Talk:Christianity/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Other citations needed

Here are some more points that need citations: Afterlife section:

• "There is, however, some debate on this point [purgatory] within Eastern Christianity.[citation needed]"
• "Some maintain that only the righteous will be resurrected. [citation needed]"

History and origins section:

• "The monastic life spread to many parts of the Christian empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as many felt[citation needed] that the Christian moral and spiritual life was compromised by the change from a persecuted minority cult to an established majority religion, and sought to regain the purity of early faith by fleeing society."

So, does anyone have cites for any of the four "citation needed" tags? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism section

James Kelly Clark critiqued Richard Swinburne's argument for the necessary existence of the Trinity along these lines and offered his own assessment of the divine attributes which he felt was more compatible with the orthodox view of the Trinity as being monotheistic. What information does this long sentence give the reader? —Aiden 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The intent and purpose of Clark's article. I think it could go in the links section with a shorter description, but it was already in the body, being misused to support the claim that Christianity modifies monotheism. In fact, Clark is presenting an argument from consequence against Swinburne, saying in effect "if Swinburne is right, then we are led into tritheism, but since Swinburne and I both reject tritheism and hold monotheism, here is a better way to go". I just corrected the misuse and left the cite where it was in the body. » MonkeeSage « 15:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard to parse. It looks like a contrast between Clark's view of the Trinity and Swinburne's view, but it doesn't really say what Clark's "own assessment" is. I don't see that long sentence in the article; all I can find is Clark's name in footnote 11. I can't find Swinburne's name anywhere in the article.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the monotheism section, in correction of the misuse of Clark, last night, but Tom Harrison reverted it (for some reason?). I corrected the section again this morning. Clark's view of the Trinity is the same as Swinburne's, Clarke is only critiquing Swinburne's formulation of the relationships between God's attributes (with a particular focus on immutability and aseity). » MonkeeSage « 16:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But my point is the sentence tells us about the differing views but doesn't tell us what they are. —Aiden 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What sentence? It's been removed from the article. If it gets put back, then I agree it should actually tell us what Swineburne's formulation and Clarke's critique are. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is all hugely technical, and I think it should be moved to the Christianity section of the article on Monotheism. Myopic Bookworm 16:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We have Trinity and Christology, and probably others. This is a top-level article, and should be a general survey. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still there, Arch. —Aiden 16:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather, it was reinserted] about an hour ago, and after the last time I looked. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed a reference to an ill-informed Islamic attack site that was pretending to be a reference on Montheism. We have to remember that you cannot refute the statement "Christianity is montheistic" by saying "The Quran says there is only one God". DJ Clayworth 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked at it more closely. The link you removed was the site Alienus suggested. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow this topic has got long in one day. First let me say I think it's quite dangerous to assert that what believers say about themselves should be presented as fact - just read the articles on David Koresh and David Icke and imagine them written as "David Icke is the Son of God" or "David Koresh is the Lamb". We also have to be aware that as most of us come from western Christian backgrounds we will have difficulty understanding why others challenge what seems clear and simple to us. There is obviously a serious view within the Islamic community that although Christians profess monotheism their definition of the Trinity is inconsistent with this. To state as fact that Christianity is monotheistic is effectively saying to the Muslims that they are wrong and the Christian view of the Trinity is right. To say that Christianity professes monotheism states just that - Christians believe they are monotheistic. Here's a quote for CTS - I'll work on some more:

However, there are also real and substantial differences between Christian and Islamic teaching - many of which stem directly or indirectly from our respective scriptures. For example, Muslims often identify Christian belief in the Trinity with Tritheism. Muslims affirm that God does not beget and therefore condemn Christian belief in Jesus' divine Sonship. [1].

Because of the nature of geographical access to the web we will naturally tend to find more quotes from Christians saying that the Muslims misunderstand them than we are to find direct quotes from Muslims themselves. I'd better go and find more quotes for Bob. Sophia 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between saying "David Koresh is the Lamb" and "Christians are monotheistic." The former asserts a fact, the latter asserts a belief. The definition of monotheism is a belief that there is one God. If Christians believe there is one God, then by definition they are monotheists, whether they are right about the Trinity or not. —Aiden 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can find sources that say that Islam is really paganism in disguise. [2] [3]. Do you really think those belong in the article about Islam? (I don't by the way). It's the same here. I can always find a source willing to say insulting, and wrong, things about people they dislike. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely a detailed critique of the Trinity belongs at Trinity not here. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see no problem with saying "Branch Davidians believe David Koresh is the Lamb." I'm not sure who David Icke is. Similarly, I see no problem with saying "Christians believe there is only one God," which is the same thing as saying "Christians are monotheistic." From there you can go on to say that most (not all) Christians believe in a Triune God, which is different than other forms of monotheism but still monotheistic because we believe the Triune God is still one God. Well, I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it than what I just said, but you get the idea. BTW, I just became aware that this article is in mediation, so I guess we'll see how things turn out.

I agree with DJ though, all we need is a brief mention here, the details can go in related articles. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about insults and it's worrying that any editor sees it as such. The "two mommies" analogy above was a very good one. Sophia 17:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about insults? To respond to an earlier point, I keep finding sites that say that the word "Tritheism" is coming from Christian apologists speaking of Muslims, not from Muslims themselves. Accoding to these sites, what Muslims themselves are saying is that the doctrine of Trinity is incompatible with monotheism, which is slightly different. In other words, according to these sites, it's not Muslims charging Christians with tritheism, but rather Christian apologists putting words in the Muslims' mouths. Keep digging, though, we want to be sure we are accurately citing the orginal sources. BTW there is a parallel citation at monotheism under the Christian section. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, Sophia. The "two mommies" analogy draws comparisons between what Heather says is her mommy and what Christians say is God. Both groups are asserting something as fact. In this respect, yes, NPOV can only be achieved by saying x believes y; so we'd say Heather believes she has two mommies and Christians believe there is one God. However, take the definition of monotheism: Belief that there is on God. Saying Christians believe there is one God is exactly the same as saying Christians are monotheistic. The analogy only applies to the similarities between debates over the definition of "mommy" and the definition of "God"; it does not, however, apply to the definition of monotheism, since 'monotheism' rests only on the beliefs of the person, and not with what they state as fact. 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't deny that Christians believe there is one God, then you do not deny they are monotheistic, regardless of whether they serve one God, three Gods, or hundreds. —Aiden 18:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't quite follow. The issue is that Christians have certain beliefs about the supernatural which they consider to be monotheistic, but others consider these same beliefs as not being monotheistic. This distinction comes from Islam's stricter view of monotheism, just as Chick demands more out of motherhood than Heather does. It is not clear that either definition is mistaken, so we can't pretend it is. Al 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that rather than implement the POV of everyone (In this case, mostly Muslims) as the truth, that the NPOV policy did not supercede verfiability, and surely by now there are more than enough dictionary definitions proposed here already to prove, verifiably, that Christianity is indeed monotheistic? Homestarmy 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a controversy here between what Christians say about their own religion and what others say about it. This is not going to be solved by pointing at a dictionary. Al 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(Yet another edit conflict) I do think there is a deeper point: the Christian Trinity is unique among Abrahamic religions. We can say this without denying that Christians are monotheistic. It's a distinction within monotheism, not a distinction between monotheism and something else. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Al, again, you are not using the actual definition of monotheism. Monotheism is simply the belief that there exists one God. All Christians believe there is one God, as do all Muslims. Regardless of whether or not the Christian God is one, three, or many, the fact that Christians believe there is only one clearly meets the requirements of this definition. Saying "Christians believe they serve one God" is exactly the same as saying "Christians are monotheistic." The definition has only to do with belief, not with fact. Now, if we said, "There is only one God," of course we'd have to say "According to Christians, there is only one God." But saying "Christians believe they are monotheistic" is exactly like saying "Christians believe they believe there is only one God." Consult any dictionary for confirmation. —Aiden 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is logically possible to believe that you are a monotheist without actually being one. Al 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't... By saying Christians are monotheist we do not say the Christian God is one and not three, nor do we even posit the existence of God at all. We simply say that Christians believe there is one God--if they believe there is one God, of course they are monotheists. That's all the definition of the word states: a belief. They could be wrong about God entirely. There may be no God or a million, but the fact that Christians believe there is one qualifies them as monotheists. —Aiden 18:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two beliefs here. One is what the Christians believe about God or gods. The other is what the Christians believe about their own belief. These are distinct. Nothing stops a person from believing in tritheism yet mistakenly considering this belief to be monotheistic. Perhaps more realistically, a person might believe that trinitarianism is monotheistic, yet be shown that it is polytheistic under a stricter definition. Al 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it is quite necessary to examine the group in question to determine whether we are monotheistic or not. Let's see, worship songs worship one God in their place of worship? check. Holy book reflects monotheism in many instances? check. Creeds universally profess some sort of monotheism, whether trinitarian or not? check. Actions reflect a monotheistic view of God whenever their preaching something? check. I might also add, it is logically possible to believe that humanity evolved over millions of years from protocells without it actually being true, but I don't think that's going to get anyone to recant evolution or make the article suddenly switch to another perspective. Homestarmy 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(Two edit conflicts in a row) I still think "Christians profess monotheism" is as close as we are going to get to a compromise, and still satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and all other relevant policies. I profess what I believe. Others may not (there are hypocrites in any group). Since we can't read minds and therefore cannot verify that what someone actually believes is congruent to what they say they believe, I assert that this is the best that we can do. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then no religious articles may be certain on reporting any one generalization of any kind about adherants, and that won't do. Homestarmy 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's really important whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. It's a hair-splitting issue depending on what you call a god. I can understand how Christians might say that they are monotheistic because God is one entity, regardless of this confusing trinitarian thing, and no other entity is God. I can also see how Muslims, who believe that Jesus was merely the penultimate prophet, would see a composite deity as being polytheistic. I'm not even sure that there is a fact of the matter here. Either way, it's perfectly neutral and honest to report both sides while endorsing neither. It is entirely true and uncontroversial that Christians profess monotheism. I can't see how this might offend anyone. 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly report on what those adherents profess. Now if you'll excuse me, I just saw something about Jesus' sexual orientation that I have to respond to. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus had a sexual orientation? Al 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He did according to Sexuality of Jesus and a recent comment at Talk:Jesus#Sexual orientation. Of course, what exactly that orientation was is the subject of some debate. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Al: Can you name a source that claims Christians believe that they believe in monotheism, but are really mistaken and believe something else? I briefly addressed this idea above, and noted that when you get into meta-epistemology/psychology (i.e., beliefs about beliefs and reasons for beliefs about beliefs, &c), then Christians can play along too and claim that Muslims only think that they believe Christianity is tritheistic but they are mistaken and really believe Christianity is monotheistic. If we're going to start seconding-guessing whether people actually believe what they claim to believe, we'll be on a very slippery slope, and we'll need to document almost every statement. I don't know of anyone who makes such a claim regarding belief in the Trinity, however, so I doubt any source will be provided, and so it doesn't belong in the article anyhow. » MonkeeSage « 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced/OR Intro Version

Saying "Christians profess monotheism" instead of "Christianity is monotheistic" is like saying "Christian dogma says Christian dogma believes in one God." Monotheism by definition professes a belief. Saying "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" is exactly the same as saying "Christianity believes there exists one God." This is supported by ALL Christian sects or declarations of belief and, wait, DICTIONARIES! So please stop replacing 1) sourced content with original research and 2) a sourced definition with your own. The fact that Christians believe there exists one God--whether they profess it or not, and whether anyone else in the whole wide world believes them--by definition makes them monotheistic. —Aiden 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Christians profess monotheism" instead of "Christianity is monotheistic" is like saying "2+2" instead of "4." But, perhaps I am showing my own confessional bias. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, the dictionary source says explicitly "Christianity: a monothestic religion." It does not say that Christians "profess it to be" nor does it say anything about the accuracy of their belief. Saying Christianity is monotheistic is perfectly NPOV and sourced since it only discusses a belief, not a fact. —Aiden 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it discusses a fact, claiming that Christians believe. But one cannot know what Christians believe, as that would require God-like power to see into men's hearts. For example, it is a dogma that all those who believe, are saved. Merely professing to believe is not enough, according to this dogma. But no one can know who truly believes, and who doesn't, therefore no one can claim that it is a fact they are saved. Only God can know this. Wikipedia should not presume to know as much as God. One can only state what they profess to believe. Drogo Underburrow 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Christianity the religion not about the beliefs of individual Christians. —Aiden 21:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Either way, truck drivers drive trucks, whether individually or as a union, and regardless of what anyone professes. That defines what a truck driver is. Just as obviously, the beliefs of individual Christians are a part of Christianity. That defines, to the world, what Christianity is. How do you know what one believes? By one's words (profess) and actions. If a truck driver professes driving trucks, or a montheist professes monotheism, than what is the problem? Especially since we can't watch all truck drivers…nor all Christians. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, your argument is with the source, which says Christianity is monotheistic. Since it does, and since no one has produced a quote from a source that says it is not, WP:V. WP:CITE and WP:NOR support the phrase being in the article. --CTSWyneken 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My argument is not with the source, but with the way it is being used. While it is perfectly fine for the source to pretend God-like knowledge, Wikipedia is not required to say what this source says verbatim, if it violates other Wikipedia policies, like NPOV. If I found a dictionary published by the KKK that says a racist statement, would that require Wikipedia to state it as fact, since it is "sourced"? Similarly, finding dictionaries that state Christian dogmas as fact, does not give us equal license to repeat them verbatim. If Christianity is a monotheistic religion, then it is simply restating what the dictionary says, in a NPOV form, to say that Christians profess monotheism. Drogo Underburrow 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that Christians profess monotheism? Do they really profess it, or do they merely claim to profess it when outsiders are listening? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We listen and we read. We don't care if they claim to profess, we look for instances where they do profess. Drogo Underburrow 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is an article on Christianity as a religion not on individual Christian beliefs. We don't need knowledge of the inner-workings of people's minds to know that by definition, Christianity, the religion, espouses a belief in one God and is thus by definition a monotheistic religion. —Aiden 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you proposing a distinction between individual Christian beliefs and Christianity? Allowing that, if individual Christians are not a part of Christianity, than what are they? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom: We know because they write creeds and publish vast amounts of books on doctrine and write sermons weekly and so on. How do we really know that Muslims don't believe in the Trinity? Mabye they only deny it when outsiders are listening (what's sauce for the goose. . .). » MonkeeSage « 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia's Version

Sophia, your version works OK and may well be the solution to the matter, if someone would produce a source that says Christianity is not monotheistic. On the other change, Christian theologians have rejected the formula: "Jesus is a part of the Trinity," arguing that it undervalues the unity of the Godhead. --CTSWyneken 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation to prove a negative. Sophia's version is factual and meets all policies, and its a matter of opinion whether to use it or not. Drogo Underburrow 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But we have provided a source for another version and Sophia removes the content. —Aiden 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

CTS is right, the proper termin Christian theology is "member" and not "part." Also, the intro is redundant: "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus...Christianity is considered a monotheistic Abrahamic religion...." Do we have to say "monotheistic" twice?

Nice try, though. Sooner or later we'll come up with a solution that everyone can agree with—hopefully before the Second Coming or the heat death of the universe or whatever. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, I think this is pretty much over. If you'll care to observe, I have effectively reference bombed the opposition into submission, and many of the links I think are quite authoritative. Google ftw! Homestarmy 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Aww, Arch, when you combined all my references into just 2 numbers it makes them seem less impressive looking :(. Homestarmy 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still impressive when you look at the footnotes. I just hate seeing all those </ref><ref>'s; it looks disorganized. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but as I think AI pointed out somewhere above, we can't prove Christianity is monotheistic by quoting a dictionary. That's why im pretty sure I nabbed about 3, and several books, im pretty sure one essay/book from some historian at cambridge, some repository thing from ask.com, and I think one or 2 personal type sites from some other historians. If only finding citations was always this easy..... Homestarmy 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't prove it's monotheistic without first proving Islam is a false religion. Good luck with that. Al 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's a false dillemma. I'm still waiting for an Islamic source that says unambigously that Christianity is not monotheism. The sources I've cited say that Muslim theologians understand that Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are associated in such a way that they are only one God. In Muslim theology, this very association is a sin (shirk), but they recoginize that Christians see God as both one and separate, and that we do not worship three gods.

Then again, maybe Homestarmy's Islamic cousin will come up with 12 or 14 sources that say exactly that. It's been an interesting day ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Alienus probably won't have trouble finding such a source, I think I passed one or 2 on my way down the google train. Of course, they both looked like individual rants with no ability to be cited because they didn't seem to have an author, date of creation, or anything else, but whatever.....Homestarmy 00:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the interpretation of what Christianity teaches is not part of the Islamic religion. If Catholics believe that Methodists don't believe in life after death, then they're wrong, but it doesn't make Catholicism as false religion, because what Methodists believe is not one of their dogmas. If the Pope is not infallible, if contraception is morally good, if the Virgin Mary committed sins, if there's no Purgatory, if the Eucharist is only a symbol, then Catholicism is a false religion. But if Catholics think that Moslems allow the eating of pork, that doesn't make Catholicism false. Once again, monotheism does not mean worshipping God in a way that all other religions consider to be monotheistic; it means the belief that there is one God. Moslems may dispute the logic of worshipping the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while claiming to believe in one God, but they do not dispute that Christians believe that there is only one God. AnnH ♫ 00:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

These Muslim sources would agree with Ann's last sentence:

"Furthermore, there is no truth in the assertion of Christian apologists and many scholars of religion that Muslim theologians have always misinterpreted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (three in one) as a doctrine of tritheism (three gods)." Reference: Kung, Hans, "Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam," pg. 9. This is a PDF from an interfaith website.

"...the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences. He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies." ("A concise reply to Christianity.") This is from a specificly Muslim website.

These two sources (both by Islamic authors) say that it is not Muslims accusing Christians of Tritheism, but Christians misunderstanding Muslims' objections. So, my two Muslim sources agree with Ann, and not Al. I stopped after two because SOPHIA was looking for other sources. I can find more, if you like. Of course, if we can find a reputable Muslim source that agrees with Al, we can cite that as well. We can't cite what we don't have. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good article nominee?

Apparently Christianity is a current good article nominee. Alright folks, let's do our best to make sure this is a good article. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well its in the long article section and there's a bit of a backlog sort of deal, it might be awhile until somebody reviews it. I think at this point, the article is pretty well referenced, which awhile ago seemed to me a bit of a problem. I also wouldn't call the debate over like 2 words a content dispute, and the mediation thing for that other thing might take awhile so its not really unstable. Homestarmy 01:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

With people still butting heads? And that unmentionable "No Criticism Allowed" website still watching us? We'll see how it goes, I guess. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that site is dead now, from what I read the site owner was supposedly being stalked or something and it got took down. Besides, its just GA status, it's not supposed to be tough heh, though that's just my opinion on it. Homestarmy 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironic that someone who digs up personal information about editors is himself stalked and forced to shut his site down (as he made several editors leave Wikipedia.) More proof that you {{Kjv}}. —Aiden 01:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That site is still there, that's how I found out earlier today about the mediation (although I could have read it on this page ;) The last "breaking news" post was only 3 days ago. I was considering nominating this article for AID if the Jesus nom fails next week, but we'd have to decide on a todo list. Now we'll have to wait until after your GA nom. Ah, well, as I said, we'll see how it goes. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it didn't work for me when I typed in the address :/. Homestarmy 02:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I just now checked, and it's still there. Are you sure you have the correct URL? Just to be sure, I sent you an e-mail.

I motion that we find sources for the other three "citation needed" tags. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I got it to work now. Im kind of surprised im still not on their list, I mean, I am a Christian who happens to edit this article, doesn't that make me a horrible person or something? Homestarmy 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not (yet) listed either. Maybe we haven't been editing this article long enough—remember this all started back in February. Maybe also we should stop talking about something we're not supposed to mention? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make it on the list you have to stop being so reasonable and open minded to other POV's and be more partisan, more of a pov warrior.. hehe Be mean to the non-Christians (like me), and you might have a chance to make an honorable mention on the site. I find it the site interesting and I can always go there for the latest breaking news to see what is going on with this site. I'm glad the personal info is gone, and I don't think the owner of the site was the one that sent that letter to our friend KH03.Giovanni33 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you speak as if you know the identity and motives of the poster/letter writer. What do you think is going on here?Timothy Usher 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think I know the motives---I assume good faith and take that the author of the websites says at face value. Clearly, their motives are spelled out, and their argument/POV is rationally presented with evidence. Also, the personal info was removed as soon as it was pointed out that such violated policies, and the author stated they wished to be in conformity with the rules. This makes me think their movtive (again assuming good faith) is not one and the same with the motives of the letter writer. No where did I ever speak as if I knew the identify of the either party. I am only using logic and good faith assumptions. I don't think its correct or fair to engage in leaps of logic and negative speculation lumping in actions with the website owner (which have not been established). Giovanni33 09:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you told Grigory that if he was mean to non-Christians like you, he'd probably wind up on the site. That sounds like a threat, if not to Grigory, then to others.Timothy Usher 09:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It only sounds like that from your proclivity for assuming bad faith with your fellow editors and making unfounded accusations. How is doing what I think it takes to end up on the site a threat? I'm on the site. The site just talks about perceived Christian editors and abuses relating to cabal-like POV pushing,etc. So, it logically follows that if one acted like that (similiar to how you've been acting)--and attacked someone when it seems to be related only to there POV (cabal-like activities), then its a good chance to end up on the site, since that is what the site is all about. Also, note I said, might have a chance to make it on the site--not that its "he'd probably wind up on the site"--thats your putting words in my mouth. Also, I don't see how this is a theat of any kind, just an observation--since they were talking about what it might take to end up being mentioned there. Can't I speculate, too? Again, the site is not giving out personal information so how is being mentioned there even a negative thing, other than someone's POV and observations from there POV? You seem to be makiing several false leaps of logic.Giovanni33 09:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Note I said, he might have a chance to make it on the site (if that is what he wanted)--not that its "he'd probably wind up on the site""

Oh yeah, I see now...you were only offering it to him as an option if that's what he wanted.

"...similiar to how you've been acting..."

That's very generous of you to offer me that same option, if that's what I want.

As your puppets are wont to say, assume good faith![4].Timothy Usher 09:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad you can't listen to the good advise of that puppet (not my puppet), but as a puppet goes, I'd be a proud puppet master should it have been mine.Giovanni33 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(LOL with a look over my shoulder) I never said that I wanted to be mentioned on that site (I cannot answer for Homestarmy) so much as I've said I'm afraid I might be. I don't know by what standard anyone would say that I am reasonable and open-minded and KHM03 was not. Perhaps Homestarmy and every other Christian active on this page who is not mentioned on that site is similarly reasonable and open-minded? To be honest, if we could all be reasonable and open-minded, I don't think I would have anything to worry about. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now the unmentionable site is down. All that's there is a directory listing. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 06:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, your sources"

Giovanni33 wrote in his edit summary, "Yes, your sources, but not all sources." - well, we've been asking. It doesn't actually need to be "all", only all of many given on this page, as nothing could be stated without qualification if every last possible source must be examined first. So, your reputable sources are...?

"Its still a POV, a matter of belief and interpretation." - what I've been saying is that your belief and interpretation does not count, as per WP:NOR. And no, that's not itself original research.Timothy Usher 09:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inserting my personal belief on the question. I'm only allowing the possiblity of other belefs--which is a fact. The "facts" according to sources own interpretations of the question--based on how Christianity defines itself---are all questions of belief, POV. And, that POV is not universal. That is a fact. Its not just my belief. Therefore, the wording must somehow characterize that its a belief that is widely regarded--a proper characterization. Simply because you find sources that giving this POV doesnt mean you can treat it as a fact--it not. Its still a POV. You can treat it as a fact only if you treat it with language reflecting it as a dominant POV/interpreation according to most sources.Giovanni33 09:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And your reputable source - besides yourself - is?Timothy Usher 09:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim sources have already been provided above. Its a common view among Muslims that Christianity is not monotheistic. Is Wikipedia to say that their POV is wrong and that of the Christian POV is right? We should not take sides, but merely report and characterize. Don'tstate as facts things that are not facts. That violates NPOV.Giovanni33 10:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reputable (for starters, non-anonymous) Muslim sources, in accordance with the Qur'anic quotes I provided, have not said what you'd imagine them to.

Incidentally, how come I've never seen you on Islam-related pages, where I'm often found? Combined with your misunderstanding of Islamic doctrine, it seems like just an excuse to maintain this argument.Timothy Usher 10:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be making the point of three gods: http://www.answering-christianity.com/funny_trinity.htm Here's another example that its not a universally accepted POV: http://www.skeptictank.org/polythe.htm Also, I am not as read in Islamic doctrine as I am in Christian history, so that is why I'm here and not there (yet). Giovanni33 10:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Answering Christianity and the SkepticTank? Not mere sources, G33. Reputable sources.Timothy Usher 10:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all I have to do is show that the POV you state as a fact is not universally held but a POV that is disputed and there are other interpretations. But, for a more scholarly source here is the Oxford Journal of Theological Studies on the question of Polytheism and Christian Belief; Michael C. Rea, University of Notre Dame, Indiana; Online ISSN 1477-4607 - Print ISSN 0022-5185 Copyright © 2006 Oxford University Press http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/57/1/133 I quote (to read the full article, you need a subscription):

"Christian philosophers and theologians have long been concerned with the question of how to reconcile their belief in three fully divine Persons with their commitment to monotheism. The most popular strategy for doing this—the Social Trinitarian strategy—argues that, though the divine Persons are in no sense the same God, monotheism is secured by certain relations (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) that obtain among them. It is argued that if the Social Trinitarian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then Christianity is not interestingly different from the polytheistic Amun-Re theology of Egypt's New Kingdom period. Thus, Social Trinitarianism should be classified as a version of polytheism rather than monotheism."Giovanni33 10:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, all I have to do is show that the POV you state as a fact is not universally held but a POV that is disputed and there are other interpretations." - Incorrect. For example, were you to cite a Jack Chick publication denouncing geologist's estimates of the age of the Earth, that would not warrant hedging the intro. At most, it would warrant saying somewhere in the article, Jack Chick publications don't agree, under the guideline that non-reputable sources can still be valid sources on their own beliefs.

Also, your cite doesn't say that Christianity is polytheistic, nor does it attribute this claim to any acknowledged authority. It says, "it is argued", but not by whom.Timothy Usher 10:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is talking about the Trinitarian doctrine and its understanding. What religion do you suppose the author is talking about? He doesn't say Christianity? Actually that is the title of the article, "Polytheism and Christian Belief." Clearly, this scholar in an academic source is able to correctly reflect and characterize a view of Christianity as a version of polytheism rather than monothesism. If such a view did not exist among any reputable source, as you claim, then you are saying this scholar is a fraud and just making it all up? If you want to know more about who argues this, and other details then buy a subscription to the journal or just this article. You can't keep denying that such a POV does not exists or is not legitimate; you keep making excuses for essentially burying your head in the sand, and denying the reality, instead of admitting to the fact that your assertion of fact is only one POV. A dominant one yes, but by no means an undisputed fact. Therefore, the wording should be qualified accordingly as such. There are books out such as "Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible" that give recent scholarship reassessing previous understandings regarding the interpretations of the Old Testiment, which can be seen to be actually poly thesitic. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664228852/002-7310247-1072061?v=glance&n=283155 Giovanni33 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your source, like the Qur'an, poses it as a question in a philosophical dialogue. This is not a assertion of fact. We've still not seen one reliable source asserting that Christianity is polytheistic, quite possibly because it doesn't exist.

As it happens, I take claims of ancient pre-Judaic polytheism very seriously. However, we are discussing what Christianity is, not what antecedents of Judaism possibly were.Timothy Usher 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not pose it as a question in a philosophical dialogue. It poses it as an argument that is made. No one said its an assertion of fact. The whole point is that its not a fact but a beliefs, a dogma--and its not univerally accepted (the real fact). Therefore, the belief in the dogma (despite how much its insisted by its adherents despite some obvious problems) can not be stated simply as a fact, taking their side and effectively saying that hte other POV, the other interpreation of the beliefs are wrong. That is violating NPOV. At most we can simply characterize the view as the dominant interpretation, the dominant belief, esp. by its followers. Also, the book is talking about the falling apart of the earlier conensus on the questoin of polytheism and the old testiment, and is not talking about ancient pre-Judaic polytheism, which was never in doubt. Its talking about the time period after the Exodus, adn that the Hebrew bible and practices were also polytheisitc (a minority view). Giovanni33 11:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, can we outdent a little? Second, re the section above, let's stop going at each other. This page is supposed to be about the article, not each other.

Now, on the topic. Giovanni, the source itself is reputable. But did you notice the phrase: "with their commitment to monotheism." This article is about, given the fact that Christians are committed to monotheism, how do the put all the pieces together? In other words, it assumes Christian monotheism. Can you try again?

CTSWyneken 11:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse it says Christians are committed to monothesism--but as a concept. In practice, and an analysis of the actual beliefs, outside observers challenge the description. Monothesism means One God. But, to others, Christianity seems to have many gods or god-like creatures and hence is not monothesistic--to them. Christianity assumes monotheism for itself, yes--as a dogma. But, everyone does not share that asssumption, or the arguments used to argue why and how 1+1+1=1. Most do accept it, which is why most people regard it as a monotheistic religion, and I certainly agree it is different than the openly polythesistic religions. I have no problem if the statement is qualified as "regarded by Christians as..." That would solve the problem. Or, that its "widely regarded as..." My problem is stating that dominant POV as a fact, which says that all other contrary views are wrong, or simply don't exist. This, I think, is not allowed.Giovanni33 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are likely right that some non-Christian does not believe Christians to be monotheistic, but Wiki's razor calls for a scholar actually saying this. Let's try to produce one. Why is this important? Because Christians view monotheism as a primary committment. To challenge that comes off as an insult. That is why the emotional reaction. What I do not understand is why this thing matters to you at all, since you are not a Christian. When there is such emotion involved, then, the only way to anything like peace on the issue to provide cites for each side.

So, for me, this discipline is necessary. If you produce one from a respected source like the one above, I will then being willing to find language to include it.

To take the heat out of all this, would it be OK to take a week break on the issue? When we've all had a chance to reflect and to read, maybe we'll be able to find something acceptable to all. --CTSWyneken 12:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"take a week break on the issue?" Back to Jesus and Martin Luther? Odd thing, after all that long discussion at Talk:Jesus about the arrest, trial, and execution, talk seems to have died down there. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did work in both places -- once -- for awhile -- maybe... 8-) Glad you remembered!--CTSWyneken 17:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Christians view monotheism as a primary committment. To challenge that comes off as an insult."

And quite possibly is intended as such. A.J.A. 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to Assume good faith and conclude that folks here are just after accuracy.

Reasons for not promoting to Good Article

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 tthe 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)

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)

Good advice. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team lists this article as B class, which is less than Good Article status. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that Hinduism has reached featured article status. Look at how they handle the introduction:

Hinduism {Sanskrit/Hindi - Hindū Dharma, also known as Sanātana (eternal) Dharma, and Vaidika (of the Vedas) Dharma} is the oldest religion from the Indian subcontinent, based on the Vedas and the beliefs of other people of India. The oldest religious traditions still practiced today. The term Hinduism is heterogenous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought. It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. Hindus venerate an array of deities, or consider them as manifestations of the one Supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit Brahman, while others focus on a singular concept of God, such as in Vaishnavism, Saivism and Shaktism.[1]

Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world with approximately 970 million adherents (2005 figure), approximately 900 million of whom live in India.[2] [3]"

Ofcourse, Christianity is a different religion but all religions some some common features as religions so the language can be approximate in many instances. Using this as a model, notice the NPOV language, "based on...beleifs of...,'"consider them...","consitst of several schools of thought....encompasses many religious ritutals that widely vary in practice....many deiverse sects and philosophies...."And, notice how they don't insist on a label of monotheism, but state that facts that they "consider them as manifestations of the one Supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit..." This NPOV lanaguage could arguably be adopted for this article. For fun, I did that below, just to see what others think:

Christianity based on the beliefs of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazereth as recounted in the New Testimant, beleieved to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. Christianity consists of several schools of thought. It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. Christians venerate an array of deities, but consider them as manifestations of the one Supreme God, hence maintain a commitment to monotheism, focusing on a singular concept of God."Giovanni33 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Christians venerate an array of deities?

I'm speechless. AnnH ♫ 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this purported array of Christian deities. It's something that Christians are unaware of. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Christians are aware of these other creatures that are more than human, which they venerate, such as Saints (after all if Saints can perform miracles and are holly--they are not just human (humans can't violate laws of nature (miracles); Mary as "Mother of God", Jesus as Lord God, the Holy Spirit, God that Father, and all angels. All these are divine entities, dieties that are venerated, no? Ofcourse, like Hinduism, Christians also "consider them as manifestations of the one Supreme God, hence maintain a commitment to monotheism, focusing on a singular concept of God."Giovanni33 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't call themselves monotheistic much because how they view their separate god's making up Brahma is quite a deal different than how Christians view the Trinity. As I understand it, some groups of Hindusim state that Brahma is actually made up of an infinite number of little gods, and that we do not exist. No, seriously, we don't exist according to most hinduistic thinking that I know about, supposedly we are made up of Brahma's imagination and aren't actually here. Therefore, I would say their perspective on god/gods is quite a deal more different than the Trinity, which is why it has its own article with its own wording to fit their own understanding of their own religion. The "Schools of thought" in Hinduism are, I assume, called "Schools of thought" because I suppose in Hinduism, there are individual schools. In Christianity, there are individual denominations, because in Christianity that's what they are, as opposed to schools of thought. The differences in terminology and definitions between religions are no accidents, because they literally are different religions, apples to oranges and whatnot. I would also argue that the rituals part is easily undue weight, the emphasis in Christianity is supposed to be on eternal salvation, which is supposed to be through the holy spirit, which is hardly a ritual. (I'd also like to add, the Holy Spirit does not consist of the waters of the world or of the water in water baptism, think how ticked off God would be with factories dumping waste into Himself)

Oh, and your introduction says that Oneness pentecostals, Mormons, and Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians since they don't "venerate an array of deities", that's a bit of a problem there. Homestarmy 00:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree, and only adopted this language from this other religion as an imperfect first attempt to stimulate thinking "outside the (christian) box"; ofcourse it may not be accurate and needs to be fixed and tailored to this religion, but I find the language to be more open to diversity and NPOV relativism than this article needs.Giovanni33 01:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Giovanni, most Christians don't view saints, Mary or angels as "manifestations of the one Supreme God," but as independent creatures with free will. Your statements grow ever more unorthodox and bizarre.Timothy Usher 01:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But they do view different gods as manifestations of one god (Holy Spirit, Jesus). The other god-like creatures are indepenant dieties (denied as dieties).Giovanni33 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As a Protestant, I can obviously say little of Catholic/Orthodox veneration of saints and Mary. I do not see how saints can be called "more than human." Mary was a first-century Jewish woman, blessed but not herself divine. There are angels in Zoroastrianism as well; shall we invite Kash and Fullstop back here to explain (again) why Zoroastriainism is monotheistic? Or is it enough that we can read their comments on this page? As for Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, it's true that we believe that They are all (one) God, but I'm still waiting for a source that describes this as Tritheism. The List of such sources is still blank. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's also true that patron saints took over for patron polytheistic deities, so it's not at all open and shut. To a large extent, this is a matter of semantics. If there were just one supernatural being, it would be a slam-dunk case of monotheism. But when there are other entities being worshipped, it's not necessarily clear whether they're gods. Al 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that they are minor or sub-gods, demi-gods? There are many in mythology of such inferior dietieis, minor gods. In Christianity there seems to be a whole hierarchy of supernatural entities, who have powers to affect us mere human mortals. This includes the Devil (created by God?), but God is not powerful enough to get rid of him or destroy this supposed creator of evil. Ofcourse, Christians don't venerate Satan but was not Satan previously under God's hiearchy of demi-dogs, and could not the other demi-dogs also rebel and fight the man upstairs? Its clear to me that any objective look from outside the faith, one can see many gods. Indeed, and array of dieities..." As one website I gave earlier said, its 'polytheism in denial."Giovanni33 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to leave it up to the Catholics and Orthodox Christians to explain patron saints. As a Protestant, I don't really understand the concept myself. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer an objective outside look at any religion, while taking into consideration what members say about themselves. Those who are too attached to a dogma will accept whatever the dogma says about itself, however contradictory or illogical it may be. So, an outside refernece is usually needed. About Patron Saints, this is an example of Tutelary. From wikipedia: "A tutelary spirit is a god, usually a minor god, who serves as the guardian or watcher over a particular site, person, or nation. Belief in tutelary gods or spirits often reflects a tradition of animism. The Roman religion had dozens of tutelary spirits, such as Diana of Aricia, who watched over a sacred grove at Aricia, or the goddess Levana, who watched over young children. The Lares and Penates were local tutelary deities, as was the genius loci, a spirit said to be present in certain places. A person's own individual guardian spirit was his genius. Shinto is also a religion whose many spirits, or kami, could be described as tutelary, like the Islamic djinns, or "genies". Notable, however, is that the arabic word is of a completely different origin, though it has similarities with genius both phonetically and by meaning."Giovanni33 01:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anything that calls the veneration of patron saints in the catholic church to be worshipping other god's or demi-gods, nor have I ever seen any verse of the Bible, the Apocraphya, or catholic decree things which specifically refer to patron saints, or any saints for that matter, to be gods, demi-gods, or even god-like. Saint Paul aint a god, I know that much, and the only catholics I know are so lax about it anyway that they don't even worship mary or any other saints as far as I know anyway. Just because some religions have similar ideas doesn't make them all different shades of the same thing, its akin to saying that all workship tools perform almost the same functions because they manipulate things in similar manners and often look somewhat similar. Homestarmy 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse they don't call them demi-gods and go to lengths to maintain the appearence of monotheism as that is a central dogma--one god. But, we can just look at these other lesser gods. Or if they are not minor gods--what are they? Not mere humans for humans do not have supernatural powers. Infact, that is what defines a God, right? Supernatural abilities. Saints are supposed to be able to violate natural law by creating miracles. No humans have this ability (if there is such a thing possible). And religions are related, and share similiarities, just like languages or other aspects of culture. Some religions die out and are thus reduced to only mythologies. And, yes they all serve the same functions.Giovanni33 01:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Jews and Muslims also believe humans have performed miracles by God's power. Posthumously, even. A.J.A. 02:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In Chrisiian belief, saints perform miracles not by their own power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit (who is God). Humans, whether saints or not, do not have inherent supernatural powers. The Holy Spirit does.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting fine point, yet it clearly is not persuasive to those who are outside the Christian tradition. Al 02:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not supposed to persuade anyone, it's supposed to accurately describe a Christian belief, which it does. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? That pentecostal stuff about performing miracles by the Holy Spirit is quite a central part of Christianity because its, you know, kind of right there in the Bible. Unless the Catholics who worship these saint people believe that there is more than one God and that these saints are them then there's no reason that it isn't monotheistic. Homestarmy 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gio. It is true that there are similarities between religions that on the surface would seem to have little in common. There have been several hypotheses regarding such; however, that is for another article. Isn't there a distinct difference between an individual who acknowledges that he/she has no power, but acts in the name of God and an individual who states they personally have the power to heal, etc.? I assume that some people might view them as the same (i.e. they both heal me, I don't care where their power comes), but they do so out of ignorance and without focusing on where power comes from. Miracles happen in many, many different religions; are they quantitatively different because of the different "source" of miracle?

Alienus, you stated that it is not persuasive to outsiders. Question: Do you think because outsiders don't acknowledge the Chrisitan god just only sees a man and a miraculous event? Is that what you were saying? Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not persuasive because non-Christians, including devout Muslims, do not see Jesus as being God. Instead, it looks to many of them as if both God and some man are equally worshipped, which is not monotheistic.

Now, I do understand the doctrine of trinitarianism, but to be frank here, it's something of a stretch, and I can see why many people would refuse to stretch in that direction. In other words, while it is at least nominally a self-consistent explanation, it is by no means the simplest one. To accept it would require an act of faith, and that's not something that can be expected of non-Christians. Al 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've directly answered Storm Rider's question, I'd like to briefly comment on Gio's notion of saints-as-patron-gods. First, I'd like to bring up an analogy with another mono/poly issue: monogamy and polygamy.

Consider that, if someone explictly calls five women his wives, he is clearly a polygamist. However, what if he marries each in turn, divorcing the previous one, so that all have been (or are still) married to him? This is an actual practice by modern-day polygamists, as a way to avoid bigamy while still wedding each wife. Is it any less polygamy, though? And what if none of the women are ever legally married but all else remains the same? Does it then matter whether there had been a non-binding, purely religious ceremony? Clearly, the simple matter of polygamy is not so simple, and there are even finer points than this to analyze, which is perhaps why the social and biological sciences define polygamy operationally, not legally.

Now consider polytheism. If Catholics worshipped exactly one entity under exactly one name, that would clearly be monotheism. But what if they say that the one entity is, in some mysterious way that has no parallels, actually three, and address each in turn? Still monotheists? How about if, instead of directing their prayers of intercession to their one God (or was it three?), they pray to dead people? Is this different from praying to ancestors or patron gods? How about when a group replaces a pagan patron deity with an equivalent patron saint? Is this syncretism evidence of covert polytheism? How about when prayers are made directly to angels, who are not dead people but purely spiritual beings? Is that more polytheistic?

Like polygamy, there are many gray areas between the black and the white, and reasonable people can disagree as to where to draw the line for any given circumstance. Clearly, Muslims generally think that this three-is-actually-one fine point is a bit of sophistry, and while they well be wrong to think so, is it up to us to decide? Who are we to say that the beliefs of hundreds of millions of sincere worshippers cannot be mentioned without giving them "undue" weight? Al 16:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Alienus:

First of all, you are confusing serial monogamy with polygamy.

Second of all, I can do little to answer your hypothetical Muslims. I prefer to refer to actual, verifiable, factual Muslims. Here's a Muslim that refutes the idea that Muslims see Christians as tritheists.

Third of all, as others have already explained, "monotheism" and "Tawhid" are not equivalent concepts. Tawhid is certainly monotheistic, but it has meanings beyond that. Trinitarian Christianity is certainly not Tahwid (making it shirk), but it is monotheism, as even Muslims will admit (see the link above).

Fourth of all, if you go beyond the Trinity and refer to angels as deities, than not even Islam is monotheistic. After all, Muslims believe that an angel (Gabriel) recited the Qur'an to Mohammad. However, we already know that Islam does not meet Giovanni's definition of monotheism, since Islam believes in the existence of djinn. Someone also made the argument that since God allows the Devil to exist, that this somehow limits God's power. I dare you to tell a Muslim that the continued existence of Shaitan limits Allah's power. You won't get very far.

Fifth of all, it is undue weight to place the views of Alienus' hypothetical Muslims over the views of actual Muslims. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources in the Intro

The first is from Advent.com. What makes this better than mohammed.org.uk? When, in a certain dispute you accuse one source of not being scholarly and therefore not reputable, then you use a source of similar quality and expect it to stay? Not how it works. Let's find a little bit of NPOV on what sources count.

KV 17:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the item cited at advent.com is the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. If you'd like, I can change the entry to point to the physical form of the article. Now, if you offered a quote from the Encyclpedia of Islam.... --CTSWyneken 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Str: 1911? How do I know that the opinion of people on Christian monotheism hasn't changed since then. Then of course we can add a phrase that mentions that that is the source..... ok, I'm not going to push Str's insane standards..... but do cite the written version, and be ready for it to change once I have the time to search written versions myself.

KV 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is a respected source. It is also not the only source listed in the note. Of course, all we're looking for is a respectible source that says the opposite. Do you have one? --CTSWyneken 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If the source should be struck out, it's fine with me. I can just go find like 4 more dictionaries :). Homestarmy 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 1911 was quite a long time ago, which is why NewAdvent can even post the (Old) Catholic Encyclopedia online:it's public domain. I'm sure Str1977 or MusicalLinguist or someone else could cite a more recent edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia—say the 2002 edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia? The article states that "The New Catholic Encyclopedia is available online at some libraries" but not my library. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

Donald K. McKim, ed., Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (John Knox Press, 1996), p. 177: "monotheism (From Gr. monos, "one," and theos, "God") Belief in one God."

ibid., p. 288: "tritheism (Lat. "three gods") Belief in three separate and individual gods. Some early formulations by Christian theologians were considered to move in this direction. Early Christian apologists sought to defend the faith from charges of belief in three gods."

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Eerdmans, 1993, 2nd edt.), p. 580: "Christianity offered all the advantages that made Judaism appealing to serious-minded pagans: monotheism, high ethical standards, a close-knit social community, the authority of an ancient sacred Scripture, a rational worship."

Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology (Blackwell, 2000 edt.), pp. 61, 62: "But if Jesus was God, in any meaningful sense of the word, what did this imply about God? If Jesus was God, were there now two Gods? [. . . O]n analysis, this. . .reveals both a unity and a distinctiveness. . . . The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet not divided, different yet not separate or independent of each other. The complexity of of the human experience of redemption is thus the result of the three persons of the Godhead acting in distinct yet coordinated manners in human history, without any loss of the total unity of the Godhead."

T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (InterVarsity Press, 2000), pp. 512, 515: "Ancient Israel was distinguished from its neighbours by the fact that it worshipped only one God, whom it identified as the creator of the universe and therefore as the supreme and ultimate reality. . . . Israel practiced a de facto monotheism from the earliest times, even if this was not fully clarified until the time of the exile or later. [. . .] When we look at the NT, the issue of God's personhood takes on an entirely new dimension. The unique oneness of God is unquestioned, but the appearance of the Son and of the Holy Spirit raises questions as to how this must be understood. [. . .] Putting these things together, it is clear that both the Son and the Holy Spirit have a strong claim to divinity which is difficult to satisfy without some restructuring of the OT picture of YHWH. . . . Jesus claimed to be identical with the Father (John 10:30; 14:9), although they are clearly distinct persons. If the Father is YHWH, the Son must therefore be YHWH as well, or else there would be two gods. The NT resolves this problem by contrasting the different perceptions of the divine being, which we have labeled the 'outside' and the 'inside' perspectives. From the 'outside' God appears to be one, totally unique in his absolute and mysterious supremacy. This is how the ancient Israelites perceived him. But Christians, having entered into his inner life, see him differently - as three co-equal persons sharing the one divine being. These three persons interpenetrate each other in such a way that, although they can be distinguished from each other, they cannot be separated. . . . The three persons are nowhere confused, but neither are they separated from one another, and it is this dual reality which forms the basis for the subsequent development of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity."

John McManners, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2001 edt.), p. 179: "The doctrine of the Trinity was a constant butt for Muslim ridicule: the tenth-century Christian philosopher Yahyā ibn 'Adī was prompted to write his tract on the Unity and Trinity of God by the Muslim joke that Christians were innumerate—'with them, one is three and three is one'. Similarly, the Christians' reverence for the Cross and images in general exposed them to the accusation of idolatry: writing in c. 725, Germanus of Constantinople instructed his readers to counter such charges by replying that the Muslims worshipped a stone called Chobar in the desert (i.e., the Ka'ba)."

Note especially this last one. I guess we need to go indicate in the Islam article that Muslims think they don't worship or idolize the Ka'ba stone, but they really might, since it is verifiable from a reputable third-party source that other people think/have thought they do. And we need to put this information right there in the intro, cause we want to be "NPOV" — we don't want to be caught giving due weight, we want to make sure that in articles about dogmatic groups we give the view of adversaries exactly the same import and validity as the views of adherents, to make sure that we give undue weight. Yeah, cause that's the fair thing to do. Bah. » MonkeeSage « 05:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair is fair Monkee :D Homestarmy 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That last quote especially is strong evidence for speaking of Christian monotheism as professed, so as to avoid POV. Now, if you want to mention the Ka'ba in the relevant Muslim article, feel free, but that doesn't affect what we do here. Al 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, jokes are not reliable sources. If we're going to go down that route, we might as well cite those South Park episodes that say that Jews worship Moses, who looks suspiciously like a character in Tron. It would be just as ridiculous. Jokes are not reality. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Osiris passage

A.J.A., it is discourteous to remove an entire point without saying so in your edit summary. I was surprised to find it missing, and had to hunt through the history to find the last version. Why did you do this?

I'm not sure how widespread this controversy is, but it is cited to a reputable scholarly source and is presented neutrally.Timothy Usher 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blanking cited text is generally vandalism and should be treated as such. --FOo 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is still there, shortened (as it always should have been) and turned into a link.

"Some claim that Jesus of Nazareth may not ever have existed, arguing a lack of sources outside the New Testament and sometimes alleged similarities with pre-Christian cult figures (see Jesus-Myth.)"

By re-adding the longer text, you made it redundant.

Here's a comparison:

"Some argue that because the role of Jesus is similar to that of various mythological figures said to have died and risen again, these may have been the inspiration for Christianity. E. A. Wallis Budge compared Christianity to the cult of Osiris, who he said was born mortal, murdered, and reborn as an underworld god equal to Ra (whom he considered the monotheistic God of Egypt). He also drew analogies between the Ancient Egyptian belief in Resurrection (which gave rise to the practice of mummification) and the Christian belief. Budge argued that the Egyptians may have been the best prepared for Christianity by such beliefs [24]. Conversely, the Coptic Church claims that the tale of Osiris, and similar parallels, was given by God to the pharoahs to prepare people for the coming of Jesus. [25]"

vs.

Jesus as God and Man

Most Christians believe that Jesus is "true God and true man" (or fully divine and fully human). Jesus is believed to have become fully human in all respects, including mortality, and to have suffered the pains and temptations of mortal man, yet without having sinned. From being true God he was capable of breaking the bonds of death and rising up again through what is known as the resurrection. The Chalcedonian Creed (which is not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches) defined this as Christ having "two natures in one person", a doctrine known to theologians as hypostatic union (see Christology).

This relative emphasis is hardly neutral. A.J.A. 04:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A. could you explain further as your point is not clear. Sophia 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is long like that for two reasons. One, is that while there is only one side to present in "Jesus as God and Man" which really should include some debate that he was only God or only Man. Second, is that by Str's insistance, the name of E. A. Wallis Budge could not be mentioned only once, (I was able to change two of the references to a shorter "he") but every statement that comes from him must be specifically attributed to him in case someone might think that it comes from someone else (really an attempt to make it sound non-credible). There is also more to the claim "Jesus is similar to this Egyptian diety in ways A,B,C,D" which were briefly stated and "Jesus is both man and god". Indeed, the Jesus as God and Man section goes into smaller details than the Osiris connection does.

KV 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I just understood what you were trying to argue... "By re-adding the longer text, you made it redundant."

The Osiris comment is not an addition to the concept that Jesus doesn't exist, it doesn't suggest that Jesus didn't exist, only that attributes of other religions may have shaped what Christianity ascribed to Jesus. The Osiris section in no way assumes that Jesus was not a real man, or even not the messiah for that matter. But things like the ressurection could have come from Egypt..... maybe Jesus never died and simply ascended up to Heaven. The point being that the views suggested there do not conflict with the Osiris connection.

KV 20:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Round and round in circles

We're going round and round and round in circles with this "monotheism" argument. I have said several times, and so has Aiden, that monotheism means the belief that there is one God. It does not mean that such a belief should be acknowledged as reasonable or logical. It does not mean that the belief is true. It does not mean worshipping God in a way that other religions accept as monotheistic. It means, quite simply the belief that there is one God. I keep saying that, and the other side ignores it and points to a very small number of unofficial quotations from Moslems either denying the logic of belief in the Trinity, or denying that the way Christians worship God is truly monotheistic. Then I or someone else says again that monotheism doesn't mean the worship of God in a way that other religions recognize as monotheistic; it means the belief that there is one God. Then someone from the other side says that Moslems don't think worshipping the Trinity is monotheistic. We can keep this up until Christmas next year.

Could the other side please address my point. Are there any official Islamic statements that deny that Christians believe that there is one God? Please do not answer by saying that they don't believe Christians can worship one God when they worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is not the question. Are there official Islamic statements that deny that Christians believe that there is one God? This argument has been going on for a few days, and so far all the "supposedly so-called, self-professed" group has failed to address the question of whether Moslems deny that Christians believe that there is one God.

If we can finally get a response to that question, then maybe we can move on and discuss whether or not that ought to affect the wording of the article. After all, if we find some Fundamentalist Protestant pamphlet about how all Catholics are going to go to Hell, and it says that Catholics believe that Mary is the Fourth Person in the Blessed Trinity, we don't then write that Catholics "claim to" believe that there are Three Persons in One God.

Whether Molems or Christians are right about the divinity of Christ is a POV, and we can't side with either POV when writing the article. Whether Fundamentalists are right about Catholics going to Hell is a POV. Whether any religion is true or not can not be verified. But what members of one religion believe about what another religion teaches is different, because it can be verified or refuted. And please, please don't say we can't verify whether Christians are really worshipping one God or several. The thing to be verified is whether Christians believe that there is one God or whether they believe that there are several.

Could somebody please address that point? AnnH ♫ 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary defines it as, "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God." If it was only the doctrine that there is one God, then the question would be easy to answer, however the word means, also, an objective belief in only one God. The question, therefore is a question of describing and interpreting what Christians believe in totality, based on what they say they believe. This must include not only what Christians say about the issue, but others, too. Do all outside observers agree that its an accurate description of the beleifs? Does anyone else look at these self-professed believes in their totality, as a body of religious beliefs, and conclude that depite what Christians say, they do in practice worship and believe in more than one supernatural entity, and hence are really a form of polytheisism (polytheism in denial)? In that case its a matter of being monotheisitic in name only---or just a matter of POV/interpretation. It is is just what they claim, therefore, the language should be, "regarded by...', or "according to...". When many people look at the many God-like creatures that Christians worship, its clear there are more than one god, however one tries to tie them all together in one. Its a matter of interpretation, of POV. I agree its regarded by most as monotheistic, and self-defined as such, but I do acknowledge is not a universal POV, and other POV's assert that its a form of polytheism, as the source I gave earlier in the Oxford Journal of Theology stated.

Now, ofcourse, "it does not mean that such a belief should be acknowledged as reasonable or logical." Ofcourse, "It does not mean that the belief is true." No one is saying that. If we used that criteria we could not say anything about the religion! So, that is a red-herring. The real point is: Is there another POV that interprets the self-professed beliefs of the religion in a way that allows them to conclude that its not monotheisitc? The answer is yes. Therefore, we should not take sides but have language to reflect that its not a fact but a POV, hence: "widely regarded," "self-defined," "held to be by adherents," etc There are many wordings. Something as simple as "Christians hold to the doctrine of monothesism," an assertion of belief in one god." Giovanni33 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the "other side" and I'm not muslim but I understand the point your are making and I think I can give you the counter argument. The definition of monotheist you are asserting is a very weak one, that is a person X is monotheistic providing he claims to believe in 1 god regardless of: practice, ritual, his underlying definition of "one god", his conception of "one god" etc... Pretty much all he has to do is say and believe the magic words "I believe there is only one god" and under your definition he is a monotheist. I would argue that while that's an effective strategy for defending Christianity from the charge of being polytheistic it would essentially include lots of other faiths as being monotheistic. For example Hinduism would argue that all the gods are in some sense united, they are many and they are one. Vishnu has avatars which are independent parts but they are all independent part of Vishnu. Your definition would make Hinduism monotheistic.

I could go even further. The classic pagans often subscribed to a pantheistic idea that all the gods were united. That say Zeus, and Athena and Hera and Mars were all aspects of the underlying divinity. They were worshipped separately had separate rituals, had separate priesthoods had seperate moral codes had separate opinions... but underneath it all they were just aspects of the same divinity. Under your definition such a person is a monotheist. I think the muslim would argue your definition is simply too inclusive. So I think you are asking the wrong question. jbolden1517^Talk 01:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this definition is the one that comes out of the dictionaries, so if its a weak definition, then I dunno what to tell ya :/. Homestarmy 01:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No the definition in the dictionaries is that he actually believes in one god not that he merely claims to. That's the key area of dispute with AnnH's definition, this is where I think she is weakening the definition and thereby making almost everyone a monotheist. The muslim claim is that Christian so misunderstand the definition of "one god" that while they believe they believe in one god they do not in fact believe in one god they are full blown polytheists who just don't define their words properly. Does that make sense? jbolden1517^Talk 01:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Who can adjudicate what one actually believes, or what constitutes a legitimate interpretation of monotheism? It should be sufficient to note that "Christianity professes belief in one God subsisting in three persons - a form of monotheistic belief called Trinitarianism." This definition deals with self-identity, while unpacking (slightly) the choppy waters of Trinitarianism. Perhaps over at the pages Tinitarianism, Monotheisim, and Criticism of Christianity, the objection to Christian claims of monotheistic belief can be unpacked more fully - but the tenets are quite clear. Fishhead64 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and this is all the "other side" wants: NPOV language that states the belief as self-identity. Therefore, "professes belief in monotheism" would solve the issue for me. In your wording, I would change it to, "Christianity professes belief in one God subsisting in three persons - an assertion of monotheism belief called Trinitarianism." Giovanni33 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no one can adjudicate it. but the burden of proof is generally on the one making the statement. If you agree that it can't be adjudicate it then you would need to rewrite your statement as "Christianity professes belief in one God subsisting in three persons - a belief called Trinitarianism, which is classified by its adherents as a form of monotheism". You see how much weaker that is? AnnH was arguing that there was an objective definition and hence the Moslim position was incorrect. As an aside I wish there were a Moslem doing this rather than an atheist trying to describe their position but.... jbolden1517^Talk 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with jbolden's comments above and propose we use his suggested text. I made the change but I'm sure that those who want to say it as a fact (and that others POV's are in fact wrong, will revert me). Giovanni33 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about "Christians believe in one God subsisting in three persons, a doctrine called Trinitarianism. While Christians assert that this belief is monotheistic, some observers have argued that it is a form of polytheism." Fishhead64 02:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have objections to this version, ofcourse, but I know that this stronger wording would be opposed by the "other side," probably on grounds of "undo weight." Lets see if at least the more softer, mild lanugage above is accepted.Giovanni33 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Still weasel words in there. I noticed that Islam begins with Islam is a monotheistic religion. . . currently (and so it should stay, since there is no reasonable authority that disputes that Islam is monotheistic). If the Christianity intro is edited as proposed, there will be hedging for Christian monotheism but not for Islamic monotheism. Given that both religions claim to be monotheistic, a presentation such as this is a POV in favour of Islam.

Let's work on commonalities. As far as I can see, nobody disputes that the Islamic view on Christianity should appear within the article. It currently does within the criticisms section. The reason the hedge can't go into the introduction is that it's essentially a mental gear-change. Instead of giving a broad, general outline as required by an introductory paragraph, we start getting metaphorically bogged down in how non-Christians characterise Christian doctrine. It interrupts the flow and introduces the problem of weasel words, disputes, and unattributed statements. The question at the beginning of this thread requests specific authority for the "some people say. . ." sentence. The reason I believe it hasn't really been provided in the form requested is that it makes plain that talking about other religious views of Christianity before we've fully expounded on Christians' own views is difficult from the viewpoint of exposition.Slac speak up! 02:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but I'm calling for intellectual honesty. If we're going to invoke Muslim beliefs or their view of Christianity, we should cite some actual Muslims, not hypothetical ones. All we have so far are some editors that are both non-Christian and non-Muslim, claiming a "Muslim opinion" that contradicts what Muslims themselves say: not that Christians aren't monotheistic, but that Christians are wrong to equate Jesus with God. Quite frankly, Muslims are smart enough to understand the difference. This is not Sophistry, for either Christians or Muslims.

