epistemology and I was trying to hint that this wasn't the place for it. All I'm trying to say is that, to the extent that there is truth and knowledge in science, the truth and knowledge in religion is based on something different (revealed knowledge vs. empirical knowledge). I thnk it was Homestarmy who asked how Christians can know something and suggested that it was "mere belief" and therefore the word "think" was more appropriate than "know". Believers in any religion (not just Christians) believe that they "know" certain truths that are core tenets of their faith. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot accept these "truths" as unchallengeable. On the other hand, it is important to discuss the faith with an understanding of the nature of religious belief. To suggest that Christians think that maybe Jesus rose from the dead is to get it completely wrong. Christians know that Jesus rose from the dead. The appropriate phrasing therefore is that "Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead" or "According to Christian doctrine...", etc.

--Richard 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, I think you might be confusing me with Gio, I was replying to the text which has your signature under it which reads in part "...it should be stated somewhere in the article that Christians believe that they "know" things to be true because they are revealed in the Scriptures and", which I considered to be a non-sequitor, because if we just believe that we know things, that somewhat implies we don't actually know them, we've only come to have faith that we know something. While i'm sure someone could go all philosophical about that and argue that everyone really only thinks that they know something because they only think they exist, I would hope we don't have to go that far.... Homestarmy 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I conflated Giovanni33's comments with Homestarmy, it's a limitation of WikiEditing that it is difficult to read over an entire long conversation and get every editor's comments right. I should have been more careful.

I'm not sure where this epistemological discussion is going but the core issue as I see it is that Christians have a belief system which is based on revealed knowledge as revealed to them by holy scripture and church tradition. This is a belief system which is different from science in that science claims to be able to build up its entire belief system from empirical observation. Like most other religions, Christianity doesn't limit itself to empirical observation. Christians know things because it is written in scripture and they know the scriptures are true because the Holy Spirit tells them they are. (Same argument holds with respect to church tradition for those who include church tradition as a basis for belief.)

I don't see this as controversial. Either you believe or you don't. The original question, I think, was... How should Wikipedia describe assertions made within such a belief system. Do we say
  1. "Jesus rose from the dead" (this poses lots of difficulties as being "Christian POV")
  2. "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" (OK but saying "Christians believe" before every sentence gets tedious)
  3. "According to the Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead" (citing the gospels can also be tedious but not everything Christians believe is in the Gospels or even in scripture so citing the source can be important)

--Richard 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if its just down to how do things get rendered, what's wrong with what's there now? Christians do indeed identify Jesus as the Messiah, and many Christians do indeed consider Jesus's death and ressurection to be the most important event in history, I think awhile ago I even found the citation for that line. Homestarmy 20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Objections already explained above. My proposed text to replace this particular sentence was: "Among Christian beliefs, the death of Jesus and his resurection, are held as the most important events." What is the problem with wording it this way? Another one was: "Christians believe salvation is a gift bestowed by their god and that he sent Jesus to be the savior." We agreed that we can leave "their" out given the context provided for an assumed premise that we are talking about the Christian god. Giovanni33 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you agreed with the first link presuming a wikilink to Messiah was there, and I don't see the problem with the second one since Christians believe it to be the most important event in history, whether it actually happened or not doesn't matter. Your sentence seems too slow with that parenthetical, and the citation doesn't actually back up "beliefs", but rather the opinions of Christians. (Though, to tell you the truth, it doesn't really support that most Christians believe it either, but just finding that one citation was hard enough, and come on, why wouldn't most Christians believe Jesus' death and ressurection to be the most important events in history?) I don't see how your sentence gets around what I suppose is your dislike of it possibly somewhat implying the historicity of the events in question either, since it still seems to say "are held as the most important events in history", which is pretty much identical to what I said anyway except for singular vs. plural. I wasn't around when the salvation-related sentences were crafted though I think, i'd rather wait for someone else to explain how that was made before I say much. Homestarmy 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Im fine with things as long as its worded to make clear things that are beliefs are stated as beliefs, instead of being a fact of existence. It is a fact of belief only. Some things we can assume existed in reality for WP purposes, based on the consensus of historians, i.e. Jesus-- but other things that the academy clearly identifies as made up, mythological dogmas, such as the resurrection and God, can not be assumed to be real within WP's language (no offence intended for believers). In fairness, we should not necessarily assume it not real either for WP purposes, but simply avoid taking any such stance and describe it as a belief.

The problem with the below passage is that it is worded to assume that the resurrectoin was an event in history:

"Many Christians consider the death of Jesus, followed by his resurrection, the most important event in history." As I explained, the problem I have with this is "followed by his resurrection," and "the most important event in history." This implies it is a fact, instead of a belief. Notice how this cures this defect: "Among Christian beliefs, the death of Jesus and his resurection, are held as the most important events." These are simply events of the belief system, of the story. They do not say they are true, i.e. historical. And they clearly identify them as beliefs, albeit the most important beliefs. Opinion of Christians is the same things as the belief of Christians in this case, since their opinion is about their belief, talking about which one is the most important of their beliefs. I dont' see how adding, "Among Christian beliefs," makes it too "slow." Giovanni33 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the alternate wording "Among Christian beliefs..." does help although I think the sentence is improved by saying "...most important events in history." since that is what the belief is. (i.e. Christians believe that the resurrection is not just the most important event in Christian belief or Christian history but in the history of mankind.) --Richard 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for:

"Christians understand salvation as a gift by unmerited grace of God, who sent Jesus as the savior."

The problem part is "who sent Jesus as the savior," and the word "understand" instead of "believe." "Who sent Jesus," is from the POV of treating God as an accepted fact instead of a beleif. To fix both of these problems I propose tying in "believe with "and" thusly: "Christians believe salvation is a gift bestowed by god and that he sent Jesus to be the savior."Giovanni33 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is the kind of thing I was getting at. But some of the stuff does have at least some context, I noticed. In some places it is quite spread out though, so it's easy to miss if you're just skimming it (and to forget from the first time you read it). As long as it is established that what is being talked about is gospel or what have you beforehand, then it should be ok. There's also lots of other ways to say it as long as you set up the context. "Part of the Christian belief includes the idea of salvation." There you have the context. Then you can say things like "Salvation is seen as..." or "considered to be..."
And I think there was a point to the "who sent Jesus as our savior" part. The problem is not necessarily that it is there, the problem is that it relies on prior religious knowledge, that Jesus and salvation are even related. This is sort of explained in a previous part, but not very well. That part says "Jesus reconciles mankind to God and thereby brings salvation." I have no idea what this means at all. It goes on "The need for salvation was necessitated by the Fall from Grace which was caused by Adam's original sin of disobedience to the commandment of God." Ok the only reason I remembered what the Fall from Grace even is is because of the reminder at the end of the sentence. This is a good example of an editor who was writing from a "Everyone already knows everything about Christianity" view. And "Jesus reconciles mankind to God" is basically scripture!
I wrote the most recent version of that sentence. The problem here is that no article can assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject without getting very longwinded. Equally, no article can assume the reader is an expert without getting very technical. Thankfully, Wikpedia is not paper and that's what wikilinks are for. Perhaps "original sin" should be wikilinked. There might even be an article on "the Fall". (no, not the novel by Camus but the bit with Adam, Eve and the apple). --Richard 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And if you really want a conundrum, you can even be biased with the tense you use. Using the past tense in "The need for salvation was necessitated by," it suggests this event happend in the past, perhaps, without context, even in the real past. I wouldn't say the editor is biased, but I would say they need to work on their writing skills (even then, it might not be their fault--perhaps a series of edits ruined the context). In the past in the bible is what is not biased. So, an agreeable change to something like "In the Bible, salvation was necessitated.." would solve that problem (the past tense is still right, since you are talking about "the Bible" is an the story, not the book, which is an easy enough context to grasp if used consistently)
It also doesn't explain about why salvation is "necessitated" by original sin (I know the basic idea, but that doesn't mean you should expect readers will) but that's really a content issue though.--24.57.157.81 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason I didn't try to explain why salvation is "necessitated" by original sin is not so much that it's a "basic idea" as because it has been and continues to be the subject of debate and controversy in theology. The theology of salvation is called soteriology and there are several major theories as to why mankind needs salvation, who gets saved and how Jesus' death effects the salvation of mankind. There is no hope of explaining it all in this article so I didn't want to try any explanation because it would either represent only one POV or confuse the reader by trying to summarize all POVs. I suspect that even the Salvation article may not do the topic justice. Perhaps it would be useful to add a sentence indicating that there is no one commonly held belief as to why mankind needed saving and how Jesus' death accomplished salvation. --Richard 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you don't need to explain all that. --24.57.157.81 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (whoops, I forgot to finish this reply) It just needs to be reworded. You don't have to get into the theology of salvation, just the general idea. Salvation is based on the idea that all humanity is corrupt and evil, or that humans are born corrupt and evil, right? Put that in. People have to atone for their sins or they're going to hell or are subjected to the wrath of God in some way, right? Put that in. Jesus atoned for original sin (there's an article: The Fall of Man), upon his death (however that works). Jesus is often known as "The Saviour" as he provided salvation from the wrath of God. Consider that one is saved from some bad thing. The person doing the saving is the saviour, and provides salvation from whatever doom. Something along those lines, or something to work with at least. --24.57.157.81 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
These are all good points, and I agree with you. I'm looking forword for what others think and consensus to try to tweak the wording accordingly. Not only will it make the article mroe NPOV, but it will make it more understandable for those who want to learn about Christian beliefs, and who don't already know enough to understand these poetic scripture verses, which quite frankly, can be very confusing. :)Giovanni33 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I owe Giovanni33 an apology. After reading the last few posts, I see that the whole "think", "believe", "know" discussion is an epistemological red herring and probably served more to confuse than to enlighten.

Let me try again...

The problem with the "death and resurrection" sentence can be resolved by something like "Christians consider the death and resurrection of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels to be the most important event in the history of mankind." I think the "as recorded in the Gospels" gives the reader a headsup that these events are not necessarily historical in nature but are possibly more along the lines of "sacred history". In a similar fashion, if we wrote "According to church tradition, the Virgin Mary did not die but was assumed body and soul into heaven.", then we use the phrase "according to church tradition" to signal to the reader that this event is not necessarily historical fact.

To avoid getting tedious, I would suggest that, as a general rule, it should be sufficient to say "Christians believe..." or "According to church tradition..." about once a paragraph. Any more than that is probably excessive.

The sentence "Christians understand salvation as a gift by unmerited grace of God, who sent Jesus as the savior." is not, in my opinion, a real problem since the "Christians understand..." should signal to the reader that what follows is a Christian perspective within their belief system. At some point, we have to assume that the reader is not an idiot and can understand that God may not exist and that Jesus may not have existed or that, if he did exist and did die on the cross, that he may not have been raised from the dead. It's just tedious to keep beating the reader over the head with these caveats. You cannot write to the lowest common denominator.

