Talk:Christianity and other religions/Archive 1

message: Does this need addressed for NPOV reasons?  KHM03 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'm not going to waste my time. However, I will continue to watch for Zoro-pollution of Christianity articles.  This talk page doesn't have to be NPOV does it? :-)  Jim Ellis 02:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The sad thing is that I don't know of anyone who is anti-Zoroastrianism; there are just one or two editors who are intent on adding pro-Zoroastrianism POV information, whether or not it's properly sourced, and that is a problem.  Hopefully, they will cease & desist and start focusing on what is proper.  KHM03 20:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See here

message: Looked over the most recent edits by Amin123, and still question the relevance.  He is still arguing that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism.  I may try and find a simple way of saying that that is NPOV and links to a more appropriate article (or two).  KHM03 12:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: KHM03 has a personal bias against Zoroastrianism.  His posts are driven by a POV motive in here.  Amin123 July 19 2005 9:05 PM (PST)
I have no bias against Zoroastrianism; the intent of my edit was to solve a problem in an NPOV way that was also faithful to scholarly (and wikipedia editor) consensus.  I did not eliminate Zoroastrianism from the article; I simply tried to trim the section to its essentials and point the reader to articles (three) where this issue could be discussed in greater detail.  Heck, I was doing you a favor, Amin123!  That's no reason to imagine an anti-Zoroastrian bias (which reads as silly as it sounds!).  KHM03 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Zoroastrianism

message: Hi!  I just stopped by.  Why all the Zoroastrian hate here?  I thought Judeo-Christian theology had its roots in Zoroastrianism.  Am I missing something?--Agiantman 23:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're apparently missing that nobody hates Zoroastrianism...oh wait...you made that up to begin with, so you can't be missing it.  There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian theology, please see Judeo-Christian.  (Judeo-Christian ethics is arguably a plausibility, but definitely not theology.)  Christianity does have a lot in common with Zoroastrianism in its eschatology, however Christianity and Zoroastrianism are closer than Judaism is to either one.  The problem is that there's no tangible evidence of contact between early Christians and Zorastrians, so in the 18th and 19th centuries, people who studied comparative religion invented a link between the two via Judaism.  This link is no longer widely accepted as anything more than a fanciful way to explain an apparent discontinuity in serious study of comparative religion, except apparently by Mary Boyce, the relevance of whose views to a serious encyclopedia has yet to be established.  Tomer TALK 23:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
That is not true, the link is taken seriously and there is a good reason why: a religion that was the official state religion of a middle eastern empire that existed almost contineously for over 1000 years (from 553 BC to the 7th century AD) is bound to affect the people and religions that came out of that time and place.  Some scholars even hold the position that Judaism started off as a Zoroastrian sect.
Amin123 July 29 2005, 11:05 PM (PST)
I agree with Tomer that nobody here hates Zoroastrism. I for my part have great respect for its founder (regardless of when he lived) and also for the religion, though I don't adhere to it and hence disagree with it theologically.
However I disagree with Tomer when he says that Christianity is closer to Zor. than to Judaism.
In response to Amin: I don't dispute that Zor. had not influence whatsoever on Judaism (and subseuqently Christianity), but in my mind the influence is not very great, certainly not influencing monotheism.
Again you say: 553 BC - please give us some reference that Cyrus or Cambyses were Zoroastrians.
If "Some scholars even hold the position that Judaism started off as a Zoroastrian sect", than I am truly sorry for these scholars.
Str1977 17:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why all the Zoroastrian hate?

message: *NO MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 5
*VERY BRIEF MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 6
*SIGNIFICANT MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 4 (plus two apparent sockpuppets)  I think they're not sock puppets.  That's 6 votes for significant mention.
*BRIEF MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 3
*MODERATE MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 0
The results show a plurality of votes for "Very Brief Mention", with the notes afterward saying, "...sources may merit a concise mention but noted that it is a marginal view...".  That seems to me to be the winner.  Therefore, I have made the appropriate changes as per the results...a concise mention which mentions both sides, including the fact that mainstream scholars are not sold on the Zoroastrian connection, and pointing the reader to more appropriate pages for further information. Hope it matches the voting results.  KHM03 12:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Combined with "brief mention"'s 3 votes and the fact that most of the "no mention" votes are based on the technicality that there is no evidence of any direct contact between Christianity and Zoroastrianism (yes, I realize how dumb that wording sounds, but you know what I mean), I would say the vote is "very brief mention 6, reluctant support of very brief mention 8, make the whole article about zoroastrianism instead of christianity 4 (valid)." In my book, that's 14 to 4, which which makes your interpretation and implementation correct. Tomer TALK 13:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Dear KHM03, is that a "very brief mention"?
The "monotheism" passage as it stands is still very "fishy"?
Str1977 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: KHM03 appears to have accidentally reverted himself while trying to fix the notes.  I've notified him of this. Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Mark...I agree that minority views should not be ignored...to that end, they are mentioned in the challenged section, and links are given to more appropriate pages on which readers can further explore the issue.  If User:Amin123 ever decides to create an entire article re:Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism (and, thus, indirectly, on Christianity), that would certainly be appropriate here as well.  KHM03 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting results

message: Could you, if you will, please have a look into the following dispute on the Zoroastrian talk page.
Talk:Zoroastrianism#Persian_vs._Iranian
Thanks in advance. Str1977 10:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian vs. Iranian 

message: It was my understanding that the participants in the recent vote re:Zoroastrianism would abide by the decision of the community.  Anonymous User:154.20.105.198 (whom I believe to be Amin123 not signed in) went against that in a recent edit.  Did we have the vote for a reason?  KHM03 12:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously Amin123, he's even signed for himself using that IP.  Yes, we had a vote for a reason, though I am unsurprised Amin123 does not want to abide by it. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: None of the quotations are "anti-Zoroastrian", and the consensus was strongly against you. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't even understand the complaint.  The article mentions the theory, explains why it isn't credible, and points to other articles where the theory is explained more significantly.  It is not buried or abused; but neither are the grounds for the speculation entertained in this context.  It's given its due treatment, as we determined.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There aren't any anti-Zoroastrian quotations in there, nor does there appear to be anyone who supports you. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: 14 people voted for brief or no mention, 4 people and 2 sockpuppets said significant mention. Accept it and move on. Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amin123, do you deny that your position lost the vote? KHM03 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no real reason to believe that the other two were not sock puppets.  No matter which position they voted for, they would have been removed.  This case certainly shows how neither talk nor voting are an effective means of curbing POV pushing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Vigilance and attempts at being NPOV are, I suppose, still the best strategy.  Incidentally, neither of the alleged sockpuppets has seen much action since voting.  Very interesting.  KHM03 00:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abiding by  vote 

message: Should I bother responding?  Only legitimate votes will be counted.  Tomer TALK 06:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
===Yes===
# 
===No===
# Tomer TALK 06:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
# KHM03 13:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Show of hands?

message: # Tomer TALK 06:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
# KHM03 13:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: #~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstain

message: It's been weeks. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected