Talk:Christianity/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 → Archive 60

De-sermonification

Articles on Christian belief have a tendency to to rely on language commonly used within the faith, which makes a certain kind of intuitive sense but leads to problems. In particular, it contains esoteric language in place of plain English descriptions, which makes things unclear for those without pre-existing familiarity with the faith, and it involves flowery, grandiose language. I have some examples from the current revision of the article:

  • "teaching that individuals are completely incapable of self-redemption, but the grace of God overcomes even the unwilling heart". The meaning of the bolded section isn't entirely clear, but the tone is even worse.
  • "to bring about salvation from sin". What does it actually mean to be "saved" from sin? Are we talking about forgiveness and admission into heaven? Then we should say so! It's fine to use terminology from within the faith, but it's better to use plain, descriptive language in the lead.
  • "As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again". Why don't we just say he came back to life? Talking about "rising" to life and "defeating" death imparts undesirable positive connotations. Also, what meaning is added by the adjunct As fully God? Does the reader need to be reminded that normal humans can't do this?
  • "that God can give the confidence that a believer in Jesus as the Christ has truly received salvation". Wouldn't Jesus Christ or just Jesus do? And truly? As opposed to falsely receiving salvation?
  • "the Spirit proceeds from the Father". "Proceeds from"? What?
  • "the Son being eternally begotten of the Father". As opposed to temporarily begotten?