That said, you could fix the "salvation as a gift" sentence by rewording thus: "A core tenet of the Christian faith is the assertion that salvation is...".--Richard 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me and I am in agreement. The only part I'd change from what you wrote above is the word "understand" since it implies that those who don't share the same POV and accept the same beliefs, simply don't understand. :) Other than that, we are in full agreement, in principal.Giovanni33 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
See, I don't think it is reassuring the reader with caveats is just too repetitive (it is, but that's not the whole story). I think the necessity of (and/or demanding of) caveats are a symptom of a larger contextual problem. Articles can be written so the context continues throughout the article, without need to constantly reaffirm the context (doing so would in fact start to look biased against Christianity, because the reader is constantly being beat on the head with it for no good reason). The difficulty in creating context is that context flows through writing; sentence based adjustments and caveats are band-aid solutions trying to patch up an ambiguous or corrupted context. Many contextual problems can simply be avoided in the first place, provided you're a good writer (it's not always easy). Context is built and affirmed through the article, so the real problem is the places where the context becomes ambiguous--not where the symptom is noticed, necessarily. You may have to set up the context as "Christians believe," or "In the New Testament," but you shouldn't have to do it every time. It's not easy but it can be done. It's much MUCH harder to do when you aren't the sole author. Most people I think do it automatically if they're any good at writing, but it's done unconciously--the context comes through with the writing style. The trouble is that, because there are so many authors of the same text, the context can be chipped away by editors who interpret the context incorrectly, or ignore the context. Once it gets bad enough people start to think it is biased, and they re-add the context at the location of the symptom to counter the perceived contextual problem, and it just becomes a mess. The original robust, neutral, and agreeable context is lost, and is replaced with a patchwork. The problem goes unnoticed by people who are familiar with the original context. Already aware of the context they think is implied, they simply don't notice the symptoms of contextual loss. --24.57.157.81 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Remains of Jesus/Bones Controversy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wjesus24.xml http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070225/jesus_tomb_070225/20070225?hub=TopStories http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/ Im sure you all have read about this recently in the news, and the documentary which is playing this week, I think, on the Discovery Channel, called "The Jesus Family Tomb," by Cameron, and a new book that makes this case. To quote from MSN, "With the help of statisticians, archeologists, historians, DNA experts, robot-camera technicians, epigraphers and a CSI expert from New York's Long Island, Jacobovici puts together a case in which he argues that the bones of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene, along with some of their lesser-known relatives, were once entombed in this cave. James Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary consulted with Jacobovici on the project and is intrigued: "A very good claim could be made that this was Jesus' clan." Does any of this merit mention anywhere in this article, maybe under controversies? Giovanni33 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, no. The documentary has yet to air. The companion book is not scholarly, but a work of historical fiction (or as the author puts it, it is "novelistic"). The methodology of the statistics has not been released, but is already questionable as it is known to be based on exclusion of data (focuses on half the names), on disputed readings of nearly illegible text and on fringe interpretations of some names (notably, Mary Magdeline). The missing tenth ossuary from this "discovery" is the James Ossuary, which is widely known as a fraud. Jacobovici's reputation is decidedly "thin" among professional scholars on top of all that. At the least, we should definately wait a month or two and see what furor remains before adding anything. Vassyana 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems like an reasonable assessment, thanks.Giovanni33 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I spend a lot of my time exploring minority-view theories. After a while, you get pretty good at seperating the pseudo-scholars from the pack. Of course, when it's a known figure and includes a known fraud among the discoveries, it does make the call easier. ;o) Vassyana 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You should check the authentication process. Did they turn them over to the University of Jerusalem (or similar) to test as they saw fit, or did they admit only a few handpicked scholars to briefly examine it under supervision (or otherwise keep themselves in control of the process)? If it's the latter, it's a hoax. That's the pattern of the James Ossuary, Morton Smith, Mark Hoffman, etc. A.J.A. 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply another sad attempt to discredit Christianity. A cash in on the Da Vinci Code crock. More fiction and conspiracy theories that off little to no evidence to support their claims. I am surpised there are still some people that claim Jesus never existed when historical evidence points the other way. For further links check out: http://www.callingfortruth.org/cft/content/view/343/10/ http://www.aomin.org/ http://www.carm.org/evidence/Jesus_tomb.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.65.112 (talk • contribs)

Also, if what I heard about this whole thing - ossuary and film's content alike - is correct, I see no relevance to this article here at all. (Apart from the fact that it is so clearly pseudo-scholarship.) Str1977 (smile back) 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

excessive archiving

I was saddened

reading this article. Before it talked about God's love, Jesus, or the forgiveness of sins it talked about divisions within Christianity. Steve Dufour 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen brother. Why can we not start with what unites us rather than what divides us? Reverend Mommy 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb
I agree. Furthermore, the article reads much more logicially if it begins with the definition of Christian beliefs before focusing on differences. Djma12 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This does seem to be a better organization, even if the template makes that weird gap thing. Homestarmy 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Much better, Thanks. Reverend Mommy 07:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb
I tip my hat to all of you! What an outstanding improvement. I am surprised at how long that significantly valid change took. It says something about my own way of thinking, as well a great many others, that we would focus on that which divides rather than that which binds us together...Jesus Christ. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to rain on the parade but the change is fine until you get the the section on the trinity where the different beliefs of the various groups are discussed. At that point unless you already know the various links/splits you are going to be left wondering what is going on. I would suggest the "Christian divisions" setion is moved to just before the "Trinity" section as at that point we are no longer discussing simple history and faith but have stepped into the realm of theology. Sophia 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point, is there a way we can do this without breaking up the overall structure? (Otherwise, an entire subsection would be nested within the "Beliefs" subsection.) Djma12 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Death and Resurrection cleanup?

There is a cleanup tag for this section. Can someone enumerate exactly what is being sought? I'm sure the page's editors would love to start improving this section if we knew where to begin. Djma12 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this section is a much-too-detailed retelling of the events of Jesus' passion, death and resurrection instead of a presentation of Christian beliefs about these things. If I find the time I will tackle this soon but if someone else wants to have go, please do so. Str1977 (smile back) 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done IMHO. Str1977 (smile back) 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Size of Christianity

There seems to be a minor dispute concerning the size of Christianity currently. I found a couple of sources that may be helpful. Feel free to use them within the article if you see fit.

Source: 1997 Britannica Book of the Year. © 1997 Encyclopædia Britannica

Total World Religious Population: 5,804,120,000
Christians (total): 1,955,229,000 (33.7%)

Roman Catholics: 981,465,000 (16.9%)
Protestants : 404,020,000 (7.0%)
Orthodox: 218,350,000 (3.8%)
Anglicans: 69,136,000 (1.2%)
Other Christians; 282,258,000 (4.9%)


Source: International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 2003. David B. Barrett & Todd M. Johnson.

Christians (total): 2,076,629,000 (33.1%)
Evangelicals: 221,637,000
Pentecostal/Charismatics: 553,763,000
Anglicans: 82,895,000
Orthodox: 218,501,000
Protestants: 356,138,000
Roman Catholics: 1,097,144,000

Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with the second one, christianity is what they specialize in. Zazaban 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also much more recent, and it does round to 2.1 million, which is what Adherants.com said anyway. Homestarmy 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. However, these figures are definitely upwards estimates. For example, the Roman Catholic Church derives its census from the number of indiduals who were baptized as RC, as opposed to the number who are practicing. I think the citation is good, but I think we are obliged to present it honestly as well. Maybe add a phrase, "an upwards estimate of..." ? Any thoughts? Djma12 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the possibility of overlapping in the second set of numbers. Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics are all Protestants, Anglicans might be Protestants depending on who you ask, and some Roman Catholics would also call themselves Charismatic, as would some Evangelicals. The first set of figures doesn't seem to have that problem. Wesley 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. What do people think about adjusting the figure to the first source? I'll give some time for people to respond before altering the article. Djma12 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There has to be a source that doesn't suffer from the possible problems of the second source, yet isn't 10 years old. I really don't think the first source has much chance of being very accurate anymore. What was wrong with Adherants.com in the first place, the person who started the edit war never seemed to actually mount any case at all against the site.Homestarmy 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep looking, though I haven't been able to dig anything up yet. Djma12 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Christian Groups

Why are groups that are non-Christian religions allowed to be included on this page? Just because they describe themselves that way does not make it true. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are two groups that want to use this term to mislead people about what they believe. They are not Christian! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 March 2007.

The groups you are deleting from mention grew out of the restorationism movement in the USA. As such, they grew out of radical Christian movements in that country. Although they are widely considered to be heretical by other Christian groups (and likewise they consider other groups to be in error), this is a value judgment. Sociologically, they are part of the diverse branching of Christian groups that ocurred in the USA. If everyone were allowed to define for his or her self who is or isn't in the fold, we would have chaos here. — Gareth Hughes 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If a group lies about worshiping Jesus Christ, then I think it would be appropriate to make a judgment to that effect and exclude the group from the Christian designation. However, if a group actually does worship Jesus Christ, then they are properly designated as Christian, even if you don't agree with some of their beliefs. My feeling is that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses belong in the latter category. -- Cat Whisperer 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you prove that their scam is working because neither group worships Jesus Christ. Hence why they are not Christians. Mormons believe Jesus is the archangel Michael and they do not worship Michael. Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is just a son (the same as the rest of us) of our god. Who was just a really good guy that was made a god by another god and so on and so forth.

I wonder whether you have read WP:NPOV, Cis2002. Although I agree with your belief that mormons et al are not Christians, I do think that the aforementioned policy of wikipedia prevents us from stating that as fact in this article. (BTW, Mormons do worship Jesus as *a* god, as I understand them.)TJ 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If they worship "Jesus/Michael" as a god then they are doing so against their own doctrine. I would think that Wikipedia would want accuracy. Misclassifying a group does not provide accuracy. What if Neo-Nazi's or the Ku Klux Klan started classsifying themselves as part of United Negro College Fund. That would be blatantly misinformation and would be removed. So then why are we allowing these other groups to do the exact same thing?

Cis, are you sure you haven't mixed up the two? I was under the impression it was the other way around, and the Watchtower was of the opinion that Jesus was Michael the Archangel, whereas the LDS was under the impression that Jesus is a type of lesser god or something. Homestarmy 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While you may not agree with "heretics" and non-Trinitarians being called Christian, your disagreement is not enough to justify altering Wikipedia articles. JWs and Mormons self-identify as Christians and are recognized as part of Christianity by the academic community. This means for the purposes of Wikipedia, they are part of Christianity. We can add appropriate criticisms and counterclaims in appropriate articles, provided we properly use reliable sources. We can even hold our own personal opinions about the matter. However, Wikipedia is not based on our POVs, but rather NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassyana (talk • contribs)

To tell you the truth Vass, the way you say that doesn't sound like a Neutral point of view, but rather the JW, Mormon, and "academic" points of view, the last of which I seriously doubt is monolithic on the subject. Homestarmy 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cis2002, if your one-sided (mis)-characterizations of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were true, then it would indeed be appropriate to exclude them from the Christian designation. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, just as Muhammad was; thus Muslims aren't Christians. Followers of Reverend Sun Myung Moon are likewise not Christians, for pretty much the same reason. However, neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Mormons treat Jesus as co-equal (or inferior) to any human being. -- Cat Whisperer 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First I don't know who wrote the reply about NPOV but it wasn't me. Second CW, you admit that Muslims are not Christians because they do not worship Jesus as God which is exactly what the Mormons and JW's are doing. They do not worship Jesus as God. I apologize about the misrepresentation of the Mormon belief about Jesus as Michael as that is the JW belief, thank you Homestarmy. But Mormons do not worship Jesus as God all the same. Finally, going back to NPOV, it is a fantasy. No one writes completely from NPOV but that aside NPOV does not change fact.Cis2002 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, actually, Mormonism itself has fractured into several other mini-denominations, such as the FLDS, and the Community of Christ, the latter of which has self-styled restoration branches, who do actually appear to worship Jesus as God, (at least from what i've seen, I gave one of these people quite a grilling on the matter) despite holding their version of the Book of Mormon as inspired (its slightly different than the current LDS church version) and that Jospeh Smith was a prophet of God. I think its the LDS church specifically you want Cis, the problem with just saying Mormons in general is that although in theory the practitioners of any one religion are assumed to follow the tenents of the religion in question, in reality, individual people often hold opinions highly at odds with the religion they claim to be a part of. And, well, the same thing probably happens with Mormons. It's the church theology I think you want to critisize, not every individual LDS member there is. Homestarmy 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Cis, have you read the policy on WP:NPOV - it might answer some of the comments you are making. It is correct that no-one is without bias, which is why NPOV does not assume that - it is all about representing the views of other people, rather than yourself. The NPOV article, along with WP:OR, make it quite clear that one should never present information on wikipedia as an absolute, regardless of whether or not you can prove it to be true! TJ 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So I should not say 2+2=4, oops I made an absolute. Saying that everything should be NPOV sets up a false belief that things are capable of being NPOV.Cis2002 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Psssst....shall I distract him and start up the "Christians self identify as monotheistic" thread again???? :o) Sophia 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the references given have pretty much ended that argument. (Especially because there's probably more, I just stopped looking after finding so many) Homestarmy 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For Cis2002;

