Talk:Christianity

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Older archives
Before July 2003 More old debate

Monotheism

While there are plenty of citations saying that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, it's quite obviously not, these sources are clearly incorrect. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Lucifer, Gabriel (or any angel for that matter), all separate entities, and all have powers that would be described as god-like. People constantly pray to angels, which counts as worshiping angels. If the belief in Zeus in ancient Greece is considered polytheism, it seems blatantly obvious that Christianity follows the same label. Why is there no mention of this whatsoever in this article? Neoform (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check the archives this has been discussed ad nauseum. It is a monotheistic religion. Soxwon (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it has been brought up so often because it's very clearly an error and should be fixed?

I suggest that for the sake of neutrality, the line "Christianity is a monotheistic religion", be changed to say "Christianity is considered by Chrisitans to be a monotheistic religion", as this would be far more accurate (since it's very likely that all the citations for this topic are from Christians themselves). Neoform (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been brought up slightly less often than the people saying that Obama was born in Kenya,or the CIA was responsible for 9/11. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Many religions have things like angels and are still monotheistic. And a core part of the Trinity doctrine is monotheism. As an aside, obviously Obama is American (I'd think they'd be sure not to let a person who wasn't born in America in office) and obviously the CIA didn't commit 9/11 as they wouldn't attack their own nation's economy (WTC) and their own nation's military (Pentagon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBNKO (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. This is completely off topic.Neoform (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's off-topic as your suggestion that the frequency of bringing up a question is related to it's correctness.