We should be aiming for precision, neutrality and clarity, and these snippets do not exemplify that. Ilkali (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, though I take issue with your last two examples. When talking of the Spirit proceeding, it is a technical term, and meant to distinguish it from the generation of the Son. I'm not sure what you'd like to use instead, though if you have a suggestion, I'm up for discussing it. And specifying "eternally begotten", as oppposed to "begotten", makes it clear that it is something that happens in eternity, rather than temporally; ie that it happens in eternity and not at a particular time. It's important to Christianns, and I don't think its terribly confusing. Though I suggest that for clarity (and explanation) we wikilink it thusly: "eternally begotten of the Father". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"When talking of the Spirit proceeding, it is a technical term". Do you think the meaning of that term is clear to people not familiar with the details of Christian theology?
So we're using eternally as a synonym for atemporally? Given that the former has a wider range of meanings, I'd suggest the latter is a better bet. Ilkali (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It probably isn't but honestly, what do you want to replace it with? From my beloved OED, the relevant definition of "procession": "The action of proceeding, issuing, or coming forth from a source; emanation; esp. of the Holy Spirit". So, "the Spirit issues forth from the Father"; "the Spirit comes forth from the Father", "the Spirit emanates from the Father". Are these really improvements? Why not just stick with the vocabulary used in the common (English) translation of the Nicene Creed, which describes much of Christianity?
Yes. I'm not sure that eternally really has that wide a range of meanings, but I'm not principally opposed to "atemporally". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"Why not just stick with the vocabulary used in the common (English) translation of the Nicene Creed, which describes much of Christianity?" Because it is extremely unclear! I still have no idea what is meant by proceeds. Aren't we talking about an atemporal process? Emanation is a temporal phenomenon - it entails a transition from one state to another. So is it more accurate to say that the Spirit is a function of the Father? Ilkali (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it isn't something we're going to explicate clearly; it's of the very inner workings of God, and therefore a mystery that can't be fully understood, much less explained. I don't think emanatation is necessarily a temporal phenomenon--"To emit, send out. lit. and fig." When the subject and object of emanation is God, it is necessarily an atemporal process. I would avoid saying the Spirit is a function of the Father, because 1) that term is hopelessly wedded to maths in my mind and 2) I don't know of it having been used in this sense before. But if it helps you think about it, then I suppose you could say f(Father)=Holy Spirit. However, f(x) is an operation we perform on x; that's hardly what is going on with the Trinity.
I've posted on my sandbox relevant paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Frank Sheed's "Theology and Sanity". I hope they help shed light on what we mean by 'proceed'. If you can come up with another word that will satisfactorily describe it, then suggest it. But thusfar I fail to see a viable alternative to 'proceed'. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that function would be a good word to use in the article, I was just trying to figure out what we want the article to say. What's the difference between being atemporally begotten and atemporally emanated?
I guess where I'm probably going to ultimately end up with this is saying: If we're not using this terms to mean what they usually mean, and instead relying on esoteric terminology, shouldn't we at least signal that we're doing so, maybe with quote marks or italics? Ilkali (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(As I understand it, the difference between begotten and emanated, here, is an issue of the degree of likeness to the Father.)
I don't see why we need to use quote marks or italics; those aren't going to clarify, or render more understandable, the terms; they won't be an aid to anyone, and they are the proper terms. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If your point is that proceeds and eternally begotten are technical terms, and we'd be doing the reader a disservice if we replaced them with common language that isn't equivalent, I agree. But I'm not sure this justifies keeping the language. After all this article is an overview of Christianity, not Trinitarianism, a doctrine that millions of Christians reject. Couldn't it be enough for this article to explain the Trinity using terms like coequal, a term whose meaning is transparent, at least to anyone who knows Latin roots?
On a marginally related note, is there any church that teaches that "the Son and the Spirit proceed" from the Father, as the article currently does? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it would be enough for this article to explain the Trinity using terms like "coequal", though I'd have to see an actual proposed text to make a true judgement.
I could always try and write an article on the Spirit's procession, and assuming it survives AfD, have "the Spirit proceeds from the Father" in this article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"I could always try and write an article on the Spirit's procession, and [wikilink it] in this article". That'd work, I suppose. Ilkali (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, what meaning is added by the adjunct As fully God? Does the reader need to be reminded that normal humans can't do this? Good question. It's also blatantly pro-Trinitarianism or, less likely, pro-Oneness. While I don't mind mentioning that most Christians are members of Trinitarian churches when it's appropriate, we shouldn't let the article become a forum for having Trinitarianism preached at every moment.
I'd say go with all the changes that carl doesn't object to. As for the ones he does object to, I'll have to think about them more. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The "proceeds from" does not seem like a problem; at least not for me; however, the "eternally begotten" phrase could easily be interpreted as denominationally specific. If it is to be used, it should be explained; many readers do not have your religious background and thus make achieving your understanding doubtful.