Please note that the article carefully avoids actually affirming that they are Christians. Whether that's because they aren't, or just because there's a major POV to the effect that they aren't and Wikipedia doesn't say that POV is wrong, is left to the reader. Likewise, much of Christian theology was formulated in its current form to refute heresy, which makes heresy itself a part of explaining Christianity; whether non-Trinitarians are described for that reason, or because they are properly considered Christian, is intentionally left unresolved. A.J.A. 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback AJA but the fact is that if you look at the list of western denominations listed among the right sidebar they are listed as Christian groups. So Wikipedia DOES affirm them as Christian.Cis2002 12:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A fair point, although the box is a template and not technically part of the article, so the way to fix that would be to edit it in Template space. That is, to separate them out somehow; I can't think of a smooth way of implimenting that off the top of my head. A separate category of "Other" wouldn't technically be correct because they're Western. What we would mean is that they're heretics, but we can't just come out and say it. Maybe Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Other. A.J.A. 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, there's little to nothing we can do about that, too many editors seem to like giving people the benefit of the doubt merely if they claim to be members of a religion, irregardless of whether or not their actuals beliefs and/or practices are compleatly contradictory to the religion in question. Homestarmy 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly why I respect you as an editor. You are not afraid to express your opinion explicitly, yet you will abide by consensus, no matter how much you disagree with it. Vassyana 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't count on me to be a bastion of Wikipedia policy just yet, I don't think there's a consensus for this issue, its just in my experience, when issues have a certain number of people on each side, change becomes difficult either way, because it requires a certain amount of people to switch sides or become neutral before changes won't spark edit wars or fighting. In my experience, when people end up in situations where prolonged edit wars or fights are the result, most everyone gets blocked, warned, or put on probation, and less people favor either side, thusly making change even more difficult. But there might be exceptions of course. Homestarmy 14:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Fair enough. ;o) The statement wasn't just about this particular issue though. From what I've seen, you work fairly well with consensus. On this particular issue though, I know some would like them excluded from such definition and people on the other side would like to see far less (or even no) criticism included. But, it does seem like consensus has repeatedly supported those groups defaulting to being Christian by definition and including criticisms of their doctrine and inclusion in Christianity, sometimes even to the point of those criticisms having their own article. At least, that how it appears to me. Of course my perception is subjective, so you're more than welcome to some salt with my opinion. Vassyana 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure its a matter of working with consensus as it is deciding that getting blocked for reverting a million times isn't in the best interest of whatever I believe on an issue....However, I wasn't here for this article when some of the more fun stuff over Mormonism and the like were discussed, I believe it was more than a year ago, at the time, I was far more involved with Jesus than this article, so I couldn't tell you exactly how it all went down. Homestarmy 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not difficult to read the archives, but it would take some time. Very little is lost here on Wikipedia and they are open for everyone to read. This is such an ooooold conversation, but it pops up with regularity. The gist of the conversation went something as follows: what is a Christian? What does Jesus say is a follower in the Bible? Is a follwer of Jesus Christ a Christian? When did the definition of being a Christian change? Though it is not a difficult conversation it can be very rancorous. The bottom line is that on Wikipedia we all accept others as being Christian if they so identify. We generally identify chruches as Christian if they preach Jesus Christ born of a virgin, crucified, and resurrected. However, even that is debatalbe given the beliefs of liberal Christians of today.
We seem to love to judge one another: Roman Catholicism is a cult because...blah, blah, blah. Mormons are completely immoral idiots who have no concept of the true God...blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is that on Wikipedia we have parameters and guidelines to follow that assist us in being neutral. It does not prevent us from having our passionately held personal beliefs of "truth"; however, wikipedia is not about declaring truth, but presenting and reporting facts supported by reputable sources. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten that there were other people beside you involved. A.J.A. 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Aye, what's all this "we" stuff Storm? Homestarmy 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have heard two three major definitions of a Christian. 1) one who believes in the divinity and spiritual mission of Jesus as the Savior of the world, 2) one who follows the definition of who God is as defined in the various creeds of Christiandom (i..e the Trinity). Often I hear the "one church" meaning catholic (little c) which includes protestants as well as Catholics (big c). 3) anyone who follows the life and teachings of Jesus (regardless of a belief in his divine nature). For the purpose of Wikipedia, #3 is actually most appropriate. The inclusion of Mormons and JWs falls under #1, and #2 seems to be the POV of those who argue for the removal of such groups from Christian related articles. #2 is the most POV, #3 is the least POV, and it seems that we generally end up in the middle. If you started a category about Trinitarianism and excluded Mormons and JWs, they would probably have no problem with that, but booting them from Christianity is an insult to the very foundation of their faith. I was reading the comments on a user page:

No, you need to do YOUR research. You are correct that Christ is a term for the Messiah but if you read what Jesus said then you can not claim there was no reference to a Trinity or to Him being God. For example, the Trinity is mentioned by Jesus Himself in Matthew 28:19, Jesus had the authority to forgive sins which only God can do is in Mark 2:1-12, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in Mark 2:28, Mark 14:61-62 Jesus answers "I Am" which was not just an answer but also the use of God's name refering back to Exodus 3:14 hence why the high priest got so upset, finally Exodus 20:1-17 gives us the 10 Commandments in which we are not to worship other gods so if Jesus is not God then it would be a sin to worship Him. I could keep going but perhaps you should do some research!

Other than the use of the word "Trinity", all of these statements are believed and taught by Mormons in general and the LDS Church specifically, so to call them non-Christians or the church a non-Christian church, to me seems more a method to confuse the observer, rather than to enlighten. Certainly this author has not done his research. I have said it before, the only way to think in NPOV is to write from the view of a Hindu. Would a Hindu consider JWs Christian? Who is the observer? Who is this page written for? This isn't a prosyliting site, but it seems people want to hide various views of Christianity, which is clearly POV. Bytebear 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So one person didn't show their reaserch very well, and may of gotten it wrong. That doesn't mean the rest of us who may agree with this person are also incapable of doing reaserch correctly, and more importantly, doing reaserch which may hold up to some degree by Wikipedia standards. Homestarmy 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But those who disagree are not clear on the points to which they disagree. The example I gave had a list of attributes of a Christian, and those attributes fit nicely with Mormonism, and probably with other groups as well, and yet they are excluded. So if these attributes are not the issue, then what is? The Trinity is a major point of contention, but the Trininty does not define Christ. It is one concept of the nature of God. Galeleo had a concept of the solar system that didn't agree with Christianity as well, but that didn't make the church any more right. So beliefs change, theology evolves. At what point does this evolution exclude a group the label "Christian"? Bytebear 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, Gallileo did not disagree with Christianity in the least. But he still wasn't right, given the scientific knowledge of his day. He claim a new, unproven theory as the truth but had no proof for this. The rest is history. Str1977 (smile back) 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
While i'm aware that it is probably more or less true so far that nobody is amazingly clear on points of disagreement, this particular discussion has hardly begun, if it even will at all. In my experience, having discussions over issues that have happened before such as this one over articles like this requires the consent of several people, or editors who don't like the discussion topic (generally because they feel its been beaten to death, which is certainly not a bad thing in many cases) will just make it end very quickly. Homestarmy 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The "we" up several edits up above Homestar was the collective we as in human race; not we as in you and me specifically. However, I have often found that the faults I see in others are just as readily seen in my own thoughts and actions. AJA, I am sorry, but I did not understand your comment above. If it is important I suppose it would be best to take it to our personal discussion pages. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, I have to point out that your #3 definition of a Christian, anyone who follows the life and teachings of Jesus regardless of beliefs about him, is so broad that it would actually encompass a number of Hindus. I think that some at least view Jesus as a holy man, and possibly an incarnation of Krishna. Ghandi is quoted as calling himself a Christian, and a Muslim, and a Hindu. I don't think that such a broad view is very helpful or informative; and the question of what a Hindu would think isn't as neutral or helpful as one might think at first. Wesley 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that definition #3 is too broad to define such a group or individual as a Christian, however, I think it is interesting and should be noted in this article. If Hindus believe that Chirst is divine, then they could be noted, very loosly as Christian. This is independent of what other Christian groups think of them. LDS and JWs however center their belief on Jesus Christ, and as such are primarily and difinitively Christian, regardless of their interpretation on the nature of God or whether other Christians see their beliefs as heretical. Bytebear 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So even if LDS and JW's may think that Jesus is compleatly different from the other group's definition of Jesus, and even if each church's beliefs in turn are compleatly different than the beliefs of most non-LDS and non-JW Christians, as long as the name of the person being focused on is the same, little else matters? Homestarmy 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Your religion is not christian. Nah Nah George 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that those of us who aren't quite as keen to give people the benefit of the doubt concerning their beliefs will certainly try a little bit better than that to make our cases. Homestarmy 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The term Belief in Jesus Christ itself is subjective. What I have heard is that to be Christian, you must believe in the root of Christianity, which has been defined as catholicism (little c), meaning a believe in the various creeds and doctrines of the 2nd century church. But is this the correct definition? What if a group interprets the Bible differently? Even radically differently? What if they believe that Christ existed that his message was good, but do not believe in his divinity? Those are debatable. However, what is not acceptable are statements like "they are just hiding their true intent" or "They do not worship Jesus Christ". In the example of Mormonism, this POV goes against every statement and doctrine about Jesus Christ. You can debate the way they worship is wrong, or that they are not following the edicts of the various creeds of Christianity, but they are still Christian. If you learn about what they believe about the mission and purpose of Jesus Christ, you will find that they are 99% in line with the rest of Christianity, despite the rhetoric of those who want to exclude them. Mormons believe in the ressurection, that He is the only begotten of the Father, that He atoned for the sins of man, and so on. You can nit pick various details, but Mormonism is completely Biblical and one can have their faith shaken more than a little by either Mormons or JWs who want to use the Bible to illustrate their theology. If you want to exclude them, you should start a wikiproject on Trinitarianism, catholicism, or some other restrictive subset of Christianity. Although George is teasing, serious attitudes of exclusion should not be tolerated, on Wikipedia, and dare I say, anywhere else. To make such statements shows one is either misinformed and ignorant, or one is being purposefully deceitful. Neither are particularly Christ like attibutes. Bytebear 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware that its subjective to a point, but surely you think some of us might actually be willing to answer your questions? For instance, in order, not the only one and definently not at all if you include heretical doctrines and creeds of the time, it depends on what the result of the interpretation is, radically different can mean anything from not being a strict trinitarian to believing Jesus was a bar of soap or something, and they are in serious trouble unless they were saved before believing that. Cis nor anyone else can speak for all of us, just as i'd hope you'd agree that nobody else can speak for you perfectly in your place, and I don't think its very fair for you to only include statements from your opposition that are judgemental and hasty generalizations, when there's certainly different statements than those out there which are far more reasonable.
Nextly, I believe it is now you who has crossed into the path of the debateable, by stating as absolute fact that every single Mormon is Christian. I think its quite likely a few Mormons were saved before entering that church, but even if Mormonism was the most mainstream Christian church in the world, there is no way you're telling me the LDS church has a 100 percent successful conversion rate and zero false converts, it's simply not feasable for any denomination larger than a few people, I don't care if its Southern Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, or anything else. In my opinion, the proper question that ought to be asked in this case isn't whether or not Mormons are Christian, but whether Mormonism is Christian, the former is pretty much impossible to definitively reference, but the latter certainly could have a referenced case built for either side. If I learn what Mormon's believe, as in going out on the streets and asking a representative population, I will likely find a large amount of conflicting adherance to church doctrines and probably a whole bunch of personal stuff thrown in just for fun, certainly not a 99 percent rate of compliance with "the rest of Christianity", whatever that means. I don't doubt that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints probably has doctrines detailing a ressurection account, a Christology which likely features Jesus as God's son in some manner, a type of atonement theology featuring the LDS church's perception of Christ's sacrifice, and the like. I do doubt that 99 percent of Mormons hold almost perfectly to those doctrines however, and certainly doubt that simply because the doctrines exist and can be referred to in terms similar to orthodox Christian lines of thought that they are compleatly or near-compleatly identical to actual historical church teachings.
This is no mere nit picking I assure you, the doctrines you describe are fundamental components of Christianity, take any one of them out or make them incorrect in any way, and you don't have Christianity. And hence, the historical grounds for the debate with LDS vs., well, almost everyone else. If I want to "exclude them", I'd better find some pretty good sources for that for something like that to be in the article, though I suspect people more acquainted with this talk page than I have probably made a starting point on that, and i'm certainly prepared to give it a go myself. (If you'll believe it, i've never actually tried before in terms of Wikipedia standards. ) Serious attitudes of exclusion must not be, well, excluded from Wikipedia simply because some people may find them morally rephrehensable, (Another highly debatable issue) the standard of inclusion in Wikipedia as outlined in WP:ATT is the currently accepted primary standard as to what, in terms of real article content, does and does not belong on Wikipedia, and last I checked, there are reliable references for both sides of this particular debate. At the end of the day, we might not be able to find reliable enough references to state one way or another whether Mormonism or the Watchtower are Christian or not that we can agree on mostly. But we may certainly find enough references to make it so this article doesn't affirm the issue one way or another. If this possible outcome is misinformed, ignorant, decietful, or otherwise unnacceptable for you, then here we part ways, as I suppose we probably part on many issues. Homestarmy 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, I am ready to talk about true Monotheism again. This is beginning to bore me. It was started by an editor who obviously does not have a clue about what JWs or Mormons believe, but without any understanding has come to a definitive conclusion as to their Christianity. Homestar at least attempts to gain understanding by speaking, which is admirable. But if we are going to start dissecting Christianity (and not talk about true monotheism) then I would feel very comfortable taking the position that all churches broken off from Rome are apostate and have no right to exist. In conclusion, let's get back to the topic of the article and how to improve it. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering this discussion is about which denominational traditions/philosophies/theologies/what-have-you actually comprise the topic of the article, I think this discussion could be highly relevant. I know that the topic starter may not of been very well acquainted with the subject, especially because I myself corrected him on something, but just because the topic starter wasn't very good at, well, starting the topic doesn't mean the rest of the editors on this page (or, of course, anyone else who wants to chime in for that matter) can't adequatly discuss the topic at all in a way that helps the article, though of course when it comes to actually putting such a thing to practice, things could go either good or bad. Besides, I don't write walls of text like the above for nothing :) Homestarmy 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Storm you are to be commended for your tolerance and patience. The person who started this thread also doesn't know his maths. 2+2 = 4 is not an absolute and is relative depending on how you define your number system. In base 3 2+2 = 11. This is relevant here as again it all comes down to how you define Christianity. Sophia 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting timing Sophia, I just finished reading George Orwell's 1984 about a week ago :). And it wasn't the good guys trying to argue the 2+2 doesn't equal four thing in there, sometimes situations aren't open to so much relativity. Homestarmy 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