There are a huge number of extremely reliable academic sources that state clearly that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and a very small number of people that consider it not to be - almost all of whom are opponents of Christianity. Deciding that the 'few' are somehow 'correct' is what we at Wikipedia call Wikipedia:Original research and is not allowed in articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no original research required to make the change I suggested above. This is an issue of neutrality, of which you seem to be lacking as you are taking a clearly aggressive stance against my suggestion in your implication that I am an "opponent" of Christianity. Neoform (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The view you are proposing is held by so few people that it is not worth mentioning here. See Wikipedia:Undue weight. It would be akin to saying "Evolution is believed by Evolutionists to be the origin of spieces", or "The Earth is believed by some to be a sphere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist', this is an invalid argument. Christianity as a monotheistic religion is self described by Christians and non-Christians tacitly agree because they have no specific interest in questioning the claim, however it is clearly false. You can claim it has undue weight, but it is clearly a falsehood to begin with and thus should not be explicitly stated without modification. The vast majority (if not all) of citations for this claim are from Christian sources. Neoform (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I can't see any evidence of an aggressive stance here, neither can I see any rhyme of reason behind the proposed change. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reading the policies that Wikipedia has used to handle similar situations elsewhere, and maybe some of the other discussions in the archives of this talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is the reason. Articles on wikipedia are not supposed to cater to believers of the article's content, but instead to anyone/everyone. If Christians believed that 2 + 2 = 5, how would you word that in the article? Would you say "2+2=5" or would you say "Christians believe 2+2=5"? The answer is quite obvious. Neoform (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even excluding Christians themselves, a huge majority of sources consider Christianity to be a monotheistic religion. I recommend a good, scholarly book on comparative religions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neoform, you need to read WP:Weight, a book as recommended and also apply a bit of logic. Under the circumstances you mention I would say "Christianity involves the belief that 2+2=5". Talking about religion is very different from talking about maths. You won't find a dictionary or equivalent that says that Christianity is polytheistic. Looks like POV pushing to me. If you have a substantive 3rd party source lets look at it, otherwise please drop this. --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange that you should say this is different from math, because this is exactly a problem of math. Mono vs Poly, the difference being numbers. Neoform (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: What possible citations can I provide on this topic? Do you want me to find a citation that 1 = 1 and 2 > 1? Even if I provided a citation on this subject, you would then turn around and state that this view is a minority view (since Christians account for a massive portion of the world, and the vast majority of the English world). This entire discussion is skewed against neutrality. As a contributor, you should really be more interested in neutrality than you seem to be. Neoform (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's your interpretation as to what should be counted as a god against the 'poly'. Note that Pharao's wizards also had supernatural powers (turning sticks to snakes), and that the Shaitan is the Islamic version of Christianity's devil. So I could make a claim that there is no monotheistic religion... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You very well could; at present, I am not making that argument. Neoform (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several citations provided in the article, and many thousands of others that could be provided, to back up the article's current statement. Why would you find it difficult to provide citations for your point of view? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a point of view, this is an obvious and factual error that is not open to interpretation. I can't find any citations that one is equal to one or that two is greater than one, does that mean it isn't the case? In any case, if you need a citation that badly, then the dictionary should suffice: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polytheism , "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." If you also cite this article itself, then you'll see that Christian religions very clearly meet the requirement of a Polytheistic religion.Neoform (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is again your personal interpretation of what counts as a god. Find a non-fringe reliable source that states that Christianity is a polytheistic religion - then we can talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat; This is not a point of view. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gods if you reference the non-capitalized definition of a god, "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality." you can very clearly see that angels are gods, even if lesser ones, they are still gods. Citations are not easily available for this because Christians will likely view this as inflammatory or contradictory their beliefs, which I suspect is the main opposition to my suggested change; this opposition however is clearly biased and does not deserve merit. Neoform (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything you are writing is what we call Wikipedia:Original research, which as I said above is not allowed. Please read that article carefully and you will discover why it is not permitted. Please make sure you understand the way Wikipedia works before criticising. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly original research. Citation or silence I think neoform --Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of research. At what point does reading the dictionary definition of a word constitute original research? Simplistic/literal deduction is not research by anyone reasonable person's definition. Please provide a citation that this is original research. Neoform (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article I linked to above? I find it pretty clear. Which part did you not understand? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there's nothing original about what I've stated, your link does not apply, nor does it explain how it's original research. Neoform (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article it explains why it is considered original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "go read the article, it explains my argument perfectly" argument. In fact, all the article describes is original research, of which I have done none. Looking up words in the dictionary and citing them is called citation, not original research. Nice try though. Neoform (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the part where it says any unpublished research counts as original research? It's the first sentence, so I expected you to at least read that far. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How could I not? But what does that article have to do with anything? This is not new or original, I'm not the only one who has brought this error up, and it need attention. Neoform (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is Wikipedia policy on these matters. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Neoform, let me explain this as simply as possible. Find an academic and/or scholarly source that says that Christianity is polytheistic and we'll talk. You are not a reliable source, and right now all you are offering is your interpretation of how to apply a definition. I, as a Presbyterian, find your interpretation quite amusing as I do not worship angels, do not pray to saints, and believe that the holy trinity is in fact one. A vast majority of protestants also belief this to be true. That you are trying to assert otherwise is why we rely on RELIABLE sources rather than individual editor assertions. Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you stating your views as if they are relevant to this discussion? (Your amusement is equally irrelevant) I am asking for this article to be modified to be more neutral; you are opposing this change on the basis that you are Christian and do not hold the described beliefs in angels due to your sect's lack of belief in angels, this has no bearing whatsoever on the subject. My 'interpretation' is the literal one. If angels are part of a religion, and angels are imbued with god-like powers, they (from a neutral viewers vantage) are rightfully considered gods. This is no different than any/all Greek gods (other than Zeus) being considered a god. This is an unbiased and neutral viewpoint, something you are clearly lacking based on your arguments. Neoform (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, one more time: We include things in Wikipedia only because they are printed in reliable sources, which include such things as scholarly journals and articles by respected experts on the topic. Period. Experts in comparative religion and anthropology say Christianity is a monotheistic religion. They define such terms, not us. If you can provide an academic or scholarly source that states, in no uncertain terms, that Christianity is a polytheistic religion, we can talk. That is exactly what merits its inclusion in Wikipedia -- not our discussions on talk pages over the definitions of gods, divinity, plurality, or anything else. /ninly^(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never asked for this article to be modified, labeling Christianity a polytheistic religion (even though I feel it is). The reason I haven't is because I don't have a citation that says the words "Christianity is a polytheistic religion", despite it being one (which can easily be deduced by merely reading (on wikipedia) about Christian angels and reading the dictionary definition of the words "gods" (non-capitalized) and "polytheism"). I have however asked for the first sentence to be made more neutral. Right now it makes a claim that can only be true if the reader is himself a Christian; this is not neutral. You will likely be unable to provide a citation from an unbiased source on this subject, which is why the mention of monotheism should be clarified (to state that Christians believe their religion is monotheistic) or removed. No argument (other than clamoring for citations where citation is not needed, there has not been a single unbiased argument against my suggestion yet).Neoform (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is the assumption that ONLY christians view their religion as monotheistic which is entirely at odds with reality (unless Encyclopedia Britannica is a strictly Christian organization). Soxwon (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing EB is the same as citing wikipedia, I'm not even sure why this form of citation is allowed to begin with. Neoform (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure there is any value in continuing this line of discussion, but I will add my two cents. As has been stated you need a reference for your position, if you don't have one, there is not reason to continue sharing opinions. There are those who have leveled this claim against Christianity; Muslims have long accused Christianity of not being monotheistic. You will find others who have discussed Christianity as being henotheistic. However, you will also find a plethora of expert references that clearly define Christianity as monotheistic. If you think the article should also report on a claim of polytheism, just present your reference and let's discuss it. If not, there really is not anything to discuss. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Stormrider. Neoform what I was trying to illustrate is that what you see as god-like powers and evidence of polytheism has been strongly disagreed with by a large portion of the population and mulitple scholarly sources. Hence why you need someone who knows what they're talking about to get it into the article. Soxwon (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for the inclusion or mention of polytheism, I am asking for the adjustment of the line laying the claim that Christianity "is a monotheistic religion" as it is false, the only citation you need is to the dictionary. Christianity meets the very criteria set out in the definition of the word 'polytheism', this precludes it from being a monotheistic religion. Wikipedia articles should seek neutrality, not simply statements that have citations. If holding a bunch of citations was the only requirement, this article would look more like that of the conservapedia. Neoform (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See above, if it is that simple than apparently Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of monotheism is inferior to yours (and quite frankly I would trust EB over you). Heck, even your own dictionary lists Christianity as monotheistic.Soxwon (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary is a reference, not an authority. It says Christianity is monotheistic simply because so many people lay the same claim, this however does nothing to prove that Christianity is in fact monotheistic. Citing EB is the same as citing wikipedia, I'm not even sure why this form of citation is allowed to begin with. Neoform (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument has got out of hand and is no longer about improving the article. I suggest discussing this on your own talk pages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Neoform (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given Neoforms suggestion can I suggest the water article be split. Clearly ice, liquid and steam are different substances and should be recognised as such by wikipedia :)- 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Christainity is overwhelming considered monotheistic by scholars and laymen. The idea that it should be called polytheism is either WP:Fringe or close to it. On the other hand, there are certainly a few RS's that speculate as to whether the Trinity is polytheistic in nature (see [[1]],[[2]],[[3]]. Is there perhaps middle ground here? Something like "considered by most to be monothestic", "generally considered monotheistic", "overwhelmingly considered monothestic"?

Of your three links (1) is broken (2) talks about "residual polytheism" but comes down clearly on the side of Christianity as monotheistic, and (3) describes how "classicists [around the fourth century] attacked the Trinity as polytheism and the greatest Christian minds went into showing how it was not so". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not calling for a change. I think it's fine as is. I wonder however if we might give token acknowledgement to Neoform's position? NickCT (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you could wish him well on his talk page. Why would we give token acknowledgement to a fringe theory without any supporting references? --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is RS saying that debate has at least existed (see above). Frankly whether or not the trinity constitutes polytheism is a subjective matter (as is the meaning of virtually any religous parable/concept). If one accepts that a thing is subjective, and that significant debate has existed around that thing, Wikipedia should acknowledge it. As I said earlier, I'm dubious that this debate is significant, but I wonder if we could choose wording that acknowledges even some miniscule dissent on the subject (if to do nothing more than to humur Noeform)? NickCT (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neoforms best bet would likely be to argue that Catholicism's relationship with Mary & the Saints is polytheistic in that they have quasi-divine status. I'm not sure that there is any support for that notion though. As for the Trinity, not a chance.203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If references to ideas about it being polytheistic would be included, the only reason for its inclusion would be if solid references to it are found and enough references to it because, even if the idea is shown to be posited, it might still be undue weight to include it, especially in the lead. Humouring Neoform is certainly not a good reason. That would just give them and other users the idea that it's fine to go making original research contrary to reliable sources and actually get something out of it. Munci (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Christianity Monotheistic according to Judaism

I read the long debate above about the Monotheistic yes-or-not nature of Christianity. I just wanted to add the Judaism point of view (as Judaism was the first monotheistic religion, and had to deal with all philosophical and theoretical questions about it centuries before Christianity was born).
According to the most reliable Jewish authority, Maimonides (Mishne-Tora, Book of Knowledge, Laws of Idolatry and Gentile Customs, Chapter 9, verse 4), Christianity is considered Paganism, in contrast with Islam which he considers almost purely Monotheistic. That's for 2 reasons:

• Christianity assumes a human-being as God (Incarnation) - that's impossible logically and theologically + forbidden by the Bible (OT)
• Christians Worships other entities than God - that's forbidden by the Bible (OT)
  

In spite of that, Maimonides praised Christianity (and Islam) for "paving the road" for the future Messiah by spreading the words of God etc. Other mediaeval Jewish scholars stated, though, that since Christians themselves are debating about trinity etc., and actually they do not worship idols like the ancient pagans, they shouldn't be considered as pagans, at least not in the "Biblical" meaning.
Since the Mediaeval, with the maturing of christian philosophy and reduction of "real" Idolatry in it, the main stream of Jewish scholars will differ between Christian theology (which is NOT Monotheistic, even though it's not paganism) and between Christian people, which are considered Monotheistic, especially the Protestants.

Bottom line - according to contemporary Judaism, Christianity is NOT Monotheistic, but is also NOT paganism.

--אברם העברי (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 (Proper disclosure - The signed above is a Jew...)

If you are citing Rambam correctly, then he was contradicting himself. If Jesus is God (apparently your first point), then Christians do not worship other entities than God (apparently your second point). In reality, Rambam was simply misunderstanding the Christian doctrine -- which is fine, since no one expects Rambam to be a Christian theologian. He is a Jewish scholar, and no more required to be expert on Christianity than John Calvin to be an expert in Judaism.

It is safe to say that notable Jewish leaders, such as Rambam (with citations), regarded Christianity to be not purely monotheistic. On Wikipedia we can and should make these types of notations in articles. Although seemingly similar however, we cannot say that Christianity IS such and such because Jewish sources say so.

The first is an objective recognition of a subjective judgement. The second is a subjective pronouncement from someone who cannot possibly be an expert on Christianity.

In short, Wikipedia articles do not establish ultimate reality. We merely report subjective statements in their historical settings.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 (Proper disclosure - The signed above is also a Jew...)

Thanks for the comprehensive reply - Though I must say you made me laugh :) Let me phrase it mathematically:

§ 1. Worshipping GOD is OK

§ 2. Jesus = GOD

§ → Worshipping Jesus is OK...

Well, logic & Christianity were never good friends... What missing is of course -

§ 3. Jesus = Human being

§ 4. Human being ≠ GOD

§ → Worshipping Jesus is NOT OK...

So I think Rambam was right here, other way every idolrtary would be considered monotheistic.

But I see you're a much better wikipedian than me - Can you add your phrasing to the article? I think it's important to acknowledge the Jewish perspective here, since after all - we have some kind of Copyright on both Christianity & Monotheism, don't we?... I mean, it amazes me to see how little do Christians know of their origin (=Jeish people) and what that origin thinks of their beliefes
--אברם העברי (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of Judaism about Christianity are not really appropriate for this article, which is an overview of Christianity itself. These opinions, properly sourced, would probably be fine in an article on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, or about Judaism itself (Jewish opinions are more relevant to Judaism than Christianity) but they are too detailed for this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Even by the self-described 'Jewish' logic above, Christians associated with the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly monotheists. Witnesses accept neither God-incarnation nor any worship but that of Almighty God (nor are Witnesses trinitarians); one might guess that Jehovah's Witnesses must enjoy unique respect from Judaism.

