Talk:Christianity/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 →

Contents

Protestant and Catholics

Whats the difference between protestants an catholics?

Although your questions is appreciated, the discussion page is focused on how to improve the topic of the article. However, the answer is easily understood by reading this article and the Roman Catholic Church, History of Protestantism and the Reformation. All will help you understand the subtle and major differences. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources and references

I was reviewing an edit today and noticed that scriptures were being used to support interpretations; this fails to meet the Wikipedia policy. All scripture references should be replaced with secondary sources that support the statements being made. Even though some of the statements appear to be clearly supported by the scriptures, I think they still fail to meet policy as outlined in WP:OR. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think scripture references are fine in many cases. If the reference's interpretation is uncontroversial amongst the majority of Christians, then I don't see a problem. rossnixon 01:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If we can't interpret the english language (Which is what these particular scripture verses are written in) when using references, then we can't interpret any references which are written in English for anything. I might be able to read some references written at an elementary spanish level if you can find any though... Homestarmy 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

The Christianity article is criticized for being too long, and I agree. There is a great deal of redundancy created by topics that have separate articles. Much if not most of the information presented in considerable detail in this article is duplicated in the Main Article on that topic. Examples: agape Trinity Scripture and others. I propose that these topics, though very appropriate for the article, each be shortened here to an overview paragraph and the reader be referred to the Main Article on that topic. Opinions please. Thanks. Afaprof01 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you here. I'm going to propose a serious overhaul outlined below. Signaj90 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Love (Agape) Section

If someone hasnt already noticed, there is an out of place first-person comment in section 2.1.1 Christian Love (Agape) Section. As I have just joined Wikipedia today i cant edit this article. is it locked? would someone mind if they reformmated or deleted the said comment?

thanks - Darthpotterbob 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Word messiah

Why is the origin of the word Messiah assumed to be from Mashiakh (meaning Annointed) rather than in the more similar sounding Mashia (meaning savior). Greek has a kh sound but no 'sh'. It seems more likely to me that Messiah is simply helenized Mashia (as it's an exact transliteration) rather than mashiakh, which would necessitate them mysteriously dropping the kh sound, though it exists in their language too. Thoughts? Basejumper2 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no assumption at play here. First, as for pronounciation, no serious scholar presumes to know how a word used to be said. Further along that line, Jews no longer spoke Hebrew in Jesus' day. They spoke Aramaic. Messiah came to Greek through Aramaic from Hebrew - messing up the pronounciation would be expected. Finally for now, the Hebrew for 'messiah' occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and given the prophetic use of "messiah", we have every reason to think that the Greek use of "messiah" corresponded to the Prophetic use of it, since the Gospel writers understood themselves to be speaking of the Messiah promised in the OT. If you'd like me to go further, just say the word. Signaj90 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I would like to make an edit to this page. It says it's semi-protected, but I can't edit it even after I've created an account. OneQuickEdit 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Gradually developing itself"?

When did that get in the lead? I haven't payed too much close attention to this article, but that seems like a rather vauge statement, even if referenced. And what's with the random quote? I don't even know what its talking about. Homestarmy 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Four Thousand years" "a Monotheistic religion"

The page begins with two generalizations that are subject to huge dispute, namely that Christianity is monotheistic and has been developing for four thousand, nee two thousand years.

Christian monotheism is significantly less pure than Muslim or Jewish versions, lending one to question if monotheistic is a definitive, let alone completely accurate, description of the Christian religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christian denominations range from a seeing a pure unity to, as Richard Swinburne has suggested "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods." (See the Trinity page.) Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic, but it certainly isn't "monotheistic enough" to treat the issue as a. an inarguable fact b. a definitive, introductory part of the Christianity article.

Not a single human being two thousand years ago, let alone four thousand years ago (!) referred to themselves as a Christian. Traveling back in time, you would fail to meet a single person who could even have a hint of understanding to what you refer. To claim that Christianity has been evolving for four thousand years is, at least without further justification, quite strange. I assume the implication by saying four thousand years is that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. This however, is itself a controversial claim, from within and without Christian groups.

These are HUGE errors, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.226 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe enough to describe Christianity as monotheist - there may be a few exceptions, but then again there are some Christian atheists, too - but I agree with the points of the last two commenters about the 'gradually developing itself' bit. A close look at the reference for this point, and the quote that goes with it, shows that it is from a book published in 1835 - hardly an up to date perspective. The four thousand year time scale seems arbitrary and the other points seem to represent a particular viewpoint. I propose to delete this, unless anyone has strong objections or wants to reword it. Rbreen 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The statement for monotheism is increadibly well-referenced. However, the weird thing about gradually developing itself, as I noted in the previous section, does seem very unusual, so I agree with the proposel to delete it. Homestarmy 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is the Christian goddess Sophia, although she seems to have been mostly marginalized or forgotten. (Haven't met a Christian who knew they had a goddess) I think the article should make a note that the line between monotheism and polytheism is signficantly blurred when dealing particularly with gnostic areas of the religion.--Shadowlink1014 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Gnosticism isn't Christian at all, and if it was important to the question of Christianity being monotheistic, surely the sources we have so far would have mentioned it. Homestarmy 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly when it comes to monotheism Christianity is a special case -- not that we aren't but get a pass as if we were, but that, in spite of precisely fitting the dictionary definition (which has been posted in the archives), we still aren't. Either someone changes the definition of "monotheism", or makes himself a judge of purity, or gives us another deity which we now "have" without our even knowing it. A.J.A. 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I need to flatly contradict the claims of the initial post here directly. I refer the objector to Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 as Biblical texts which speak of the title "Christian", and the latest credible dating of these texts places them at a mimimum of 1900 years old, give or take a few decades. Second, with respect to Shadowlink's sophia and gnosticism, as a seminary student who can reference any number of ancient writings (Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril, Agustine, Athanasius, etc) on this topic, the concept of sophia as a god of Christianity betrays a near complete lack of understanding of the available textual evidence we have concerning historic Christianity. One week's study of the most basic of ancient Christian documents show that gnostics were nearly unanimously dismissed by Christians. Third, as for the four thousand year statement, I'll concede that discussion can happen here. This flows from the Christian claim that it is in continuity with the Pre-Christ Jewish faith. Fourth, with respect to questioning Christianity's monotheism, I refer you to the Athanasian creed, accepted by all but Nestorian churches, which requires monotheism. Historic Christianity has never formally sacrificed Monotheism, though individual Christians and theologians may have. Final conclusions: The time comment and the monotheistic comment can be a springboard for the nuancing of the article, but don't delete either. (PS: sorry about the many edits to my post. This has been my first post ever, so I was sloppy. Signaj90 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the issue of the montheisticness of Christianity in concern to the Holy Trinity is as follows...The Holy Trinity is meant to describe 3 parts of the only God "whose name is The Lord." The Father is the creator and king of the universe, the Son is Jesus the Christ, who is God's presence on Earth in flesh and blood, and the Holy Spirit is is the divinity of God (the last one is the one in shich I possess the least understanding). To say that Christianity is a non-monotheistic religion is innacurate, for it is taught that there is one God, portrayed through 3 parts. 1Shank1

The "gradually developed for 4,000 years" is eclectic nonsense. You might just as well claim Christianity has "gradually developed" for 40,000 or 400,000 years. It's arbitrary. Regarding monotheism, it's true, Christian theology has always struggled to remain monotheistic. The emphasis here is on struggled. It has taken them some 600 years to somehow get to grips with Christology. The question didn't suddenly make sense in the 7th century, but people just let it be because it was simply impossible to say anything new or interesting on it at that point: "God is triple and yet single, don't ask us, we've quibbled about this for six centuries, let's just say it is a matter of belief". dab (𒁳) 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It doesn't make any sense to say that Christianity has gradually developed over 4,000 years because it didn't even exist before common era. Now, you could certainly say that the Jewish theology from which it's based has developed over a long period of time, and indeed, has been polytheist in the past, but not Christianity.--Shadowlink1014 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Shadowlink and dab on the word "struggled" to describe Christianity's monotheism, though I'd prefer it if any changed language imply basic success with that struggle. Regarding 4,000 years, I think the emphasis of the phrase is not the time spent, but the fact that gradual development or evolution has been happening - it isn't a static religion (though it retains it's historical tenants of faith). Formal suggestion: Let's get rid of the number 4,000, replace the time reference with something generalized, like "over the course of its history", and think about changing the description of it's "development". Could this be a consensus opinion?Signaj90 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
that's all I'm saying: (a) the "4,000 years" is arbitrary nonsense, (b) Christology is a complicated topic and should be summarized by people who know what they are talking about, avoiding polemics, (c) the 1st century origins of (proto-)Chistianity are discussed at origins of Christianity. What passes for Christianity-as-we-know-it-today originates in the 4th century. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
dab is right, Christianity as we know it today has its development roots in the First Council of Nicaea and Council of Chalcedon. — Superman 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't agree with your view of Christianity's development. However, we agree on the choice of words, so it seems that we can go forward with the change. Signaj90 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bwildasi's Reference Modification

Bwildasi made a needed change, but the coding isn't finished - it needs to be changed so that the refererences can be links to the actual Bible texts trying to be referenced. Can someone do that for me since I can't do that myself? See line 8, in "Beliefs", reference numbers 14and 15 at present. Signaj90 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Four Main Divisions

There is no bullet for the 'And Reformed' churches
Four main divisions:
-Roman Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodox (/Oriental Orthodox)
-Protestantism
And Reformed

Sign your posts please!
I want to contest the entire discussion of the Protestant and Reformed section of this part of the page.
1. All groups who split away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation era are considered to be Protestant by the majority of the literature. This false distinction needs to be dropped.
2. The implied similarity of Anglicans and Lutherans is incorrect. Anglicans try to find a middle way between Reformed and Catholic theology and practice. They derive nothing from the Lutheran tradition historically. As the text reads, it implies that they belong with the Lutherans and not the Reformed, and is wrong to do so.
3. Melancthon was Luther's friend and helper, and he penned the Augsburg confession - the primary document of the Lutheran tradition. As such, he is improperly placed with the Reformed, though his later and more Reformed way of thinking leaves this point open to dialogue.
4. The inclusion of the Anabaptists in the Reformed camp NEEDS to be changed. The Reformed (and Lutheran and Catholic) churches persecuted, imprisoned, killed, and treated them as a dangerously different kind of Christian! Their thinking is independant of Luther and Calvin and, at points, is quite opposed to them. If Protestant and Reformed are to be distinguished from one another, the Anabaptists get their own, because they come from neither Luther nor Calvin.
5. The Protestant section states that it's defining characteristic is more traditional aspects of services and the Reformed's characteristic is Calvin's thought. This seems accurate for the Reformed, but the defining characteristic of Lutherans and Anglicans is not their style of worship.
6. The wording of the entire Reformed section needs to be edited. I propose the following sentences:
"Reformed churches are groups which generally follow the teachings of John Calvin together with those of the other Reformers, [insert names here] . These churches are [insert names here]"
It's a lot - I know. I could say more, but I want to wait for conversation first. Comments? Signaj90 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would add a fifth division, Restorationism, which can be viewed as a branch of Protestantism historically, but doctrinally, Restoration groups are all over the map and really have no connection with each other, other than they feel thay have restored truth, rather than reforming existing institutions or protesting them. Also, the reference to the "four divisions" found here actually only lists three: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Either find a different reference, or clean up that part of the article. Bytebear 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll grant you the presence of Restorationism within the general category of Protestantism (along with Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist groups) so long as their ambiguous Christian affiliation is also included. You're right in bringing them up, because they are at least cousins of the three groups, and deserve mention as such, even if they are finally rejected as Christian.Signaj90 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul of Organization Proposal

Greetings all. I wish to propose two major overhauls of information in this article. As a matter of practicality, I am going to split this up into two discussion sections.

Concerning the overhaul of the structure of this article, my ideas are put forward solely to address the issue of redundancy within the article. I want to hear if people see merit in this or if they think that the issue of redundancy should be addressed differently.

Proposals:

1. That Jesus the Christ and Jesus' death and resurrection both be integrated into one section that is no longer than one of the present sections.
2. That Catholic beliefs, Protestant beliefs, History and Origins, and Christian divisions be brought together into one continuous section whose structure is as follows. The logic of this is that these sections are all highly redundant, and bringing them together will make this so clear that people will be able to remove redundancies easer.