JWs are Christians, and so are Mormons. Even if they aren't, on WP we need to pretend they are because WP has no way to define "true Christian." That said, this article could use a good section on "true Christians," and about how Christians believe that lots of supposed Christians are actually false Christians. The really funny thing is how, by calling them non-Christian, you're playing into their end time scenario for you, which is that you turn on the true believers. And I know I'm generalizing terribly, so sorry. It's sort of like the Catholic sign of opposition. Jonathan Tweet 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about having to define "true Christian" or having to pretend anything? I don't see any policies about having to pretend things are true in religion articles, just a couple polices with stuff about presenting all sides this, undue weight that, references this, and stuff like that. It's just that, from what i've seen so far, this debate is often aborted prematurely, (Or, at least, I wasn't around for the one that happened more than a year ago, and since then, whenever the topic is brought up, it gets shut down) so a full scale debate never develops enough to get to where the real article-helping stuff is looked up, like references and the like, and of course a proposel for, you know, what the article should actually say in a finalized version. Homestarmy 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Whether JWs and Mormons are Christians is a contentious issue (so Jonathan could not be further from the truth). Certainly on WP we do not need to pretend they are (which is ridiculous: we are to present information, not pretensions). WP's NPOV policy requires the article to be neutral and affirming JWs and Mormons claims is anything but neutral. No, what we must do is present (among other things) both the claims of the groups as well as the objections of the vast majority of Christians, neither endorsing the claims nor the objections. I don't know why this is so difficult. Str1977 (smile back) 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Str, you know what a slippery slope this is. If we are going to introduce references for Mormons and JWs being cults, nonChristian, etc., then the door is opened wide for all claims about Christian churches. We will then have the accusations of Great Whore of Babylon, cult, and nonChristian that has been leveled at Roman Catholicism for hundreds of years. There are numerous Protestant churches that continue to believe it today. Of course, with diligent research I suspect we can find some juicy tidbits to fling at our Anglican brothers and sisters, much less all the other mainline Protestant churches. It would not take long for us to have quite a field day with these accusations. I remain adamant that this is the wrong path for this article. All of these are appropriate for each respective church article; however, the topic of this article is Christianity and not the petty divisions within Christianity. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's "Great Adult Service Provider of Babylon", thank you very much.
Seriously: given the fact that there is such a controversy over the inclusion of the JW & LDS by the Trinitarians, and I would imagine the RCs by say the SDA, etc etc, I think that it should be briefly addressed, as that controversy is notable and forms the cornerstones of many of these faith groups. (Perhaps it should also be in a main article itself as well, altho' I'm not sure what it would be called.) --SigPig |SEND - OVER 06:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Biblical Definition of a Christian and the Dictionary definition of JW

“Your word is truth.”—John 17:17 Jesus accepted the Bible as God’s Word, disciples of Christ would accept that the Bible is God’s inspired word. See 2 Tim. 3:15-17 Jesus said to his followers on the night before he died: By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:34 “Because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.” And the disciple James stated that pure worship consisted of keeping oneself unspotted by the world and that “friendship with the world is enmity with God.”—John 15:19; Jas. 1:27; 4:4 The true Christian congregation was unpopular, no part of the world and was violently persecuted: “All those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted.” 2 Tim. 3:12 Christ Jesus preached the good news of God’s kingdom and he told his disciples to do the same MT 24:14; 28:19,20

These are the BIBLICAL requirements for being a Christian. I found no mention of the necessity of trinity doctrine. The ‘requirement’ of belief in the trinity is extrabiblical therefore I submit that it cannot be a requirement of Christianity. Anyone who requires it is adding to the Bible. That much is obvious.

Some consideration of secular dictionaries is warranted here as they should be the primary source for reference.

[1] "Jehovah's, Witnesses are members of a Christian religious group that uses the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as its corporate body" [2] "Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent" Jehovah's Witnesses –noun a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

A religious denomination that expects the millennium to begin within a very few years Jehovah's Witnesses insist on the use of Jehovah as a name for God. They deny the doctrine of the Trinity and consider Jesus to be the greatest of the witnesses of Jehovah. Crystal Reference Encyclopedia Jehovah’s Witnesses A millenarian movement organized in the USA in 1884 under Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916). (The definition of millenarian is a type of Christian)

[3] 1. a Christian sect that opposes war and governments, believes in the imminent end of the world, and actively seeks new converts.

[4] Jeho'vah's Wit'nesses


a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule.

[5] Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian religious group, founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, by the American clergyman Charles Taze Russell, with congregations in nearly all countries.

About.com Jehovah's Witnesses are a Protestant Christian denomination which have played an important role in the United States in the development of religious liberty for minority groups. Now, in light of all this (from the JW point of view) how can you be inclined to exclude JW's from the definition of Christianity? I can say little or nothing about LDS or any other group. I know that JW's refer to most groups self identifying as Christian as 'nominal' Christians. Thus avoiding the argument that they are not Christian and the obvious insult this would entail. George 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) OOPS,sorry


Mathew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost This is the only verse that names all three members of the trinity in the Bible. Do JWs follow it? It doesn't say that all three of these persons are God, but other passages do. Zantaggerung 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, why exactly are the first verses you've quoted the only biblical requirements for being a Christian? I know there's a whole lot more books in the bible than the ones you've quoted verses from, and surely there's more about how Christians should act and whatnot in those, don't you think? As for the trinity, I know I certainly don't advocate that someone has to be trinitarian to be Christian, definently don't advocate putting that in the article, and while I think other frequent editors of this page probably don't agree with me on the first part, I don't see an amazingly high amount of support so far for the second part here, so i'm not sure who you're trying to argue with. Now, as to your references, i'm not gonna lie to ya, except for About.com which often just copies Wikipedia directly via the GDFL license, they do indeed appear somewhat authoritative. But it seems to me your list curiously seems to leave out the opposite point of view, as if it doesn't exist or isn't notable. I don't think this is exactly the case.
The Encyclopedia of Christianity (This link apparently doesn't work properly, apparently Google books scramblified the book preview after I had looked at the page, its a few pages after the entry on Jamaica I think, but I guarentee there's an entry in here on JW) by Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley doesn't refer to the group as either Christian or non-Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, a book by Andrew Holden which purports to be "the first major study of this enigmatic religious society", (Though I haven't been able to examine this book fully, it doesn't appear illegitimate) seems to refer to it as "another faith" early on page 3, with the text "Why did these people persist in knocking on our door when my parents had made it patently clear that we were a Catholic family who had no intention of converting to another faith?" and an attitude through the rest of the paragraph which doesn't seem to indicate that there is a change of mind by the author. World Religions in America, an introduction by Jacob Neusner has a whole chapter on two "world religions" which is introduced on page 188. "Other chapters in this book will consider additional world religions that originated in America:[Christian Science, Scientology, Theosopy, LDS]. Our specific focus here will be on the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses).". By referring to it as its own religion rather than a Christian denomination, it seems to indicate a lack of Christianity. While these three references certainly aren't the end of it, I think they are enough to indicate that there are mainstream, at the very least academic looking, sources which either do not affirm the Watchtower to be Christian, cast doubt on the idea, or implicitly reject the idea. Of course these three references alone aren't enough to say definitively in the article that the Watchtower isn't Christian, I think they are a start into being enough to not state as fact that they are. If these sources insult you by the conclusions they may entail, well....there's not much I can do about that. Homestarmy 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose if 10 MD's told me to take aspirin but 3 chiropractors told me not to I should assume the chiropractors were right and just ignore the doctors.
Why should JW's not be considered Christians, in your opinion?George 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The book you quoted calls JW's millenarians. The defintion of millenarianism is here [6]George 03:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not calling a group Christian does not make it not Christian unless you think catholicism is also not Christian.[7]
Which book, I listed three :/. And reference.com here calls it a "Belief held by some Christians", not a "Christian belief". Homestarmy 03:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I refered to the book you linked to page 3. BTW Thank you for helping me make my point.George 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My point with the references that don't explicitly call them Christian is that they aren't taking sides, whereas every reference you gave clearly takes a side. If the 3 chiropracters didn't tell you to take aspirin or anything, if your problem is a chiropractic problem, you may want to not take any aspirin, since an MD may just be using general knowladge to perscribe aspirin, yet the more specific knowladge of a chiropracter may make you wonder why they didn't say anything about aspirin. Nextly, my personal reasons about why the Watchtower isn't Christian are quite involved, but I daresay it would be difficult to justify inserting them into the article. On the other hand, the justification for inserting lines which don't take sides and frame both sides of the debate seems to be a much more feasable goal at the moment, and certainly would be relatively neutral to boot. After that, your first reference.com link isn't really saying what I think you think its saying. It says that it is a "Belief held by some Christians", not a "Belief held only by Christians", its the information that reference.com doesn't provide in the sentence that makes your usage of it here, in my opinon, very suspect. Of course, later in the definition it does provide more information, namely that in recent times, it has been used more broadly to refer to any religious group with certain characteristics, not "Christian groups". After that, reference.com's catholicism entry probably doesn't call it Christian because it refers to it as the "faith, system, and practice of the Catholic Church", the last words of which also has a reference.com entry under "Roman Catholic Church", which reads "the Christian church of which the pope, or bishop of Rome, is the supreme head." Hmm, looks like reference.com does indeed call the Roman Catholic Church Christian, which is the church that does practice catholicism. Lastly, I never said not calling a group Christian makes it non-Christian, my point is that when sources of the class i've given don't call it Christian, it gives the idea that there is not a universal consensus on the issue, because surely basic information on a group like "Is Christian/Is not Christian" would be right there in front with books like these. Homestarmy 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion. The majority of resources say JW's are a Christian religion. The fact that some other religious references which may or may not have academic merit do not is worth noting in the article but does not preclude calling them Christian in the article. BTW are you aware that those who graduate from these seminaries and divinity schools and write taht JW's are not Christian are taught that the Bible is unreliable, yet they claim their doctrines are based on it? Really weird. George 15:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to talk more about this issue, well, you don't have to, its your call. But i'm sure if we both looked longer, we could certainly find even more references backing up your side, and even more references either not backing up your side or backing up my side. (Probably more of the not backing up your side kind though) But just trying to end the discussion isn't going to make the issue go away forever, its a controversial topic kind of thing. I don't know why you think my references are all religious in nature in a bad sense, by simply covering topics related to religion, they are all of course religious references in a way, and the same goes for yours, the entries in your encyclopedia refs deal with religious topics, so in a way, they are "religious" as well, though I really don't think that has any bearing at all on the content. I'd also like to see your references that sweeps the reliability of the authors i've cited under the rug, I would think that if all of the author's i've cited actually went to seminaries, that would likely increase their reliability, not decrease it. And, of course, as i've already said, my three references here probably aren't enough on their own to preclude much of anything in the article, but if need be, I can certainly go digging for more, i'm just not going to do it if, no matter what I find, people will just ignore it or make excuses. Homestarmy 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference between what I have provided and what you have provided is that my sources are secualr and therefore more likely to be neutral and academic, but hey, what do I know? You believe JW's aren't Christians so they can't be. I didn't say the sources I cited 'swept yours under the rug'. I said the position merits inclusion but does not represent the consensus of academic sources. Again, secular.. academic.. sources.. (thus with no bias of 'faith') call JW's Christians. There is an Orthodox wiki where you can have your opinions affirmed in the context of modern Orthodox Christian beliefs. You are beating this topic to death in the hopes that you can call JW's non-Christian in at least one secular encyclopedia. George 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And why exactly do secular sources make for more neutrality and academic stature? Besides, I don't see anything in my references to indicate they are written in a non-academic manner, and its Wikipedia that has to be neutral, not the references. I mean, come on, i've got the Encyclopedia of Christianity, can't I get a break here? I never said that your sources swept mine under the rug, I was asking that you provide references to sweep the credability of the authors of my sources under the rug, since you seem to be implying that they aren't useful since they don't refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians. Nextly, i'm not looking for consensus on the issue, because I know there isn't one, which is why I think Wikipedia shouldn't act like there is one at this juncture. And I have to say, my sources look very academic to me, and while they certainly don't seem to say whether or not they are "secular", (whatever that means these days anyway) I don't see anything in WP:ATT that favors "secular" over, well, everything that isn't secular. I tried the Wikia thing for a bit, and I have to say, it wasn't that great, we didn't have enough people to make it very useful. Finally, discussions over controversial topics on Wikipedia can take weeks to finish, and not over things which are very important either. I am participating in this discussion because I feel I can build a case that, when compleated, will be enough to change the article's wording to, at the very least, state both sides of the issue without saying that academia is all in one camp, and definently without having Wikipedia affirm as fact one side or the other. Of course, if nobody feels that references matter, and that all that does matter is that Jehovah's Witnesses are affirmed as Christians in this article no matter what, then I guess i'll have to wait on building my case until I can find enough people who can make this debate happen for real. Homestarmy 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scramblified"? Please tell me that this guy doesn't really talk like Stuffwell... --Luigifan 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

