Talk:Christianity

Languages

There has been a fair bit of editing to and fro regarding the languages field in the infobox, and it is much better if we discuss it here and gain a consensus. It should either refer to the languages of the original texts (in which case Latin should be removed) or official non-vernacular church languages (in which case Old Church Slavonic and others need to be included as well). StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it should only include the original languages of the faith, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic (later translated to Greek in the Septuagint) and the original New Testament was written in Greek. Where Latin comes into play is according to the Sacred language Wikipage which cites the Gospel of John, "Jesus King of Jews" was inscribed upon the cross in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. I believe it's probably best to include the original languages of the faith. Latin does start to play an official role in the Church until the 4th century with Ecclesiastical Latin however I guess what we are trying to figure out is if Latin in the form of Classical Latin can be considered a language of this religion. I learn towards no. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Christianity should be considered a polytheistic religion

This topic has devolved into an unconstructive theological discussion wherein the OP has demonstrated no interest in WP:NPOV.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because they continue to say "trinity" this should make Christianity a polytheistic religion regardless of how much Christian propagandists would like to spin it. The trinity is a repeat of what past polytheists believed in such as the Greek, Hindu and Egyptian trinity which Christians hypocritically describe as polytheistic. Elias Ziad (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) It is not propaganda. Please familiarize yourself with Trinity to understand why you are mistaken. Your personal opinion also does not override a supermajority of RSs on the subject. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This is a common Islamic view of Christianity. Here is not the place to be making theological arguments. Epa101 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) I'm not willing to argue theology on a wiki talk page as it is not relevant. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Also, the Christian concept of the Trinity is a unique one, comparing it to certain forms of Hinduism makes some sense, but it cannot be compared to Egyptian or Greek polytheism in good faith. Besides, calling Hinduism polytheistic is only true for some sects of Hinduism. GramCanMineAway (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Some might say circling, touching, and kissing a black stone is polytheistic and also addressing Mohammed in prayers while himself not being God is polytheistic but we don't take those arguments seriously. As already stated, please familiarize yourself with the Trinity. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) That’s hilarious, according to your logic, Jews are also polytheists because they bow down to and kiss a rock wall in Jerusalem… Whilst Christians put some ridiculous spirit to the cross like it’s gonna protect them while it is just a stick. This is not just an Islamic view, but also a Jewish view that Christianity is an idol worshipping religion who worships a mere man who got humiliated by his own “creation” on a stick, look at how deluded these beliefs are. They had to invent the whole original sin doctrine to somehow prove that a “human god” died for our sins when he could have simply forgive them as he already forgave sins before Jesus since God is described as an all-merciful god… The original sin is easily debunked and disproved in the Old Testament, which collapses the entire Christian doctrine on Jesus. It’s funny that you say we address Muhammad in our prayers, when we absolutely don’t and that is not our intentions. We believe Muhammad is just like any other prophet who taught his people to return to the faith of Abraham. The Quran is clear that Abraham is the most important prophet in the world as God Almighty appointed him as the “leader of all mankind.” Muhammad died like any other person. And plus, Islamic prayers are NOT monolithic, which means a Muslim can change his words in his daily prayers if the intention is to worship God. So if a Muslim feels like he is (wrongly) addressing Muhammad in his prayers, he can easily change the words to be more fitting to worshipping God alone and there is absolutely no blame for him/her. So you are wrong.Elias Ziad (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Please let's be respectful to other people's religious beliefs. Your initial comment (and this one I'm responding to) is most unhelpful and is not conducive to a healthy discussion about whatever point you are trying to make. Insulting and casting aspersions on other people's beliefs is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and what this community is trying to achieve. You can put forward whatever argument you are trying to make without disrespecting other people's core beliefs. For the record, I'm not a Christian. In any case, this should be discussed at the Trinity article. Can someone please hat this? This is not a healthy discussion, but a POV and "propaganda" the OP is accusing others of. There are plenty of forums the OP can take their concerns or discontent about Christianity to. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Tamsier (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Universal religion

User:Completely Random Guy, please stop adding "universal religion" to the infobox without consensus. It is a minority classification - not notable and possibly dubious. StAnselm (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

While I don’t have a strong opinion on this, I will point out that Christianity is called out as an RS’d example of a universal religion on Religion. Conversely, I would argue that this disagreement would be better handled by updating Islam’s classification to “Abrahamic”, not “Universal religion”… the former is far more significant than the latter. I’ll likely start a discussion on that talk page about it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, what it actually says is that "Some religion scholars classify religions as either universal religions that seek worldwide acceptance and actively look for new converts, such as the Baháʼí Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Jainism, while ethnic religions are identified with a particular ethnic group and do not seek converts. Others reject the distinction..." StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a story about Richard Feinman (if I recall correctly) going to the woods with his father for a walk. During the walk, his father tells him the name of the birds they come across. Returning home, his father asks: "Now what have you learned about birds?" Little Richard stays silent, and his father continues: "Nothing; you have only learned a number of names." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not against removing it, the reasoning that 'scholars disagree' is worthwhile and notable. However I guess my adding of it back was influenced by trying to maintain neutrality and balance. Not that I think removing it is not neutral, but we are now presented with the case of Islam and Baháʼí Faith being labeled as "Universal religions" while Christianity is not. So in other words if we removed "Universal religion" from Christianity we should also apply the rule across the board for all religions we have currently listed as such. Furthermore should we also remove our classification of Judaism and Mandaeism (among others) as "Ethnic religions"? In the end of the day I personally think having type identifiers is helpful and beneficial but I could do without them. I am more neutral on the topic. Just trying to strike a balance! Sorry for almost started an edit war. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In the hope of seeing if Wikipedia had a useful definition, I just had a look at our disambiguation for Universal. Wow, I doubt if there would be many pages containing more different meanings. While Universal religion is a literally accurate description of Christianity within those circles that classify religions, for many of our readers, that literal meaning won't be the first one they think of when they read that term, if they think of it at all. Unless we can provide further clarification in this article, it doesn't seem a good term to use. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, Completely Random Guy, I see you removed it from the Islam article but then got reverted. We could have a centralised discussion, I suppose. Just as someone could create an article on Universal religion. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do have that article, but not many of our readers are going to look at it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The template itself is hopeless, not just this one category. Give it a label, and you know what it is, right? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

After recently cleaning up unreliable sources from Abrahamic religions, I realized that the term has a few more issues than it seems on the first glance. The term originates from Interfaith dialogue and entered academic discourse. However, the academic validity has also been criticized, for oversimplification. While there are prominent similarities, such as Creatio ex nihilo and veneration of a Creator-deity, there are also significant differences.

Other similarities are only shared on the surface level. For example, all three feature Abraham, but the role ascribed to this figure is different. Both Islam and Christianity share the return of Jesus, but while in Islam, it is more or less an aggadic narrative featuring some end-time battles with barely to no theological significance at all, in Christianity it is a closure of the history of mankind (as per Christian teachings). Other concepts often mistakenly considered "typical Abrahamic", like hell, are not even precisely Abrahamic at all (Karmic religions do feature hell as well, whereas Judaism not necessarily).

Besides these "intra-religious" differences, there also has been objection from an ethno-historical perspective. Islam, as a religion spread through Asia is also an Asia religion, not (only) a religion surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. Christianity spread across Europe and incorporated European ideas, whereas Islam assimilated to Asian ideas as it spreads. Judaism is a unique situtation again, given that this is also an ethnic religion.

By using the the classification "Abrahamic", we allow judgement over theological features, which is something up to the theologicans and the adherences of the religion. Same as using "karmic" (as I did above), when not speaking about a religion featuring Karma. For example (and this is only an example), when I believe in Buddhism but not Karma, does this form of Buddhism stops being Buddhism? Classifying religions according to features (in this case the figure of "Abraham" and associated beliefs, often even subject to dispute within one of these three religions themselves) comes witht he issue of being prescriptive rather than descriptive. The label "Universal religion", on the other hand, explains very well how the religion operated over centuries (and thus, gained reliablitiy). In contrast, Judaism is an ethnic religion. We often see that Judaism does not entirely fit into the same classifications of Christianity and Islam and has a lot of unique traits, but due to similar mythologies and the label "Abrahamic", it is assumed they are equal in most matters.

Terminology such as "Universalistic" is actually used then discussing the classifications of religions, as for example, here: A Matter of Class: Taxonomies of Religion Author(s): Jonathan Z. Smith Source: The Harvard Theological Review , Oct., 1996, Vol. 89, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 387- 403 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School" and (although pretty old, yet good in regards to classifications I suppose) "THE CLASSIFICATION OF RELIGIONS Author(s): Durin J. H. Ward Source: The Monist , OCTOBER, 1908, Vol. 18, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1908), pp. 544-575 Published by: Oxford University Press". I would suggest to go with terminology actually describing the religion, instead of referring or implying certain theological elements.

