Talk:Christianity/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Criticisms

I removed the two sections dealing with criticism. Neither was very good and seemed to be getting worse. If we can come up with a worthwhile (and concise) section, I'm all for adding it. KHM03 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

to KHM03

You wrote:

Also, we weren't "shirking our duty"; this is an NPOV encyclopedia. We are here because we believe that the Truth can speak for itself, even when presented in an NPOV fashion....PS - There are a lot of bad things for which we Christians have to answer to God and humankind.

I do think that if the Christians do not provide factual content (I do agree with the NPOV policy) giving perspective to the criticisms of Christianity that the non-Christian community likely will not. Most people would rather not get involved in edit wars and other commonly associated activity involved in responding to such material. It is far easier to do nothing.

Secondly, I never said Christians have not done wrong things. And given that Christianity is very large in adherents and has been around for 2,000 years there is no argueing Christians have done many bad things. However, it seemed to me that the article was out of whack. Are there no good things Christians have done? Given that Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and has many adherents I would find this hard to believe. LOL I know that Christians organizations do a lot of charity. I am not going to get into the issue of which worldview per capita creates the most good. In a consensus environment this is not going to happen.

Also, are the critics of Christianity above reproach and allowed to make strong accusations but strong responses are not allowed? I realize that in a consensus environment that many valid criticisms or many valid positive statements are left out. I believe the article was out of whack though.

signed, the gentleman who created the responses to the criticisms of Christianity.

Why the anonymity, (ken)? A little research will discover how many hospitals and other charitable organizations, colleges and universities, and liberating movements were started with a Christian-religious cause in mind. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs qualification on monotheism

While Christians generally self-identify their religion as monotheistic, there is a decidedly henotheistic aspect to Christianity. While not called gods, the often-believed-in beings such as Satan, angels, demons, and saints are de facto lesser gods. This point aside, many also do not classify trinitarianism as true monotheism. Classifying Christianity as purely monotheistic is not accurate from a sociological or comparative religions standpoint.

Where would a discussion of these topics belong in the currently-existing article?

As has been said before, Christianity is monotheistic. "Satan, angels, demons and saints" are not gods at all. And just because some people don't see it as monotheistic, does not mean we have to deny them the label of "monotheistic". For example, Scientology is considered by many to be a cult, so does that mean that we should label the Church of Scientology a cult? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Early Judaism was probably henotheistic but was certainly monotheistic by the time of Christ. And Christianity might be "trinitarian", but that is still not henotheism. There is a difference. BUT...discussing henoetheism on one of the Judaism pages would be, I think, appropriate in the right context. KHM03 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
There is not a "decidedly henotheistic aspect" to Christianity. "Satan, angels, demons and saints" are all created beings. The God of Christianity is not created. "Many also do not classify trinitarianism as true monotheism", but all classify it as "trinitarianism" - that is, trinitarian monotheism. The article already says as much. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above responses. Christianity may have aspects from other religions, and it may have more than one supernatural entity in it's theology, but only one of those entities is a god. All religions have beings other than gods that they consider supernatural, that doesn't make them all Polytheist. By the standard of monotheism, since YHWH (and subsequently Jesus, in most instances seen as an earthly avatar or "God in the flesh," in other instances seen as the "Son of God" and thus esteemed and worshipped but not "God the Creator" himself) is the only actual god in Christianity, it's definitely a monotheistic religion. Not all christians are trinitarian though. LucaviX

There is not a "decidedly henotheistic aspect" to Christianity. "Satan, angels, demons and saints" are all created beings. The God of Christianity is not created. "Many also do not classify trinitarianism as true monotheism", but all classify it as "trinitarianism" - that is, trinitarian monotheism. The article already says as much. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea of created beings vs. non-created beings is not inherrent to the idea of being a "god". Many gods of other religions were created, born, or otherwise do not fit the eternal idea of God which is prevalent in Christianity. The idea that angels, demons, and saints as gods and the idea of gods as created beings, while contradicting popular Christian dogma, does not contradict the idea of what makes a "god" from a comparitive religions standpoint. Accepting only the Christian definition of "God" within the Christianity article does not make for an objective standpoint.

but all classify it as "trinitarianism" - that is, trinitarian monotheism.

To unequivocally equate trinitarianism to "trinitarian monotheism" is to beg the question that trinitarianism is monotheism. (And yes, I am aware of non-trinitarian Christians, though I consider their existence to be irrelevent to this particular point.)

For example, Scientology is considered by many to be a cult, so does that mean that we should label the Church of Scientology a cult?