...I don't really know who that person is, but when I first looked at the Google Book entry, the pages it let me saw were different than before, and scramblified just seemed like the right word to describe the visible page shuffling :/. Homestarmy 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Homestar, exactly what do you want the article to say that it does not currently say? Do you have a proposal yet? --Storm Rider (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Storm, what I want to do is find the references for my position before I propose anything, so that I can be absolutly sure that whatever I propose actually reflects, well, the references. The problem so far seems to be that George finds the references i've found so far unnaceptable for reasons which, in my opinion anyway, seem like they could be applied to every single reference there is, academic or not, that does not affirm Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians, irregardless of how acceptable the reference actually is by Wikipedia standards. I'd really like to have references for whatever I want to say that people can agree are at least sort of acceptable before I make any proposels, but if anything I find is just going to be dismissed out of hand, I don't think there's much I can do in the way of proposels to reflect the references that people think aren't acceptable. Homestarmy 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Homes, you are right in doubting the usefulness of terms like "secular sources". There is no such thing ... or all sources on secular history are secular sources. In any case, there is no such thing as neutrality as every author, no matter what persuasion, has a view point. However, in the end I must disagree with you - per NPOV we should present both view points - that subsuming JWs and other groups as Christian and those disputing it - without endorsing either. Readers will be aware of the controversy and make up their mind. Str1977 (smile back) 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that if i'm allowed to actually submit references on the subject, (Currently, it appears that i'm not allowed to use any references that don't positively affirm Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian denomination, on the apparent grounds that they all must be "religious" and therefore unreliable by some unrevealed policy) then that's exactly what's going to happen, that ultimatly the wording of the article will present both sides. It's certainly a fair site better than stating as absolute fact that anyone who claims to be Christian is indeed Christian. Homestarmy 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You are allowed to produce such sources. Excluding "religious" sources is, quite frankly, bullocks. Of course, they should be of a certain quality and not spread libel or such. And the outcome will only be that we state the controvery. Str1977 (smile back) 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the three references I got above don't seem like they've been written for any particular "religious" agenda, I mean, I wasn't looking for that anyway, but George's objections sound like I can't produce any sources that don't explicitly agree with his own, or else by his standards, they all are apparently non-secular and therefore worthless or something the moment they don't affirm Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian denomoination. Homestarmy 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
How am I stopping you? I voiced my reservations about your sources, yes. I said though that both sides of the issue should be presented. When did I say that the opinion that JW's are not Christian could not be presented? When did it ever come to pass that my reservations with certain references mean they were no good. It is just my POV. Have I edited the article in a way that would lead to that conclusion? My biggest problem is that you haven't tried to argue towards the middle. However I have stated (this will be the fourth time) that both opinions should be presented. What is holding you back from producing a proposal? When you do I may give you my opinion, but I am far from the final authority on what goes in this article. George 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say "stop" anywhere in my last comment, but yes, in a roundabout way you are stopping me, though only because i'm stopping myself because of your comments. I also never accused you of not allowing me to present the ideas of both sides in this issue, just that your commentary thus far makes it next to impossible, in my opinion, to actually find any references from a side that isn't explicitly in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case that could be used in the article in a normal manner. For instance, "The fact that some other religious references which may or may not have academic merit do not is worth noting in the article but does not preclude calling them Christian in the article." indicates to me that no matter what references I find, you'll not be pleased with any suggestions that have a net result of making the article not affirm as fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, even though I see nothing specific and convincing about any of my references so far that make them unreliable in any way. (WP:ATT has no provision at all against "religious" references) The reason your reservations, in my opinion, make it sounds like my references are no good is because your criticism presents them as non-academic and inherintly biased by being "religious", (with the quote marks implying large amounts of suspicion) which in an article of this class, means that using them in an academic manner would, of course, be silly. I don't really care how you've edited the article, I care about your criticisms, since none of them were actually specific attacks on any of my three references that seem to hold much weight so far, all I can figure is that every reference not explicitly on your side can never be academic apparently. I can't argue towards anything at all, middle or otherwise, if no reference I can find will be considered useful on par with what you've given no matter what. I prefer to go references first in situations like these, I find what the references say about a topic, and after i've collected a good many, then I develop a proposel based on the references. But there's no point in doing that if none of my references can ever be on par with any of the references of one particular side based solely on, as far as I can tell, the content of the references, instead of the reliability of them. Homestarmy 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The current article does not identify which groups are viewed as heretical, but just states they exist; they fall outside what s recognized as mainstream Christianity. I do not think this article is the place for listing the complaints of one group versus another. The topic is Christianity not the problems within Christianity. These topics are best left to the respective group articles. All of these accusations, claims, and positions are covered in a multitude of articles. I agree with Str, if you think we need to cover the controversy in this article, make a proposal. However, if you open the door too wide you will then find yourself contending with a whole list of what church is viewed as less than acceptable by a number of other church groups. The world is not seen in black in white, but is in a vast array of shades of gray. I prefer the current treatment of the article, but let's see what you propose. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As i've been trying to explain several times now, I don't normally like proposing anything for issues like this until I find references that people will accept, so that I can make an accurate proposel based on the references. I suspect that if I could look up things like the Encyclopedia of Christianity book I got already without immedietly having my references be accused of being non-academic for whatever reason, (Come on folks, its a printed encyclopedia, surely that's better than Dictionary.com definitions at least....) then it looks like i'll likely be fielding a proposel similar to what Str is going after, because that seems like the one that the most reliable and numerous references are going to suggest. I don't mind eventually ending up with such a proposel, as I have also already said, its much better than what some other editors propose, namely that basically every group calling itself Christian gets the benefit of the doubt in Wikipedia, pretty much no matter what. But I can't do much of anything if I can't get answers that are specific about the references i've found so far, because as far as I can tell, i'm on the right track in terms of reliable sources, and in terms of looking for the idea that many academic-type sources do not, in fact, choose the side Wikipedia chooses in this debate. (And, of course, there are more than two sides, since the Encyclopedia of Christianity ref doesn't even take a side at all, which I already noted) Homestarmy 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a Christian #3

Using only the Bible as a reference this definition #3 seems to be the best fit.

“3) anyone who follows the life and teachings of Jesus (regardless of a belief in his divine nature)”

The first occurrence in the Holy Scriptures of the word “Christian” is at Acts 12:26 when the students of Christ were named so by divine province. These people were being taught by Christ through his appointed teachers. The mission given by Jesus to his disciples was to go and make disciples of people of all nation, teaching them to do the things he commanded THEM to do (make disciples/teachers) Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus told the Christians to go and teach people to be Christians, they in turn would do the same. Jesus told his followers to obey his father’s commandments. Matt7:21

And for the record Jesus never spoke of himself as being a god or The God. He did point to his father as being The God of his followers at John 20:17. At John 1:1 it is stated that the word was god, theos (greek θεός) not The God, ho theos (greek ο θεός) it is more properly translated as “a god” or “divine”

Jesus also gave his father all the credit and glory for everything he ever said or did in his ministry John 14:10 Kljenni 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think its a bit hard to make disciples or teachers of Jesus if the people doing so tell teachers that the founder of the religion is God, and then more of those people come along and then tell the same teacher that the founder of the religion isn't God. Nextly, I presume that since you've come to post this you probably have a counter-argument, but i'm going to post the verse anyway to see what happens, what do you think of John 10:30, where Jesus says that "I and the Father are one"? Not one with a "...in mind over the issue i'm discussing" at the end, or a "...in the purpose we're going to accomplish with My sheep", just "I and the Father are one". Nextly, may I perhaps see a reference to a concordance perhaps justifying the definition of the greek in question as more properly translating as "a god" or "divine" in this instance, I have, to be blunt, heard that the New World translation of this verse is compleatly wrong, but i'd prefer to see how the Watchtower justifes their decision in this instance. And, lastly, I see no reason why Jesus couldn't be both God and a man at the same time, come on, this is the Messiah of the world here, I think He could pull it off what with prophecies needing fulfillment with a man involved. Homestarmy 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to argue at all but to share in the discussion using the Bible as my guide.

(2 Timothy 3:16)“. . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness. . .”

