Talk:Christianity and world religions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|
|---|---|
| Archive 1 05/2004-09/2005 | |
Contents |
[edit] Sources
Amin123 -- The reason I suggest that you get a Judaism/Christianity/Bible scholar quote is that the article is fundamentally about Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and, more importantly, for you to get a scholar from these one of these fields would "solidify" your position as something more than a position held by Zoroastrian folks as opposed to something that has more support in broader academia. Your critics (which have included me) would have very little to dispute...it would strengthen your argument here. That's why I've suggested it. KHM03 15:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well R.C. Zaehner was an expert in "eastern religions". Granted he focused mostly on Zoroastrianism, but who else can you expect to find a link between Zoroastrianism and the bible. It would have to be someone who is very familiar with Zoroastrianism to be able to see it's influences in other religions. Furthermore Zaehner is already quoted in the opposing side of the discussion so his views should be acceptable for this side.
- But here is someone who's an expert in bible specifically:
- "The whole eschatological scheme, however, of the Last Judgment, rewards and punishments, etc., within which immortality is achieved, is manifestly Zoroastrian in origin and inspiration." Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b.
- --Amin123 00:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a writer's name for that article in that commentary? I've heard of Peake's but am not too familiar with it. Who wrote that particular article in the commentary (if it's listed)? KHM03 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I've looked into Peake's a bit, and there seem to be some reputable scholars associated with it (Davies, Bruce, Metzger in NT; Barr, Bright, Albright in OT...these are some of the undisputable real giants in 20th century Biblical scholarship), so you may be onto something here, Amin123. Can you cite a specific writer? KHM03 00:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- That item (quoted above) was written by P.R. Ackroyd. I hope we can resolve this discussion now and include that tiny quote from Mary Boyce with the introduction of her as a "leading Zoroastrian scholar".
- --Amin123 06:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Mary Boyce, but I for one would approve the inclusion of the Ackroyd quote. While I don't really know his (or her) work, it seems that he (or she) is associated with some serious authorities. Let's let others weigh in for consensus, but I vote "yay" to the Ackroyd quote. KHM03 10:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Is Mary Boyce not a "serious authority"? It doesn't really concern me if the Ackroyd quote is included instead of the Mary Boyce quote, although I think it'd be fitting that a distinguished scholar who has spent her life studying the subject be quoted in here. I'd also prefer if the Zaehner quote was removed due to the above discussed inconsistency, but this is not a sticking point for me either.
- --Amin123 11:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It would strengthen your argument, it seems to me, given the talk page history, if you cited a scholar of Christianity (who seems to be associated with some very big names) rather than a scholar of Zoroastrianism...it's a Bible scholar supporting your claim, and your argument can use that. Mary Boyce may be the greatest in her field ever, but for most editors here, that field is relatively obscure (not unimportant or anything...most of us are just ignorant of it). I would favor the inclusion of the Ackroyd quote, but why don't we wait a few days to let others weigh in and build a consensus. The Zaehner quote, too, is up to the community; I have no preference either way. KHM03 12:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah that's a sound plan, let's wait a couple days. --Amin123 13:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Without further adue, I'm taking out the Zaehner quote and putting in the Ackroyd quote. I would like the Mary Boyce excerpt in there instead of the Ackroyd one, but I'll see what others think of the matter first. If someone wants the Zaehner quote in there, put it back in and please explain your reasoning in here.
--Amin123 18:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good. Fair. Thanks for seeking consensus. KHM03 19:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
As to you.--Amin123 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Latest edits are ok by me. But could you please add some word who Ackroyd is. Just something like: Wikipedologist Ackroyd states: "...". Thanks. Str1977 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Religion and politics, Religion and class and Inter-religious Relations
I have created the above pages - contributions welcome (though the Christianity and politics page has already been created).
Can someone set up an archive page for this talk page (and then remove this sentence) as somewhat long?
Jackiespeel 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity and Atheism
Shouldn't we write something about the relationship between Christianity and Atheism (and other philosophies like Agnostic)? The Fading Light 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As atheism and agnosticism are not religions, such commentary does not belong on this page. The relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, an atheist religion, already exists. There may be room to address the relationship with other atheistic faiths, but I doubt there would be much to say other than speculation. --Skyhawk0 13:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Buddhist atheists. They do believe in a salvation(Nirvana). They have many religious traditions. They seem to be very spiritual for atheists. Anker99 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity and Islam
I changed references to ‘Christ’ in the “Relationship with Islam” section to ‘Jesus’. This makes the article more openly readable, rather than just viewing things from a Christian perspective. Since there were references to Islam’s view of Christ, such as “Christ is acknowledged and respected by Muslims”, the wording seemed inappropriate considering Muslims don’t believe Jesus IS the Christ. --Skyhawk0 13:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just a general comment. This section is still very POV. For example,
- However, while Islam relegates Jesus to a lesser status than God — "in the company of those nearest to God" in the Qur'an, mainstream Christianity believes quite firmly and without question that Jesus is God, one of the three hypostases (persons) of Christianity's Holy Trinity, equally God as are the Father and the Holy Spirit.
- is probably better phrased as something like
- However, while Islam regards Jesus as strictly a prophet ("in the company of those nearest to God" in the Qur'an), mainstream Christianity regards Jesus as divine, a part of God (see Trinity).
- --Mcorazao 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