Labeling something a cult and labeling something non-monotheistic are not comparable. "Cult" in its current useage is rarely more than a religious snarl word used to belittle religions which the speaker does not like. Religious scholars avoid the use of such a word as much as possible, often completely. It is not a neutral word. "Monotheism", "polytheism", "henetheism", and similar words are no such thing, and are descriptive words used to describe religious beliefs in a scholarly and objective fashion.

My argument was never that something should be labeled merely because some people consider it to be one thing. My argument was that-for purposes of completeness, objectivity, and accuracy a discussion of how Christianity is and is not monotheistic should be added. (Most) Christians consider Christianity to be monotheistic. (Likewise most Christians are trinitarian and consider trinitarianism to be monotheism.) This is no more reason to label it monotheism than the belief of some that it is polytheism is a reason to label it polytheism.

Additionally:

  • Can you justify your statement that Christianity is "by definition" monotheistic? You seem to be saying that Christians define themselves as monotheistic. I would say this is a good reason to label it monotheistic, but not a good enough reason to label ignore the non-monotheistic aspects of its theology.
  • I am saying that, from an academic, comparative religion point of view, it is not purely monotheistic. Are you refuting this? If so, can you provide evidence or reasoning from an academic, comparative religion point of view? Mathlaura who should have signed her post 19:45, 7 September 2005

There might be religions with created "gods", but the monotheistic definition of God requires not being created. I know that's a bit circular because this definition is the Judeo-Christian one, adopted by Islam. But this is also I think, what Mark meant by monotheistic by definition.

I recently found (in Klaus Berger and Ratzinger) a better definition to distinguish polytheism and monotheism:

Both camps agree that there is a absolute which is only one and a plurality of phenomena (e.g. the ideas of a oneness behind this plurality in Hinduism, or Platonism).

Now polytheism considers this "one absolute" to be unaddressable and only addresses it through the lower phenomena which it calls gods (and these are created or something like this)

The monotheistic religions (J,C,I) dare to address the "one absolute" as a person. Hence monotheism has only one uncreated God who is the "one absolute", while polytheism has a plurality of created gods under the unadressable "one absolute".

Even if you don't accept this re-definition, you can see that being uncreated is part of the monotheistic definition of God (and the uncreatedness and hence divinity of "the Son" was also a major point of contention the Arian dispute in the 4th century Church). Str1977 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is the modern J/C/I definition of monotheism. The circularness of this is the reason that there needs to be a qualification on calling it monotheistic. This is a valid definition, but not THE definition. All that is required of "monotheism" is a belief in exactly 1 deity. There still seems to be an aspect of begging the question of Christianity (generally) defining itself as monotheistic and likewise defining what monotheism is.

Since we have gotten a bit lost in the discussion, could you (or whoever is opposed to a paragraph about the monotheistic and non-monotheistic aspects of Christian theism) summarize what the objection to having a paragraph qualifying what is meant by monotheistic when calling Christianity is? PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS

My view is that Christianity is a Trinitarian religion, and I would consider "Trinitarianism" a subcategory of "monotheism". It certainly does differ from the other two monotheistic faiths (Judaism & Islam) in its approach to and defition of monotheism.
Throughout its history, Christianity has always considered itself a monotheistic faith, though it is possible that Jews and Muslims have difficulty grasping the Christian view of that (heck, Christians have trouble with it, too!).
Some good sources...
  1. Understanding the Trinity by Alister McGrath
  2. "On the Trinity" by John Wesley
  3. Radical Monotheism and Western Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr
  4. The Trinity and the Kingdom by Jurgen Moltmann
  5. The Living God by Thomas Oden
  6. The Trinity by Karl Rahner
  7. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology by Stanley Grenz
Hope this helps! KHM03 16:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I would add that the henotheistic elements were primarily from early, early Judaism; by the time of Christ, those elements were pretty much gone. KHM03 16:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
My view is that, though Christianity is a trinitarian religion, that categorisation doesn't help. Despite the risk of revealing ignorance, I don't know any other trinitarian religion.
But the thing is: Christianity is a monotheistic religion. It has one God. That others don't accept the "make-up" of that God is of no relevance if this article is to stay NPOV. And the early debates about trinitarian dogma doesn't make sense if Christianity is not monotheistic.
I agree with KHM regarding henotheism. If there are henotheistic elements they are early Judaism. And I would even dispute that early henotheism of the Mosaic faith (though not necessarily of every Israelite, but then again, there were worse occurences).
And by the way, Zoroastrianism is also called monotheistic, despite it (arguably) having two gods.
Str1977 18:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
KHM03 has it absolutely right. Trinitarianism is a subcategory of monotheism. According to the Athanasian Creed: "And yet there are not three gods but one God". DJ Clayworth 18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Right on, Clayworth. Or the Nicean creed, which is after all the "offical" creed. In Latin it starts: Credo in UNUM DEUM. I think that's clear enough. Str1977 18:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

-

The interesting differences in Christianity and other monotheistic religions, as well as a general discussion of the meaning of monotheism, still seems like something very relevant to the understanding of the religion.