Fundamentally, I agree that care should be used when using Christian lingo. Clarity need not be limited to a secular description of Christianity, but the use of language that adequately explains Christianity to readers who may have a limited understanding of this religion. --StormRider 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
How denominationally specific is "eternally begotten"? To my (completely possibly incorrect) knowledge, the only Christians who would object are Arians, (ie in the modern-day, Jehovah's Witnesses). Could we just insert some sort of disclaimer somewhere in the sentence for this case? And would not the wikilink to eternity explain it well enough? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Members of the LDS and Oneness Pentecostals would also object to eternally begotten, and though I haven't gotten confirmation on this, I suspect members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would object as well. So that's another 13 million + (I don't know how many Oneness Pentecostals there are). -- SgtSchumann (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
"Clarity need not be limited to a secular description of Christianity". What exactly do you mean by a secular description? Ilkali (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that we do not need to avoid vocabulary common in Christian theology, but that we strive first for clarity. A secular description would be phrases completely devoid of use within Christianity itself. For example, above you mentioned using atemporal rather than eternally. It is possible to use atemporal, but then you would have most Christians at a loss for what is meant. Language used should also be recognizable to Christians. Hope this helps to explain the intent of my edit. --StormRider 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"we do not need to avoid vocabulary common in Christian theology". Sure, we don't need to avoid it. We should treat it the same way we treat any language, submitting it to the same standards of clarity and accessibility.
"above you mentioned using atemporal rather than eternally. It is possible to use atemporal, but then you would have most Christians at a loss for what is meant". Most Christians don't know what atemporal means? Ilkali (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, people should be able to figure out what atemporal means. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eternally is a word that is common within Christianity and to those outside of Christianity. An atemporal being, ubiquitous and without demensional limit, and interminable strength can be used to describe God, but many Christians would not recognize this as their God. It all fits, but the language is foreign. It is so much easier to say the the Christian God is eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent. There is an immediate recognition and it is also understood by others. I am putting emphasis on using common language that most English speakers will have in common. --StormRider 23:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eternal can mean (at least!) either: "Outside of time" (atemporal) or "continuing indefinitely", with the latter being much more common everywhere outside of religious dogma. Atemporal doesn't have that range of meaning and therefore sidesteps possible misinterpretations.
"many Christians would not recognize this as their God". Many Christians can't... interpret sentences they haven't seen before? I think Christians are more intelligent than you give them credit for!
Lastly, I think I need to point out that this article isn't being written solely, or even primarily, for Christian readers. It is at least as important that non-Christians (who differ in that they don't necessarily already know this stuff) be able to understand the concepts expressed therein. Ilkali (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(newindent) Ilkali, I don't think anything I have said contradicts your desire to make the language understood by all readers. Nor does making the article's vocabulary recognizable to Christians make the article incomprehensible to non-Christians. If you want to find a disagreement then find it with the word atemporal; IMHO, it is not acceptable; surely we can find something else. As far as eternal goes you seem to be straining; God is believed to be both outside of time and withtout end (conversely, eternal can also mean without beginning, which also fits the Christian perception of God). Again, I don't think we disagree in our intent to make the article comprehensible to readers regardless of religious persuasion. Do you have specific language to propose or should we continue talking about concepts? --StormRider 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"As far as eternal goes you seem to be straining; God is believed to be both outside of time and withtout end". Yes, and the former entails the latter but the latter doesn't entail the former. A phrase like eternally begotten is most likely to be interpreted as "permanently begotten", which isn't the intended meaning.
"If you want to find a disagreement then..." Still not got that civility thing down, huh?
"Do you have specific language to propose". Well, I already proposed atemporally. What else do we still disagree on? Proceeds? I'm talking about that with Carl above, and you're welcome to weigh in on it. Ilkali (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You may have misinterpreted my meaning when I said, "if you want to find a disagreement..." It was not meant to be offensive; I am hardly that subtle. When I seek to offend, I generally do it more directly and hopefully with more aplomb. What I was saying here is that I did not find a high degree of actual disagreement between our objectives. Now, about that issue of one's desire to be offended and/or to take offense...we might need to talk about that. Best not to wear those feelings on the cuff so much. :)
As far as language goes, I was recommending moving to a proposed edit to discuss here. I think it will speed up our ability to reach consensus when we work on actual language.--StormRider 22:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I made changes on the things Ilkali suggested, as follows:

  • "to bring about salvation from sin" is now "to open heaven to humans". I'm not crazy about it, but it is sourced.
  • "As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again" is now "As fully God, he rose to life again." I had earlier agreed with removing the "as fully God", but its how the sentence is fitted into the paragraph, discussing the true God, true man aspect of Christ, so I think it is necessary.
  • "the grace of God overcomes even the unwilling heart" is now "sanctifying grace is irrestible".
  • "the Son is born of the substance of the Father" is now "the son is begotten of the Father"; not discussed, but begotten is the normal word here, not born.
  • the Son being eternally begotten of the Father" is now "the Son being begotten of the Father"; I think more people agreed it could be dropped, than on its use vs. that of eternal or atemporal, etc.
  • Vladimir Lossky; Loraine Boettner.[clarification needed] has been removed as a reference, as I can make neither head nor tail of it.

Let's discuss. I definitely think a better solution to the (my) first one is out there. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You were right to make most of these changes. I think you were also right in that the first change is the most problematic. Jehovah's Witnesses would agree more with the old wording than the new. Also the new wording looks as much like Christianese to me as the old. I also have a question about sanctifying grace is irresistible. Do all Calvinists agree that the grace that saves also sanctifies? If so, is it relevant? I'm throwing out the idea that we should drop the word sanctifying. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any suggestions for a good, (sourced) wording for the first change? I'd be fine throwing out the sanctifying; I only included it because, at least for Catholics, "grace in general" can be distinguished from the grace that saves, and "the saving grace of God" (from the lead of the wikilink) seems to mean, at least to me, the same thing as "sanctifying grace". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first change, I suggest we instead say, "to allow humans to participate in an eternal social order, established by God". The source would be Eisenbaum. The most objectionable term here would probably be eternal, but in this case atemporal isn't a potential alternative, so I don't think it's so bad. One advantage would be that this is something that orthodox Christians; Jehovah's Witnesses; and Paul of Tarsus, if he were here, would be able to agree with. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's kind of stretching what Eisenbaum is saying about sacrifice in general, to applying it to what Christians think of Christ's sacrifice. But, since no-one's objected to it in all this time, I'd be fine with you making that change. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvation

In my opinion the section "Salvation" needs a lot of work. Current problems and lacunae include the following:

  • There's no mention of what New Perspective scholars believe was Paul's soteriology.
  • There's no explanation of what any of the Restorationist churches teach about salvation.
  • There's precious little said about the Christus Victor model or the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation.
  • Much of what's written in the final paragraph seems polemical (specifically it reads like the polemic of Reformed theologians) or inaccurate:
    • Synergists is a term often applied to Arminians by Reformed Christians; it's not a term Arminians are quick to wear themselves.
    • It's implied that Arminians don't believe in salvation by faith alone -- something that Arminian theologians would dispute.
    • It's implied that Lutherans aren't Arminians. Though Martin Luther would have disagreed with some of what Arminians say, many, if not most, modern Lutherans are Arminians.

Any thoughts on how we can improve this section? -- SgtSchumann (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made major changes to the section, including the following:

  • I've added a paragraph on Paul's soteriology and its similarities to Jewish and Roman views on sacrifice.
  • I've removed gratuitous introduction and definition of terms that aren't used elsewhere. (It would probably be good to include some of these terms, but I think we should find a more natural way to do it.)
  • I've changed language that I felt was biased towards a Reformed position.

-- SgtSchumann (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Polytheistic Christianity?

