Talk:Christianity/Archive 23

message: Perhaps we should finally finish arguing over monotheism and moonism? We have too much else to do to fight over one word. I'm compiling the other suggestions so they don't get drowned out by the monotheism-tritheism rollercoaster: Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Several of the Beliefs subsections need expanded, such as Holy Spirit, which just says that Christians believe in the Holy Spirit without anything about who he is or what he does. —Aiden 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards a todo list

message: I'd like to distract you all from arguing about monotheism for a bit to suggest a little reorganization.
The two sections "Beliefs" and "Differences in Beliefs" should become one section simply called "Beliefs", with the following organization:
# Jesus -- Covering "Messiah", "Jesus as God and Man", and "Crucifixion and Resurrection".
# Salvation
# The Trinity -- Covering "Monotheism" and "Holy Trinity", with subsections:
## The Creeds -- Covering "Nicene Creed", plus more on Chalcedon and the Athanasian. Maybe the bullet-point list should become the full text enhanced with wikilinks.
## Non-Trinitarians
# Scripture -- Covering "Authority and different parts of the Bible" and "Other books held sacred" (both will need some cleanup and there should be much more on the Bible itself than things like the BoM or Eddy's works). With subsection:
## Interpretation
# Last things -- Covering "Second Coming" and "The Afterlife".
This puts everything in a neater, more organized form, avoids stub-sections, and eliminates the awkwardly-titled section "Differences in Beliefs".  A.J.A. 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: Let's not forget there are still three statements with "citation needed" tags. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed citations

message: Hi all,
Unforunately I have not promoted this article because of problems with certain sections of the article.
The Beliefs section is of particular concern. Many of the subsections in it are single sentences. This is itself a stylistic concern, but I also worry some of the explainations are overly terse and do not present their subject in sufficient depth. The Second Coming subsection is especially terse and seems to side-step much of the detail mentioned in related articles such as Christian eschatology.
The Differences in beliefs section is good. The Worship and practices section could probably be stated in a more concise manner (especially the subsections). The History section is fine. The last paragraph of the Persecution section on persecution by Christians could probably be dropped. The Controversies section could probably be expanded slightly although by that I do not mean it should become a long list of controversies.
Overall, parts of the article feel they were designed by committee. A really good encyclopedia article should not just state facts but offer insight into its subject. Don't be afraid to leave out minor points if it allows you to offer better insight into the core subject of the article.
I hope this helps and please feel free to resubmit the article for nomination in the future. Cedars 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Several of the Beliefs subsections need expanded, such as Holy Spirit, which just says that Christians believe in the Holy Spirit without anything about who he is or what he does. —Aiden 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from the Good article review, including the Holy Spirit

message: Why is it that simple improvements get reverted over a wording quible? Why does everything have to be pulling teeth?
I'm putting the pictures back. Watch, they'll be taken out again.  A.J.A. 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverting your basic improvements because they don't like a single section?  Poor you - you have my sympathy.  Sophia 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to reverting basic improvements because you thought they were too big .  A.J.A. 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, not getting one's way here?  I am sypathetic to your position.  Welcome to the big leagues.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did get my way.  A.J.A. 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However he's now on an involuntary community break for 24 hours .  Sophia 08:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? WHY??? 

message: How we mention that Christianity is a monotheistic religion in paragraph One?
This "poll" is inherantly biased, stating that the dictionary agrees with one of the choices. It doesn't, but stating that it does makes the poll results invalid. Furthermore, this issue involves NPOV, which is not subject to voting. Editors cannot vote that an article violate NPOV. Drogo Underburrow 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend holding off on this poll until after we get the opinions of some Muslim editors. —Aiden 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drogo, why not just cut the phrase after yes? I didn't put it there. In practical terms, does it really change which option people would choose? --CTSWyneken 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like a comment as well, personally, I like the dictionary definition standard like we have now, but I am not too opposed to something like KV's old suggestion, or even the one I tried (Though it was more a bit of taking brutal advantage of the wide array of references than anything), which did have qualification. There should be an even/or thing for a good poll i'd think. Homestarmy 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on How to Describe the Monontheism in Christianity Issue 

message: # Not at all If we do, we have to mention both sides. This would be awkward to do. --CTSWyneken 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not at all 

message: #—Aiden 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, according to dictionary 

message: I was not voting yes, I was protesting against the poll Drogo Underburrow 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drogo, why not just cut the phrase after yes? I didn't put it there. In practical terms, does it really change which option people would choose? --CTSWyneken 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like a comment as well, personally, I like the dictionary definition standard like we have now, but I am not too opposed to something like KV's old suggestion, or even the one I tried (Though it was more a bit of taking brutal advantage of the wide array of references than anything), which did have qualification. There should be an even/or thing for a good poll i'd think. Homestarmy 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, with qualification 

message: This has been done. Thank you, Aiden. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invite some actual Muslims to comment

message: # And besides, Polls are evil.  I would like to state at this point, since Drogo keeps bringing it up, that the source offered (Britannica) to support the hedging argument is second-hand and in adequate.   It itself does not cite sources.  Instead, it uses weasel words. Slac speak up! 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus already exists on this issue, negating the need for a poll

message: You all are going around in circles. I do not think that Drogo is going to convince the majority nor the majority Drogo. So, please, folks, stop repeating the same arguments. Let's get the results of the vote, see if we have a consensus and then reflect it in the article, if we have one. --CTSWyneken 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a poll. Consensus already shows that monotheism should be included. Polls are just evil. Even eviler when called "votes". --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But sometimes a necessary evil. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough Already 

message: Folks, there's a vote on...
#Vote on How to Describe the Monontheism in Christianity Issue --CTSWyneken 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Poll Above 

message: Thanks for your input, Bless sins, but can I point out that the question isn't whether or not Christians are right in thinking that the Trinity is One God. (Obviously, you wouldn't be a Moslem if you thought they were!) So I'm asking, not "Do Moslems accept that Christians worship one God?", but "Do Moslems accept that Christians believe that there is one God?" Cheers, AnnH ♫ 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...no matter how much you claim that the Trinity is One God, it still mixes a human being (Jesus) with God, and thus results in worshiping either a deified human being (Jesus as God) or a micro-god (God with Jesus's human characteristics) and this is not monotheism. You are worshiping a false image not the real God." - from "An Introduction to Islamic Monotheism" at muhajabah.com[] - Drogo Underburrow 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And once again, Drogo is ignoring the fact that the dictionary says that monotheism means the belief that there is one God, and is pretending that it means the worship of one God. I wonder how long this is going to go on for. AnnH ♫ 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a complicated issue, so Drogo should give the full quote: ""Having the correct motivation and annihilating hypocrisy is in fact a lifelong struggle for most people, and so there are very few who have completely perfected their monotheism (tawhid). However, every adult should have the correct knowledge and understanding, and that depends on choosing the right religion. Christians may avoid the outward shirk of worshiping other than God, and they may avoid the shirk of claiming that there is more than one Creator and Sustainer of the universe, but no matter how much you claim that the Trinity is One God, it still mixes a human being (Jesus) with God, and thus results in worshiping either a deified human being (Jesus as God) or a micro-god (God with Jesus's human characteristics) and this is not monotheism." Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would just like to recommend that those of us who have been involved in this debate keep this section relatively calm so that our Muslim editors can offer their opinions without having to sift through everyone's bickering (and we can read their opinions that much easier.) Thanks. —Aiden 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments in the section above are starting to go down the route of blasphemy (!) which even I would think is inappropriate in the article. Since the Muslim editors so far have not come down full on the side of tritheistic I suggest we drop this whole thread and revisit it in a couple of years when there are more Islamic sources availible on-line. Due to the nature of most editors Wikipedia is hopelessly biased towards western Christian thought and only time and diversity of editors will sort that - no offence intended to anyone as I count myself in that group despite being an atheist due to my background and the culture that taught me how to think as I grew up. As Str1977 showed me - you think you are putting your POV to one side but it's next to impossible for anyone to really achieve that so we should correct what we can but "biggies" like this can only be debated properly when the wikipedia project has more global input.  Sophia 07:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading this whole debate and while I was first convinced that we should not state Christainity is Monothesistic as a fact, I know think that the definition is clear enough that we can state it as a fact. However, later in the article under the section, it should be explained that Christians have a peculiar variation of the belief. Also, it should be made clear that Monotheism simply means an assertion of the belief in one dog (the doctrine OR belief), and since its clear they they have the doctrine, they can be justly defined as monotheistic---even while having beliefs in more than one god. So, monothesism and a belief in more than one god is compatible provided a doctrine exists that states beleif in one god (however contradictory). Its not our bussiness to make sense of a religion only to go by what the label legimately refers to (statement of belief, doctrine). So, Christianity is both polythesitic by some accounts (believes in more than one god), but at the same time monotheisitc because it has the doctrin asserting belief in one god.Kecik 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting possition, Kecik. It seems contradictory on the face of it but maybe you do have a point. In anycase ,at least finally, for once, we do not agree. I'm glad.Giovanni33 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what we have here are comments by Islamic editors who are walking on eggshells so to speak to avoid offending Christian editors. Joturner for example is currently up for adminship and doesn't want to make any enemies. Drogo Underburrow 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you don't take them at their word. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bringing us back to the original point: find a reputable scholarly source that says that Christianity is tritheistic.  Not that some Tongan Hare Krishnas, my mother-in-law and everyone named Cornelius believe it to be, but stated as a matter of fact, or as the opinion of the reputable source itself.Timothy Usher 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But EB does not dispute the fact that Christians believe there is only one God, not three. That alone is the definition of monotheism. —Aiden 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. EB goes further elsewhere, and says that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, stating it as fact. However, Wikipedia operates under different rules than the EB. Because it is Muslim doctrine that the Christian dogma of the Trinity is tritheism, not monotheism, Wikipedia cannot state as a fact that Christianity is monotheistic, as that would be saying that Islamic doctrine is wrong. The fact that the EB does this shows that its editors are biased. Drogo Underburrow 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it shows that EB's editors comprehend the English language. There is no way to substantiate a belief with a second opinion. The definition of monotheism hinges on and only on the belief of the first party. The dogma or belief that there is one God. That's not a POV—it's a definition. —Aiden 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still want to know what exact "Doctrine" this is, we talking Hadiths or what? If its just a pronouncement by a single imam or something, that hardly counts as a universal or near-universal Islamic doctrine. Homestarmy 14:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from regular editors

message: I've seen Alienus revert from God to god....... but I have to note that God is used when there is one, and only one.... if we were saying they were henotheistic and worshipped only one god, that would be proper capitalization.  I know for myself, that when Budge talks about the monotheistic God of Egypt, he uses God....... when he speaks of one of it's aspects, such as Thoth, he says god.  Though I appreciate the attempt towards NPOV, I don't think NPOV applies to that capitalization.  Especially since it should then be linking to god (male deity) not god.
KV 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God or god 

message: It seems highly unusual to have references in the lead in. After all, the lead in is just a condensed version of the article, and presumably, any point in the lead in will be covered properly in the article itself. joshbuddytalk 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you missed about two weeks worth of debate over inclusion of the word monotheism. —Aiden 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeez, you just can't win.Timothy Usher 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did miss the debate. Writing a lead-in with extensive citation is in essence, putting the cart before the horse. The lead-in is a function of the article. You've included the concept of monotheism, but oddly enough, the article's inclusion of this concept is not cited, instead the lead-in is. This sort of inconsistency makes it difficult to follow. I don't mind moving the citations myself, just wanted to supply some sort of rationale so no one would get taken unaware. :) joshbuddytalk 02:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did make it a ref name format, can't it just be in both places at once? Homestarmy 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thats a valid point. I thought of that as well. But it would appear that having a lead-in without citations is best practice generally, in as much as its followed by several scholastic journals. I'm still trying to get some clarity on what's the best practice for wikipedia, but it seems rather odd that a lead-in would need any sort of verifiability. joshbuddytalk 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it seemed odd to many of us that there needed to be so much verifiability for "Monotheism", but that's just how the discussion turned out. Homestarmy 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, in a normal article, it would be odd to have citations in the lead. But the "anybody can edit" nature of the wiki means that it is likely someone will come and edit it out and we'll be back at a long... discussion... over it again. Refs preempt many an edit war. --CTSWyneken 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references in the lead in? 

message: Ok... why is this page up for deletion... just another forum of vandalism I guess? Pure inuyasha 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion nomination is not vandalism. all allegations are Wiki Policy and Wiki legal. Andy Blak 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How dare you shame me? You dont even know me. Every bit of my allegations were Wiki Policy. Read it and weep. Andy Blak 23:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Inuyasha, I know you're upset, but please try to stay cool. Andy, simply asserting that something is "wiki policy" is not good enough.  You have to talk it through with other editors.  In fact, edits like these indicate a pretty serious violation of policy on your part. Please act in good faith. Slac speak up! 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter now. He's said he's sorry. Pure inuyasha 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion?!?