• “We Worship What We Know”, The Watchtower, September 1, 1984, page 28, "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was “God incarnate,” a “God-man,” according to the philosophical Incarnation theory"
• "Questions From Readers", The Watchtower, November 1, 1964, page 671, "Trinitarians who believe that Jesus is God, or at least the second person of the triune God, do not like to have Jehovah's witnesses say that it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. To the trinitarians that means denying worship to Jehovah God. However, ...Jesus referred to the book of Deuteronomy and said, according to the King James Version: “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt. 4:10) By those words Jesus debarred his followers from worshiping him.

Incidentally, Witnesses are also remarkably strict against "idolatry" (see here and here).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use these pages to preach, Tam. You know as well as I do that there are equally valid scripture verses which lead people to exactly the opposite conclusion, and which JWs "don't like". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
I completely reject the notion that my comment above is "preaching".
I stated what JWs believe and then I quoted two and cited two references to establish that JWs do in fact believe as I had stated. I didn't state my personal beliefs. I didn't advocate monotheism or nontrinitarianism or a rejection of idolatry, or even imply that those beliefs are admirable. "Remarkable" means "worthy of remark".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second quote looked more like someone trying to persuade others that JWs were right rather than explaining what their beliefs were. Either way, this discussion is now a long way off the topic of improving the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The second quote is from The Watchtower; it doesn't quote User:AuthorityTam.
Let's stipulate that both Jehovah's Witnesses and The Watchtower are preachy. An editor who accurately and succinctly quotes source material is thorough and encyclopedic.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are (rightly or wrongly) viewed as polytheists by mainstream Christians, because they have multiple gods; a big Jehovah god and a little Jesus god. Whether right or wrong (and that's not our place to decide), it is a known position. It' interesting that this came up in an exchange regarding Jewish understandings of Christianity, since Jews think Christianity is a form of shituf -- or partnership of beings with God. The irony is that the Jewish concept of shituf is the same as the Christian concept of the Arian heresy... which is precisely what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

To make this more clear, Jews THINK Christians hold Jehovah's Witness beliefs! (which they do not).

None of this is a value judgment (I'll leave room for people to decide which doctrine represents God's opinion of Himself).

That said, I'm agreed with DJ Clayworth on all counts. This thread probably doesn't have anything helpful to the article at hand, but our Israeli contributor does have some excellent points about what need to be included in one of he other articles DJ suggested. If you guys point me to the right article, I'll be happy to work with Abe.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is useful because it so plainly contrasts with my initial well-referenced comment. Readers will notice that no verifiable source is offered for the claim that 'Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed as polytheists by mainstream Christians'. Such unsupported bloviations seem of dubious usefulness to the Wikipedia community.
Incidentally, the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" are not synonyms. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

His name is "Abraham the Hebrew." I assumed he was Israeli because he edits the Hebrew Wiki. In any case, you can quote Jehovah's Witness sources all you like -- it doesn't make it mainstream Christianity. You think their trinity is polytheistic and they think your second little Jesus god is polytheistic. And since I don't believe either one I don't care. Wikipedia doesn't make truth and it doesn't care about truth. We just quote sources. And no, I didn't use a source above. I didn't need to. It's like saying the sky is blue. They don't accept you and you don't accept them, and we all need to accept that (without caring who's right or wrong).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remarkable assumptions. Furthermore, I don't recall sharing my theological beliefs at all.
I happen to believe it unlikely that usable references will support the statement:
* 'Jehovah's Witnesses are viewed as polytheists by mainstream Christians'.
Incidentally, the only 'acceptance' interesting to "me" is that regarding encyclopedic standards at Wikipedia.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief -- even Bruce Metzger said that your translation of John 1:1 was polytheistic, so get over it. The fact that mainstream Christians THINK you are polytheistic doesn't actually make you so. And your opinion that trinitarianism is polytheistic doesn't make it so. And I don't care which of you is right or wrong. Neither do I care if you accept each other. I just note it if I need to, cite it if I'm noting it in an article, and move on. The fact you don't accept each other makes as little difference to me as the fact that Syrian Jews don't accept Gentile converts into their community. It doesn't mean those converts aren't Jews. It just means that Syrians don't accept them. You note it and move on. Regardless, DJ was quite right that we are way way way off anything useful to the article. Can we please let it go? I merely thought it amusing that Jews think mainstream Christians hold Jehovah's Witness doctrines. Well, it is. But that's about all it is. Let's please do something constructive.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've never even attempted a translation of John 1:1.
Excuse me, but it seems highly improbable that mainstream Christians have opined about my poly-, mono-, or atheism.
Excuse me, but I don't recall implying that trinitarianism is polytheistic.
It will be easier to move on when editors cease their incessant assumptions and over-generalizations.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you're not a Jehovah's Witness. I'm not a Christian. So why are we wasting everyone's time? Let's move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this "Jehova Witnesses" issue really got out of control... In short words - Jews think that when you worship something per-se (instead of - in the worst case! - as a mean to achieve GOD) - it's not monotheism, that's all. Judaism welcomes every movement twoards that from Catholic\pagan approaches, but as long as Yeshua (aka Jesus) remains worshipping object - it's not monotheism.
That's why the Bible reveals great men's sins, like Moses - so we won't forget that even Moses was a human-being (and agree with me that if there's anyone in the world close to GOD - it's him, not the young Jewish man of Nazerath which wasn't even a prophet) - though it's very encouraging to know that Christians as a whole strive to be considered monotheistic and by that "paving the road" to the prospectively Messiah, if I may close the ring and return to Maimonides' words... .
BTW I am an Israeli, and must say that several things look much brighter after the establishment of our state and the great "Zion Return" of the Jewish people - at least one ancient theological debait was decided then...
--אברם העברי (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I stumbled into this - SkyWriter (Tim) - Maybe you can add Rambam and other Jewish sources there?--אברם העברי (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys enough arguing. We're writing an encyclopedia, remember?