If indeed there is a source that calls Christians "polytheists in denial," then that source should be cited, and not misatributed or confused with the Muslim position. Once you stop misrepresenting Muslims, though, you realize that it's not "hundreds of millions of people," but what, one article in the Oxford Journal of Theology (which I seriously doubt had hundreds of millions of authors!)? "Undue weight" immediately comes to mind. Please, stop unbalancing the scale by claiming a false consensus with Muslims. Please, start being intellectually honest. As Ann says, if we can find an authoritative Muslim source that makes that claim, we can cite it. That no such source has been presented is telling. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which is exactly why it should not say, "but regarded by some as a form of polythesism." That would be giving undo weight. The only issue here is using NPOV langauge to describe a POV not as a fact but a POV attributed to some, in this case Christians. In the Christianity introduction, I think, we don't need to state what others thinks (there are many groups who each have their own take/interpretation), but only state the essentials of the religion. However, this must be done in a NPOV manner and not stated as a fact because it is a POV and others do have different interpretations. One need only cite one scholarly source to show its a legitimate and real contrary POV, and this proves that the Christian POV of itself is just that. So why the objection to stating the facts as we know them: "Christianity professes belief in one God subsisting in three persons - a belief called Trinitarianism, which is classified by its adherents as a form of monotheism". Notice this is not stating how others view Christianity, but states exactly how Christians view it themselves--however it does it with proper language that reflect it as a POV and not as the truth.Giovanni33 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the interest in having the article actually relate to the references, i've tried a little version of my own based on our references, and since we're in an edit war sort of anyway, I do hope nobody minds :D. Homestarmy 03:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot state as a fact that all Christianity professes Trinitarianism, there is such a thing as nontrinitarianism after all. It would be better to say "Most Christians." (We had this discussion at Jesus back in January). Secondly, I have no problem with saying "Christianity professes" (I suggested it myself), but others have objected. To be fair, we'd also have to say that Judaism professes monotheism, Samaritanism professes monotheism, Islam professes monotheism, the Bahá'í Faith professes monotheism, et al. After all, we cannot read anybody's minds, so we can't verify what they really believe, only what they profess. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your edit summary "Where does it end", i'd say as long as I can keep adding more and more references :D. Homestarmy 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Mormons profess polytheism and claim also to be Xn,--JimWae 03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep running in to Latter-day Saints who profess monotheism. The way one explained it to me is that, while most Christians believe in one God (substance) in three Persons, Latter-day saints believe in three Persons in one God(head). Storm Rider can explain it better than I can, since he is a Mormon and I am not. Of course, I forgot to mention that Zoroastrianism also professes monotheism. Also sprach Zarathrusta and Joseph Smith. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Storm Rider jumped all over me when I suggested that some groups of Mormonism were henotheistic and that's sort of close to polytheism, so im afraid I can't take you at your word Jim, no hard feelings? :/ Homestarmy 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I will do some more checking on what they profess, but most other Xians would term it polytheism, I think. More later --JimWae 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did see several apologetics type sites proclaming Mormonism to be polytheistic while I was looking for a source for Mormons, but the Mormon's seem to have a bit of explanation behind whatever it is they believe, and besides, there's apparently some weird splits in their group anyway so I dunno what to assert heh. Homestarmy 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

However, similar to the way many Xns consider Mormonism to be polytheism, several Xn groups (JWs, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals) consider other Xn denominations to be professing a form of polytheism --JimWae 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True that. But its all about the trinity pretty much, and in the end, can any of those groups prove that the other's do not believe in one God one way or another? And I know this is a bit off-track, but I just noticed that the monotheism article lists Hinduism as monotheistic, so I guess that's one more weird little thing resolved :D. Homestarmy 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is kind of ironic when you think of it. When I had a visit from a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses a while back, they did accuse me of tritheism for believing that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one God. But then, they showed me where the New World Translation renders John 1 as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god." I had to ask, how can you say that there is "a god" who is not God without being a polytheist? So I had to explain to them why I am not a polytheist, and they had to explain to me why they are not polytheists. In the end, I think, we just wound up confusing each other. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy. There are many mentions of "gods" (lowercase 'g') in the Bible, including Satan, other humans on powerful positions, angels, etc (Ps 8:5; John 10:34,35; Ps 82:1-6; 2 Co 4:4). So, there was nothing wrong with what the JWs showed you. Perhaps they didn't explain it well enough at the time, but if you look at that valid translation and call them polytheists, I suggest you look at the other verses in every single Trinitarian Bible as well. Jesus is never referred to at any point as "Almighty God" whereas YHWH is all the time. There are satisfactory answers and explanations to every single question and problem going around on this page. --Oscillate 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Few there are who claim 1&1&1=1 makes sense or can be rationally discussed --JimWae 04:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not 1+1+1, but rather 1*1*1=1. To put it another way, 1^3=1. One God, to the mathematical power of three persons. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note I did NOT use + signs. But you don't really think you have a rational explanation/analogy, do you? -- because 1*1*1 does not contain any distinctions within each unit --JimWae 04:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No , you didn't use + signs (although Giovanni did, earlier), but by using * signs I just showed you how 1&1&1=1. If that doesn't work for you, remember that Trinitarian Christians believe that God is infinite and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all fully God. So, ∞ & ∞ & ∞ = ∞, regardless of whether "&" means "+" or "*". Of course, we Trinitarian Christians believe that the three members of the Trinity distinct in one sense (three distinct Persons) and united in another sense (one God). I'm not saying that any of this proves Christian doctrine or that is a rational explanation/analogy. It just bothers me when people think they can use bad math to disprove the trinity. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It bothers a lot of people that Trinitarians have to resort to Plato and Greek philosophy to prove what God is, when the Bible makes it clear enough. --Oscillate 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Arch, as you point out, trinitarianism depends on the acceptance of thre being two senses in which we can count God, yielding different sums: three Persons, one God. This is a fine point that not everyone is going to accept. Not even all Christians. Therefore, it's not surprising that trinitarians, and their varients, are often accused of polytheism. Nor is it clear that these accusations are false; to call them false would be to accept the POV that the above-mentioned fine point is valid. Al 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And the Mormon doctrine on the Godhead is arguably an even finer point, as noted below. I'm perfectly willing to call Mormons monotheists if that is what they profess. However, this discussion is no longer here nor there. We've been looking for a citation, and now we have Maimonides in the next section. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is a tougher analogy to crack, however impenetrable any discussion of the Trinity would remain --JimWae 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Mormonism, a sect of Christianity, on their conception of God. Is this monotheistic in objective terms? It is claimed to be three separate beings, united in purpose.

"The First Vision - God and Jesus Christ appear to the young boy Joseph Smith Jr. in 1820. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are often described in scripture as one God (2 Nephi 31:21); however, the one Godhead is in reality three separate beings who are unified in purpose and heart (John 17:21-23). This belief is distinguished from the concept of the Trinity as codified in 325 at the Council of Nicaea and in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. God the Father and Jesus Christ have tangible, perfected bodies of flesh and bone. The Community of Christ (one denomination of Mormonism) has rejected this doctrine and that of the Godhead in favor of Trinitarian theology.

God himself was once a human in another realm or universe, created by a separate god. Having gone through a mortal life much like in our realm, he sinned and repented and learned, and after becoming immortal he, along with his wife, Heavenly Mother, spiritually progressed to the level of gods.

Humans are children of a Father in Heaven, and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ they can return to Him and be joint-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has (Romans 8:17)."

This this article is about Christianity, has to be broad enough to respect all the versions of Christianity.Giovanni33 04:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that the view that Mormonism is a "sect" or "version"of Christianity" is in itself disputed. Slac speak up! 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Find me something about religion that's not disputed, please. Each orthodoxy is someone else's heresy, and that's just the way of things. It would be rather WP:POV of us to rule on the issue of whether Mormonism is a legimate form of Christianity or some non-Christian cult. Al 04:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite right - so relying on LDS theology when coming to a conclusion about whether Christianity is "objectively" monotheistic is probably not going to be a helpful exercise. Slac speak up! 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. PLEASE. We do not have to represent fringe views, such as those of unrepresented Muslims (since no one seems to abe able to provide a source), who say Christianity is not monotheistic. It is by definition. It's been proven on this talk page at least 100 times. Please stop. —Aiden 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not about giving undue weight to muslim or other non-Christian and minority views. Their views are not being represented here in this article, and I'm fine with that. This is about not having the Christianity article, as the voice of Wikipedia, say that the Christian view is correct, and that all other views are wrong--as if that were a fact. No, its not a fact its a POV, a belief, and therefore must be stated as such if we are to abide by the NPOV policy. Giovanni33 05:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, Gio is entirely correct. We can report on Christianity but we cannot report it to be true. We can say what Christians profess, but we cannot rule on the truth of what they profess. They profess that their trinitarianism is a form of monotheism, and we must report this honestly. But we must not assert that they are correct or incorrect on this matter. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For a Nicene Trinitarian, the doctine of homoousia (usually translated as "one substance," "one being," or "one essence") is central to our understanding of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one God. Mormons reject homoousia, which is why others sometimes call them tritheists; however, in reality, they have a different understanding of how the Godhead is one God, and not three. I cannot answer for the rest, but I'm sure that Storm Rider can explain it. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd call that yet another fine point that is likely to be rejected by outsiders. Al 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's rejected by outsiders, because we're not dealing with whether or not the belief is true; we're dealing with whether or not Christians believe that there is one God. As I said above, if I say that my wallpaper is pink, and that that pink is made by mixing blue and yellow together, you may say it's green, you may say I'm crazy, but you can't say that I do not say it's pink. AnnH ♫ 09:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I post something asking for the dictionary definition "the belief that there is only one God" to be dealt with. I then go to bed for a few hours, wake up, and find hundreds if not thousands of words dealing with something different. Here is the official definition from the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary (which I've already given on this page):

• Monotheistic — Of, relating to, or characterized by monotheism; having the beliefs of a monotheist. Of a god: regarded as unique.
• Monotheism — The doctrine or belief that there is only one God (as opposed to many, as in polytheism).

We're all still going round and round and round, because people are ignoring the dictionary definition, and accusing me (not Oxford) of weakening the meaning, and are broadening it to include the idea of whether or not people in practice really worship one God, and invoking hypothetical Moslems, who supposedly are in a position to determine not whether the Christian belief is true, but whether Christianity really teaches what it claims to teach.

Note again that monotheism is not defined as "the belief that one believes in and worships one God".

At the risk of repeating myself, the POV is not whether Christians believe that there is one God (it's a fact that they do); the POV is whether or not it is logical or reasonable for them to believe there is one God when they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The very first words in the ancient Nicene Creed are Credo in unum Deum — I believe in one God. And the Athanasian Creed says "yet they are not three gods but One God."

Let's not all turn into Humpty Dumpty, saying in a scornful voice that when we use a word, it means just what we want it to mean. Let's stick to the official, codified, standardized dictionary definition of "monotheism", and not broaden it to include extra meanings. AnnH ♫ 09:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your point was addressed head on. The definition you are using is so weak that in defines virtually every religion as being monotheistic. It also happens to come from a very reputable source. But that's a reputable source that's thinking about questions of definition not theology. The average person believes that prior to the spread of Christianity there were pantheons of gods not seen as united in any way and they term this "polytheism" vs. the Christian "monotheism" which (to oversimplify) believes the pantheon of god is fully united. And so Oxford is absolutely 100% correct that this definition captures the "usage" of the term. So if we want to use the term monotheistic in that sense it becomes true but vacuous. And that's fine, but then why bother mentioning it at all? Its like putting in the introduction "Christianity is a religion exclusively practiced by mammals".