(I originally posted this on Talk:Islam. Maybe we can find a consensus somewhere with both WikiPropjects participating?) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll open a vote on the matter now since there doesn't seem to be anyone adding more to the topic at hand. It's been a few weeks. Whatever we decide here will have ramifications for other religions listed as universal ones in the sense that it will be kept or removed on for example Islam and Baháʼí Faith. The options are: Remove "Universal religion" or keep it. Please vote "Remove" or "Keep" and give a brief explanation of why you voted that way if necessary:

Remove Completely Random Guy (talk)
Remove It's jargon used by insiders in the world of theology, something we should avoid whenever we can. Unfortunately, so is a lot of other language in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove After consideration, I don't believe "Universal" or "Abrahamic" are particularly useful - and neither is uncontroversial - for ANY of the primary religion pages. Further, per the template's documentation, Classification is intended for "Christianity", "Judaism", etc. when describing sects, denominations or branches. Type is an alternate parameter that might be a better fit for this, but it's not documented and I don't think either should be used here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears the other pinged editors won't vote on this matter so I therefore change my vote to "Remove" so that we are unanimous! The next step is removing the label from every religion labeled as such. I won't touch ethnic religions though as I think that would require a new discussion. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) @StAnselm: @Joshua Jonathan: @VenusFeuerFalle:

• Comment: As I've started at talk:Islam, the term "universal" religion is very subjective. African spirituality, Hinduism, etc are all universal, as they have followers from various parts of the world. Abrahamic religions on the other hand is more objective as per sources as it is specifically about the 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which derived from Abraham - according to the followers of those religions. Many people know what you mean when you use the term Abrahamic religions. Using universal on the other hand may confuse the general reader.Tamsier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Page errors

The page appears to have errors resulting in not all content being displayed. It may be stemming from multiple "}}}}" sections, not closing blocks correctly. I am unable to make edits to correct this. Springy Moose (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a user named @Lotje tried adding some stuff, but accidentally deleted all the sections. Before reverting, let's talk to the user on what happened Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Some people have reverted this article back to before Lotje edited this article. He tried getting help from the village pump. Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 04:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is with an external link within {{refn|group=note|, as edited by Lotje diff. See User:Joshua Jonathan/Tools#Notes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

At second thought, Springy Moose may be right; Lotje's edit removed the closing }} from the note.

Interestingly, the links within the note were changed from fla text to refs; the intermediate approach, proper links using [] doesn't work within {{refn|group=note|. Something to remember in the back of your mind. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of honorific “Christ”

While I agree that, generally, WP:HONORIFIC suggests removal of honorifics except when ubiquitous or necessary for disambiguating, the honorific “Christ” is so integral to “Christianity” that it should be retained in this case. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Masterhatch (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see a legitimate reason why Jesus should be followed up with this non-neutral honorific in this article when he is regarded to be Christ only by adherents of Christianity. I'm not saying that it's not informative, but to the average reader who may or may not be familiar with the topic and wants to read an objective article, it does not make a good case. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 15:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The honorific “Christ” is the root of the terms “Christian”, “Christianity”, etc. It is far more than just being informative: it is foundational and the focus. Furthermore, being “neutral”, in this case, does not argue for its removal: it argues for allowing it in an article where that honorific is the whole point. Allowing it to remain does not imply WP’s endorsement of the title - it only provides an accurate reflection of the religious adherent’s viewpoint - while removal may represent anti-religious non-neutrality. As such I do not find any argument that “Christ” should be struck from “Christianity” persuasive. Other articles that do not focus on “Christ”, sure. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not a honorific, and it is not used for courtesy reasons. Christ (the "anointed one") is the title given to the expected Messiah, reflecting the ritual anointing of kings and religious leaders. Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for Christ to be struck from Christianity, but from the historical person called Jesus, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. The distinction between the historical Jesus and Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is blurred here. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. It's there in the first sentence to explain where the word Christianity comes from. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Christian belief example

File:Christian belief.jpg

"Is this supposed to be taking seriously?" is the wrong question. The right question is "Does this accurately reflect worldwide Christian beliefs?" It does.

Removing my recent edit to the Beliefs section is classic gatekeeping. No reasons for reverting were provided other than the disingenuous "it was better before" and "not constructive". My edit was factual and easily supported by references elsewhere in the article, and reverting smacks of a non-neutral POV. I am undoing the revert accordingly.Struct (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Restoring the edit without discussing it here is classic WP:OWN and edit warring. Consensus is required when it is clear none exists and you will be reverted until you build said consensus. See WP:BRD for expected behavior. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's nonsense. "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." You're the one engaging in ownership of content. Read what I cited above. Struct (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with the edit if a consensus is established. However, so far no other author has spoken in favor of retention, and two have spoken against it as either nonconstructive or worse than the prior version. I have no issue with including it if editors besides you agree to it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You are engaging in bad-faith conduct here, especially by accusing me of violating 3RR when I've only reverted twice. My edit was constructive, accurate, and easily supported by references. Explicit in-line references are not necessary but I will add one or two if you really want to be tendentious. Fix, don't delete. Struct (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It presents fundamentalism as unvarnished truth. Let's not forget that thousands of people have been killed for reading the Bible "wrongly". And that even among conservative evangelicals, Christians are at each other throats over interpreting certain Bible verses. Or, as the saying goes, let's make like the Baptists and split. While I would agree with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I don't agree with stating it as unvarnished truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you have strong feelings about this belief. I do too. Those feelings don't matter. Wikipedia runs on logic, not emotion.

There's only one question that matters. Is what I added a typical Christian belief supported by dogma, doctrine, and worldwide consenus among the majority of Christian communities? Struct (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"KILL PRIDE EVERYDAY! AGREE?" doesn't stike me as what typical Christians believe. Fundamentalists, sure, but typical Christians? No. To pull back the curtain a bit, I consider myself a "typical" Christian and I'm not out there trying to kill pride. I don't gay bash or tell people I know who are gay that they're going to Hell. Look, it's like the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. People outside the Christian community pay a whole lot of attention to the 'squeaky' fundalmentalists who are making all the noise. Masterhatch (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking from a statistical, demographic approach, you are not typical. Struct (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying there aren't fundamentalist Catholics or fundamentalist Eastern Orthodox, just that they are a tiny minority. So, do the math again. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke.... Surprised that it's taking seriously by anyone.Moxy🍁 23:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This is what the majority of Christians believe. It is Christian doctrine and dogma. That is fact, not opinion. Liberal/modernist Christians might disagree, but they're the detractors from the Christian mainstream. Sorry, but we're here to be accurate, not apologists. Struct (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As an atheist I'm perplexed by the image..... and see it as having zero encyclopedic value. Needless to say it won't end up being in the article. Moxy🍁 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by your being perplexed. The image is reflective of common Christian rhetoric. It is one example of terabytes, maybe even petabytes of similar extant content. It has a great deal of encyclopedic content and it absolutely will end up being in the article. Struct (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

they're the detractors from the Christian mainstream—learn that (i) liberal Christians would be the majority of Christians, provided most Christians would understand the difference (ii) Wikipedia is not very welcoming of such comments. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't edit from a "would be" basis, I edit from a "what is" basis. You should too. Struct (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

OP needs to be EXTREMELY careful accusing editors who are following established WP policy and requesting WP:BRD of bad faith. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I love how you put EXTREMELY in threatening caps. Care to explain that? Struct (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it has zero encyclopedic value. Masterhatch (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Because you don't like it? Struct (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I too thought it was a joke. Masterhatch (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Frankly I am surprised OP is taking this so seriously and casting aspersions while refusing to follow WP policy. That’s not a good way to build consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy." You can stop Sealioning now if you don't mind. Struct (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Do not add this contentious material to other articles as you have here. Best you move on to something more productive. Moxy🍁 23:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not contentious. It is accurate and sourceable. If you're going to insist on revert-stalking me, I will submit a disruptive editing report. Struct (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes.... will be reverting this addition to any article you put it in. Moxy🍁 00:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious reversions without valid justification and inaccurate bad-faith accusations of 3RR violation are not a good way to build consensus. Struct (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:1AM. See also Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Larry Sanger. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have proof, but I suspect that it's not one-against-many here, but one-against-many-sock-puppets. Do I need to make some checkuser requests? Struct (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, this has become risible. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It has. Go ahead and do a sock check; none will be found. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

We're going to need to keep an eye on other additions .....like at Christian fundamentalism. Let's hope they drop the stick before we have to get a block. Moxy🍁 00:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For someone who has only 200-some edits over 18 years, you seem quite knowledgable regarding policies and the inner workings of wikipedia. I'm wondering if you were included in your suggested sock check, what the results would yield? Masterhatch (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Because of how old the account was at first I thought this account was compromised.... but I think we're just being trolled. Moxy🍁 00:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)