Perhaps it should be put under the monotheism article? It seems very Christian-centric. Discussions of other religions such as Zoroastrianism and their versions of monotheism would also be useful.

That should all be appropriately discussed on the Monotheism article, I think, which ought to be linked to the Christianity article (et al). KHM03 18:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I've always been confused by those who describe Zoroastrianism as monotheistic. Mormonism also calls itself monotheistic, which frustrates me too. But, oh well, I am able to understand why people have trouble seeing monotheism in Trinitarianism and have wished that I could explain it better as a Christian. The fact that it needs explanation is admission enough to Anon's point, that we would be remiss if such a discussion did not exist. However, in point of fact, the discussions do exist in many accessible places. It could also be discussed here, as a significant aspect in the relation between Christianity and the non-trinitarian religions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

regarding a potential criticism to christianity section

I think if a criticism of Christianity section is given/allowed (I didn't see any under the subject areas Mormon, Judaism, etc.) then I think a response to the criticism should be given. I think it is very important that the response to the criticism be allowed to take the totally opposite position.

I don't think the criticism section is practical and will likely last. Why? Because the critics of Christianity will likely object to the criticism and some type of Wikipedia problems will occur. This is what happened to the Voltaire and Dawkins commentary.

Signed, the gentleman who created the response to the criticisms of Christianity

Why the anonymity? You are mistaken about there being no "criticism" sections; especially for Mormonism. In fact, several of those articles are written by Mormons themselves in the interest of candor, to their credit. To understand Christianity, you must understand those who hate it and why. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

regarding Bertrand Russell Essay (why I am not a christian)

Unlike the Judaism and Mormon and other religious sections there is criticism offered to the relgious subject area in the Christianity subject area. What I see happening though is that there are many criticisms and often with no responses. Why? Are they being deleted? Are no responses to Christianity's possible? Is nobody interested in offering responses? What is happening here?

I did create a response to Bertrand Russell just now. I am guessing Russell's essay was there a long time. I frankly am currently disappointed by the Christianity subject area and somewhat puzzled by it. It is better than many sections though. I do like some of the people who are writing this section though. I just think that critics are busier bees than those who offer responses.

Signed, the gentleman who created the response to criticisms of Christianity

Why the anonymity? Do you really give so much credit to a critic of Christianity? Your aim seems to be to persuade, and for that reason you post counter-arguments. Put that goal of persuasion out of your mind. If you feel compelled to answer the critics, it's best to do it in a venue structured for defining and describing the debate. In order to give your answers a chance of surviving on Wikipedia, describe the debate, rather than engaging in it.
But the best way, in my opinion, is to structure the article itself in such a way that Christianity is represented accurately and the criticisms are counterpoised against those assertions. Christianity should be described, for example, as seeking the salvation of all men, encouraging justice and compassion toward the poor, defending the helpless. It will be criticised for seeking to destroy people, for fostering injustice and oppression, and for exploitation. That's to be expected not only because this is the nature of Wikipedia, but because this is what Christianity is like. Indeed, the most effective of these criticisms will arise from Christians themselves. Christianity is chiefly a witness not to the goodness of Christians, but to the righteousness of God, and to God's mercy on those who fall short of his righteousness. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

to: Mark

You know of my writing under my username. For reasons I wish not to write about I found I have less problems going anonymous (I do think you liked my previous material but perhaps that is vanity on my part! LOL).

Second, I do not give much credit to critics of Christianity in regards to substance. However, I do feel Wikipedia should be both accurate and representative of reality and not give a distorted picture due to exclusion of data either unintentionally, intentionally, or due to disinterest.

signed, the gentleman who created the response to the criticisms of Christianity henceforth known as "the shadow". LOL

So it's *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* wikipedia abuse then? --LucaviX 04:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

observation about criticisms of Christianity and this page in general

I have noticed that this page gets vandalized more than most. Some people might say there is a real devil that hates this page! LOL Now I have noticed that when criticisms of agnostics/atheists are allowed like Russell, Voltaire, Dawkins, etc. that the responses to criticisms get vandalized or are bitterly complained against. I therefore vote that such complaints are not allowed due to the hassle factor if my responses to Bertrand Russell are removed. Please watch my responses to Bertrand Russell section and make the decision if atheist/agnostic criticisms of Christianity are no longer allowed. I noticed the Mormon, Judaism, and Roman Catholic pages no criticism allowed on them or almost no criticism allowed period. Perhaps, the hassle factor is just too much and not worth it in regards to atheists/agnostic type criticism being aired.

signed, "the shadow"

I have noticed that people have complained against including the personal opinions of individuals as objective criticism. I'm sorry you haven't.
Something else I've noticed is that you seem to want favoritism for your religion, and desire to have the bar lowered for you. You seem to want to want to be able to get away with violating the NPOV policy. The Criticism section has been removed entirely, and for good reason. If you want to start another article go right ahead, but write it from a neutral point of view.
Now sign your post properly and stop making new sections each time you reply, you're flooding the page. --LucaviX 04:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

TO: Lucavix

I see you wanting the opinions/arguments of atheists like Voltaire and Dawkins but cry bias when counter arguments are offered. I see the bias sword as a two edged sword. I can say Bertrand Russels opinions cannot be offered because he is bias being an agnostic. In short, I think you are inconsistent. I favor academic freedom and Christians and non Christians can speak out if the other side is being reasonable and not engaging in vandalizing. I have no wish to get into a talk:Christianity debate with you though.

Signed, the gentleman who created the response to criticisms of Christianity.

To the self styled "Shadow"
Shadow Said: I see you wanting the opinions/arguments of atheists like Voltaire and Dawkins

You are greatly mistaken, the moment I became aware that Dawkins and (particularly) Voltaire's so called "arguments" were being presented as objective criticism I suggested that they represented a POV and pressed to have them taking out, along with the nonsense you call a "Counter argument." Of course it could be noted that the hedonistic self styled "noble" Voltaire was butchered for "blasphemy" and that many christians celebrated this event, but wait, you'd want that left out I'm sure. By the way, like I said before opinion has no place in the article, not yours, not mine, not the writer of "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins.

Shadow Said: but cry bias when counter arguments are offered.

Obviously you haven't noticed my objections to both sections of the article. I'm the one who put the NPOV flag on both. You have to get over this victim mentality you seem to be holding.

Shadow Said: I can say Bertrand Russels opinions cannot be offered because he is bias being an agnostic.

And I can say that his Opinions are no more than POV and should not be represented as objective criticism, on this I think we are on the same page, though my objection to his bias has nothing to do with his agnosticism.

Shadow Stated: In short, I think you are inconsistent.

And I think you haven't been keeping up with me on this, and I also think you want to be allowed to include inaccurate and biased information rather than contribute by pointing out examples of POV and suggesting revisions.

Shadow Stated: I favor academic freedom

Like saying "secularist are inconsistent because they remain silent about the atrocities of Stalin?" How that holds to any academic standard is beyond me. For academic freedom to be a valid defense you must first be academic. I could point out that if you start a conversation about Stalin most of them would have something to say about his anti-semitism and his attempts to erase people even from history.

Shadow Stated: and Christians and non Christians can speak out if the other side is being reasonable and not engaging in vandalizing.

Removing and regulating POV is not vandalism, it's NPOV enforcement. Your additions were submitted for review and removed, I should note that the removing of such a large segment of content is impossible (it just gets automatically reverted) if the wikipedia administrators do not find it necessary to either remove or revise.

Shadow Stated: I have no wish to get into a talk:Christianity debate with you though.

Nor do I with you, though I truly wish you would remain consistent yourself. If you're screaming bias the way to address it is not to include more bias. --LucaviX 03:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

The section on criticisms was removed by an anon IP and I restored it. The anon user claimed in HTML comments that a consensus had been reached here to remove the section. However, this talk page is long and complex and I was unable to determine such a consensus existed. If a consensus has been reached, it would be helpful to either archive the talk and declare the consensus on a clean page, or add a new section declaring the consensus. --GraemeL (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The section was removed (initially by me) because...
  1. It stunk.
  2. It was NPOV.
  3. It was the victim of edit wars.
Let's leave it OFF until a good section can be written. KHM03 15:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

to: ALL A consensus may never be arrrived at. Certainly there are some atheists where a consensus could be arrived at. However, some atheists who like to comment on Christianity are disgruntled ex-christians who will not tolerate criticisms of the criticisms. It is like a unreasonable or unforgiving divorced person who has an axe to grind against the ex spouse. I could say more but I will leave it at that for now.

signed, the gentleman who created a response to the criticisms of Christianity

It's worth noting that the Atheism page is run by a group of atheists who will not even allow a link to atheists who have become theists. As far as I can tell no significant criticism has ever been allowed on it. Pollinator 16:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's not helpful to suppose that every edit reflects the personal opinion of the editor (it's better if you generously assume that it doesn't). Anyway, the chief reason for including a criticisms section is to provide information. If the section is not really informative, it should be left out until a better one is written. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
To user KHM03. You state the section on Criticisms "stunk". Thanks for being constructive and polite. In fact this ection was severely watered down by various pro christian voices until it became the section at the top of this page.
I agree with GraemeL. No consensus appears to have been reached, and the removal appears to have been done by fundamentalists who just want to pretend that criticism does not exist when it does.
I must stress that these criticisms exist. Removing them from this page is an act of intellectual vandalism. Would we tolerate an article on a political figure that had no section on "criticisms"? I do not think so. Engaging with critics is the first stage to understanding the world. Pretending they don't exist will not get you anywhere.

--Davebenson32 14:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Criticisms (as I saw them) needed to be removed because they were (a) Bad criticisms (b) based on the personal opinions of select individual critics. If criticisms are going to be listed they need to be objective. A criticism based on history rather than personal opinion would be fine, but to say "so and so said such and such" about Christianity just doesn't work. Sadly the standard of objectivity seems to be low on both sides regarding this issue, as my biased friend Shadow demonstrated above. LucaviX
I initially removed the criticisms, as well as the responses, both of which were inadequate. While I am a Christian, I am not a fundamentalist ("...not that there's anything wrong with that...") and would welcome a concise, well written, clear section of real, valid criticisms...some of which are already addressed in the "persecution" section (my advice would be to construct a concise section of theological criticisms...not criticizing religion, but Christianity specifically). Bottom line: the sections were poor and had to go. Any editor is welcome to write a concise new section for addition and consideration by the community. I have no intention of watering down criticism, which is most often valid (we Christians have failed to be Christian in many ways...there's no disputing that)...I just think we can do better than what we had. KHM03 16:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

YIKES! Report him! --LucaviX 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is damaging Wikipedia it is the attitude above. *Religion is clearly a belief. * Superstition is "an irrational belief" (dictionary definition)
  • Christians themselves have said that "reason can only get you so far" in explaining religion. It is a faith based position.
  • Clearly Christianity is a superstition.
  • But that doesn't mean you should hide your superstitious ideas. If you want to go round believing in all sorts of fanciful ideas about the existence of a god, then go for it. 203...

You are jumping too quickly, 203 ...,

  • Superstition is "an irrational belief"
  • Christians themselves have said that "reason can only get you so far"

Both statements are true. But the second says only that reason is not enough. At one point you need to have faith. That doesn't apply only to Christianity, not only to religions in general but to anything in life, for any belief including Rationalism.

I could say Rationalism is a faith based position, therefore it is superstition.

But that doesn't mean you should hide it. If you want to gor round believing all sorts of fanciful ideas about explaining everything by rational discourse without assumptions than go ahead, but you won't be able to do it.

In fact, the rationalistic conclusion from rationalism is not to hide it because there is nothing to hide. You just would have nothing to say on anything.

Note, a superstition according to your definition. But the thing is you confused "rational" with "rationalistic". Rational only means that you can present it in rational discourse. You can do it with "Christianity" (and other religions) and you can do it with "Rationalism" - both are rational beliefs/views/philosophies but both also resort to assumptions.

Str1977 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia strives to be a place for all people, where NPOV is the rule of the day; "Clearly Christianity is a superstition..." is not only a false statement (it simply isn't that clear), it's POV. That's the problem. The claim that "Christianity is the one true religion established by God..." would be equally POV (unless the sentence began, "Christians believe that...", which would then render it acceptable on Wikipedia, theoretically). KHM03 13:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Str1977 17:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Calling christianity a superstition in an article is simply unacceptable IMO, but leaving my opinion out of it, it's also clear POV and and direct violation of Wikipedia policy. --Lucavix 10:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A response....to all this ruffled fury...

I read all of this....and am ready to give my two cents worth.

(Note: 'Tis long, but worth reading...)

First of all, let's make something clear here; there will always be criticism of Christianity no matter who gives it--whether edited or not. There are BOUND to be skeptics and all those kind of folks who come along asking supposedly "unanswerable" questions...

However...there IS an answer to them! And let me start by asking this...

Where did the big bang come from?

...Obviously, this is a VERY dangerous question to answer...Why? Because you would have to admit that the big bang was made by some-THING or some-ONE. And this question would have to be asked over and over--until, you got to square one. Square one is this--a diety (or THING), existing BEFORE the Big Bang, that has always existed before time.....

Now...here is the deal with Christianity. But first...let's ask the critics WHY they don't believe or QUIT believing in Jesus?

"Well, I realized this, then I realized that; and THEN, I decided that there is no God!"

or...

"The idea and/or concept of God is for the 'ignorant.' "

Or...

"The idea of God came because man just HAD to explain something or that his emotional feelings needed fulfilled."

or...

"God does not exist because of this and this and this--PROVE to me that He DOES exist."

...Let's answer these....

First off, what does the Bible have to say about folks who believe this way?

The Bible states that man KNOWS deep down inside that God really DOES exist--however, later on, they decide to TURN AGAINST that idea and trust the creature more then the Creator.

...Do you have to understand EVERY SINGLE CONCEPT of what God is like BEFORE you believe Him? If so, that would take an eternity! And you know as well as I do that our bodies don't live that long.

"Well then, I just won't believe in God if I can't see Him nor understand every single detail about Him."

...What did Jesus tell you that you needed to do in order to follow Him?

He said that you had to become like a child.

How does a child think? He BELIEVES what he is told!

....Over and over in the Bible it says that you must BELIEVE in Jesus FIRST; and everything else will be taken care of afterward. And even if you don't get all your questions answered, it DOESN'T mean that Christ doesn't exist...

....Do you know every single detail about the cell? EVERY SINGLE BIT??? No! But just because you don't know or understand every single detail on how it works, does that mean that it doesn't exist? No! It's still there--whether you choose to believe that it exists or choose to NOT believe it because of "lack of evidence", it's STILL THERE!

...You must BELIEVE first--only until you believe, will your questions be answered. And even if they aren't ALL answered, can't you be thankful for the small amount of questions that WERE answered?

"No! I refuse; we MUST know more about the world around us! We MUST!"

...If this is your answer, let me ask you something; can't you set aside your pride in your own accomplishments? Can't you set aside your ego? Can't you just believe what I'm telling you?

"NO! Believing God is for the 'feeble-minded.'It's for those who DON'T understand how the world REALLY works! It's for those who aimlessly shuffle about--wanting their emotions filled with this...this...utter nonesense called God!"

If this is your answer....Are you feeble-minded just because you have emotions that need filling? Are you? You cannot say that you don't have any emotions or that you have supreme control over all your emotions--because we all have emotions that overrun us and cause us trouble sometimes. They are there--and they need Life! All this search--for knowing more and more about the world around you is an emotion. In fact, it's an over-zealous love for this planet.

There is nothing wrong with liking the good things in this world...but...there's the second law of thermodynamics--all things eventually fall apart. And when it does, what good would all that knowledge of the universe do you once it's all gone?

Nothing...it's all a sham; you're emotions though. They'll still be around--and you'll be really down on yourself and your emotions will start bugging you. Because all of your life, you were searching and searching and searching--for something to love. Someone to love you.

...And you'll realize that you've done wrong--all this knowledge of the universe did you no good. You've actually disobeyed God by doing everything God doesn't want you to do. And for doing that, you'll be punished.

...However, God loved you enough to send His Son to pay your fine--and yeah, His Son loved you enough to follow through with the plan. He really did want to die for you--and He proved it by dying on the cross. And in doing so, He payed your fine...

...And all you have to do now is ask forgiveness of doing those things that displease God, totally turn away from those things, and trust Jesus the way you'd trust in a parachute before jumping out of a plane. And now, let me ask you this question....do you love Jesus enough to do what He asks you to do? Do you love Jesus enough to believe what He has taught?

I hope you do....

---JFB 22:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:State churches (Christian)

I have created the Category:State churches (Christian) for Christian state (established) churches. If anyone thinks this ought be be renamed, perhaps we could discuss it here--or likewise if anyone wants to support it. Should we create corresponding categories for other religions (Islam, Buddhism, etc.)? Frankly they are not precisely the same...and state Catholicism is problematic as well. Should all state religions be integrated into one category? Thanks. --Dpr 02:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Improve

The quality and extensiveness of this article is probably far below the standard displayed in many Wikipedia articles. Perhaps this betrays the bias toward technical subjects seen among many Wikipedians. Either we, there exists a challenge that we, the Wikipedia community should answer--to raise the standard of this article. --Dpr 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was a very pretty piece of preachin', but what substantive problems do you see that can be remedied? --FOo 04:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I've had concerns with sections being written in such a way as to present a favorable or disfavorable image of christianity, but I've regulated a lot by providing counterpoints and removing pov. I am concerned that some tidbits of information are either put in or left out to make Christianity look good at times, for example restrictions on certain religious practices in the public sphere was included under persecution of christians so I had to include that such restrictions apply to nonchristians as well. I have nothing against factual information being presented, rather it makes christianity look good or bad is of little concern when it's factual, but I do worry that some may include opinion (either to make christianity look bad or good) at times. --Lucavix 13:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd favor a complete "re-do" of the article. KHM03 14:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To Lucavix...