It is not however the case that everyone agrees with the Oxford definition. Others disagree with treating these 3 statements as the same:

1. A believes X
2. A thinks he believes X
3. A claims to believe X

Or to alter the list slightly

1. A believes X
2. A supports the doctrine of X
3. A supports the creed that asserts X

Anyway I don't have a POV on this issue. You had asked a question about what the claim of the assertion was and I tried an answer. We got pulled in another direction but this is the core issue for the strong definition: Are those three statements the same? In fact in cannon law for the purposes of establishing heresy those are not treated the same. jbolden1517^Talk 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We can save ourselves the trouble trying to prove or disprove the Trinity. Again, the definition of monotheism is simple belief that there is one God. If Christians believe there exists one God, even with three parts, even if it turns out he's actually 3, 10, or more Gods, the mere fact that they believe there exists only one qualifies them as monotheists by definition. It's not about POVs, fact, or logic in the slightest--the definition rests solely on belief. So please, Jim (and others), save us your spill about how illogical it is because not only does your original research not matter to the article, it doesn't matter to the definition either. —Aiden 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the end, as has been said many many times, nearly 100% of Christians believe they are monotheistic, whether some other Christian or non-Christian group disagrees with that in whole or in fraction, even the opposers agree that Christians think they are monotheistic. The definition supports the usage that it can be described as monotheistic. Mention should definitely be made later on that there are disgreements about this, but the talk about whether someone knows what they believe or reading people's hearts, etc is unnecessary. In my opinion. But I'm perfectly fine with there being citations from reputable sources saying otherwise, and even for wording of "profess to be". --Oscillate 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An example

There was a request for quotes regarding the trinity, that is clear statements that Islam did not believe that Christians were actually monotheists but rather just thought they were. First off I'd like to clarify the original argument is dead, that believing you are a monotheist does not imply you are one.

I don't know if there are any muslims participating but here is the same idea from Jewish literature:

CHAPTER L Guide for the Perplexed [very authoritative Jewish source, emphasis mine]

WHEN reading my present treatise, bear in mind that by" faith" we do not understand merely that which is uttered with the lips, but also that which is apprehended by the soul, the conviction that the object [of belief] is exactly as it is apprehended. If, as regards real or supposed truths, you content yourself with giving utterance to them in words, without apprehending them or believing in them, especially if you do not seek real truth, you have a very easy task as, in fact, you will find many ignorant people professing articles of faith without connecting any idea with them.

If, however, you have a desire to rise to a higher state, viz., that of reflection, and truly to hold the conviction that God is One and possesses true unity, without admitting plurality or divisibility in any sense whatever, you must understand that God has no essential attribute in any form or in any sense whatever, and that the rejection of corporeality implies the rejection of essential attributes. Those who believe that God is One, and that He has many attributes, declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts. This is like the doctrine of the Christians, who say that He is one and He is three, and that the three are one. Of the same character is the doctrine of those who say that God is One, but that He has many attributes; and that He with His attributes is One, although they deny corporeality and affirm His most absolute freedom from matter; as if our object were to seek forms of expression, not subjects of belief. For belief is only possible after the apprehension of a thing; it consists in the conviction that the thing apprehended has its existence beyond the mind [in reality] exactly as it is conceived in the mind. If in addition to this we are convinced that the thing cannot be different in any way from what we believe it to be, and that no reasonable argument can be found for the rejection of the belief or for the admission of any deviation from it, then the belief is true. Renounce desires and habits, follow your reason, and study what I am going to say in the chapters which follow on the rejection of the attributes; you will then be fully convinced of what we have said: you will be of those who truly conceive the Unity of God, not of those who utter it with their lips without thought, like men of whom it has been said," Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins" (Jer. Xii. 2). It is right that a man should belong to that class of men who have a conception of truth and understand it, though they do not speak of it. Thus the pious are advised and addressed," Commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still. Selah." (Ps. iv. S.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs)

Maimonides is definitely a reputable Jewish authority. It's citable;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's good research, Arch. It shows that Jews, like Muslims, question the monotheism of trinitarian Christians. This is not surprising, since Muslims do consider Judaism to be monotheistic. Al 06:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's Jbolden's good research, not mine. :) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to citing RamBam, but I want to note that he is not addressing the issue of self-deception in epistemology/psychology, he is using a midrashic technique that is also used in the Bible as he cites from Jeremiah (also, e.g., Isa 29:13: "these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote"). Also, to say that one affirms (gives lip-service to) monotheism but is careless to guard it and truly understand it, is not the same thing as saying that one actually believes in tritheism; as RamBam notes, he is referring to considerations dealing with God's nature — God's attributes, what constitutes his essence, and so forth — not his numerical existence (which is at the core of monotheism). Thus even RamBam affirms that Christianity is monotheistic ("the three are one"), though he believes that Christians do not fully understand or interpret monotheism correctly (which, along with Muslims, he holds to mean Unitarianism — one person in one being). » MonkeeSage « 07:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We still have room in the last section for controversies. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So wait, just because your a monotheist doesn't make you a monotheist? :/ Homestarmy 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're a monotheist doesn't necessarily make you an Unitarian. Neither does it necessarily make you Tawhid, which is the Muslim concept of monotheism, but literally means "unification" or "unity." Heck, even Shi'ites will say that Sunnis aren't Tawhid if they really believe that the Qu'ran is the uncreated and eternal Word of Allah—because only Allah is uncreated and eternal, the Qur'an cannot be said to be so without committing shirk (the opposite of Tawhid). Check Talk:Tawhid for even more controversies about what is and is not Tawhid in Muslim theology. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Koran

While the words below do not state "Xty is not monotheistic", they surely say that Xian conception of God as a trinity is not in accord with there being one God. These words are from the Koran, so I guess they are pretty authoritative on the Muslim view of Xty.

• They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. (Surah Al-Maidah, 5:72-75)
• "O People of the Scripture! Do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity". You shall refrain from this for your own good. God is only one God. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. God suffices as Lord and Master." (sura An-Nisa 4:171):

It can only be a distortion of these words to say that Muhammed might still have thought Trinitarianism was a form of monotheism, just not monotheistic enough. I think it would be fair to say, as we all knew all along, that Muslim teaching is that Xty does not profess one God. To say that Trinitarianism IS still monotheism would obviously then be a POV in opposition to the view in the Koran.--JimWae 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Muhammed thought that the 3rd person in the Xn Trinity was Mary, the above comments still hold on his views of 3 (or even just 2 persons) being God --JimWae 07:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would question whether Muslims believe that the Trinity is possible, given their worldview. I noted a few days ago that they believe it to be impossible, and try to argue against the Trinity from their presupposition about the nature of reality (specifically, the possibility of two or more persons occupying a single being). But this just goes to show that they believe that Christianity is monotheistic — albeit it becomes inconsistent, by appealing to other concepts in addition to Unitarianism, which, according to their worldview, are impossible. But as to the issue of Christian belief, they seem to agree that Christianity is monotheistic. In other words, Christians, they believe, have a wrong view of "the truth about God" as to his natutre (viz., Unitarianism), but a right view about God as to his singular being.

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender. (29:46, Pickthal).

Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (2:62, Pickthal).

Also, Jews come under equal criticism in the Qur'ran:

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! ( 9:30, Pickthal)

However, this alleged inconsistancy does not render them polytheists, just confused about the one Allah. » MonkeeSage « 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this before, but with all the focus on Zoroaster, people forgot about Ezra (or "Uzair." ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of supposition in what you (MonkeeSage) say. Muslims deny that Jesus is God, saying there is only one God, who, according to them, is the same God that Jews & Xns worship. None of what you say impacts the claim that they consider teaching Jesus to be God a teaching in opposition to there being one God. According even to what you say, if they think the Trinity is impossible (citation needed), then belief in any additional Gods must be polytheistic and cannot be monotheistic. --JimWae 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Or just a different form of monotheism. There is supposition in what you say as well, Jim. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

According to MonkeeSage, Muslims believe the Trinity is impossible. They do not think that Trinitarianism is another form of monotheism; indeed they think only one form of monotheism is monotheism. They recognize Xns claim to be monotheistic, but say it is a mistaken to think 3 gods can be one --JimWae 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This verse looks to me with the whole "There is no God but Allah" thing that Muslims are simply worshipping another, singular God, whom they take to be more singular than Christianity's view. I see no implication of polytheism here. And by the way, where does the Qu'ran say that the God of Christianity is the God of the Qu'ran? Homestarmy 12:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Monkeesage said: Qur'an, sura 29, verse 46. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism or Unitarianism?

We seem to have a disagreement about what Maimondes, the Qur'an, et al are saying. Some interpret them to say that Christianity is not monotheistic. Others interpret them to say that Christianity is not unitarian. Well, no one would dispute that the Trinity is not unitarian, but does that mean that it is not monotheistic? I have to side with MonkeeSage on this one. The distinction is not between monotheism and something else, but between different forms of monotheism, ie, between trinitarian monotheism and unitarian monotheism. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• The objection in the Koran to the Trinity is that Allah is one. --JimWae 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking us less than a quarter of an hour to make one complete circle. Slac speak up! 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• The objection in the Koran to the Trinity is "for there is no god except One Allah". Xns believe there are different forms of monotheism, but only if Muslims believed the Trinity were possible, could one say they believed the Trinity was a different form of monotheism --JimWae 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just Xns, but the vast majority of scholars in compartive religion, philosophy of religion, &c, as well as other encyclopedias, English-language dictionaries, &c, state that there are different forms of monotheism. As for whether Muslims see the Trinity as different gods, well:

• "Furthermore, there is no truth in the assertion of Christian apologists and many scholars of religion that Muslim theologians have always misinterpreted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (three in one) as a doctrine of tritheism (three gods)." Reference: Kung, Hans, "Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam," pg. 9. From an interfaith website.
• What a real Muslim thinks of the Trinity: [5]. This page is very critical of Christianity, and yet at the very beginning refutes the idea that Muslims see the Trinity as tritheism. Rather, "Tritheism" is a term used by Christians who misunderstand Muslim objections: "The doctrine of the Trinity avows that three distinct co-equals are God. In particular, Jesus is said to be God the Son, or the Son of God. As the Muslim questions details of this theology, the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies." (BTW, That site is sometimes too busy to handle server objections, so here's a backup: [6].
• Thirdly, as User:Avb has already pointed out, "If only because I am not a native speaker of English and fully aware of the all-important translation aspects here - something is "lost in translation" if we translate "monotheism" into "thaweed" - I can't imagine an authoritative English-Arabic dictionary doing that (especially not if published in a predominantly Islamic country)." What the Qur'an is saying is that neither Christianity nor Judaism are Tawhid, which is not exactly the same as saying that the other two religions are not monotheistic. It's Anglocentric, and thus systemic bias, to assume that Arabic term is identical to the English term. (I'm not sure about Unitarianism, but again, let's not make assumptions). There is indeed a distinction, we can explain the distinction, but let's not mischaracterize the distinction. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 09:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, could it be said that the Muslim doctrine of Tawhid requires a single deity with a single aspect, while monotheism in the broader sense includes belief in a single deity who is worshiped in multiple forms? 81.178.235.87 11:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More or less. Monotheism is belief in a single Deity, however that Deity is worshiped. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Close enough, but the Oxford definition is not belief in a single Deity, but belief that there is a single Deity. AnnH ♫ 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's Razor Once More

Folks, first let me compliment everyone for refraining from personal attacks. It is a credit that such an animated discussion can be had without such. I wish there was a group barnstar I could award for this.

To the point. I don't think continued discussion is going to get anywhere. Let me remind folk that everything here must be sources. We now have sources that say Christianity is a monotheistic religion without qualification. Do we have any source, Christian or not that claims the opposite? There may be something in the mess above, but I get disoriented reading it!