Proposed 2nd section:
2. History

2.1 Early to Medieval History (Present History and Origins)
2.2 The Era of Reformation
2.2.1 Protestant Beliefs (Protestant beliefs and Christian Divisions and Ecumenicism, both summarized greatly)
2.2.1.1 Protestant Denominations Past and Present
2.2.2 Roman Catholic Beliefs

Again, for context, this is taking sections 2, 3, 5, and 6, and making them one continuous section for the purpose of making clear and eliminating redundancy as well as excessive length.
Comments? Signaj90 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

lead image

This article needs a lead image to be consistent with the other religions. I will propose a few below (please feel free to add). Yahel Guhan 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Personally I would recommend 7 (or 1, but 7 is better). These are the only ones that can really only be associated with Christianity, and are the most ecumenical. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

these are all illustrating Roman Catholicism. Your best bet will be a medieval or ancient symbol such as 9, 10, or 11. From the 14th century, Christianity had become too fragmented to be represented by any single image. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I like #1 out of the options above. #7 is a little "busy", and someone not very familiar with Christianity may be a bit overwhelmed, or not know the relative importance of the countless images in the picture. I disagree that Christianity is too fragmented to be represented by a single image, and the three alternatives listed above are a bit too obscure in my opinion. Some of the original 7 are too Catholic for this general article, but the simplicity of #1 may be appropriate. --Anietor (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism? 1 & 2 are decided NOT Roman Catholic. 3 is almost cetainly an Anglican church. 4 is a painting of Abraham (!?!), 6 and 8 are the only two that are decided Roman Catholic, although 7 would probably not be represtative of all Christianity. That said, none of those images gets it right. A new suggestion # 12. I have boldly added 12 to the article while the debate continues, do not see this as a statement that the subject is closed. -- SECisek (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Praying hands doesn't seem like a very Christian symbol. Other faith traditions use that hand position for prayer. Let's not water it down to the point where it's meaningless. I think adding more images to choose from is a good idea, though, so I hope to see some more suggestions. But it seems like a cross or crucifix would be common denominator symbol for Christianity. --Anietor (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, other faiths? Which ones? I think you are mistaken. BTW see also Islam. -- SECisek (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if only Christians are the only ones who pray as in 12, it doesn't really say Christianity to me. The lead picture should "scream" Christianity. 12 just doesn't do that, in my opinion. With the additions, I think 9 is good. Having said that, 1 [or another image of a cross] would be the best solution. The chi-rho, while explicitly Christian, isn't well-enough known. From my own experience, more Catholics than Protestants are familiar with it, and even many Catholics wouldn't recognize it. So I vote for a simple cross. But that could change as new options are presented. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Carl above. Praying hands seems a bit too tangential (and pc), and while I don't know that we need a picture that "screams" Christianity, the hands picture is barely a whisper. The story behind Albrecht's praying hands is a beautiful one, but a bit too obscure for those not familiar with it. The cross is probably the symbol most associated with Christianity. While the chi-rho certainly has strong historical credentials, it, too, is a bit obscure to those outside the faith. --Anietor (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The cross is already on the Nav box which appears at the top of the article. If the image is to be a simple cross, we should just leave the nav box at the top and be done with it. A crucifix or ressurection painting would be better in my opinion, but would likely be deemed too "Roman Catholic". Carl, what would not be Roman Catholic? If you think #9 has the pope's finger prints on it, this could be a very long process. 9 is my compromise choice, I stand by 12, though.

BTW I am in no way biased in favor of, nor particularly against, Roman Catholic symbolism. -- Secisek (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe we should just leave it, cause I think a cross is the ideal image for Christianity. Basically anything that would make a Protestant start an edit war because its "Catholic"--so I would say crucifixes are definitely out. I see no reason not to use a Resurrection painting, though. I mean I'm Catholic, I personally would love to see a crucifix at the head of this article; but it has to be something that can't be claimed as being associated with one group of Christians to the exclusion of others, because its the article on all of Christianity, not just one group within the religion. And if you feel strongly about 12, I'm not really against it. I just don't think its overtly Christian enough. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lead image would be nice. The first photo of the plain cross would be OK, but I think a resurrection image might be better, for example #14 LotR (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This article gets much traffic and we are certain to get more opinions very soon. -- SECisek (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I also would lean more towards a resurrection picture of Christ. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


At the end of the day, Christiainty is about Christ and his resurrection, so the best image will probably be a Christ Pantokrator one. A Christian cross would of course also do, but there the specific shape almost invariably betrays a certain sub-denomination. A medieval example like the Cosenza one might be a solution. I also like the Ravenna Christ they chose at Jesus (dating to the 6th century, it predates the Great Schism). Alternatively, a resurrection icon like this Greek one? dab (𒁳) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So, have we agreed on something? A resurrection image? Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any legitimate sample images so that we can proceed with this? LotR (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over any Ressurecton suggestions? -- SECisek (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. 13 is one off the page Resurrection of Jesus. There are a few more on there. If we could find one showing the wounds in his hands I think it would be better as overtly Resurrection. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw this one, but didn't think the quality was good enough for a lead image. LotR 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a little low res. -- SECisek 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like this one. It isn't a resurrection image, but it does reflect the power and humility of Jesus. Bytebear 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-dominance of christianity in Europe

Someone insists that christianity is the dominant religion in Europe, but it simply isn't. I'm coming from the Netherlands, which is a pre-dominant non-religious country with a christian minority. That is the case in most European countries. Officially i am Roman-Catholic, but i don't believe in god. Here is a map of the believe in god in Europe: Image:Europe belief in a god.pngDaanschr (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of a dominant belief system, or even a dominant religion: I take the reference to mean simply that, of all the religions in Europe, the one with the largest number of adherents is Christianity. It's not saying that the majority of people are Christians, although that's still notionally true in most parts of Europe, and genuinely true (in terms of what people actually believe) in some areas - what's true of the Netherlands is not necessarily true of Poland, Greece or Ireland, for instance. All that is being said here is that, predominantly, Europeans who have a religious belief are Christians, rather than any other religion. There is a separate question which you raise, which is that many Europeans counted in the statistics given in the article - 2.1 billion believers - are only nominally Christian and do not in fact believe the key doctrines described on this page, and in many cases do not even believe in God. In that sense, the figures given here do present a misleading picture, I agree. Rbreen (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If the largest religious minority is predominantly christian, than it shouldn't be described as predominant. A better description could be that christianity is the largest religion in Europe, but that christians are a minority in Europe.Daanschr (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pretty map. Can you provide the source? I think I've seen it before, but not sure where it comes from. And that leads to the more important point here...editors should not change numbers or stats in articles based on their personal observations or anecdotal accounts on who goes to church or how religious they think their fellow-citizens are. There are obviously many ways to define who is a Christian (or Jew or Muslim)... it can arguably be based on who is baptised, or who adheres to the core beliefs, or who attends services; and is it based on self-reporting, surveys, census data, etc. If there is a reliable source, then it is appropriate to be relied upon. Official census data, government surveys and the like trump Daanschr's views on who qualifies as a Christian. If there are legitimate criticisms of certain data, then that may very well be appropriate to note. However, we can't get into a debate of what makes a Christian a true Christian...there's not enough room in cyberspace for that discussion. We should use the data that exists. EvenDaanschr states that he is "officially" Roman Catholic. The article doesn't say that those described as Christian are card-carrying, church-going, 10-commandment-abiding followers. That's the mistake of editors who want to dispute the data. If it's necessary to explain how that data is compiled, what it includes or any issues with the data-gathering procedure, that's a separate issue. --Anietor (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, there were numerous current reliable sources which name Christianity as the largest religion in Europe, including an article published earlier this year in The Economist. The best way to resolve this is to cite reliable sources. Personal experience is original research and can't be introduced in the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure enough, there are plenty of reliable sources showing Christianity to be the largest religion in Europe. For an example, see this table in the Encyclopedia Britannica online. Majoreditor (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are sources of the Dutch figures on religiousness compared with other European countries. It is a pity that the sources are in Dutch, but i guess you can use an online dictionary in order to to be able read the many tables.
Let's start with an initial remark in this debate, i contest the notion that membership of a church says something about the amount of christians in a country. I know of many people, including most of my family and myself, who are officially a member of a church but do nothing at all with their religion. Many of them see themselves as non-religious, including me. The Dutch and other European figures (in the link above) will tell you some other statistical details on many aspects of religiousness.
If you persist in not accepting my view on religiousness, as in that the number of members of a church says nothing about the amount of christians in a country, than we will have to use the npov-rule, by trying to get both our views into the article without giving preference to any of them.Daanschr (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV isn't the issue here, unless you are challenging the neutrality of sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The real issue is to support a point using reliable, verifiable sources. Numerous secondary and tertiary sources with recent publication dates make the same assertion, namely, that Christianity is the largest religion in Europe.

That said, I think that there is opportunity to improve both this article and the article on Christianity in Europe by discussing recent trends in church attendence, religiousity and decline in traditional denominations/growth in smaller denominations. Perhaps you want to research the subject and contribute to the appropriate sections in these articles? Majoreditor (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a specific footnote in the article of the Encyclopedia Britannica stating its methods of research. i want to know the specific questions and possible multiple choice answers that have been given. Otherwise it can't be used as a reliable source in this context.Daanschr (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What you're proposing to do is original research. We don't do that here in Wikipedia. You may wish to review WP policies on verifiability, reliable sources and original research. Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That isn't right. I am contesting the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source in the context of what we are discussing now.Daanschr (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The two sources that are used to support the statement that christianity is predominant in Europe are both contested, so the sentence needs to be adjusted. I will move the sentence to this talk page. So we can place it again after the discussion is done.Daanschr (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I move the contested sentence here:

It is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, Southern Africa, the Philippines and Oceania.[1][2]

Daanschr (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove properly sourced material from the article. I have re-inserted the sentence. Majoreditor (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the Encyclopedia Britannica uses as its source the World Christian Encyclopedia, which counts adherents mainly on the basis of data provided by denominations themselves. The World Christian Encyclopedia is compiled by Christian evangelicals and it is very plainly produced as a resource for evangelisation. As such, there is a natural bias towards high estimates for Christian adherents. Certainly the numbers given for adherents in Western European countries seems to reflect notional adherence rather than belief. Since the WCE is almost always the source for the figure of 33% Christian of the world's population it clearly reflects that notional figure. Rbreen (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly in an edit war

We are nearly in an edit war, but i will try a different argument and wait for the results. The Encyclopedia Britannica provides a countdown of the number of christians in Europe. The Dutch government provides a comparisson between Holland and major other European countries on the amount of religiousness. This article on christianity uses a high amount of christians (Encyclopedia Britannica link) as a standard to determine that christianity is predominant in Europe. A sentence before that states that christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. If the high amount of christians are used, even people like me who are only a member of a church without believing in many of the dogmas, than the definition of a christian can't be someone who believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. This would account for a part of the christians, but not all of them.

Either we say that christianity is predominant in Europe, but that a lot of christians don't believe in the christian dogmas, or we will have to take a close look to the comparisons between European countries on the believe in certain christian dogmas to determine wether dogmatic christian believe is adherred to by a majority of the Europeans.

If the discussion on this topic can't be held in a civil way, then i will regard this as an edit war and will ask for mediation.Daanschr (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked for third opinions.
Your above statement displays a fundemental lack of understanding of WP core policies: I don't see a specific footnote in the article of the Encyclopedia Britannica stating its methods of research. i want to know the specific questions and possible multiple choice answers that have been given. Otherwise it can't be used as a reliable source in this context. Majoreditor (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a master of arts in history, so i should know how a proper reference is made. The article of the Encyclopedia Britannica simply doesn't present a proper reference. When i search further, it asks me wether i want to have a free trial for the encyclopedia. So, it seems to me like an unreliable source. It is better to use direct sources instead of encyclopedias. Sources like the Dutch government agency, SCP, provides. It gives a summary of literature at the end of the pdf-file. That is proper referencing.Daanschr (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

This gives something of the references used:

Adherents. As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person's religion is what he or she says it is. Totals are enumerated for each of the world's 238 countries following the methodology of the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (2001), and World Christian Trends (2001), using recent censuses, polls, surveys, reports, Web sites, literature, and other data.