Lucavix, when it comes to Christianity and morality, you can't be neutral; you have to either favor it or be against it. You cannot be both! Jesus said this Himself; "No man can serve two masters."

No matter who writes an article on Christianity, it's either gonna be negative or positive--and even if it "seems" to be written from a neutral point of view, you can sense deep down inside, the author's view of Christianity.

...So, with some things, you just can't be neutral.

--jfritzyb

How was the word christianity invented?

This article does not explain how this word was coined! Actually, Jesus Christ did not gave this name to his religion. Jesus Christ never heard this name in his lifetime. So the question is how this name was coined? I mean it should also be explained in the article! PassionInfinity 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it so difficult to answer? Its should be added in the article! PassionInfinity 06:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Acts 11:26. KHM03 11:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Christians" of course is a Greek term and was given to the followers of Jesus Christ, which is the Greek translation of Jeshuah ha-Machshiach (spelling?), by their Greek speaking environment in Antioch. Str1977 10:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Jesus, his religion in one sentence would be Total Submission to the Will of God. One word for this statement in Arabic is Islam.PassionInfinity 04:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Where, Passion, does Jesus define "his religion" like that? In the Quran? If so, it's no surprise that this points to Islam since that religion claims Jesus to be one of its own prophets. But that's hardly NPOV.Str1977 10:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well christianity means those who worship Jesus Christ. Did Jesus tell them to worship him? PassionInfinity 11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Christian" means follower of Christ, means accepting Jesus as the Messiah (Christ). This article is about Christianity, not about Islam. As for your question: try John 13:13. Str1977 11:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that in the Bible, Jesus was worshiped and allowed himself to be worshiped (Mt 28, for instance). And, another word for Total Submission to the Will of God is Christianity. So it's A-OK with Christians (and with God, too, but that's another story, very POV, that is best delineated elsewhere). KHM03 11:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
While I agree that submission to God can be udnerstood in a Christian way, it definitely is an expression taken from Islam. The question is: Is this relevant to the article?
The article now includes the first occurence of the term Christian, sourced, explained. I think this issue is thereby settled. Str1977 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Where Christianity Came From and That Anabaptist edit.....

I removed Anabaptist as one of the main branches of Christianity. There are 3: Eastern, Roman, & Protestant...Anabaptism is essentially a Protestant movement, and I listed it there. KHM03 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, where DID that term come from?

Well, because the very first syllable says where it came from--Christ. Therefore, an idea that came from Christ. That's where it came from--and that's why before folks pass out doctrine that they claim comes from the Bible, they ought to double check and MAKE SURE that this is what Christ taught!

Now, concerning the Anabaptist edit...I don't see any reason with editing that out. After all, they do believe what the Bible teaches. Therefore, because of this, they follow Christ (and are CHRIST-ians.)

--jfritzyb

Absolutely they are Christians...specifically, they are Protestant Christians. I listed them as such. KHM03 23:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the argument was about whether ABs are Christians but whether they constitute one of the major branches or rather belong to Protestantism. I'd prefer the latter view. Str1977 14:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Preach it, brother. KHM03 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Our own Anabaptist article begins, "Anabaptists ... are Christians of the so-called radical wing of the Protestant Reformation." Historically they arose at the same time as the (rest of the) Protestant Reformation, and I don't think there's really much doubt that they're Protestant. They just disagreed with Luther and Zwingly on certain points, as well as disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on several other points. Wesley 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Messianic paragraph

I see a problem in the following paragraph:

Many Jews argue that since Jesus failed to fulfill numerous prophecies he could not have been the true Messiah. Because of this argument some religious Jews have dismissed Messianic Judaism as little more than Christianity with Jewish undertones. However Messianic Jews believe in the Second Coming of Jesus and that those prophecies which Jesus did not fulfill will be fulfilled upon his eventual return. From the Christian view the rejection and execution of the Messiah fulfills numerous prophecies from the Old Testament.

While it is certainly true that

"many Jews argue that since Jesus failed to fulfill numerous prophecies he could not have been the true Messiah."