Ok let’s consider what Jesus said, “I and the father are one” He also said this at john 17:21 citation) Jesus spoke of his followers being one as he and his father are one. One what? He also spoke of being “in” each other, in what? citation) in unity

Jesus only did what his father God told him to do and said what he was given to say remaining obedient even to the point of death. citation)

John 1:1 does say in the original greek the word was god. It does not say he is THE GOD. There are many gods spoken of in the Bible but only one true God spoken of by Jesus. citation) So if Jesus himself always points to his father as being The One True God, why would I believe anyone who says otherwise? Kljenni 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is only one God, the other "god" are not actually gods from the perspective of the faith of the Bible. In any, case why use only the Bible. I know it's fashionable in recent years but unbiblical nonetheless. However, this whole discussion should be here. This is about this article and edits to it. Take your lectures elsewhere. Str1977 (smile back) 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww, but I wanted to respond again! Mean old Str1977 -________- Homestarmy 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you can make one reply but please then move it somewhere else. I don't want to be a meany ;-) Str1977 (smile back) 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

str1977 why is it you say using the bible is fashionable but unbiblical? this conversation does belong on this talk page, I was responding to another persons definition of a christian. that definition is closest to the definition given in the bible by Jesus to his followers, which is to obey his commands. I also pointed out that those commands of his were (in his own words) from his father. Kljenni 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The conversation doesn't belong here as it has hardly any relevance to editing this article.
As for your points: You are using things as arguments that no one disputes but that don't make your case. I acknowledge that Jesus did his father's will (and all other things you said in that regard) but that doesn't prove that Jesus is not God, as traditionally understood by Christians, based on verses like "the Word was God" and "I and the Father are one ... who has seen me has seen the Father". However, I do not want to discuss this here and now, so please don't reply.
As for your first question: Where does the Bible say that one should use only the Bible? If the Bible doesn't contain this requirement (and it does not) than the principle is self-contradictory and therefore wrong. Str1977 (smile back) 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

respectfully, please tell me, who are you? is every conversation here to be approved by you? Kljenni 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am just a common editor telling you what talk pages are for and what not. Str1977 (smile back) 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ok then.to finalize this I will again say, this topic grew out of a conversation above about whether to include what one anonymous editor considered to be non-christian groups on the christianity page. an editor called Bytebear gave 3 definitions of christian and noted that #3 definition was the most wikipedia appropriate. I agreed. I started a new line called definition of a christian #3 in which I gave biblical support for it. Bytebears definition did say "regardless of belief in his divine nature" and I gave biblical reference to that. The Bible is the only record of the establishment of the Christian Congregation and of the first Christians, those who were taught directly by Jesus. I believe it is appropriate to refer to it when speaking about the teachings of Jesus, his place in his fathers Kingdom arrangement and how to determine whether a group is following Christ or falling away. If they are not following Christ do they deserve to be spoken of as Christians? That was the question was it not? thank you and have a nice day Kljenni 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, conversation grow out and one should not just cut them short but this has got a bit out of hand. However, I disagree about your Bibliocentrism and would ask what "following Christ" is supposed to mean. Is saying "Lord Lord" enough? Does what Jesus actually said and did matter or can one manipulate it in any possible way? Str1977 (smile back) 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

str1977 what does it mean to follow Christ you ask? here is an example [8]

and you know that saying "lord Lord" is not what makes a Christian so you are familiar with christs warning to his followers not to leave off from following his example, yet still call him lord. [9] bye Kljenni 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Formatting

Any suggestions on improving the article appearance? As it stands, there are awkward spaces and the drop-down TOC doesn't seem to work too well. Djma12 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some way to make text flow alongside the template, but it might require some wikisyntax stuff that I don't really know much about :/. Homestarmy 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone has taken care of our problem for us.... Homestarmy 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Satanism

Could Satanism be considered a Christian sect? It draws all of its ideas about the nature of God and Satan from the Bible. - R160K 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe satanism would fit into the catagory of antichristian along with any other religions that teach or promote opposition to Jehovahs rulership.Kljenni 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It would also seem to me that Satanism is only drawing some of its ideas from the Bible specifically to oppose the ideas and commands of the Bible, I don't really think it counts if you're only believing parts of a religion so that your religion can oppose them.... Homestarmy 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, this is a case of biblecentrism. Christianity is not the religion of the Bible - the Bible is the Holy Scripture of Christianity. Using the Bible does not make one a Christian. Str1977 (smile back) 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Just because a person uses the Bible does not make them christian. To be christian you need to be a follower of Jesus Christ. The definition I feel we should use is a religion that holds that Jesus is Christ. That is pretty much what we are using right now. James, La gloria è a dio 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What is meant by "biblecentrism"? -centerism is a political middle ground. also -centric is pertaining to the center, the bible is the one thing all "Christian" groups hold in common. it is central to their beliefs. it is not possible to discuss Christianity and not be bibliocentric. Kljenni 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Bibliocentric means (overdue) centering on the Bible. It has no relation to the concept of centrist politics. Now, what I meant is the attitude of turning the Bible into the central aspect of Christianity. That is a common problem (though those doing this don't realize) in Protestantism (with its formal principle of Sola Scriptura) and those having developed from Protestantism or in a culture influenced by either. Shakespeare wrote "Even the devil can quote scripture". Which leads us back to Satanism. But even others can do that without being Christian. The Bible, as God's revelation written down, is of course of the utmost importance in Christianity, in all its denominations, but it is neither the only nor the most important thing. Remember: God's word became man, not book. Str1977 (smile back) 20:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Satanism as an actual counter-Christian religion is an extreme minority of "Satanists". "Satan" is not an actual entity, but rather an allegory for many Satanists. Most of the rest view Satan as a natural force of change, the anti-status quo, rather than a demon/devil/fallen angel. Modern Satanism has more in common with deism, humanism and "social darwinism" than the classic Black Mass devil-worshipping, church-blaspheming stereotype. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As i've understood it, Satanism actually is split up into several different varities, the main one I think follows the Book of Satan, (You'd think they'd of come up with a less obviously evil title....) which doesn't have much to do with the scary type of satanism I think, and has as its thesis the idea that you should do whatever you please, and not let any type of law or, if I understand this right, innate morality get in the way of whatever you want. But i'm pretty sure the child-kidnapping serious satanic ritual practicing Christ-hating variety is still around, i've heard them pop into the news now and again.... Homestarmy 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That main group explicitly discourages murder, rape and such crimes, rather than completely ignoring the law. They have philosophical reasons for doing so. In essence, "mainstream" Satanists claim that life and passion produce a greater amount of energy than death and destruction. "Mainstream" Satanists are also very strongly opposed to the abuse of children, on ethical and philosophical grounds. (Generally expressed along the lines of: it's OK to scorn the weak, mock the stupid, etc, but children have yet to reach an age of accountability for their actions.) There are also pragmatic reasons given for following the law. After all, it's a bit impossible to follow your "will" when imprisoned and stripped of most freedoms. It has more in common with moral relativism than with amorality. (Though, I know some would dispute the differance, there is a practical one.) As far as the child-kidnapping variety, it's widely considered to not even exist. The closest thing is the occasional group of stupid teenagers who are into "being evil" because it's "cool", and the even more rare group of them that are seriously just disturbed. The next closest thing would the be very real, and thankfully very small, splinter group Temple of Set. While they do not advocate murder, they do condone far more violent and intrusive acts than most Satanists, particularly in relation to their magickal workings. Vassyana 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Christ Establishing His Kingdom

Someone might want to correct the article where it says when Christ returns will be the "establishment of the Kingdom of God." Nothing in the Bible teaches that the kingdom will be established when Christ returns. All the verses which speak of the kingdom, present it as a current kingdom. I Cor 15:24 refers to Christ coming back as the end and He "delivers the kingdom to God the Father" as a completed kingdom. Christ constantly in the gospels refers to establishing His kingdom during His first advent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kstevenham (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

When Christ returns, he will establish the physical "Kingdom of Heaven". Whereas the "Kingdom of God" is spiritual (within you). rossnixon 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This page isn't about what the Bible says. It's about what Christians believe. While Christians try to believe what the Bible says, it's clear that many of them get it wrong (or else there wouldn't be all these different sects and denominations). So just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that something belongs here. Jonathan Tweet 07:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Christians believe that the Bible is God communicating with them, so Christians hold the Bible in HIGHEST regard. I do not say that because the Christians do then everyone does or should, but the Christians do because they have studied it and have come to know its value. Kljenni 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Melissa Scott (pastor)

Interested editors may wish to vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Badagnani 06:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Score - Christianness of LDS/JW

Homestarmy - 2
George - 0

The Jackal God 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize we were keeping score. I also think there are a few more teams involved than just Homestarmy and George. Bytebear 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize I was winning, I thought you had to actually change people's opinions to win a debate :/. Homestarmy 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you go by the number of references presented it is 7 to 3 (george). If you add the references Bytebear used below it goes even higher for george. Yay George! Wooo! Wooo! Wooo! *moonwalks* George 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the criticism of Christianity?

Maybe it needs to be a separate linked article(s), but the complete omission of negative impact of christian missionaries on the global south is odd. For this to be a truly objective account of christinaity it has to acknowledge the death and distraction done in it name. Also, the appears to be no mention of other critiques such as liberation theology. (Ayokunle 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

There is a section for Current controversies and criticisms, with links to Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Bible. That section should, with due weight, succinctly summarize those (and maybe other) pages. Tom Harrison Talk 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's always difficult to determine where to put criticism. If there are many and varied criticisms, it can be difficult to discuss them in a coherent and cogent manner in the same article as the primary topic. It is probably for this reason that we have articles like Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of Judaism etc.
Other places where the negative impact of Christian missionaries could be addressed are Missionary, Mission (Christian) and historical articles such as Spanish colonization of the Americas.
Liberation theology has its own article. I assume that it is also mentioned in Christian theology and History of Christian theology.
If any of these topics are not adequately covered, be bold and fix it.
--Richard 21:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to Discuss my proposed Changes to this article here.

The first Paragraph of the Article makes no mention of the Christian Anti-Messianic Church. Our Congregation is an Exception to its Statement that Christians believe that our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as Foretold by the Prophet Elijah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esa29 (talk • contribs) date.

I'm having difficulty confirming this denominations existance, there's nothing I can see on a quick google search going 2 or 3 pages down, and the article on this denomination has no references, consists of a few sentences, and is very POVly written. I don't think the discussion about this denomination should have anything to do with this article, but rather, in an AFD discussion on the actual denomination's article. Homestarmy 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sir the Book of Fortitude was only recently Revealed to our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher, and it is only in the past Month that we have made the Sacred Discovery that we may Spread our One Sacred Truth to Others. Esa29 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Esa29, it's always a pleasure to see a new Christian sect be born. Welcome. But don't get your hopes up about getting your Church mentioned on a prominent page like this one. Jonathan Tweet 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Esa, could you give some geographical information about your group, its approximate size in numbers, and maybe a website link or something? I'm being serious here, without that kind of information or references to that kind of information, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your group doesn't exist in terms of verification :/. Homestarmy 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Right now, we're Centered in Southwest Indiana and Southeast Illinois. We have two Members (myself and our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher, who was instructed to inform me of the One Sacred Truth when the Book of Fortitude was Revealed to him), but no Web Site. It was only in the past Month that we discovered we are Permitted to Spread the One Sacred Truth to Others. Esa29 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
....Two people? I really don't think that constitutes a congregation or church.... Homestarmy 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Esa, you're on the wrong page, lol. Here's what you were looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cults
and maybe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements
enjoy! The Jackal God 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to Say is, the first Paragraph of this Article contains the Sentence: "Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. " But that Sentence is Incorrect. Our One Sacred Truth does not hold that Belief, yet we are also Christians. The mentioned Sentence, then, should make a Note of our Exception.
Jackal: how Dare you refer to our One Sacred Truth as a Cult! Not only do you perform the unGodly act of Apotheosizing yourself, you also Insult our Brotherhood in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth! Esa29 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Jackal's comment was perhaps not in the best of faith, but why don't we just drop that and talk about the issue. The definition of Christianity here addresses the predominent definition of Christianity -- there is not room nor need to address every exception. Further, not every church is mentioned within this article. Major streams within Christianity are mentions, but very few individual denominations (For example, Lutheranism is talked about, but the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not) and no individual congregation are mentioned. As an encyclopedia, the wikipedia editors do not create definitions, they/we report definitions already in use. If the majority of outside sources referenced your group as an exception to this definintion - or used your church's definition of Christian - that is how wikipedia would report it. But that is not the case, and as far as I know, your church is not referenced by any outside sources -- and that is how wikipedia reports it. -- Pastordavid 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Esa's statement above doesn't make sense to me. Jesus the Anti-Messiah is the messiah foretold by Elijah? How can an anti-Messiah (whatever that is) be the messiah? Anyway, either this is just a strange wording for Messiah (in which case it doesn't make any difference) or this groups really doesn't believe in Jesus as the Christ (=Messiah) in which case they are not Christians pure simple. All this assuming that the group exists at all, for which we have not seen any evidence. Str1977 (smile back) 07:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
We are an Exception to the Statement that Christians believe that our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as Foretold by the Prophet Elijah. We are Christians, for we follow the ethical teachings of our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, but reject the claim that he is the Messiah as Foretold by the Prophet Elijah. And I, your Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Fryear, as well as our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher, to whom the Book of Fortitude was recently revealed, are Proof that we Exist. Esa29 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously a joke. Someone is having a good laugh here. "You also Insult our Brotherhood in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth!" Please. Find somewhere else to troll - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Onion. --Born2x 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How dare you Insult our Brotherhood in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth! Our One Sacred Truth is most certainly not a joke. We are here to make our One Sacred Truth known and to spread it to Others. Esa29 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Joke or not, your article is probably going to get deleted for having a subject with no actual verifiable existance. (At least, it hasn't been verified so far) Homestarmy 14:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Sacred Most Worthy Betazoid Device of Mind Reading told me that you are making up your One Sacred Truth. Good grief - this is obviously nonsense/sarcasm. Find somewhere else to troll. --Born2x 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think I am Lying to you. I am a man of our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth--an honest man, not a Sinner. Perhaps since you are a Sinner yourself you see Sin in all Others, but that is a Feeble and unGodly worldview. Esa29 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this the group you are talking about?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16786777.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George m (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so, i've heard of this group several times, their main leader basically pretends to be a new reincarnation of a Biblical figure every so often, first I think it was Paul, then he claimed to be Christ, and now he claims to be the Antichrist, but I think he's got some freaky "Nobody knows anything about the Antichrist" kind of thing to explain away the obvious aversion most people would have about the Antichrist. Homestarmy 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are over 5000 Christian denominations listed on the World Christian Database, and none of them use the term Anti-Messiah. -- Cat Whisperer 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because the Book of Fortitude was only Revealed to our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher a mere four Years ago, and it was only in the last Month that we have discovered that we may Spread the One Sacred Truth to others. Esa29 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you get yourself listed there (or some other independent list of Christian denominations) first, in order to establish your verifiability. Good luck! -- Cat Whisperer 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A religion?

"Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion" hmm. . . What is called Christianity by the world in general is no longer a religion. It is a collective term for any religion that basically " believes in Jesus". Many people would included Mormonism, Roman Catholascism, the Word Faith movement and reformed Baptist teaching all under the label of Christianity, but these are undoubtably different religions.

I am looking for input on this before I change the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zantaggerung (talk • contribs)

First of all, thanks for asking for input first. Second, be aware that this is likely to be highly controversial and it would be good to seek a consensus before making edits that are likely to be reverted quickly. So, please be patient rather than hasty in seeking the consensus.
Third, I do think you have a good point. We have to ask ourselves "What is a religion?". Are Christianity and Judaism the same religion? No, they're not. But why not? And are Roman Catholicism and Mormonism the same religion? Why not? So, should we say that Christianity is a set of religions whose common characteristic is "a belief in Jesus Christ" (whatever that means). Well, we didn't say "a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ". Nor did we say "a belief in the Trinity" or "a belief in the dual nature of Jesus Christ".
It should be easy to see that there is no easy way to write this in an NPOV way that is acceptable to all. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. It just means that you may need to take days and maybe even weeks to discuss this with the various editors who might have an opinion on this.
I urge you again to be patient. It is an important issue and so you can imagine that it won't be fixed in a day.
--Richard 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me get the ball rolling on this discussion.
This is the current article text:
Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.
I propose we replace it with something like this:
Christianity is a term which describes a set of monotheistic[1] religions centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2] The vast majority of Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. The vast majority of Christians also believe in the Trinity
--Richard 05:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "a term to describe any of the various belief systems stemming from the teachings of Jesus Christ?" Too broad? Teachings? Mission? Life? divinity of? Seems a tough call. I even think "monotheistic" should be considered "self described", as other groups don't see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as One. Bytebear 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there any Christian groups that come right out and say that there are multiple Gods? That God the Father is one God and Jesus is a separate and distinct God? I am not familiar with all the non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity. Are there any that are clearly polytheistic?
--Richard 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
i know the answer to that one, but i like where this is headed. let me say instead: surely, a polytheistic religion is not Christian. The Jackal God 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that is where I wanted to go with the line of questioning but since I opened the door, I may as well walk through it. If we say that Christian religions are monotheistic and that they believe in the divinity of Christ, then we are probably excluding a number of non-Trinitarian religions such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now... which door do we want to walk through? --Richard 07:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to change the current, completely accurate intro. Christianity is a religion. Disputes only arise as far as the classification of any group as belonging to this religion is accurate or not. PS. There is one groups believing in multiple gods and claiming to be Christian, but this group also claims to be monotheistic as well. WP cannot decide the dispute but merely report it. Str1977 (smile back) 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The change you propose would require supplying a new classification, which would necessarily violate WP:NOR. A.J.A. 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Christianity is not one religion anymore (Christianity as most people think of it). Roman Catholics are considered Christians. There are also several "Christian" groups who also say they follow the teachings of the Bible but teach and practice things that are so totally different from Roman Catholic teaching that they can be said to be practically oposite religions. Both are generally labeled as "Christian". Hence rises the statment that Cristianity ( as the world generally labels it) is not a single religion.

Richard, I think that your sample statement is a good try, but not sufficient, sorry. Please try again, it appears that you are better at that sort of thing than me.

Remember it must be taken into account that:

1. Although most "Christian" religions believe in one God composed of three persons, some believe in three manifestations of the same God,and some believe there are many Gods( whether or not they only worship one God)

2. Although most "Cristian" religions believe Jesus was God and yet became man, some believe that he just appeared to be a man, and some believe that he simply inhabited the body of a man chosen for the task.

3. Some "Christian" religions believe humans are basically good and only sin under the influence of Satan or other evil forces, some believe humans are basically evil and only do good because of the influence of God in their lives.

4. Some "Christian" religions believe we choose God, some believe God chooses us.

5. Although most "Christian" religions believe that we can only be saved from judgement by Jesus's death on a cross and rising from the dead, some believe that the good things we do can save us from judgement, and some believe we don't need to be saved judgement.

There are many, many, many more examples such as these, but these are all I'm going to post.

Zantaggerung 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

you could've saved time just saying there's been numerous heresies the course of Christian heresy; nevertheless, they were all Christian in nature, and Christianity refers to the amalgation of those various branches, and throughout the course of history the Christian religion has been the normal usage. The same applies for Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, which all have diverse branches within with widely diverse beliefs, and yet they can be all grouped together as distinct from other religions b/c of these core tenets. i don't know whether your unfamiliarity with the history of Christianity or with Comparative Religious studies would lead you to arrive to such conclusions. My advice: drop this point for now, study more, and get back to it in a few years. The Jackal God 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think we need to discuss what is "a religion".

  • Is Roman Catholicism a religion? (yes)
  • Is Eastern Orthodoxy a religion? (yes)
  • Are they the same religion? (no)
  • Are they both Christian religions? (yes)
  • How about Mormonism? Is it a religion? (yes)
  • Is it the same religion as Roman Catholicism or is it the same religion as Eastern Orthodoxy? (no, it's not the same as either of those)
  • Is it a Christian religion? (um, mumble, well, maybe, at least they self-identify as such )
  • How about the Jehovah's Witnesses? (um, more mumbling, basically the same answer as for the Mormons)

Now, ask yourself... does this article communicate these issues accurately and succintly to the reader? (no, I don't think so)

I admit that it's difficult to resolve this issue. Roman Catholicism is a religion, Eastern Orthodoxy is a religion, Christianity is "a" religion, too? So, do we have three religions or one? (oops, sounds like the mystery of the Trinity, doesn't it?)

Seriously, if Christianity is a religion, then what is Roman Catholicism? Something less than a religion? Or is it the case that Roman Catholicism is a religion and Christianity is something more than a religion?

--Richard 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is "Reformation" vs. "Restoration". More protestants or reformationists feel they are still part of the "one true church", and so in that sense Christianity is a religion. However, that excludes restorationists (Mormons and JWs primarily) who claim that they do not stem from Catholocism (or the 2nd century church) but from Christ himself. In that sense Christianity is not a single religion. This article should not exclude restorationists, just because the reformationists object to them. Bytebear 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
why should the opinion of Mormons and JW's be validated over and above everyone else's? when it comes down to numbers, the Nay's have it. call them pseudo-Christian if you want. You're asking us to include a non-Christian group in the definition of Christianity, then change the definition of Christianity to include them. so circular. The Jackal God 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
By your logic, Abrahamic religions would exclude Judaism. Bytebear 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
where do you come up with this stuff? i love the random false analogies thrown in as red herrings. The Jackal God 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Exclamations rich in confidence but poor in relation to reality and facts don't help the article or your argument, Richard and Zantaggerung.
To address the examples: RC and EO are denominations, branches, sects (take your pick) of one religion, namely Christianity. SO they are the same religion even if they are not identical and in parts conflicting. The status of Mormonism in regard to Christianity is disputed and controversial. However, it is either Christian and therefore a denomination and not a separate religion or it is non-Christian and a separate religion. NPOV prevents us from endorsing this view or the other, but logic prevents us from endorsing both.
And of course Jackal is right. Heresy and disagreements are nothing new. So no need to get wound up about them now and start to suggest ridiculous redefinitions. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
show me where I am flawed in my assertion.
why should the opinion of <Jews> be validated over and above <Muslims>? when it comes down to numbers, the Nay's have it. call them pseudo-<seed of Abraham> if you want. You're asking us to include a non-<seed of Abraham> group in the definition of <the seed of Abraham>, then change the definition of <the seed of Abraham> to include them. so circular.
I can see the islamic world making such a statement. But they do not define who is of the seed of Abraham any more that Evangelicals define who is Christian. Numbers do not matter. But I digress. Christianity is not a religion. It is a group of various religions, some of who agree more with each other than others. A large group apparently feels that they hold the door to the club and can pick and choose who can belong, and they are correct when it comes to apostolic or "traditional" christianity, which means you basically believe in the Catholic creeds and choose to be a variant on that code of belief. But, that would be an article about Creedal Christianity, or Trinitarianism, which is NOT the focus of this article. Bytebear 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
sigh, going through the antics of your analogy, my "logic" holds up because the third Abrahamic religion, Christianity, says the Jews are. Besides Islam recognizes Judaism as an Abrahamic religion. Wanna get back to me on that? Second of all, I just said assuming the definition of Christianity is up for grabs, and depends on consensus, the consensus is that LDS and JW are not part of the Christian religion. The Jackal God 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The consensus of who? Lutherans? I bet if you go out and ask your average Hindu, or Muslim, or Budhist if Mormons are Christian, they would say yes. And guess what, they out number all the trinitarians combined, so your "concensus" is wrong. If we add historians, secular theological scholars, your numbers dwindle even more. The only ones calling them "non-Christian" are the "other" Christians. Ironically, they break the 9th commandment in the process.Bytebear 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, apart from the fact that there is no such thing as secular scholars, please consider WP:NPA. Accusing those disagreeing with you of lying - I guess you were not about coveting your neigbour's wife - is a personal attack and bad style as well (and since some on this page argue what you criticize, you are referring to other editors). Please stop it. Str1977 (smile back) 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I am not accusing any one person and no one involved in this discussion, but am rather discussing that the term Christianity is not owned by trinitarians. I can give you references by non-Mormon scholars that address the issue you have with the term Christian if you like. I can even give you quotes by Evangelicals that do assert that they have "born false witness" against Mormons in this very issue. Would that satisfy you? (and coveting is the 10th Commandment) Bytebear 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, okay. The term is not copyrighted by any group. However, please acknowledge that Christians have put forth arguments in favour of classifying Mormons (and other groups) as non-Christian ... Trinitarianism is not the only issue. If individual Christians have accused themselves of having lied that is their own thing - we have no clue what they referred too (did they misrepresent something?) and it certainly is no basis of calling all arguments lies. (And maybe you are not aware that there are different numberings for the commandments?) I for my part have always stated that WP articles should not endorse either side. Personally however I cannot classify a group that worships three gods (that however turn out to be not gods at all but somehow deified humans) as Christian. Str1977 (smile back) 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Str1977) That depends on how they're divided up. The original language doesn't have them nicely labelled that "this is number four", "this is number seven", etc. Some Churches count not having false gods and not worshipping graven images as two commandments, and not coveting your neighbour's wife or your neighbour's goods as one. Other Churches see false gods and graven images as the same sin — idolatry — but see deliberate entertainment of lustful (sexually impure) thoughts as a sin which is distinct from envy. ElinorD (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the numbering conflict, I guess my Sunday School teacher had a spercific numbering scheme. As for three Gods, there you do not understand LDS theology. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. It is just about as tricky as the Trinity to explain, but Mormons do consider themselves Monotheists. As to deification, that again is a difficult topic, with a lot of "beliefs" but no canon other than "Ye are gods" of the Bible, and that man may become perfect through Christ (also Biblical). The differences in belief are not as big as you like to make them, and there is much discussion of late as to how LDS and traditional Christianity relate. The point is that this Wiki is not about what you believe, or what I believe, but what documented resrources we have. And by all accounts, Mormons, JWs, etc., fall under the umbrella of Christian. You can put your objections in the article, and I can counter them with my references, and the article should end up NPOV and balanced. Bytebear 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, I am sorry having to contradict you but it is you who has got LDS theology wrong: sure LDS say that they believe in one Godhead but they also say they believe that Father is one god and that and the Son is one god (don't know about the spirit right now). Hence, this is completely different from Trinitarian theology that tries to square the belief in one God with the three persons of the Trinity and their divine status. You might think the trinitrian view doesn't work out, but the LDS view clearly has more than one god. Also, in regard to Deification: orthodox Christians know such a belief as well, especially the Eastern Orthodox. However, they do not believe that men actually will become gods - only that they will become like Him - and certainly not that God once was man and somehow became God. Because, you cannot become God. Either you are God or you are not. God doesn't change - He always was and he always was God.
You are right that WP is not about my beliefs or your beliefs but if you read my posts you will consistently see me writing against WP endorsing either view, as per NPOV. I cannot say the same for you, as you write "by all accounts, Mormons, JWs, etc., fall under the umbrella of Christian". Str1977 (smile back) 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand by that statement. Look at the way NPOV classify these groups. Look at Adherents.org, or religioustolerance.org or any governmental statistical information. Those are NPOV sources, and they all claim LDS and JWs as Christians. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, although claiming Christianity as exclusively Catholic, acknowledges "schismatical or heretical" groups. Bytebear 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, there is no such things as a NPOV source, as everyone has a certain view, even your statistics. (and religious tolerance is not known on WP as a particular neutral website ... it is quote opinionated.) Why you point to the CathEn I do not know as it does not classify Mormonism as Christian (and if it did, it would only be a view). The words you quote have no bearing on this matter, as no one disputes that there are schismatic and heretical groups (which means groups that are separated from the Catholic Church either without a doctrinal error or with a doctrinal error, respectively). In any case NPOV forbids WP to endorse your view. Otherwise I would like it to endorse more from the CathEn - would you object? Str1977 (smile back) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really do get tired of this pitiful, constant attempt to define Christianity in such a way as to exclude those who follow Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. None of the definitions proffered by those who are so eager to exclude those they view as lacking are built upon Biblical definitions. In fact, Jesus Christ would not recognize any of them as definitions of His followers. He had very few requirements. I would encourage each of you to go back to the Bible, you remember that book that you wave about proclaiming that it is true, and come up with a definitions that is proferred by the Savior of mankind. In doing so, you will readily be forced to let go of your narrow definitions that man has created to make them feel good about their choice of relgion.