It supposedly describe the adherents of all major religions, but why does it state than that it uses sources like World Christian Encyclopedia and World Christian Trends. These are not neutral sources if used to determine the adherents of all religions and irreligiousness.Daanschr (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incredible. By that samer line of reasoning we should through out cited references from Encyclopedia Judaica and other tertiary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If I may offer a few comments, based only on the discussion here. We have been over the ground of "what constitutes a Christian" on this page in the past. The fact that many members of churches do not subscribe to all the dogmas of the church has been pointed out before. However, by being a member of said church, they do in fact accept the position of the church. We have no way to sort out the persons who say they believe X (by their membership), but do not actually accept X (by personal statement). That said, a second point: WP:OR says of the use of tertiary sources (such as encyclopedia britanica): Tertiary sources can be useful in avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources. I would say that this article qualifies as a topic where there is a large amount of primary and secondary sources. Pastordavid (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective, David. You bring up an excellent point on why we use tertiary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a different reasoning. If a person doesn't adher to the dogmas of a church, than this person actually isn't a true member. Therefore, most Europeans aren't really christians and christianity isn't predominant. There are two ways of describing this in the article:
1) A christian is someone who believes in certain dogmas and in Europe only a minority is trully christian.
2) A christian doesn't need to believe in certain dogmas (like me), is only christian out of tradition as examplified by church membership and Europe is predominantly christian.
The text at present doesn't correspond to the facts, wether as a tertiary, secondary, primary, or original source. I have sources that will depict a reality check.Daanschr (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As with on all similar articles, we follow persons' self-designations. The persons are members of church bodies. Said church bodies believe X. The persons who are members believe X. It would be original research for this article to state otherwise. Please, we have been down this road before. Every time, consensus has led to the same conclusion. Give me some time (or if someone else would like to, go ahead), and I will dredge it out of the talk page archives. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that we have a storm in a teapot here! The encyclopedia cited is a reputable source and is appropriate to use in this article. The church membership has been demonstrated and supported. Daanschr, your issueis that members of respective churches may not believe the doctrines of their respective churches. That is a different issue entirely. I lived in France for a few years and the French are almost all Catholic, but not many actively attend church or believe the doctrines of their church; however, they remain Catholic.

I have edited the article to state that Christianity teaches rather than Christians believe. Does that satisfy your issue? --Storm Rider (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A perfectly reasonable way to cut the Gordian knot (and save me a trip through the archives). As always, good work StormRider. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job, StormRider. Thank you. Majoreditor (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Without detracting from Stormrider's solution, I don't think the issue is adequately settled. Despite Daanschr's poor approach of deleting Europe from the list, I think there is a valid point although not necessarily the one that Daanschr is pushing.

I think it would be useful to clarify what is meant by "number of Christians". Is that based on an objective survey (i.e. a non-church affiliated survey), is it based on self-identification as Christian or membership in a church? Clearly, these will yield different numbers and no single approach is "right". They are all valid measures and tell us different things.

Daanschr's point is that being a member of a church doesn't mean you are actually Christian. I disagree there. A person who self-identifies as Catholic but doesn't go to Mass and doesn't agree with the doctrine on abortion is still a Catholic. In addition, a person who self-identifies as a Christian but isn't a member of a church is also a Christian.

If we are going to provide any numbers at all and do any kind of comparison to other religions at all, then we need to work harder to get to sources that can be considered reliable. At the same time, we need to make sure that we provide good "apples to apples" comparisons and make clear what counting criteria were used.

--Richard (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


"biblical" or "Biblical"?

Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?

Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Holy Bible" or "Bible"

I respectfully request consideration and discussion on the entry of the word " Bible " in all text ....... My desire is to see it always written as " Holy Bible " , as is properly titled on most all official publications of it ......... There is sound reason for applying the word " Holy " in conjunction with "Bible " .......... The word " Holy " can only be attributed to the One which is Holy , and all consenses must certainly resolve that " One " , is God ...... Since the Holy Bible from beginning to end of it's text is unquestionably refering and relating to " God " , the word " Holy " is applied to it denoting that singular possesive characteristic of " God " ......... thank you . Pilotwingz 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your request. My thoughts are that to call it Holy would violate Wikipedia's policies. We strive to not take a position on what is true, but rather we report what experts say is true or we explain their positions both pro and con. In this instance, thre are many "bibles" in the world and we can not take a position that one is more holy than the next; they are all revered texts. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If we may consider the publishers ( eg: Thomas Nelson Publishers - Nashville , and host of others verifiable as well )of the book called the " Holy Bible " by the publishers reference to it , and conceed that those publishers are the experts of their publications ( eg: Holy Bible ) , then we indeed have the ' experts say ' already accounted for ......... Further , if we look up the word 'Bible' in an official dictionary ( Encarta , Websters , etc. ) and conceed to accept their definition of that word 'Bible' ( again as "expert" of their publication ), we will find it always is described as a " Holy " book , regardless of which Bible in the world is being discussed ......... Further , the root meaning of the word bible is ' book ' , and the placing of the word " Holy " before it decribes the books content ( refer to the expert citations previously mentioned ) , thus the proper and complete title " Holy Bible "........ no one is asking you to make judgement this way or that in reference to the word " Holy " , that has already been done and is a matter of historical record .......... thank you Pilotwingz 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with you - the Bible is Holy. Let's get that out of the way. However, you would be hard pressed to get an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc to call the Bible Holy. Unless you were seriously willing to describe the Qur'an as holy, Buddhist monks as holy men, the Hindu scriptures as holy, etc, then your approach would appear to be contradictory. I do not call those books holy, nor do I expect all people to consider our book holy (much as I would wish it to the contrary). Finally, the ascription of something as "Holy" is not a statement of fact nearly so much as it is a human statement of confidence in its holiness. As such, it is for people of faith rather than encyclopedias to declare the holiness of Scripture. Sorry. Signaj90 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The book is properly titled , the Holy Bible.......... I did not give it that name , it's authors did .......... no matter who the word holy offends , no matter who believes a thing is holy or not so , no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks , the book is properly titled , the Holy Bible .......... it always has been and that is what it should still be called this day ............ you all have argued over what one believes or dosen't believe ............ I have argued that the book commonly called Bible , is properly titled , the Holy Bible ............ I have stated verifiable fact .......... I did not invent it ..... Pilotwingz 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If i may, Holy does not mean Good or any of the meanings commonly associated with it. It means seperate or apart, and as such the title Holy Bible does not promote the book more, it simply describes what it is My two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.77.241 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also do not believe that the use of the word "holy" in the title of the book would violate WP:NPOV. The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition says:
Ho•ly |ˈhōlē|
adjective ( ho•li•er , ho•li•est )
1 dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred : the Holy Bible | the holy month of Ramadan. See note at DIVINE .
  • (of a person) devoted to the service of God : saints and holy men.
  • morally and spiritually excellent : I do not lead a holy life.
2 informal used as an intensifier : having a holy good time.
3 dated or humorous used in exclamations of surprise or dismay : holy smoke!
:Jecowa (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Avoid epithets

Wikipedia generally does not attach honorific epithets to names. For instance we refer to "the Pope", not to "His Holiness the Pope"; likewise we refer to "the Qur'an" and not to "the Noble Qur'an". The word "Holy" in "Holy Bible" is an epithet of this sort, and as such, we should not use it when normally referring to the work in question. The work is commonly known as the Bible -- by believers, scholars, and everyone else -- and this expression should be used, sans epithets. --FOo (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop evangelical propaganda about Christians in China

http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2007/s07100011.htm

Christians in China are about the 4% if the total population, and they grow as the total population grows. They're a small minority in a country populated by nearly 1.3 billion people.

I've lived in China since three months ago. There are not as many Christians as evangelicals-bushist want to believe. This is misinformation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article only states that the Christian church is growing rapidly, which it is according to your own complaint, as the population grows. I did not find any misleading claims made in the article about Christians in China as a percentage of the population, or any general statements about the size of the Chinese Christian community in regard to the rest of the population. Pastordavid (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This study talks about the false statistics propagated by evangelicals and Charismatics. There are political reasons behind these problematic numbers and Wikipedia shouldn't be polluted by non-neutral viewpoints. And I'm not talking only about China: the phrase cites also the Middle East. The claim about the gorwth of Christianity in the Middle East is simply absurd.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.82.140 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If your stats are correct - 4% of 1.3 billion - that means 52,000,000 Christians live in China. Taken as a unified group (which they are not), that would make them the the 4th or 5th largest Christaian denomination in the world. Certainly worthy of note. -- SECisek (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am unclear here. Exactly what claim in the article do you object to? All I was able to find was the statement that the chinese christian community is growing rapidly. The map at the bottom makes clear that the % of Christians in china is below 9%. So the problem is ... Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If the number of Christians in China is in fact growing in line with population then it is misleading to say it is "growing rapidly". We should find other places where it is growing faster than population to talk about. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs to become more neutral. The introduction requirs a complete rewrite. The introduction is too much propaganda for dogmatic christians, while a majority of the world population doesn't belong to the dogmatic christians. It is nice to hear from someone who is against this one-sided pov-pushing of christian fundamentalists.
To strengthen my position, i would like to note the following issues:
  • Even if some facts are supported by sources, than they don't need to be portrayed.
  • The order of facts, especially in the introduction, has nothing to do with sources. I would prefer a more neutral approach in which christianity is one among many religions and not something which is predominant and growing. That could be the spirit behind the introduction, something which can't be measured, and therefore has mainly to do with the npov-rule and not with fact verification.Daanschr (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and if it is growing, then surely the intro should say that, whether any individual editor likes it or not. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a christian fundamentalist and have little admiration for them, that said the lead does not smack of fundamentalism. I see nothing wrong with it. Can you be specific? -- SECisek (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The lead is designed to give a general overview of the topic. A statement of the widely agreed upon beliefs and the size of the group are certainly items that belong in such a summary. Indeed, such info would be included in the lead of any group. Why would the lead here be any different? The topic of the article is not World Religions (see Religion for that) which is why that is not what is focused on in the lead. Neither is the topic criticisms of Christianity (see Criticism of Christianity for that) which is why that is not focused on in the lead. The fact that Christianity represents 33% of the world population and is growining certain regions of the world (as documented verifiably by reliable sources) is notoable, in fact is part of what makes the topic itself notable which is why it is in the lead. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is more neutral to determine wether christianity is growing in total percentage of the worldpopulation or not. It is also notable to mention that christianity is deteriorating in Europe, which used to be one of its most fanatic propegators during the age of imperialism.Daanschr (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is not growing, it's fading all over the world.

The introduction is still not neutral, but now relatively okay. Since i know that christianity is rapidly dissappearing from Europe, it can be accounted as a certainty that in, in 30 years, official data will tell that Europe has become a majority non-religious continent. So, i will leave this temporary squabble for those who think they can win some in this discussion and retreat from this place.Daanschr (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not assert that a majority of Europeans are Christians. It states that the most practiced form of religion in Europe is Christianity. This is fact. -- SECisek (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reformulated the introduction making it neutral. --Esimal 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Stating that Christianty is "dying out" is hardly neutral. --Anietor 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Anietor is correct; the language isn't neutral. I'd also suggest that information on country- and region-level growth and decline does not belong in the introduction. Please examine the introductions articles on Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. They don't use their leads to explain what countries are experiencing growth and decline in followers. Let's keep the introduction concise per WP:LEAD and present details on regional and country-level trends further back in the article. Majoreditor 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, Majoreditor. The issue of trends is an interesting one, but is more appropriate for a section further into the article. That's not to say that I support the current language, whether it's in the intro or a separate section. We should rely on well-sourced statistics, and avoid terminology like "dying out". I expect that the subject will be contentious enough without adding such language. --Anietor 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree: just a brief mention in the lead, details in another section, try to avoid loaded terminology one way or other; we should be informing the readers, not scoring points. There are two issues that seem to me interesting and valid, and are not currently mentioned, that don't have to be detailed in the lead (1) the general proportion of Christians has changed little over the past 100 years, but the demographics have - from majority white, European to majority non-white, Asian / South American, African; and (2) especially in Europe there is a significant divergence between affiliation and belief. I can find citations to support both of these, although not right now. Rbreen 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved the text and created another section. Feel free to edit or discuss here how to better place it. I wasn't sure what, if any, of the topic should remain in the intro. I also tried to restore the text to a version prior to the inclusion of some of those loaded words (i.e. dying out commentaries). It certainly needs some work...this was just to get the ball rolling. --Anietor 02:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the relocation, but you've restored the old POV version that misuses sources to support false claims. I'm going to modify the text as I did yesterday. The source about Christians in China does not talk about a "growth", but it simply cites the numbers provided by the Chinese government; there are no sources claiming a growth of Christianity in the Middle East. --Esimal 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This section still needs a lot of work. As it is, the section has incorrect information, and ceratinly portrays statistics in a misleading way. For example, the countries where Christianity is "predominant" are directly compared to countries where it is "declining". These are not opposites. A religion can be predominant and declining at the same time (The UK would be an example, if not all of Europe). We need to compare apples and apples. It also mentions countries with no citations/sources. As it is, the section probably provides more incorrect than useful information (whether by design or poor construction is debatable). It is an interesting issue, and worth including, but only if it's done in a neutral and accurate manner. --Anietor 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the present introduction. There is no need at all to measure the amount of christians. Especially given the dubiousness of the level of adherence to established christian dogmas.Daanschr 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed section about Muslim objections to Trinitarianism

I removed the following paragraph because it is not relevant to this article. All it does is expound on Islamic criticism of a particular Christian doctrine, which seems about as relevant to an explanatory article about Christianity as the objections of a Hindu or an atheist. If this paragraph is to be in the article, why not another saying that the Christian belief in salvation is incompatible with the Hindu belief in reincarnation?

Muslims believe that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism, and they reject the Christian teaching that Jesus is the Son of God, though they affirm the virgin birth and view him as a prophet preceding Muhammad.[3] The Qur'an also uses the title "Messiah," though with a different meaning.[4][5] Muslims also dispute the historical occurrence of the crucifixion of Jesus, believing that while a crucifixion occurred, it was not of Jesus(see docetism).

OneQuickEdit 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that last revert, I see how it's out of place. I reverted because the edit was made by a brand new user and removed cited content, thus I assumed vandalism. --Strothra 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is Polytheistic

I want to challenge the first sentence that Christianity is monotheistic. Monotheism means one gos. Polytheism is more than one god. In Christianity you have the Trinity. God and Jesus are separate individuals with different minds and act independently of each other. Jesus was crucified. God was not. God is the father, Jesus is the son. Jesus rose from the dead. God didn't. Jesus was born of a virgin. god wasn't born. Clearly these are separate individuals.

The issue of monotheism vs. polytheism is an objective outside assessment. You count the number of gods.

  • 0 gods - Atheism
  • 1 god - monotheism
  • 2+ gods - polytheism

In order for Christianity to be monotheistic it has to pass the one god test. Trinity means 3 and (3 > 1) therefor it's polytheistic. --Marcperkel (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity [at least mainstream] believes in one God; eg the creed begins "I believe in one God...". This one God has three persons. It is monotheism. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one God, and they do share one mind. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How can they share one mind? "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt 24:36) I agree they are one God. Perhaps we need a footnote to an article like the Oneness of God. Ironically that article redirects to an Islam article. How about Monotheism in Christianity?Bytebear (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The Monotheism in Christianity is a good idea for an article. Having said that, there is a footnote on 'monotheistic' which lists 7 references--that statement isn't going anywhere. And as for the one mind, I'll explain why I say that; I know I could be wrong though. I do know that the Father gives of Himself infinitely to the Son; giving infinitely means He gives everything He is, there's nothing held back. So the Father has nothing He has not given to the Son. The Father has a mind, and He has not with-held anything, therefore He shares His mind with the Son. Seems logical to me, but I look forward to hearing what you think. Carl.bunderson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit represent a close group but to say that they are a single individual isn't according to scripture. Clearly when I read the Bible I see God and Jesus as individuals. Jesus himself refers to God as a separate entity. So that would be the final word, wouldn't it?--Marcperkel (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
They are not a close group; Christians believe they are one God; they share one nature, so that they have one intellect and will among them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity involves veneration of many saints cant that be consitered (somewhat) Henotheistic/polytheistic.--76.28.67.224 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is neither henotheistic nor polytheistic. Venerating saints is very different from worshipping or even acknowledging them as gods. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked at how Wikipedia defined deity and got "a preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings." My question is how does that definition not apply to saints or angels? The skeptic annotated Bible shows some 31 passages either hinting or expressly stating there are other gods. That would make Christianity henotheistic even if you try to hand wave it as demons, spirits, or whatever pretending to be gods. In fact, 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV refers to "the god of this world" blinding the mind of men (often read as a reference to Satan).--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


The Trinity is the God-head Three-in-One, and One-in-Three. You cannot have one without the other. Christianity is not Polytheistic. It is Monotheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.38 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that you're so involved in religion yet you've not realized that Jesus is not a god. Jesus is the Christ, the savior, the Messiah. Whether or not they're essentially separate or different is debatable, but I find it irrelevant because Jesus isn't a god... --not a registered Wikipedian 17:08, 19 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.82.139 (talk)

1 Corinthians 8:5-7 (NKJV), "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

When the Bible refers to another god (such as the god of this world, the devil), it is NOT referring to them as divine, worthy of worship/praise, good or holy. Quite the opposite. There is one true God (Deuterononmy 6:4), whom we worship and call divine.

Christianity is therefore monotheistic.

The logic is flawed because it ignores Henotheism and Monolatrism. Monolatrism is a particular headache because it recognitions the existence of many gods, but says only one is worthy of worship JUST AS Christianity DOES. What is the headache about Monolatrism then? It is a POLYTHEISTIC belief.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

John 8:58: ". . .I AM."

Jesus claimed to be God, and Christians believe Him. The Bible says that He is in Philippians 2:5-7, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."

Hebrews 1:8-10: "But to the Son He says:

“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

And: “ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is God (John 8:58), who became a human (John 1:1), fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies [of when the Messiah would first come] (look through the OT and Gospels for yourself), sacrificed Himself to save "whoever would believe in Him" from Hell (John 3:16), and then rose again three days later (Acts 10:41), ascending to Heaven (John 3:13).

He then sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), who is completely God (compare Acts 5:3 and 5:9).

Now, I'm not going to dispute whether or not this is true, because that doesn't matter here. Whether or not someone believes these things or claims there is no evidence, etc. does not matter. [What] Christians believe is (or should be) classified as monotheism. - ApostleJoe —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been briefly observing this conversation for some time, but have not been in a position to contribute. As a LDS I would reject much of what Bruce has stated; there is a fundamental confusion about the nature of God, the eternities, and the meaning of becoming joint-heirs with Christ, or the more sensational phrase enjoyed by many, becoming gods. The doctrine of the LDS church is clear, there is one God.[2],[3],[4],[5] Many have stated that LDS doctrine is actually henotheistic because of their belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct, beings and they are all God or members of the Godhead.[6],[7],[8] This may be applicable, but I personally reject it. I have never thought of myself as anything but monotheistic.
One thing is clear to me as a long time student of religion; Christianity professes to be monotheistic. There is no pantheon of gods, but one God. That single God has been perceived differntly by different groups, but the over-riding majority, the orthodox position, is clear that they believe in One God. As an aside, I believe that Bruce's position is not without merit, only that it is a something that should be mentioned in the criticism section. It is a minority position and not common. However, orthodoxy teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, it is not comprehensible; we are left with a clear teaching that there is One God. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Christianity may profess itself to be monotheistic but the question is really is it? While the Trinity often come up it is NOT the issue at hand. What the average person doesn't get is that monotheism as presented excludes even the BELIEF OF other gods, something Christianity does not do. Many denominations of Christianity DO believe in other gods passing them off as demons or Satan but the point is they believe these other 'gods' do exist. Any rational person who takes the blinders off and really looks at Christianity will see it as somewhere between Henotheism and Monolatrism. The power or worthiness of worship of these lesser 'gods' doesn't magically change the system into a Monotheistic one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a confusion about the term God. Within Christianity there is no comparison between God and the Evil one or angels, saints, etc. This is the same in Mormonism; their scripture is clear that there is one God consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no comparison in Mormonism between God and his children and becoming joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. Just as I dislike when people take concepts out of context in Mormonism, I also reject to it to the doctrine or beliefs of any other church(s).
I am not saying that there is not an argument that can be made that the Trinity could be construed to be henotheistic, but this can be convered in the article with reputable expert references. If there are not reputable references we are wasting time and need to move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no confusion about the meaning of the term God (capital 'G'). The problem is that many Christens seem to be ignorant what the terms Monotheism, Henotheism, and Monolatrism actually mean. Monotheism says the people BELIEVE in ONE god (lower case) and NO OTHERS. Henotheism is a form of polytheism where there are many gods (again lower case) but only one is supreme. Monolatrism is a subset of Henotheism where there are many gods (still lower case) but only one of these gods is worthy of worship (the Supreme God ie capital 'G'. As the article Henotheism points out Christan Gnostics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses have all been called Henotheistic (they were/are clearly Monolatrism).
A related problem is that polytheism itself has TWO definitions: hard and soft. Hard polytheism is the standard pantheon of deities often associated with the term polytheism. However in soft polytheism it is held that the many gods are actually different manifestations of single God. The Trinity would by definition fall under soft polytheism. Then you have Pantheism where everything is part of God. As for reputable references those have been provided in the form of quotes from four articles from professional journals ranging from 1885 to 2006. Then you have the fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica from at least 1911 to 2006 called Mormonism polytheistic. Four professional journals whose articles span 121 years and the most respected Encyclopedia in the English world for 85 years saying the same things and it still is not enough?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Muller's henotheistic interpretation of Christianity is broadly rejected and only advocated by an extreme minority (who generally support other extreme minority theories from the same "slice" of religious studies). (Though like many "radical" or "groundbreaking" interpretations of religion, it certainly had its historical vogue.) "Soft" polytheism involving a singular deity is still a variety of monotheism. Also, in a monotheistic framework "soft polytheism" is most often called called "modalism", and it quite well explored as both a theological concept and a historical heterodoxy. Pantheism and panentheism are not incompatible with monotheism (they are fairly common concepts in deist monotheism, for example). Demons, angels, saints and the like are not classified as "deities" in Judeo-Christian religion, any more than dryads, nymphs or any number of divine servants and supernatural creatures were "gods" in Greco-Roman religion. To assert otherwise is simply quite ridiculous and outside the realm of any rational scholarship. I'm quite surprised that a Master of Anthropology with such an obvious interest in religion would not be aware of all that.
I'm similarly surprised at your poor use of sources, as a Master of Anthropology should have access to far better materials and demonstrate a stronger understanding of the material. Rea's paper is specifically addressing a particular theological model of the Trinity (Social Trinitarianism), rather than addressing Christianity as a religion. I should also note that the out-of-context note you provided makes sure to qualify the statement with the "common understanding", which is not the same as a plain assertion. Finally, it's worth noting that Rea opens the very paragraph you quote with "Christians are monotheists". (I recommend reading "Understanding the Trinity" (in Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 8 (2005). Pp 145–157.) to get a better understanding of his complex understanding and position regarding the Trinity and various models of theological justification of the same.) The article from the Journal of the American Asiatic Association is asserting that Hinduism is monotheistic, not that Christianity is polytheistic.
All that said, this is not the place to push your pet theories or to try to promote extreme minority opinions you support. This has gone on quite long enough. Feel free to take your arguments to some message board somewhere, or (better yet) get them published by a reliable publisher and convince enough of the academic body to accept you views to elevate them beyond the fringe. And please, stop putting on airs that you're some expert when you obviously do not have a grasp of undergraduate level material (see first para of my response), nor a grasp of basic research skills (see for example the misuse of Rea). Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you didn't touch on the Satan as god or the gods God punishes or any of the truly relevant issues. Even the defenders of Mormonism had to admit that Christianity has polytheistic elements. Also the use of Greek-Roman pantheon as a counter example was a very bad choice as the name for the power of a god or spirit was the same: Numen. Much like the Japanese word Kami when this term is translated into 'god' seems to be at the whim of the translator. You can't call Apollo and Apollo Helios two gods in one breath and then say the Trinity is one god; they are the SAME concept.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This shows further unfamiliarity with basic concepts in anthropology and religious studies. Satan is a created creature in Christian mythology, an angel (if fallen) to be specific. I've already discussed that type of creature. Numen is a very broad word that encompasses far more than godhood. The Greek speakers during the Roman Empire used "pneuma" as a direct equivalent (which had similar connotations and broad usage). It was also used in Latin literature in the similar broad sense as the English word "spirit". Regardless of your further inaccuracies, this is not a discussion board and we should be focused on what modern reliable sources have to say about the matter (not what you think is correct). Unless you can provide modern reliable sources that say otherwise (without misusing them, see above), there's no reason to be having this conversation here. Vassyana (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Address the fact that Non-Monotheistic branches of Christianity exist

The fact that not all branches of Christianity believe in Monotheism has been deleted and I have put it back in. The fact is that both the Gnostics and Mormons are polytheistic can be confirmed via a simple google search (religioustolerance and catholic.com as well as several videos on youtube come up).