Aren't there pagans and stuff who have multi-deity concepts where they call themselves Christianity but it isn't monotheistic? Isn't that still christian? Aren't there muslims who think Jesus is the messiah but do not think he is the son of god? Aren't those types of muslims christians as well as muslims? They follow Jesus' teachings and think of him as a saviour, but in the role of a prophet-messiah not a son-messiah, and that he is not the end-all but rather that it is Muhammad who was the final prophet. Does Jesus need to be your most important messenger to be considered a Christian? Do you need to follow his message first? Do you need to follow the entire message, or the parts you like? Tyciol (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE To answer your questions: Idk, that can be argued, No they cannot b/c of the doctrines of Islam, I don't think so, yes as a prophet but not as a messiah per se (don't quote me), yeah pretty much, again depends (ask a mormon and no, ask a protestant yes), yes, entire message (each comma means I'm answering a different question). Soxwon (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Islam teaches that Jesus was the Messiah, but there is a different meaning given to the word. Where Islam does not go is to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah, or the only way to enter heaven. Jesus was merely a prophet, a man, like all the other prophets: Noah, Abraham, etc. Muslims believe that Jesus has a significant role to play in the last days, but that he will return and then die as a righteous man. For Christians there is nothing if Jesus is not present. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All the prophets pale beside him; there is no comparison to Jesus. It is not an issue of following a message. You may remember in the New Testament (Acts 19:3-4) when it was unto what were you baptized? Unto the baptism of John? No, you must believe on Christ Jesus. For Christians there may be popes, patriarchs, prophets, pastors, teachers, bishops, etc., but there is only one Jesus and upon Him is all the gospel built. I hope this helps. --StormRider 06:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
While I think this is a good discussion, I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a forum. Was there a particular change the article you wanted to discuss? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Christianity and polytheism don't really mix well... you know the commandment saying "thou shalt not have any gods but me/before me. That kind of makes polytheism impossible...--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Jesus' role in Islam is merely to allow Muslims to use him as a springboard for their own faith. They feel it legitimizes their faith if they make mention of the buzzwords of other faiths, such as Moses, Jesus, etc. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No, Christianity is not Polytheistic; the saints are not worshipped, and trinitarian Christians believe in One God, who has 3 persons. This is attacked as meaning "3 Gods" but that's the view held by those who wish to distort it and not attempt to understand why this is a belief. In reply, Christianity is not polytheistic. End of story. Gabr-el 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind you that there is a polytheistic religion attached to this article that is calling itself Christian. I tried a long time ago to list them as at least polytheistic, but another editor was too willing to edit war. Unless we use standard definitions in this encyclopedia, we'll not really be encyclopedic. So, to answer the question, no there are no polytheistic Christians by definition, but you'd never know that from this article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Polytheism has been a complaint against Christianity for centuries. Islam often alleges that Christianity is polytheistic because Jesus is believed to be the Son of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is often misunderstood by those who make this allegation. The LDS Church is also often alleged to be polytheistic, or at least, henotheistic. This also is a misunderstanding of their doctrine. Though they believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all separate entities (they have no concept of same substance), the Book of Mormon teaches that they are one God. It is appropriate to be Socratic in our articles and understand what the definitions of the vocabulary used. In a review of Christianity and the over 36,000 Christian denominations that exist, we find everything from Modalism to what could be perceived as Polytheism. However, on closer review I think you will find that the vast majority of Christianity is monotheistic in doctrine. Articles should always be written from the majority, mainstream position. This article does that. --StormRider 15:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tip: If I say I'm a duck, that doesn't make me a duck.  Aaron  ►  01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Tip -- if a religion insists that there is only one God, then it's monotheistic (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned). We can record some disagreements with citations, but that's as far as we need to go.EGMichaels (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I had valid questions but they were taken off of here. Communists and athiests can speak out but certain christians cannot make points and ask questions (without insulting comments I might add)? Unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman007 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant to discuss improving articles, not to be forums to discuss the article's topic itself. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and symbolism

I found it inappropriate that there was no sighting of the origins of the prime christian symbols in the symbolism summary. The article should state the fishes germanopaganistic origins as well as the crucifix's zodiacal origin as the solar crux. I found it rather one sided and inappropriate to hint at/ state, that the crucifix was exclusive and original to christianity. If there is a specific reason for this lack of; important/balancing information please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeonos (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The crucifix IS unique to Christianity. I think you are treating the cross and the crucifix as though they were the same thing. They are not. The Crucifix has the body of Christ on it and the cross is bare. It is true that the cross's origins are pagan, which could be mentioned, but I'm not sure its actually important enough. It'd likely be better in the article on the cross. Farsight001 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It may simply be that people haven't found reliable sources for these claims. Personally I have no doubt that there's a lot in Christianity that has its ultimate origins in paganism. The trouble is that it's often difficult to tell if Christianity's resemblances to paganism come by direct borrowing, by parallel development, or via Judaism. (The Hebrew religion is an offshoot of Canaanite paganism, so it's hardly surprising that Christianity resembles pagan religions.) Popular authors who revel in finding similarities between Christianity and paganism often fail to consider any possibility other than direct borrowing or find other ways to alienate serious scholars (e.g. by advocating conspiracy theories). There are reputable experts who write about the pagan origins of the Hebrew religion, but this sort of thing more properly belongs in the article on Judaism, and last I checked it was already there. There are also reputable scholars who say that Christian soteriology ultimately finds its roots in pagan ideas on sacrifice; despite your insinuation that we're bent on being one-sided, the article already hints at this.
As for your specific claim about the ichthus's "germanopaganistic" origins, I'm skeptical. But if you know of a relevant, qualified authority who makes this claim, by all means add it to the article. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Germanopaganistic symbols? That's laughable at best, not least because its hard to find such a term and considering that the Germans were well outside of the Roman Empire. Fish is used many times in the Gospels, as Jesus' food after the resurrection, food that is caught in parables akin to the Kingdom of God, making Peter a fisher among men, multiplying fish for 5000 Jews and 4000 Gentiles... Especially the idea of the KoG being like a fisherman who catches many fish and stores them up, so Early Christians identified themselves as these fish who were harvested or fished for the Kingdom of God. That the Cross is of pagan origin is also not doubted, since crucifixion was a Roman Punishment. There is nothing that is original, credible and noteworthy being proposed here.

Gabr-el 05:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you are getting at, as by your statement you have no ends. And yes I was mistaken in confusing the crucifix and cross but in the end the cross rely is of the solar crux in the zodiac which we know to be many thousands of years older. What I was getting at is that even in the summary of the christian symbolism it is lacking and hints at it being original to christianity, which we know not to be true, and should be stated that it is borrowed from older pagan religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeonos (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As was said earlier, find a reliable source saying this, and add it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You have made a logical fallacy in your argument, assuming that because the cross is heavily associated in zodiacs and so forth so then Christianity must have been influenced by it to get this symbol; we know that the reason why Christianity adopted the Cross as its symbol has got nothing to do with any Pagan tradition, other than the fact that Jesus was said to have been crucified on the cross by the Romans - a punishment by a pagan empire. You assume that because the cross is found in other pagan traditions then Christianity must have found the cross in this way. I have no ends? Your argument is nothing more than original research, and based on the following faulty logic:
  • Some crosses have their origins in the solar crux and in the zodiac
  • Christianity uses a cross
  • Therefore Christianity's cross symbol was influenced by the above mentioned.

This is ridiculous since the conclusion does not follow premise 1 and 2, because the cross of Christianity was put in place because of the Roman Punishment of Crucifixion. You are assuming that the cross of Christianity must have come from pagan traditions, of which you have no proof. Furthermore, my fish examples - they mean nothing to you? How is that so? I have shown ample references in the New Testament about the importance of fish:

I seriously doubt that these mid-late 1st century AD texts were influenced to any extent by Germans. The fish is very common. Gabr-el 15:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said germans I said pagans, as in early endo germanic pagans, and no quoting the bible offers no proof as to the originality of the fish to christianity. I highly doubt that the early bibles had sighted their influential points and credited the origins of their myths. It can easily seen that even their most prominent story of jesus was tailored from Christnu and Horus, among many others, If all I had to do was quote a fictional peace of writing and say it was fact one could easily presume that Anikin Skywalker's tail was entirely original and no elements were borrowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeonos (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The debate over which, if any, elements of Christianity have their roots in paganism is an interesting one, but I'm going to suggest that you and Gabr-el would do well to take it elsewhere. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter whether Gabr-el has introduced good counter-arguments. What matters is whether you can offer reliable sources to support your claims and cite them in the entry. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The cross was not a very original way of dying: the fact he got the cross did not make him any more special then all the other's who died of crucifixion: even david crucified members of sauls family.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely. AFAIK, crucifiction was a Roman invention. rossnixon 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Then the Article on Crucifixion is horribly wrong and must be updated.

"Crucifixion was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD, when in the year 337 Emperor Constantine I abolished it in his empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.[2][3] "--Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Map in Demographics section

Hello, the map in the demographics section delineates counties who have a Christian denomination as their state religion. Currently, is includes Islamic and Buddhist countries as well. Could someone remove religions other than Christianity from the map and rename the map as a different file name? First, measures would need to be taken that would ensure that all the countries listed in the article are included on the map. Please respond to this query if you are willing to undertake this fact. Thanks in advance. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How about no: Why remove information? when iot shows how it is spread compare ot the other religins and all, that is very useful to the article.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Christianity ?