- if they didn't they'd accept him - and it is also true that

"some religious Jews have dismissed Messianic Judaism as little more than Christianity with Jewish undertones"

I can't see, where these two points are linked. I don't think some dismiss MJ als "Christianity with Jewish undertones" because of the "unfulfilled prophecies argument", but rather because they reject Jesus as the Messiah and Christianity as not Jewish. Str1977 14:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. KHM03 18:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If Jesus didn't fulfill prophecy, then how come He fulfills 400 and something prophecies in the Old Testament?

Not only that, how come He fulfills ALL the feasts in the Old Testament as well?

--jfritzyb

Sorry, but which part of the article does this relate to, and what change are you proposing? Wesley 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess, Wesley, he is referring to my post in the section above. However, he has then misunderstood my point. I'm not concerned with the question of whether Jesus has fulfilled or will fulfill prophecies, but with the reasoning of the paragraph I addressed. Can anyone please comment on this? Str1977 18:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The questioner here needs to read the statement carefully. It says that Jews believe Jesus did not fulfil all the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. I think you will find they also dispute the interpretation of Jesus' fulfillment of some of the prophecies. People disagree. Incidentally, there is a slight POV in the sentence given above which I will fix if it's in the article. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, Clayworth.

Since no one objected to my post above I edited the section, separating the Jewish rejection of Messianics and the "prophecy argument". Whether the latter is relevant in this article/section I don't know. Str1977 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Basis of Christianity

I propose changing the following sentence:

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth presented in the New Testament writings of his early followers."

to:

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as how his life is presented in the New Testament writings of his early followers."

Many branches of Christianity such as Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican, for example, believe that the phenomenon of Jesus' life, as passed through the tradition of the church is as central to the basis of Christianity as is the text of the New Testament. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorrell (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC).

I'm not certain your proposed edit makes your intent clear. Could you reword/clarify your proposal? KHM03 18:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
And please don't forget to sign your posts. It makes it easier to read the talk page. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The base of Christianity as the Southern Baptist Church says

The real basis of Christianity is that Adam and Eve sinned and disobeyed God and as their descendents which are humans today. And so we have inherited sinfulness and are doomed to repeat their disobedience in a different form. So we have seperated ourselves from God. So as the prophesies say as early as Gen. 22:8 God came to us. Jesus was born to a virgin and then took followers to take his word and spread it after his death. And then the Jewish leaders getting "ticked off" seeing a religion rising that does not require them or their power had to get rid of him. So the Romans "giving the babies their bottles" nailed Jesus' palms and feet to a large wooden cross next to to thieves. And the price for all that each and every one of us has sinned, and will sin are paid for with Jesus' blood. And that blood made it possible for the rest of us to come to Jesus. There is nothing keeping any of us to come to him. And if you pray and ask for Christ's forgiveness and we shall recieve. But God just knows that we sin but does not know which sin so we must tell him. Please, if you are not a Christian just remember this is your descision and if you ever consider God will never shun you away. -Anonymous Follower (User:66.82.116.160)

ANON, I can't disagree with you; however, you will find many "Christians" who would state that you are not restrictive enough; your definition of basis would allow too many people to be called Christian and does not allow for the state church created after 325 AD at the direction of Emperor Constatine to be able to define exactly who can be called Christian and who can not be called Christian. You see Jesus Christ has nothing to do with their defnition, but the creeds of man created hundreds of years after the death of Christ takes precedent over everything for them. Also, some would say you have a rather creative way at looking at the Jewish people. Storm Rider 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness I was not talking about the Jewish people; I was talking about the Jewish synagogue leaders. And I hope by "creative" you weren't talking about anti-Semitism because I wasn't and I really hope no one else takes it that way, because I am not. And I meant that this is the way my belief takes the definition of a Christian. I mean a person can claim they are a Christian by doing good things, praying a lot, and even going to church but if they don't have Jesus what good does it do they are still going to Hell 'cause they aren't forgiven for all their sins. -Anonymous Follower

Newbie Error at Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Help!! I'm a total noob and didn't understand the wikipedia concept and I CUT out something from the first line of the article and part way down the first couple paragraphs. Can you fix it PLEASE? SORRY!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.45.29 (talk • contribs) .

Hi anon, and Welcome. I've just sent a message to your talk page. Don't worry about the mistake. Newcomers often press wrong buttons etc. It's very easy to fix an edit, and it's usually done within minutes. By the way, while edits are welcomed from unregistered users, there are a lot of advantages in registering. Ann Heneghan (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)