The Gnostics believed in TWO gods-the Demiurge aka Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth (who created this world and was an incompetent evil being) and the supreme creator god (who sent his son Jesus to save mankind from the Demiurge).

Mormonism is also polytheistic as stated by none other than the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 who also accepts them AND the Gnostics as Christian! This is sited in the religioustolerance site and also several youtube videos (such as Story of Mormonism-Real Mormon theology revealed.

Ignoring such facts is a disservice to an encyclopedia. Using personal views to delete such facts is even worse. The facts say that Gnostics and Mormonism are Christian and they are polytheistic and these fact are backed up by the most respected Encyclopedia in the English speaking world. Claiming this is not so is worst than ignorant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mormon doctrine diverges from the orthodoxy of established Christianity, particularly in its polytheism, in affirming that God has evolved from man and that men might evolve into gods, that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct beings, and that human souls have preexisted." (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006)

But gnostics are not Christians, and whether or not Mormons are can be debated. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, is there any doctrine that is shared by every Christian? Placing the word "generally" in front of the monotheism descriptor adds nothing to the article...we would have to put "generally" in front of every other doctrine, or discussion of sacraments, etc. And if you're going to dig up gnostics...well, now we're talking about every Christian over the past 2000 years? This one general article on Christianity can't address every doctrinal position and theological nuance of every Christian group that ever existed. --Anietor (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, personal views are irrelevant; encyclopedia are for FACTS. The fact is not all Christianity was or is monotheistic. "It (Gnosticism) became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity" [GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm] If anyone had bothered to follow the crosslinks provided you would have found that Mormonism is classed as Christianity in the wikipedia itself and Gnosticism links to Ecclesia Gnostica the modern form of Gnosticism. Since it can be proven that not all branches of Christianity were or are monotheistic the "generally" belongs. Ignoring facts is detrimental to an encyclopedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No, these are heretics, not Christians. The existence of heretical groups is not in question, but their beliefs do not indicate anything other than their beliefs. It's a bit like saying that the Jews are child-murderers citing the blood libel as a source. Christianity is a monotheistic religion which believes in a triune God, as all the reliable independent sources agree. That does not mean we cannot discuss the gnostics and the LDS, and in fact we do at some considerable length, but per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR unless you can find reliable independent sources that attest to the fact that some branches of Christianity are polytheistic then it absolutely does not belong in the lead of our top-level article on Christianity. To cite an article about gnosticism and an article about LDS, and assert from that that Christianity can be polytheistic, is a novel synthesis. So find reliable secondary independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is your reliable secondary independent source: "Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic." ("Polytheism and Christian Belief" by Michael C. Rea _The Journal of Theological Studies_ 2006 57(1):133-148) Some older references are "Hinduism, for example, is described as a polytheism, but is no more polytheistic than Christianity" - Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association. 1942:380 "The person of the Trinity in its old polytheistic form would have to go..." The American Journal of Theology 1920:367. "..whereas Christanity, though likewise of Semitic Origin, has become modified by Aryan influences, and is decidedly Polytheistic." The American Journal of Theology 1885:367 Also in a poll at bestandworst 50% firmly believed Christianity was NOT monotheistic. One of the comments at the debatingchristianity site sums up the situation best in that Saints and angels are not called god but have similar powers as gods in other religions that admit they are polytheistic.

You may argue the early ones but not the Michael C. Rea article-it is a scholarly paper in a per-reviewed journal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Mormons are heretics, as far as some Christians are concerned. (Christianity is polytheistic—as far as some Muslims are concerned.) But Guy is right: it's novel synthesis without reliable secondary sources. Marskell (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite: "heretical" is a term without substance as anyone can view anyone as heretical, depending on his standpoint. But "mono-" and "polytheist" are clear terms: Muslims may regard Christians as polytheistic (though generally they don't) but that doesn't make Christians such. As Christians profess belief in One God they are monotheists. Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Str1977 is right regarding Christans calling other branchs of the faith heretical. However when Christans talk about Satan being the 'god of this world' are they still monotheists? When they call the works of other gods demons are they still monotheistic? When Mormons talk about becoming gods and having their own world to shape are they still monotheistic? Sure they all only worship one god but monotheism is not about worship but belief. So far I have seen a lot of handwaving but not real addressing these key issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The point made about Gnostics and Mormons is getting a few things wrong:

  • Gnostics are NOT polytheists - they (though that's rather generalising as they are so diverse) do believe in one God, the one that created the spirit world, as opposed to the Demiurg, who created matter. The demiurg in Gnosticism is no god but something like an angel that pretends to be God.
  • Mormons do not believe in one God but rather one Godhead made up of three divine beings. Strictly, speaking that is polytheism (not going into the "God was once a man" debate) but Mormons are claiming to be monotheists in some form nonetheless.
  • Also, what is overlooked is that both groups are not uncontroversially considered Christian groups. And why? Among other things the lack of belief (in word and substance) in the One God mentioned in the creed. We can debate all day whether Gnostics or Mormons are Christians/Christian groups (and WP will not decide this issue but merely report it) BUT that doesn't change that Christianity is monotheistic. These other groups have, in order to insist on their being Christian, to show that they believe, in some way, in One God too. The controversy remains nonetheless.
  • Even if these claims were facts (which they are not), placing these supposed polytheist Christians in the lead is giving them Undue Weight.
  • Finally, we have discussed the issue of whether Christianity is monotheistic countless times. We do not need to do it again. Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I admit to taking the Nicene creed as my main source here :-) Credo in unum deum (my emphasis). Guy (Help!) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Re Str1977's "'heretical' is a term without substance as anyone can view anyone as heretical, depending on his standpoint"—that was sort of my point. (Many) Muslims view Christianity as a heretical, somewhat polytheistic, version of the original faith of Abraham. Obviously, we can't adopt one religion's view on another. But all of this is whistling in the wind, without sources. Marskell (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, not actually: Muslim do regard Christianity as wrong and its form of monotheism as "shirk" but not as "polytheistic" (polytheism is surpressed under Islamic rule, Christianity and Judaism were "merely" subjugated) or "heretical" - heretical is a term within a religion, not between two or more religions (which is why I personally do not consider Mormonism a heresy of Christianity). Within religions there are ways of deciding what is orthodox and what is heretical but since such issues are often tricky and WP should be careful with using the word, though there is no complete ban on it. In itself "heretical" has not meaning in itself (the word just means a choice of something or a portion of something - unlike Polytheism which means Poly + theos = many gods). Str1977 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Insofar as Islam claims ownership of prophets that predate Christianity (and Christ himself), "heretical" can be an appropriate term. The English language Quran: the Jews "earned His anger" and the Christians "went astray." The single most common word I've heard in my time in the Muslim world in this regard is "corrupted," so perhaps that will do. Hey wait, didn't Jesus use that word talking to Joseph Smith? It's a fascinating parallel. "In answering the oft-asked question, 'Are Mormons Christian?' one might ask, only half facetiously, whether Muslims are Christian too."[9] Marskell (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the Church father John of Damascus considered Islam a Christian heresy and the historian Hilaire Belloc echoed this. So yes, historically this perspective is valid, especially if one takes into account that the known foundation story of Islam was written under the Abbasides, long after Muhammad's day and may in fact glossed over many links and changes. However, today Islam is a separate religion.
The same could be said about the Judaism/the Jewish religion and Christianity or even the other way round. And yes, of course Mormonism built upon the foundations of Protestantism, taking some things to new heights (the great apostasy was a thought present in all Protestant denominations) while rejecting other things alltogether.
However, we shouldn't base ourselves on retrospective fictions like the Islamic prophet David to use words like heresy that are commonly used within religions, not across religious boundaries.
As for "corrupted", we once had a passage containing Islamic "criticism" of Christianity that contained this. Don't know why it's gone. Str1977 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) define themselves as monotheist, and the Godhead and Trinity can be considered synonomous in meaning, if not deinition. To quote the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
There is speculation within Mormon circles as to the nature of God (as there is in traditional circles), and although they are separate belings, they are still one God. The trinity in traditional Christian circles comes under the same scrutany (as can be seen by this particular discussion), so to claim Mormons are polytheistic while "Christians" are not, is downright hypocritical. The best answer is to say "Christianity, by their own definition, is a Monotheistic religion". Bytebear (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bytebear: that's what I wanted to say above: Mormons consider their religion monotheist. Hence Mormonism, if included within Christianity, cannot be used as an example of non-monotheist Christians. Str1977 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's be clear here: the assertion that Christianity is polytheistic appears to be original research in all the incarnations on this page. Even if we could find a reliable source which identifies it as such (none such being evident), it would still have no place in the lead, as the various churches all claim to be monotheistic and the view that Christianity is monotheistic is dominant to the point that no dissenting sources have yet been found. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I found no less then four different article are from Journal ranging from 1885 to 2006. So much for your claims of "original research" "Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic." ("Polytheism and Christian Belief" by Michael C. Rea _The Journal of Theological Studies_ 2006 57(1):133-148) Some older references are "Hinduism, for example, is described as a polytheism, but is no more polytheistic than Christianity" - Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association. 1942:380 "The person of the Trinity in its old polytheistic form would have to go..." The American Journal of Theology 1920:367. "..whereas Christianity, though likewise of Semitic Origin, has become modified by Aryan influences, and is decidedly Polytheistic." The American Journal of Theology 1885:367 Also in a poll at bestandworst 50% firmly believed Christianity was NOT monotheistic. One of the comments at the debatingchristianity site sums up the situation best in that Saints and angels are not called god but have similar powers as gods in other religions that admit they are polytheistic.
Lets see. We have at four scholarly paper in per-reviewed journals, a popular poll, a blog that all say Christianity was or is polytheistic. Again what more do you freaking need?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Paper A says it considers mormonism polytheistic, paper B say it considers mormonism a branch of Chrristianity, BruceGrubb takes A plus B and decides that this means we should say in the lead of our top-level article on Christianity that Christianity has polytheistic branches. Novel synthesis. At the same time we have literally thousands of scholarly references on Christianity which accept the standard view within the Christian tradition, which is that there is one God in three persons. So you are also undue weight on your interpretation. One person saying that the holy trinity looks like polytheism does not change the fact that the Christian view of the holy trinity is one God, three persons; we cover that in holy trinity anyway. Four sources spread out over more than a century, plus some evangelical attacks on mormonism, is a very long way from being persuasive. You might convince people to include a very tiny mention here if you could find an independent reliable source that explicitly states that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. I think it's fair to say that most Christians do not even consider mormons to be a part of the Christian church. You have made a weak case for possibly including a mention of polytheism in the article on mormonism, although I suspect you'll have no more joy there than here due to the nature of the sources, but you are a very long way from persuading me - and I think others here - tat this belongs in this article at all, let alone in the lead. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out there is NO original research as there were referred sources. Here are relevent quotes from them:

"Are Mormons Christians? Yes, Latter-day Saints are indeed Christians." Are Mormons Christians

"Further, while these three gods rule this world and receive honor and obedience from earthly creatures, there are other worlds, each with its own god or gods who are as supreme in their spheres as our three gods are in ours." The Mormon God: Just One of the Guys

"The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge." [Gnosticism: Ancient and modern http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm]

Doing some more research I found these little gems in the space of about 5 minutes: "Worthy Mormons may become gods to create, rule over and receive worship from their own worlds some day." mormoninfo.org

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them." [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/15-37#15 DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132]

"Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a "plurality of gods"—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church." Catholic Answers The Gods of the Mormon Church

"President Spencer W. Kimball stated that “You are the sons of God, [that] you are the elect of God, and you have within your [grasp] the possibility to become a god and pass by the angels … to your exaltation”—possibilities which seem beyond ordinary imagination—yet the promises are divine." LDS