Tim, excellent suggestion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Clayworth. This discussion is not about improving articles. Suggest it ceases and suggest we collapse this section in the talk page. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Christianity adherent number

guys, plz, just curious: what is the most recent number for total number of christians around the world? also, how do these people exactly find out? do they, like, take polls for all the countries or something...? ty very much. HAVE A FANTASTIC DAY, DUDES + DUDETTES! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable source is found then information may be added to wikipedia as long as it is cited. As to the specific methodology that actual researchers use... well, that falls outside the scope of this talk page, (which is not a forum for discussing the topic but for improving the article.)Jstanierm (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

the sabbath

{{editsemiprotected}} The following sentence is under the heading "worship" :

"Seventh-day Adventists meet on Saturday (the original Sabbath), while others do not meet on a weekly basis."

Referring to Saturday as the "original" sabbath implies that a new day/new sabbath has replaced it, which is not the case. Sunday is not a new sabbath, but rather the fulfillment of the sabbath. Most Christians do not observe the sabbath, now that it has been fulfilled. Thus, it would be better to say "Seventh-day Adventists meet on Saturday, in observation of the Sabbath, while others do not meet on a weekly basis." --ChristianOrthodox (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While in a technical sense you may be write, use of "the sabbath" to refer to Sunday in Christian circles is very widespread, and more so fifty years ago. Many of the rules of Sunday were simply the rules of the Sabbath transferred to a different date. I think it's reasonable to consider that Sunday celebration is or was a Sabbath celebration for Christians. Let's also remember that this is an overview article. Seventh Day Adventist practices is very much a minority practice, and even mentioning it is stretching the bounds of Wikipedia:Undue weight; I think more than a single sentence is far too much. It would certainly be worth going into more detail in a more specialised article.

Secondly your view that Sunday is a 'fulfilment of the sabbath' is by no means a universal view. See here for example. Many evangelical groups consider Sunday not to be a 'fulfilment of the sabbath' but simply a convenient and traditional day on which to meet, with nothing to set it apart theologically from other days. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why not simply delete the parenthetical: (the original Sabbath), given that it is not technically correct and not even important to the gist of the sentence? Leaving it there implies that there is a Sabbath besides Saturday, and many Christian groups do not accept that teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.189.168 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you – I've gone ahead and removed the "original Sabbath" bit, as it doesn't particularly need to be there. JamieS93^❤ 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hello, we are trying to improve the definition on Wiktionary for the idiom Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. If you are knowledgeable and would like to contribute, please do so on the idioms discussion page. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

christianity as a state religion

On the map 2 is a mistake as Slovakia is set as a country with christianity as a state religion. Slovakia is neutral to all religions (although majority of the citizen are christians). It can be found in the Slovak Constitution in the first articles.