If you are asking if I am just a bit caustic you would be exact. I am because I am fed up with those novices that have just heard their preacher give warnings on the evils of cults and now, with no futher training or research, they are ready to proclaim their preachers words to world as if it was true. What is probably more dismaying is how some of our regular editors get yanked about by these claims; it is too easy to stir up contention. My recommendation to those who wish to bring up this over and over and over again is to read the dang archives, every one of them, at the end you will find your answer. You will come to know how hard the current form of the article has been negotiated. I would dare to say that none of the newbies bring any more wisdom, knowledge, or expertise than has already existed here. Cool your jets and read before you edit. Move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

thanx for taking that out on us. i hope you feel better. do you want us to take your comments seriously or can we skip over them and continue the debate. Please do not try to stop debate. The Jackal God 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Jackal, you might want to try and answer the question. Have you got a definition that comes directly from the words of Jesus Christ??? Once you do, then we have something to talk about; otherwise we are limited to debating a definition that meets the passing fancies of man. BTW, have you read any of the archives? Though we at Wikipedia encourage editors, we do not encourage editing the same think repeatedly to satisfy the whims of those who don't show any interest in improving the article. Those who seek to only cause contention are labeled trolls. I am not yet accusing anyone of such behavior, but it is worth talking about because of the lack of effort on our new editors.
It does not suprise me one iota that the editor that again started this very tired argument also does not consider Catholics Christians; let alone Mormons. When one attempts to discount the absolute largest single group of Christians in the world, it is appropriate to assume the editor has very little knowledge about Christianity, its history, or any thing else in any depth! That is not to be taken as an insult, but it is cold, hard facts. Move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Storm, I know that you are bothered by this and I hope you know that I think the whole discussion useless. WP should endorse neither view but merely state that there is controversy. So it's understandable that you get mad and start you hit at others (I will explain that shortly) but it's nonetheless not helpful. You are asking for "Biblical definitions" (as opposed to so-called "man-made definitions"), but that is not a sensible demand as Christianity is not the religion of the Bible. You say Jesus had few requirements and you are correct if you mean that he only asked people to accept him as who he was. But OTOH that is already a whole load to swallow: Lord, Messiah, son of God. And of course this includes accepting everything he said. And, the actual probleme here is a corruption of language: God means God means God and if you use the word in a different way than Jesus (and Jews, Christians, Muslims throughout the ages) has used it you cannot call on Jesus as a witness.
I know that it can be frustrating that the same stuff comes up again, but please don't be patronising towards "novices". If by "regular editors" you mean me, I must repeat: I did not search this discussion and oppose WP endorsing either side. But apparently some want to endorse LDS as Christian and I must oppose this. And if someone brings up false information I must oppose this. And also I someone wants to bar others from holding their view for the sake of some PC relativism. That's not saying that their view should be endorsed by the article.
Str1977 (smile back) 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This particular debate was originally on whether Christianity is "a religion" or "a group of religions". Let's stick to that issue. Given that we don't all agree on belief or theology, I would say it is not one religion, but a very broad group of various religions. It can even be non-religion for those who feel they don't need any belief system or "church" to follow Jesus Christ. This article isn't big enough to cover all aspects of all beliefs, so we have to go with the big issues, and branch off to various sub-articles when warranted. Bytebear 01:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you want everyone to move on you could refrain from prolonging the conversation. A.J.A. 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree: this section was originally on whether Christianity is a religion or a group of religions. But no wonder that this drifted away as the original issue is so empty of content. I don't see any merit in either discussion. So maybe it is best to move on completely. Str1977 (smile back) 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because "Christianity," by definition, constitutes a religious system of beliefs about the person of Christ (which are well-defined in the present article), it is therefore, again by definition, considered a religion. It has been considered thus for centuries. This is not to say that there are not divisions among Christians arising from small perturbations to the core beliefs, but that does not mean that each constitutes a whole new belief system. One cannot say "I believe the earth to be a sphere," while being a card-carrying member of the flat earth society -- it is a logical contradiction. Any attempt to present Christianity as multiple distinct religions is to confound, rather than clarify, the topic, which is counter-encyclopedic, to say the least. LotR 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to make statements like that, you should back them up with references. Here are some:
There are probably thousands of different definitions of the word "Christian." We have chosen the same inclusive definition as is used by public opinion pollsters and government census offices: A "Christian" includes any group or individual who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian. Under this definition, Christianity includes: Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, United Church members, even a small minority of Unitarian Universalists, etc. [10]
Christianity is the world's biggest religion, with about 2.1 billion followers worldwide. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago. Subdivisions: The Amish, Baptist churches, Church of England, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church of Scotland, Eastern Orthodox Church, Exclusive Brethren, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodist Church, Opus Dei, Pentecostalism, Quakers, Roman Catholic Church, Salvation Army. [11]
In the following article an account is given of Christianity as a religion, describing its origin, its relation to other religions, its essential nature and chief characteristics, but not dealing with its doctrines in detail nor its history as a visible organization. These and other aspects of this great subject will receive treatment under separate titles. Moreover, the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical.[12]
"[Statistically] Christians will be divided into "Catholics" and "Protestants" (with Orthodox/Eastern Christians typically classified as Protestant). With more accuracy, Orthodox are added as a third division, leaving all Christians who are not Catholic or Orthodox classified as Protestant. Typically this includes many groups who would prefer not to grouped with Protestants, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints." [13] This is probably the best source or classification, as it is purely statistical. It also divides various branches according to similar criteria: "The list of branches shown below represents an attempt to be less arbitrary, showing major branches between which there are real differences with regard to culture, practice, doctrine, and history. Given these criteria, this list is more subjective than a listing of denominational families, which was primarily based on historical considerations only. Once again, the numbers are estimates. The boundaries between some of these groups are somewhat blurry (such as between some Pentecostal and Conservative Protestant groups)."
Hope this helps. Bytebear 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK... here is another reference:
Christianity n (14c) -- 1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Protestant bodies 2 : conformity to the Christian religion 3 : CHRISTENDOM (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1989)
Sounds a lot like the present article. I'm sure one may find similar definitions in dictionaries dating back to the printing press. LotR 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I did't think little old me could stir up such a huge argument. Amazing. Zantaggerung 19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok everybody, lets take The Roman Catholic Church and the Word Faith Movement. In some ways these to belief systems are completely opposite! Yet they are both called Christian by the world in general. So therefore Christianity ( as thought of by the world today) must be more than one religion. Zantaggerung 19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some ways. A.J.A. 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Zantaggerung, talk about non sequitur. Str1977 (smile back) 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Non sequiter? Come on, if they have several opposite beliefs, then it follows that they aren't the same religion. Zantaggerung 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A "non sequitur" is something that does not follow from what was said before (often something that is tangential or off-topic). THe term does not mean that the assertion is false.
That said, I will now argue aginst Zantaggerung's assertion. If we use his definition, then Roman Catholicism isn't a religion and neither is Protestantism because there are differences in beliefs that are "opposite" within each of those groups. I do not believe that all Catholics view abortion as a sin nor that all Catholics are opposed to the death penalty. Should we take it to the public teaching of Catholic bishops? OK, maybe you have uniformity there although American bishops think somewhat differently from Rome. Similarly, how do you deal with Shiite and Sunni Islam and the three flavors of Judaism and Theraveda Buddhism vs. Mahayana Buddhism?
Using Zantaggerung's definition, we lose the ability to call Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism religions. This defies the common-sense definition of religion.
I think you have to go to core principles. Judaism and Christianity are different because of their different interpretation of who Christ is. Christianity and Islam are also different for the same reason.
Now, does the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses belief about who Christ is differ sufficiently from "mainstream" Christianity as to cause us to exclude them from being characterized as "Christian"? I would say no and thus I would argue that the into should not say anything about "all Christians" that would exculde Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. It is reasonable to characterize them as being minority viewpoints (but not heretical because that would violate NPOV by suggesting that they are wrong).
Thus, going back to the original point where this discussion began, I would argue that we should rework the opening sentence so that it properly characterizes belief common to all Christians i.e. a religion which focuses on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Details about whether Jesus is divine can be treated in the body of the article.
--Richard 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Richard for giving it a go, but again you confuse two issues, making matters needlessly complicated. The issue here is not whether JWs or Mormons are Christian but whether Christianity is a religion or more than one religion. To which the answer is clearly: yes!, completely independent of the JWs/LDS issue. Str1977 (smile back) 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"heresy" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". It means that it doesn't conform to orthodoxy. That there is a Christian orthodoxy is not hard to discover. Whether that orthodoxy is "right" or "wrong" is a different matter. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? No, I disagree. "Orthodoxy" literally means "right teaching". If heresy is unorthodox teaching, then by definition it is "wrong teaching". Heresy is that divergence from orthodox teaching which is so far from the accepted norm that it cannot be tolerated. I cannot imagine that heresy is other than a negative, pejorative and derogatory term.
There is no single Christian orthodoxy although belief in the Trinity and in Jesus' role as Savior is pretty close to being it. It is true that there are different views of what is orthodox teaching and what is heresy but orthodxy always considers itself right and considers heresy to be wrong. --Richard 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Orthodoxy means "right teaching" but heresy doesn't necessarily mean wrong. However, when using the term we should make sure that this takes no sides, either by qualifying "considered heretical by ..." or by using the word in places where the word doesn't take side. That there were heresies e. g. in early Christianity can be simply stated without going into details.
PS. "Unorthodox" is a no-no. Str1977 (smile back) 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_41&oldid=1136612223"