I imagine if I spent more time I could find even MORE proof of Mormonism's polytheistic views and that it is considered a Christan faith. Come one guys, its not that freaking hard to find this stuff and the last link is from the LDS's own freaking website. What more proof do you freaking need?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a novel synthesis from published sources. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source that explicitly identifies Christianity as polytheistic it is not going in, and even if it did go in, it would not belong in the lead. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you are misundersting the point I am making. I am NOT saying that *all* of Christanity is polytheistic (that would be insane) only that there are some denomintions within it that are. In fact the current article has become way too unwieldly as there are many consepts that belong to certain denominations but not all. The Religious Tolerance site admits that Christian beliefs cover such a wide range that you really cannot hammer out a set defition of what is Christan. The biggest problem as they pointed out is "there are many Christians out there who hold with fierce determination to their own definition of "Christian" as the only valid one." Read some of the real extreme Fundimental Protestant litature some time (Jack Chick is a prime example) some of which claim that Roman Catholics are not Christan.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Point one: this is the top-level article on Christianity, and you are editing the lead. That means it needs to be the 50,000ft view. The 50,000ft view is: monotheistic. All the Christian churches ascribe to some variant of "one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit". Point two: the inference you draw is not actually stated by the sources you use. You need a reliable independent secondary source that says, in as many words, that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. Not that gnostics are arguably polytheistic, and another saying gnostics are arguably Christian, and therefore by inference Chjristianity contains polytheistic branches, but a reliable secondary source that says, in as many words, that some branches of Christianity are polytheistic. Then it might merit a small mention somewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have a whole lot of time, so I will be brief. It is still hypocritical to say Mormons are polytheistic because church leaders have made statments about mans potential to become gods. Aside from the many statemtents by early Traditional leaders that amount to the same thing, Jesus Christ used the concept that "Ye are gods" to befuddle those who claimed heresy at his taking the title "Son of God". So, if traditional Christians can use the term "monotheists" regardles of the trinity and of the divine nature of man to become "gods", then Mormons can make the same claims. Please pull the beam out of your eye. Bytebear (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Claiming is novel synthesis doesn't mean it is. What I am actually doing is using several independent sources that say the same thing. The Polytheistic Trinity of Mormonism says the same thing Contender Ministries which says the same thing Overview of Mormon Theology (Animation) which says the same thing Probe Ministries does. I personally crosschecked the quote and confirmed it: "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and this "Thus, the head God brough forth the Gods in the grand council" Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young. There is from the pens of none other than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young themselves. Again what more do you need?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so name the reliable secondary sources which make the same claim, in those words. Not your interpretation of a book source, but sources which say, in as many words, that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
chaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge states Mormanism is polytheistic. Face it I can find more references proving my point while you people have not produced one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sources, Grubb. A random animated story on YouTube and some anti-Mormon web sites? Seriously, you're making our job of discounting your own POV very easy. Thanks for that, at least. I hope we can all move on to serious, good-faith and legitimate issues about improving the article now. --Anietor (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were anti-Mormon?! News to me. Have any proof of that? --216.31.15.35 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Saint Irenaeus, Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius and Saint Augustine all said similar things about the deification of man, but only an anti-Christian would twist their words. You (or rather, your sources) have done the same to Mormonism. Every attack you present against Mormonism is the same attack Atheisists make on Christianity. Do you really want to be in their company? Bytebear (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Deification in the orthodox sense is not the same as "man becoming God just as God once was a man". God is eternally God and the different take of Mormonism makes its classification as Christian problematic. But that is not our concern here. Our concern here is write an accurate article on Christianity, which happens to be a monotheist religion. Str1977 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I will simply say that you, and many inside and outside Mormonism do not understand the doctrines of God as defined by the LDS Church. I do not have the time or effort to go into it, but I will say that Joseph Smith did in fact teach that "God is eternally God" and before you or others claim Mormonism to be non-Monoitheistic, you need to seriously study the matter beyond looking at anti-Mormon websites. The original author of this debate claims Christianity to be non-Monotheistic, because the Trinity is three beings, i.e. three Gods. If he has a reputable source then it should be discussed. As I said, I think an article could easly be made to cover this point. But there are many sources within Christianity that claim otherwise, with various explainations. Now this brings me back to Mormonism. It is the same argument. The only difference is you are inside one group and outside the other. So you defend the one, while you refute the other. This is called hypocricy. I have given a very simply solution. Make the statement read, "By self definition, Christianity is monotheist." Done. Bytebear (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any merit in continuing the discussion. However, let me comment on two points:
1. that Joseph Smith did in fact teach that "God is eternally God"
I know too little about Mr Smith's teachings that I can concur or reject this. (Addition: it seems to me that Mr Smith thaught this when he said "God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you." and "for I am going to tell you how God came to be God" and "We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel ...") However, it happens to be true that a later Mormon President stated that "As God once was, we are now". (Or is that an untrue statement too?) Whether that agrees or disagrees with Mr Smith's teachings or with current Mormon teaching (which seems to change enormously from time to time) I do not know.
2. It is the same argument. The only difference is you are inside one group and outside the other. So you defend the one, while you refute the other. This is called hypocricy.
This is not only a personal attack (and a spelling mistake ;-) ) but also wrong:
  • I defend the monotheism of Christianity because its creed says "credo in unum Deum", holding that God is ONE being existing as three persons. Other may think this illogical but that was never the point of this discussion.
  • I do not consider Mormonism monotheistic as it considers God the Father and God the Son two separate beings. To me, that looks plainly like more than one God (whether that God is really God depends on the issue raised in item 1) and not just an arguably illogical tenet. However, I do see that Mormons consider their belief as monotheistic.
Finally (and only this is important for the article), one cannot at the same time included Mormons within Christianity (despite their controversial stance on monotheism) and then turn around to use Mormons as an example for non-monotheistic Christianity. We mention Mormons for NPOV's sake, neither rejecting NOR affirming their status regarding Christianity. The whole issue doesn't change what Christianity is: a monotheist religion. Str1977 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I will address your points (and try to spell correctly, although I tend not to care on talk pages). From the same speech where you get your idea of "how God came to be God," Smith touched on the eternal nature of God and man saying "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man ... because it has no beginning" and "the pure principles of element, are principles that can never be destroyed." So, there is a concept in his speech about the eternal nature of God, man and element, that goes beyond the concept of "when God became God". In short, Smith taught that God is like a ring with no end, and therefore with no beginning. He exists outside space and time, and regardless of "how He became God", he is and always was God. Now, remember two things. 1) this is deep and not a basic tenant of the church and 2) it is not official canonical doctrine of the church. In other words, it is just as much a mystery as your trinity. God is eternal, he has always been God and will always be God. That is LDS doctrine, and a point Smith was attempting to make with this speech, but anti-Mormons have taken the juicier parts of the speech to distort his full meaning. Unfortunately, a mob killed Smith shortly after this speech, so we have no more elaboration on the concept.
Point 2, you say because a creed says "credo in unum Deum", Christianity is monotheistic. The creed (a non canonical statement by the way) is meaningless to the non-Christian. I will also say that (as quoted earlier) the Book of Momon says the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, and that is LDS canon. So your point is moot. You conclude by saying "Other may think this illogical but that was never the point of this discussion." But you say it is illogical for Mormons to believe the same thing. Again more hypocracy. Bytebear (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I do not think orthography optional anywhere.
1. The linked speech was only a later addition. Your explanations seems to me like Mr Smith contradicting himself. Well never mind. I do not doubt that God is a mystery but it was Mr Smith who ridiculed the mystery of the Trinity in the first place and claimed that his view is somehow logical. In any case, believe what you will.
2. What is a "non-canonical statement"? I guess you mean it is not from the Bible. Well, I do not care a bit as I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The creed is binding nonetheless. And no, it is not meaningless to non-Christians, as it is the statement of faith that the Church has once adopted and to which still most Christians adhere to. It is actually more important to non-Christians what a creed says than what any holy book says because a creed states the actual beliefs while Scripture first would have to be interpreted. If the book of mormon says "one God" than that's okay (though there is a contradiction to other mormon statements) - for the record I do not think the Trinity illogical - I was assuming a possible criticism directed at it (namely that "one God in three persons" is illogical - opposed to the invalid criticism that "one God in three persons" equals Polytheism). I never said that the Mormon belief was illogical, only that when there is more than one being called God we do have more than one god.
Again will you please stop your personal attacks, I never attacked you personally. And mind the spelling (it is spelled "hypocrisy"). Str1977 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While interesting none of this explains why both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote about a head God bringing together a grand council of Gods Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young. Even if your view of one God is such that from an outsider POV it looks like he has MPS (Multiple Personal Syndrome) out the yin yang I can't see how any monotheist could write something like that. So far all we have gotten to "explain" this is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors about misinterpretation of the Trinity. Until someone can explain the grand council of Gods passages used by BOTH Joseph Smith and Brigham Young you are just wasting our time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While interesting none of this has any bearing on this article. Christianity is monotheistic, whether you like it or not. Str1977 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it. LotR gets it. You can easily replace "council of Gods" with "Trinity" or "Godhead" (the latter being the Biblical term), and you get the same concept. God is not one being, but three. That is all Christianity and Mormonism teaches. Call it a mystery or semantics, or what you will, but both beliefs are monotheistic (by your own definition). Oh, and the addition of "grand" to imply more than three beings, is purely an invention of anti-Momons who want to make implications that do not exist in Mormon theology. You can misrepresent the LDS doctrine of the Godhead, and non-Christians can misrepresent the Trinity, but that doesn't change the definition as monotheistic, does it? Bytebear (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That is such Doubletalk nonsense that it makes the ramblings of 1984's Big Brother look rational. The exact quote (which you would have known if you have bothered to follow the link) says "The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world." Again unless God has a major MPS problem this passage only makes sense in context of polythesism. In fact the idea of one god doing several things at once shows up in polythesism long before the idea of the Trinity was even thought of: Apollo and Helios from Greek and later Roman mythology case in point. Also passages that refer to God in the plural form in Genesis belong to Author 'E'. The [skeptics annotated bible] lists some 37 passage either stating or implying there is more than one god but only 13 passages saying there is only one God. Exodus 12:12 is particularly weird for if there is only one god then who prey tell who is God executing judgment against? IF they don't exist then the passage makes no sense and if they are demons or spirits maskerating as gods shouldn't the passage say this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me translate into LDS theology, so your eyes may be opened: "[God the Father] called together the [Godhead] and sat in grand council to bring forth the world." It is just a fancy way of saying "God created the Earth", and as was pointed out, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness". The council (meeting) was grand. I sure hope it was. I mean this was the plan to create Earth. Now you accuse me of believing "God has a major MPS problem," when the NT is full of instances where Jesus prays to the Father as a separate individual. Was he suffering from MPS too? Give me a break. The problem you seem to have is not understanding the concept of one God in three beings. Christians call it the trinity, and Mormons call it the Godhead. But the concept is the same. Bruce, are you arguing that both Christianity and Mormonism are polytheistic? Because my point is that either both are monotheistic or both are polytheistic, but you use the same arguments for one and not for the other. As much as Christians want to exclude Mormons from their club, when it comes to the nuts and bolts, they are both in the same boat, theologically. And I agree, you need reliable independent secondary sources to say any of this. Both belief systems claim monotheism. That is verifiable. Bytebear (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the Trinity states that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are the same being. This as John Armstrong points out in his [God vs the Bible http://www.godvsthebible.com/] site results in the somewhat ridiculous situation of God having to sacrifice himself (Jesus) to himself (God) to change a rule he (God) made in the first place. "We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring." - Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48 Love to see how you handwave THAT little gem.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Bruce, what exactly is it that you are saying? That Christians / Mormons do not believe in one God, or that it is illogical to do so? These are two different questions. Nobody disputes that the concept of the Trinity is difficult - some would say it is impossible - but that is a question for a different place. The point is that, from the very beginning, Christians have insisted that they do in fact believe in one God, and have gone on to consider the difficult theological implications of that fundamental premise. Whether their explanations make sense is irrelevant to the issue here, which is whether they believe they do. If we are to adopt a properly neutral point of view here, we can only describe religious groups by what they sincerely say they believe. As far as I can see, Mormons do sincerely see themselves as Christians and monotheists, and the vast majority (at least) of Christians see themselves as monotheists. We are simply describing what they say they believe, not what we or others think they believe. If there exists a substantial, notable, and reasonably neutral published source (preferably not a website, and certainly not an apologetic or polemical one, no matter how valid) that says explicitly that these groups, or some of them, do not believe these things, then it can be mentioned in an appropriate place in the article - just because we begin by accepting a group's self-description does not mean we cannot describe reasonable criticisms of it - but we cannot simply publish one editor's interpretations. Monotheism has been such a core element of classical Christian belief since the earliest days, and is held so strongly and widely across the many denominations, that it would be misleading not to use it in a description of Christianity; and unless there is good evidence of reasonably widespread, self-described, non-monotheistic belief groups in the Christian community, there is no reason to qualify it as 'generally' held. Why not leave it at that?Rbreen (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr's passage has NOTHING to do with the Trinity so stop trying to force it on the statement. Since you obviously don't know Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. was the tenth president of the LDS church from 1970 to 1972! In fact the "We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring." passage was even in the 1976 Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual. So stop the tap dancing and address the issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. There is no reliable source which takes those statements and makes from them the inference that Christianity is polytheistic. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I have this straight. I have provided at least three professional Journals that clearly state Christianity was/is polytheistic by the very definition of the term and a passage from the LDS's president about the faithful Mormon becoming a god and getting his own world to play with (basically a variant of the old Gnostics) and you are saying that it is irrelevant?! Tell me exactly what part of professional journal didn't you get?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you've provided a tiny number of examples over a period of more than a hundred years which argue that some aspects of Christianity might seem to an outsider to be polytheism, an issue possibly relevant in holy trinity, and a lot of your own interpretations of specifics in respect of mormonism, and as a result you are insisting that the top level article on Christianity says in the lead that there are polytheistic branches of Christianity. Now would you please stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, if you go up a little you note that I said calling *all* of Christianity polytheistic insane; similarly, calling *all* of Christianity monotheistic is equally idiotic. Gnostics clearly believed in more than one god (there are some who try to call this lesser god a spirit to avoid the polytheistic label but the fact is he was called a 'god'). Mormons with their belief that the faithful will become demiurge-like beings are clearly henotheistic if not polythesitic (this has NOTHING to do with the Trinity so stop claiming it does), then there are the Christan Wiccans some of whom clearly STATE they are Christan despite also stating they are polythetistic in the same breath. As an Anthropologist I know the difference between emic and etic beliefs. While Christianity generally regards itself as monotheistic the reality is many branches call Satan "the god of this world". You cannot have Satan be the god of this world and there also be a supreme God and be monotheistic. It is akin to the logical paradox of having a knave say 'I am lying'; the statements are exclusive. Emicly Christianity is generally monotheistic (Christan Wiccans through it out as a generality), but eticly it is at best henotheistic with some very heavy polythetistic overtones.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As has been noted many times, what you are arguing for is somewhere between WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. Neither belongs here. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So, what you need is... a reliable independent secondary source which uses that (or some other argument) to identify Christianity as polytheistic. Because, after all, all the cited sources, seem to agree it's not. No novel synthesis, a solid, reliable , independent, secondary, authoritative source that explicitly describes Christianity as polytheistic or having polytheistic branches. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Mark 12:29-30 (one of the four canonical Gospels): "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

Genesis 1:26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis mine) LotR (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Careful here. You are deling with two very different parts of the Bible with very different histories. The 'E' passages tend to talk about god i as if he is with other gods (such as above) while 'J' passages always have god as the one and only god.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by 'E' and 'J' passages. But it is irrelevant, anyway -- both the Old and New Testaments are considered the inspired Word of God by orthodox Christianity. Note that Jesus himself is only quoting from the Old Testament Pentateuch (which includes Genesis). It is from passages such as these that orthodox Christianity, by inductive reasoning, arrives at the doctrine of a monotheistic Triune God. LotR (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
He is refering to El (or Elohim) verses Jehovah. But what Bruce doesn't understand is that there are some cases where God is also know as El-Jehovah. Mormons woudl interpret Elohim as the Godhead and Jehovah as Jesus Christ (in pre-Mortal existance) and El as God the Father. Jehovah is the one who is always saying "There are no Gods before me", and all that. I tie this in to the NT where Jesus says "There is no other name by which man may be saved. No man comes to the Father (El) but by me (Jehovah)". Interesting parallel, eh? Bytebear (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe that this conversation is happening. Only in a forum that exists outside Christian academic scholarship could the monotheism of Christianity be questioned. I vote that this discussion be discontinued lest it make Wikipedia's dealings with Christianity so laughable by actual Christian scholars that this article loses all credibility. Blast me for not citing sources if you wish, but the kind of arguments against Christianity's monotheistic theology are so poor that they would not recieve a passing grade in an undergraduate level course on Christianity. For context: I am a pastor. Signaj90 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but definitely not the place for this conversation. There are plenty of message boards on the internet where this could be discussed. Our primary concern is what the vast majority of sources report, and they state that Christianity (including those with variant views such as the Mormons and Gnostics) is monotheistic. If you want to assert otherwise in Wikipedia, please publish your views in peer-reviewed journals and/or through reputable publishers and then convince enough authors and experts of your view to move outside of the extreme fringe. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem we have is that people are not in agreement about terms. Further, we are trying to apply terms that are rather limited to something, that, even in debate, is not limited as we are. It is like trying to use dog barks to describe people. It just doesn't workHideousdwarf (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Hideousdwarf

Perhaps we should not classify it in terms of Mono/Poly theism. Monotheism in my opinion is clearly not what Christianity is. However it is also clear the the Christian majority is in denial. If this is an encyclopedia then it's about facts and we can't just publish something that clearly is wrong. So maybe we should remove the issue.--Marcperkel (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculously widely acknowledged as being monotheistic. WP doesn't care what anyone's opinion is. And it is far from clear that Christians are in denial. The Trinity is called a mystery for a reason. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It was once widely believed that the the Earth was the center of the solar system, that the continents didn't move, and that there must be a planet between Mercury and the Sun (called Vulcan). All these things have passed away because people bucked the status quo and showed that the observation and the supposed interpretations did not jive. The fact is that Christianity is at best a form of Henotheism as it acknowledges there are other gods (or at least beings passing themselves off as gods). Mormonism specifically talks about a council of gods and that the faithful will become demiurge-like beings who will go and create their own worlds. You can tap dance all around that but it certainly is NOT monotheistic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1. You are treating Christianity like an ontological reality that you understand better than Christians themselves. The reality is that Christianity, by definition, is a tradition. Traditions are defined by what their members actually believe, not by some ontological nature. Consequently, if the majority of members of Christianity are 'deluded' in to thinking that Christianity is monotheistic for about 2000 years with near complete unanimity, the 'delusion' becomes reality. If they believe that they are monotheistic, they become monotheistic. That's the way traditions work.
2. If you are so sure that we're polytheistic, why are there no credible theological treatises published by even the moderately un-orthodox Christian scholars arguing the point? Conservatives and Liberals alike agree that there is only one God in three persons - one in essence (Greek: homousia), three in person (Greek: hypostasis). One God known in three distinct persons. Study the Ecumenical councils if you have an issue with that, otherwise stay away from debating a tradition you do not care enough about to understand it. It's like invading Iraq with no Arabic translators.
3. Read the New Testament. Jesus is clear that that there is one God - Mark 12:28-34. Your interpretational abilities are quite limited if you are unaware of: i. The Old Testament understanding of the divine council of "gods", ii. The Old Testament habit of referring to angels as "gods", or iii. The Old Testament habit of refering to kings as "gods". Every Rabbi knew that there was only one God - the books of Moses made that clear. You're tripping over trivial matters of Biblical interpretation because you don't know the first thing about Hebrew. You could just as well take issue with the English custom of calling people "brother" who aren't blood relatives or "chick" or "shrimp" or whatever, because you are being way too over literal. By the way, did you know that "feet" in Hebrew is a colloquialism for genitalia?
In conclusion, 1. You don't understand the Christian tradition, 2. You don't know how to read the Bible, 3. You don't seem to care enough to learn from other people on this matter. Maybe I'm being too harsh for WP, but uninformed opinions, while they are welcomed on WP for the sake of openness, do not have the right to displace as much informed discourse as this subject has. Signaj90 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In 48k of mind-numbing conversation, I do not see a single reliable source which claims that Christianity is a polytheistic religion. On the contrary, I have seen numerous sources (many currently cited in the article) which claim that Christianity is monotheistic. Without such sources, the entire conversation is pointless, and wastes the time of the editors involved with this page. May I suggest to all involved that this conversation, until we have sources, has run its course. Please don't feed this conversation until we have some sources to debate. Pastordavid (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2007 (
See my response in the section immediately above to get an idea of how poorly BruceGrubb groks the material and uses sources. The recent source he calls upon (by Michael Rea) explicitly states that "Christianity is monotheistic" as the opening statement of the paragraph BruceGrubb cherrypicked from, for example. Vassyana (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This whole conversation is off topic, and probably should be deleted. It's like people arguing about what should have happened instead of gettin gon with writing an article about what actually happened. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is going nowhere. There will always be editors who refuse to accept consensus, but YouTube aside, it's clear that the vast majority of editors here recognize that Christianity is a monotheistic religion and should be described as such. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sections Catholic and Protestant

In the article suddenly two sections called "Catholic" and Protestant" appear. They seem to deal mainly with biblical exegesis and hence should be sub-sections to the "Scriptures" or even the "Interpretation" section.

In the "Catholic" section, the sub-section header "literal" should be removed as a) the following talks not merely about "literal" exegesis, b) the length doesn't warrant a section break, c) there is no other sub-section following.

In the "Protestant" section, the subsection "creeds" and "afterlife" are not specifically Protestant at all. Probably this is a mistake in the format of the section headings.

I suggest that the structure is changed:

   * 1 Beliefs
         o 1.1 Jesus the Christ
         o 1.2 The Death and Resurrection of Jesus
         o 1.3 Salvation
         o 1.4 The Trinity
               + 1.4.1 Trinitarians
               + 1.4.2 Non-Trinitarians
         o 1.5 Scriptures
               + 1.5.1 Interpretation
                   + 1.5.1.1 Catholic
                   + 1.5.1.2 Protestant
         o 1.6 Creeds
         o 1.7 Afterlife and Eschaton
   * 2 Worship and practices

etc.

Does anyone object? Is this controversial? If not, could an admin please make this minute change?

Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that there is not just two divisions in Christianity. Even early on you had the Paulines, Nazoreans, and Gnostics. Around the 4th century you had the Roman Catholic-Byzantine(Orthodox) split and then in the 15th century the Roman Catholic-Protestant split. The Protestant side is a real headache as interpretations are all over the theological map; certainly nothing that even remotely could be simplified down to generalities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bruce, please keep this serious. This is about the field of Biblical exegesis and therefore Gnostics have no part in this, and less so quasi-fictious groups like Paulines and Nazoreans. The Orthodox certainly should be mentioned but this can be fixed by including them in the Catholic section, as they agree on exegesis. In any case, this is about the correction of mistakes in structure, not about changing any content. Str1977 (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am serious. Christianity is not the monolithic religions that some denominations have put forth. As for the Paulines and Nazoreans being "quasi-fictious" that is your POV and has no place in an encyclopedia article without references. Their existence and difference in beliefs is documents at Religious Tolerance which uses no less than 10 references at the bottom of the article. Furthermore I noticed you didn't touch on the elephant in the room: Protestant Christianity.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that you, Bruce? Can you please tell me the specifics of Pauline and Nazorean exegesis? Literal, historical, allegorical, typological, eschatological, moral? Of course you can't because nobody knows anything about this, even these "groups" had already a developed view on this (which they quite propably didn't). As for "quasi-fictitious" - "Pauline" is a construct and a group that really existed - Nazoreans did exist but they were no unified group but rather an umbrella term (later, in the beginning it is just another term for Christians) for Jewish Christians that did not require gentiles to circumcise (as opposed to Ebionites).
What elephant? Protestantism is present? Or are you saying it is not unified? Well, indeed, but Protestants pretty much agree that there is only one sense of Scripture, not four. Even if they are not literally-bent, they do not generally reintroduce the other three senses. Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Only one sense of Scripture? Hardly. [Read The Causes Of Divisions & Conflicts