Hi, I was trying to find an academic definition of Christianity, and expected to find it in this article. Should this article not have an academic definition of Christianity? Kindly include one or explain. 117.198.49.171 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity is: religously those who follow christ. If I remember, Christianity can mean itself, like christ or something along those lines, the problem is there is no real defintion for christianity. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ssteiner209. The thought is mind boggling. But your comments are also helping clarify many things at the same time. Bye. -(username Civilizededucation) 117.198.48.45 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. I am still in a mind boggled state. I still think that Christianity must be having a good, watertight definition? Is it possible that nobody even tried to form a definition? If there is no definition of Christianity, should this difficulty not be discussed in the article? If there is a definition, should it not be provided in the article? Aren't we missing something? Civilizededucation (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the lead says, "Christianity...is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament." This is pretty similar to what the OED says: "The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles." What more do you want? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl. Regards, and thanks for the response. I just wanted to know if Christianity has a watertight definition. Actually I wanted to know whether these definitions are supposed to be watertight. Secondly, I wanted to hint that a label identifying the definition in the article might be appropriate.Civilizededucation (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would venture to say that the definition given in the article is watertight; it's vague and generic so that it will be as inclusive as possible, and has doubtless been discussed at length, given how many archives this page has. And what do you mean by a label identifying the definition? I don't follow. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The readers of this article do not know that the first sentence of the article is supposed to be a definition. Some may know, but some don't. The second post of this disscussion also illustrates this factor. That is why I am trying to say that the article should identify the first sentence as a definition. Thanks for reminding me about the archives. I would try to satisfy my queries and suggestions by going through them before I make any further posts here.Bye.Civilizededucation (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it help if we changed it to "Christianity is defined as a monotheistic religion..." instead of "Christianity is a monotheistic religion..." carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that should be enough.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if no one objects in 12h or so, I'll go ahead with it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But Christianity is one of the great monotheistic religions of the world, if it had more than one God would be politheistic. I always thought that was self-evident, just like saying the Pope is Catholic or something. Trompeta (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Trompeta. That's not the issue being discussed in this thread. The purpose of this discussion is to make the article more informative by identifying the first sentence as a definition.Thanks.Civilizededucation (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The majority of articles in this and other encyclopaedias begin, not with a definition, but with a statement. I much prefer this long-established approach to the introductory paragraph. Dbfirs 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(deindenting) That might be the reason for readers of most encyclopedias getting stumped by a simple question. And the first sentence of this article is a definition. Right please?Civilizededucation (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my asking, but is English your first language? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I do think so. I am a non native speaker of English. I asked for a reconfirmation because the previous post seems to disagree.Civilizededucation (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have gotten into a state of limbo due to some reason. OK, let's leave it as it is. Let's treat this thread as closed. I think that's better than being in a state of limbo. Thanks.Civilizededucation (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion

The third intro paragraph seems to introduce its thoughts in reverse order, first stating that Christianity is an Abrahamic religion and then stating that it began as an offshoot of Judaism. The paragraph should begin with the second sentence, that it began as a Jewish sect, followed by and perhaps leading into it with a sort of "and thus is an Abrahamic religion." DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To anybody who actually knows shit about the three main middle aeast religions they know both are sourced from judiasm and therefor inherited the abrahamic title,--Ssteiner209 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:CIVILITY would make good reading about now. Agathman (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...so no one's going to comment on this, other than incivility and a timely reprimand on that? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I can comment: the "error" is not grave, but you're right of course. If you can think of a more sequential formulation then "be WP:BOLD" applies, now that WP:policies are around ;-) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no objection to reworking that in a more sequential way. Go for it. Agathman (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK...it was just switching the first two sentences in the paragraph. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_55&oldid=1136612284"