Among Protestant Denominations http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm] for a very brief tip of the iceberg look (I can't even call it a thumbnail). [Christian Universalism] in the form of the Universalist National Memorial Church is a case in point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some good points about the structure, Str1977. I don't know if I would classify this as a "minute" change, though. I wish the block would be lifted so we can go forward with your suggestion instead of having to rely on a random administrator (not a dig on admins, just would prefer if editors with some history in this article could deal with it directly). Have you requested the block be lifted? I suspect that once the proposed change is made, there will be some tweeking to do, so it would be nice if we had the freedom to do that. I'm hoping the issue that caused the block is now behind us. --Anietor (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think these changes are minute since they only pertain to the level of the sections, not any content. And I actually believe that the current structure was put there by mistake.
I'd prefer direct editing as well and would never request this from admins if I thought it controversial. I have not requested the block to be lifted as I assume that immediately, someone will reintroduce that OR that got the article blocked in the first place. Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The very second BruceGrubb agrees to stop his one-man crusade to repaint Christianity as a polytheistic religion, the protection can be lifted. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy conveniently ignores the fact that I have produced numerous reference including those from professional journals and a quote of an LDS president backing up my statements while he and the others have not produced one reliable refuting reference. I dealt with a person called Sheff over in sci.archaeology who engaged in this type of nonsense. By the time it was over I had some 30 references that tore his arguments (if you can dignify them with that world) to shreds.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Bruce: (1) You are speaking only to Mormonism, not Christianity as a whole, so you have the wrong Talk page, and (2) because LDS self-identify as monotheistic, and you have not provided a reference that advances your counter-hypothesis, it falls under WP:OR. You might consider writing and then publishing your research, as a book or a magazine article. Then we can reference you here on Wikipedia. I'm not being sarcastic. LotR (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You and the others simply don't get it. Mormons are the best example of how the presented information just does not fit the facts. Sure Mormons worship one god but monotheism as used by wikipidia is the belief in one god which has been demonstrated as to not be the case. Heck even the Bible refers to Satan as "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4). When you get right down to it Christians are best henotheisic-they may say there is only one god but they definitely believe in another god (Satan) who will be ultimately defeated by the true God. Mormonism just takes this further but saying the faithful will get their own planet to play with. This statement is fully documented so ignoring is not going to make it go away. Then you have Christian Wiccans who call themselves Christan some of who admit to being polythesitic; if we go by claims then you argument again ALL of Christianity being monotheistic just did a major crash and burn. Then you have the early church father Irenaeus who derided Gnostics for polytheism. As with Sheff the more I dig the more I find.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Bruce, it's you who doesn't get it. You need to find reliable independent sources that explicitly state that Christianity is polytheistic, and if you can find any that pass muster you might get a small mention either here or ion holy trinity, but absolutely not in the lead because the dominant view, dominant to the extent that few if any reliable dissenting sources can be found, is "one God in three persons", as documented at holy trinity. Your example of Wiccans is just another novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy with all respect if three different articles from professional journals ranging from 1885 to 2006 are not reliable independent sources then I don't know what would be and I have a Masters in Anthropology.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Bruce, you do not understand the concept of God vs gods (big G, singular, and little g, plural). It isn't henotheism, because nowhere in the Bible, or in Christianity or even in Mormonism are the little g gods equal with God. The term god is used to describe power or increase in knowledge. In some cases these "gods" are false, in others they describe humans capacity to become more like God, as in the fall of Adam and Eve, or when the NT talks about man inheriting the throne of God. The OT says "Ye are gods" (which Jesus confirms), but that does not equate polytheism or henotheism. So you need to redefine "god" in this context. Bytebear (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, you clearly did not even read the wikipedia article on henotheism-"Many Christians believe in a pantheon of angels, demons, and/or Saints that are inferior to the Trinity." The over all power of the worshiped supernatural being has nothing to do with if the belief is monotheist, polytheist, or henotheist (in fact this other article lists Gnostics, Mormons, and even Jehovah's Witnesses as being called henotheist). In fact, it is not uncommon in polytheist religions for one deity to be regarded as more 'powerful' than all the others: Zeus for the Greeks and Amaterasu for the Japanese for example. Also among some anthologists it is thought that saints with similar powers to old pagan gods were seen as another manifestation of these old gods. In either case if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck then it isn't a freaking elephant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of interpretation. Because I have dominion over animals, does that make me their god? Because saints, angels, demons have various dominion, does that make them gods? Chrisianity says they are not gods (including Mormons - I don't know about Gnostics, but I think JWs are even more strict on their interpretation that Jesus is the son of God, and not a god). I suppose my boss is a god too, sinse he has some level of power over me? Some scholars may say Christianity is henotheistic, but you need references. The abounding opinion is that Christianity is monotheistic, so all you have to do is provide some references. but I haven't seen one reliable source yet, here or on the henotheism article. Bytebear (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually Christianity calls as least one angel a 'god'-Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). Then there are passages like Exodus 12:12, Exodus 20:3-5, Numbers 33:4, Deuteronomy 10:17, Jeremiah 10:11, Jeremiah 46:25 and Zephaniah 2:11 that all make reference to God taking vengeance on, punishing, or eliminating other gods. Now you can't do that if these other gods don't exist ergo there are other 'gods' running around. Furthermore in the case of the Mormons even the PRO-Mormon group [FAIR http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Can_Mormons_Be_Considered_Christians.html] had to conceed that Mormons are indeed henotheistic: "The Church of Jesus Christ does indeed recognize the existence of multiple gods, just as the Bible teaches." and cites Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. Again monotheism is the belief in one god, something that when one goes back to Bible is clearly not true of Christianity. Heck there are fundamental Christian groups that claim that the 'God' others denominations worship is in reality Satan using deceptions and lies to deceive them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
More original research. As you have been told many times, your arguments are irrelevant here, what is relevant is what is said by reliable independent sources. Your continued pushing of an LDS-focused agenda is not helping here, LDS is absolutely not representative of the mainstream view of Christian theology. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The Greek text of the Nicene creed [10] clearly reads "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty" (emphasis added). One. Only one God. The definition of monotheism. If you find that to be remotely ambiguous, check the Athanasian Creed, which condemns to hell anyone who denies monotheism and trinitarian theology. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches are all in this theological tradition. Which of these statements are you affirming:
1. That these are in fact polytheistic statements
2. That the church bodies that accept these are in fact polytheistic
3. That the fringe groups that claim the title of Christian over and against the claims of the main worldwide Christian bodies have power to make Christianity polytheistic
4. That 30 references out of millions of potential citations are enough to call into question Christianity's monotheism
Apparently, in spite of the fact that these basic documents are accepted as authoritative for over 95, if not 99, percent of the Christian population, it's polytheistic. I guess that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a dog in disguise.
BTW: This string should be devoted only to the proposed adjustment of the Protestant and Catholic sections, which I approve heartily - never mind what the technical rules of WP are here, it is simply good courtesy. Signaj90 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the Nicene creed is it also says "We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church;" something that can be demonstrated to be false. Furthermore no reputable scholar says that Chaistanity was monolithic in its beliefs even in the 1st through 4th centuries. Read Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament and see just how diverse Christianity was back in those days. As for getting any major denomination to admit there are any even remotely polytheistic elements in Christianity, that is very unlikely. I mean you have denominations who hold the Trinity is one God one moment and yet deride the Mormon Godhood as polytheism the next and others that will talk about there being only one God one moment and then Satan being thegod of this world the next; logical thinking is simply not in play here. Small wonder a Mormon will say he is monotheistic despite also believing that the faithful will become demiurge-like gods each with their own world that the will populate with their celestial children. It akin to trying to get straight definitions out of Humpy Dumpy in Through the looking Glass'-not very likely.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As for getting any major denomination to admit there are any even remotely polytheistic elements in Christianity, that is very unlikely.. Precisely. And since the denominations define the faith, or rather the faith defines the denominations, the result is that we, too, do not reflect this esoteric point of view. Well done for finally realising this. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant what the denominations say; it what can be proven. Monotheism is the belief in one god and if you throw ANY other gods in there regardless of them being gods of this world (Satan), secondary spirit gods (Gnostics), demons passing themselves off as gods (used by a surprising amount of Christan denominations, or that the faithful will become gods of their own world (Mormons) then what you have by definition is not monotheistic. It much like Christianity not accepting the Earth went round the sun despite Aristarchus (who lived just after Aristotle) showing that the Earth circled the sun and that the stars were suns very far away. It didn't fit into their world view and was so they rejected it despite the facts to the contrary; they have basicly the same problem with admitting the clearly non-monotheistic statements they preach.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
And what can be proven is that virtually every reliable source describes Christianity as monotheistic, the majority view among Christians is that mormons are not properly a branch of Christianity, and that gnostics were heretics. It's pretty plain that you're not going to get your way here, due to the extremely limited independent support for your view. I suggest you find some other place to try to include the content, where it won't be so self-evidently inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, Guy, heresy is simply a way for one Christan denomination to dismiss the ideas of another denomination or a splinter faction without producing real good solid arguments. Similarity if we went on what each denomination said about the other then NO denomination would be Christian. The fact of the matter is the Gnostics were Christians and the Mormons are Christians and they both had polytheistic beliefs even if they did worship only one of those gods.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic should still be mentioned, at least in the small blurb underneath the link to Catholic. I just feel they are misrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.188.165 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I have begun a sandbox for the purpose of rearranging the contents of the Christianity page. It is located at: [11]. Edits done there should be able to be copied into the Christianity page.Signaj90 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Helvetic Confession

The quote from the Second Helvetic Confession, contains the following:

The writings of the Church Fathers, and decisions of Ecumenical Councils, though "not despise[d]," were not authoritative and could be rejected.

but these seems to be a comment by someone quoting the Confession. This should be fixed. Str1977 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Add a Simple Definition for Young Readers

12/15/2007

The article is far too complex, too lengthy, too heady and omits a simple definition of Christianity which can be done in a single sentence. Each of the factions should have a one sentence description in simple terms that a 5th grader can understand. While I am not asking for removal of complex or lengthy portions, I am asking that TOC portions be added that point to simple one sentence definitions.

Simply Defined

  Catholic
  Protestant
  Eastern Orthodox

Why loose the subject in a pile of high-ended speech and block younger less educated from understanding this topic?

Jesus didn't mean for Christianity to become a political chess game filled with a whole new vocabulary.

Put simply, Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that he alone has the power to save people from sin and death guranteeing resurrection and eternal life in Heaven with God.

No one should be required to have earned a PHD to understand a Wikipedia topic that was meant to be simple.

No, that is for what the simple English WP is meant. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
See the article on Christianity at the Simple English wikipedia: here. Pastordavid (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to link the Simple Wikipedia article someplace on the mainspace page of Christianity. You might also consider an article like Introduction to Christianity which is between the Simple Wikipedia version and the advanced version, the way we did on Introduction to evolution, which is between the Simple Wikipedia article and evolution, or Introduction to quantum mechanics, and so on. I am going to push for Introduction to intelligent design as well. --Filll (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! I didn't even know about the Simple Wikipedia article. I think a link would be a good idea. Are there any guidelines about such links, in favor or against? --Anietor (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's already linked at the top with the parallel articles in other languages' WPs. I'm pretty sure this is standard procedure, as I've seen it done that way before. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What you can also do is to place a separate link in italics about the LEAD, the way we did on Introduction to evolution. I am not sure it is easy to find in that big list of articles in other languages.--Filll (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in

The discsussion currently taking place here and here. Abtract (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There doesn't seem to be a section "Criticisms" linking to Criticism of Christianity. Surely that is an oversight? Abtract (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's included in the template at the bottom of the page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen, Yale University Press,2006 This book should be added to further reading, as this historical study tells of how Jesus, a son of God, a divine hero, became Jesus the ONE and only BEGOTTEN Son of God. This is a story all to itself and a central part of the doctine of the ancient Christian church. This did not happen over night as is commonly thought. It was decreed, but still was not accepted by all early peoples who called themselves Christians, Arianism Kazuba (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If your description is right the only thing notable here is the Yale University Press publishing trash. A.J.A. (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Issue in Section 5.2: Persecutions

I think there is a fundamental issue with the layout of the section on Persecutions. The first paragraph seems well suited to the issue of persecution of Christians in history. I would actually argue that it should be close to the first paragraph in the history section (though that is outside my current proposal). However, since this purports to be a section on the basic history of Christianity, this seems remarkably like an in depth analysis of an intriguing aside. Such a detail ought not be in this article, which is supposed to be very summary in nature.
Bottom line proposal: Edit out needless detail about the French revolution and pagan temples, put them and the references to Judaism into another section of this or another page, and put the early church persecution at the beginning of the history section, since it came before the beginning of the items which kick off the history section. --Signaj90 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Signaj90 in that the article is getting way too long; it is beginning to look like the chapter on Christianity in Parrinder's World Religions. There are many things that really need to spun off into separate articles as not all Christian hold to all the beliefs presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)