If we find such, my proposal for the first paragraph is Sophia's. Simply omit the phrase. This is in keeping with other encyclopedia articles. We then go to the monotheism section and outline the major positions. --CTSWyneken 11:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"According to Islamic doctrine the Christian dogma of a trinitarian god is a form of tritheism—of a three-god belief." - "monotheism." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38223> [Accessed May 22, 2006]. Drogo Underburrow 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Drogo. Would you mind listing the title of the entry? I do not have access to that form of Britannica, but the entry heading will allow me to go to the print version or my online version. --CTSWyneken 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that none of those arguing for the label of monotheism have invoked an understanding of the term that is inclusive of other gods, however seemingly contradictory that appears. But it is one view that is categorized under the term:

"Between the extremes of exclusive monotheism and unlimited polytheism are the middle positions of inclusive monotheism and henotheism. Inclusive monotheism Inclusive monotheism accepts the existence of a great number of gods but holds that all gods are essentially one and the same, so that it makes little or no difference under which name or according to which rite a god or goddess is invoked. Such conceptions characterized the ancient Hellenistic religions. A well-known example is that of the goddess Isis in the Greco-Roman mystery religion that is called after her." http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~sbriggs/Britannica/monotheism.htm Giovanni33 11:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to echo CTS above and say it's been great to be a small part of this very open and honest discussion that has been a text book example of how to tackle a difficult subject. It has helped enormously that CTS has kepts us focused on the sources and I think this has stopped us straying down the path of darkness! I've found some quotes which don't seem very notable to me but may be of some help: [7][8][9][10]. This one is a direct Islamic quote but again I don't know how noatable it is: [11] - this seems to be an echo of the previous site but is more readable.[12]. I'll post more as I find them. Sophia 11:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is more on the spectrum of views: monotheisms and quasi-monotheisms, alternate positions, Pluriform monotheism from Britannica:

"The complicated relations that exist between monotheism and polytheism become clear when pluriform monotheism is considered, in which the various gods of the pantheon, without losing their independence, are at the same time considered to be manifestations of one and the same divine substance. Pluriform monotheism is one of the efforts to solve the problem of the coexistence of divine unity and divine pluriformity (multiplicity of forms), which was not recognized by an older generation of scholars, although part of the material was already available. It seems, indeed, that in many parts of the world and in many times religious thinkers have struggled with the perplexing problem of the unity and the pluriformity of the divine." http://cache.britannica.com/eb/article-38215

Part of this stems from the "problem of evil" that gets created by an assertion of just one God, ofcourse.

Perhaps the tendency to want to accept many apparent gods but insist on monothesism, using different kinds of monothesism to make it fit, stems in part from the Bible, which teaches that man was originally monotheistic. That is, from the very first day of creation, Adam knew there was but one Creator God. The Bible says that from original monotheism, man devolved into polytheism, not the other way around. Humans, ofcourse, did not have any real knowledge of God, we invented gods incidental with our observation of nature. The prehistoric human saw lightening strike a tree and attributed it to the gods and began to worship the lightning god. As time went on, he selected and added various gods to his religious experience. But as he grew more sophisticated, he traded in his packet of gods for a more manageable monotheistic God.

This is a reputable site, and take a look at how it uses the language to reflect the Christaian belief of its self professed monotheism:

"Christianity regards itself as a monotheistic religion, for it teaches the existence of one God - specifically, Yahweh, the God of the Jews. It shares this belief with two other major world religions, Judaism and Islam.

However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, "three"). http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm Giovanni33 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how does this site distinguish itself from all the other sources saying that Christianity simply is monotheistic, and what makes it more authoritative than all of the other ones? Homestarmy 12:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's saying that Christian monotheism is anything but simple. Sophia 12:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well elaboration on Christian monotheism I would think wouldn't go into the intro if its complicated. But complicated or simple, monotheism is still monotheism. Homestarmy 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Complicated enough so as to make Christianity monotheism for most but not all; it's debatable and qualifiable, not a simple open and shut case even given the broad spectrum of monothesisms, some of which could very well be a form of polytheism. There is much grey area in between the two possitions. This is all the more reason to use the language of the source I cited that says ""Christianity regards itself as a monotheistic religion..."No dispute there.Giovanni33 12:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And does the literal definition of Monotheism state that it is "The belief in one God, unless the belief is complicated and disputed by groups opposed to the religion in question"? Homestarmy 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but arguably, the case can be made that there are beliefs in more than one god, and therefore its not monotheisitic, but a form of polytheism. So we can not state it as if it were an undisputed fact, taking sides in any possible dispute. Instead, we recognize it is a belief, a POV, and use NPOV language to attribute the belief to those who hold it. This way we do not endorse a POV one way or another. I don't see what is so difficult about understanding this. Don't state POV's as fact. And, if you do, turn it into a fact by using wording that attributes the POV. Its simple, really.Giovanni33 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that, if asserting Christianity as monotheistic was actually a POV, it sure seems to have the vast support of univerisites, most encyclopedias, most historians, and most universities, so if that kind of support represents a POV then I don't see how Wikipedia can assert anything as a fact at all, since references would supposedly mean nothing except a POV which should be shunned and deleted as per CTSW. Homestarmy 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its widely regarded as monotheisitic. Thats obvious. But, notice how I say its 'widely regarded as..." This is the way we can state a POV as a fact, since that is a factual statment (of the POV--it attributed and characterized). Otherwise, we are igoring, dismissing, and making our verdict on the correctness of the stance for against all those who hold a different interpretation of the many god and god-like creatures that Chritians profess in. Christians have a right to hold to the doctrine of One God, and thus call themselves monothesistic, but others have the right to look at that and compare it with other religious beliefs and make a determination that it is best described as a form of polytheism. Both are POV's. We do not say which is right or wrong. We simpy acknowlege it as a POV and legitimate interpretation.Giovanni33 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Then how can we be expected to build an encyclopedia if we may not tell readers what the facts are? Giving people all the perspectives is one thing, but in the end, it doesn't actually give the reader information pertaining to the actual facts, it just would make a reader have to go and find the answer for themself, this would seem to me quite contradictory to a mission statement of being a repository for all human knowladge. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a mere stepping stone to the facts or is it supposed to be an open source encyclopedia? Homestarmy 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How many times, and on how many pages, do I have to say it? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." To put it another way, the "other side" has met what CTSWyneken calls "Wiki's Razor." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the claim of the current intro has been verified plenty well enough, whereas other intro's may downplay or outright remove the real nature of the verified references. Homestarmy 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've verified Drogo's Britannica quotation. This gives us one verifiable opinion that Islam, at least, does not consider Christianity monotheistic. Whether or not Islam does is another topic entirely (as would be the question of Islam's committment to monotheism, if we want to go that way, since the Sufi tend towards Monism and Folk Islam with its Jinns towards polytheism (I, for one, take the confession of the Five Pillars seriously enough to grant Islam to be monotheistic, but since folk aren't taking the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds seriously.... ;-) )

Anyway... I hereby suggest we drop the "monotheistic" from the intro, since finding a phrase all will accept without getting convoluted is near to impossible. I further suggest we say in the monotheism section something like... "Traditionally, Christians confess the existence of only one God, Who exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Some non-Christians challenge that assertion..." --CTSWyneken 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to Fishhead64's earlier proposal, which I agreed to, with one caveat: don't forget our nontrinitarian friends. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Through it all, I still like KV's intro the best, if anyone even remembers that. Homestarmy 12:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed in the revert war - would Drogo mind posting it here to look at? I must say I agree with CTS which is to drop it from the intro line but still reference it in a form that acknowledges the cultural differences in the intro section as it obviously is such an important issue. This should give us NPOV and non-systemic bias in one blow. Sophia 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's here. To me the best solution suggested so far for the lead is dropping monotheistic altogether while KV's intro comes in second. I haven't followed the Monotheism section discussion so have not seen the arguments (as yet) but CTSWyneken's proposal sounds good to me. AvB ÷ talk 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It can't be "generally seen." That's like saying the Moon is "generally seen" as orbiting the Earth. Either Christians believe there is one God or they don't. What people perceive the Trinity as has no bearing on the belief of Christians. By definition, if Christianity is based on a belief in one God, it is monotheist, regardless of whether or not the Trinity is one God, three Gods, or many. Who is right or wrong has no bearing on the definition nor does saying "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" prove the Trinity or convey any one POV. The definition rests solely on belief. —Aiden 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

At least it leans towared the truth, and it is technically an accurate statement since it is saying what people see it as, rather than what it is. Besides, the references speak for themselves :). Homestarmy 15:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well my point is the 'truth' doesn't matter. We are not debating the truth of the Trinity. It has no bearing on the definition of 'monotheism': Belief that there is one God. If Christians believe there is one God, that's all we need to qualify them as monotheists. It doesn't even matter if the Trinity is three Gods, because the definition requires only belief. —Aiden 16:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, although I think you're correct, I also think KV's version is an acceptable compromise that seems more likely to garner a wider consensus. Going back to your Moon analogy, suppose we said that it's "generally believed that astronauts walked on the Moon, although some conspiracy theorists think the whole thing was actually faked as a giant publicity stunt?" Personally I think astronauts walked on the moon, as do most folks, but I can't deny there are a few vocal people that think they didn't, just as I can't deny there seem to be a few vocal people that think Christianity isn't monotheistic, or that Jesus never existed at all. Wesley 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't work because the definition of monotheism rests solely on belief, not truth--it doesn't matter if men walked on the moon because it doesn't matter if the Trinity is true or not; the definition concerns belief only. Now if we had a word to describe the belief that man had walked on the moon, let's call it moonism, would not those who believe we walked on the moon be moonists regardless of whether we had visited the moon or not? This is monotheism, a belief, not a truth. So the debate over monotheism has no bearing just as the conspiracy about the moon landing has no bearing on the word 'moonism'. —Aiden 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing 'montheism' would be too much of a concession to allowing one group of people to claim to know what another group believe. To say that Muslims don't consider Christianity to be monotheistic by their definitions is perfectly allowable, and should be mentioned somewhere. To have their definition of monotheism used in the introduction is unreasonable. As I said before, I can find plenty of sources who claim that Islam is a 'pagan religion'. Should that be in the intro to the article? I don't think so. If we allow this we also have to remove the term 'Christian' from groups like the Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses, which many, many people do not consider Christian. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But they do conform to what the article currently defines as Christianity - ie they follow a religion centred on the life and works of Jesus as recounted in the NT so we wouldn't have to remove the definition of Christian from these groups. The problems stem from the fact that Christianity defines monotheism like no other group does and other world cultures do not accept their definition. Do we just pretend they are wrong or do we address the difference where there is room to do so - not in the intro line but in the intro section? Sophia 17:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is pretty much my point. Christianity fulfils the definition of monotheism, and that fact that some people opposed to the religion disagree with it is not really relevant. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be confusing the issue, the main reason most other religions do not accept other's opinions on monotheism is because pretty much all of them, including us, are convinced that only ourselves have the true monotheism. I do not think it is so much a distinction being argued over dictionary and scholarly definitions, but one of "which monotheism is correct monotheism", which is an entirely different debate than "are these religions monotheistic or not". We don't have to pretend that they are wrong at all, the references right next to the word "monotheistic" should settle the issue in the minds of anyone who wants to make a hubbub over Christianity being monotheistic or not. Homestarmy 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No Sophia, they define their beliefs like no other religion. The definition of monotheism remains the same, from dictionary to dictionary: Belief that there exists one God. Now, do Christians have beliefs different from other religions? Of course. None-the-less do they believe there exists one God? Of course. So, based on a definition of monotheism from dictionaries, not Christians, Christianity is monotheistic. Again, and I think I've said this over 1,000 times on this talk page, the definition rests solely on belief, not truth. —Aiden 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point Aiden. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I and several others have been making this point for about a week now. The strategy seems to be to keep bringing it up as if nothing had happened until other editors arrive who've not followed the entire discussion, forcing us to make it again.

Christianity doesn't "define monotheism," nor do "other world cultures," and most especially not editors to this talk page. Nor can these editors presume to speak for "other world cultures" or for "Islam" in an effort to make their personal objections, however reasonable, seem as other than they are - original research - under the increasingly disreputable slogan of "NPOV!" (this from people who are given to edit summaries "the NPOV version"). This has nothing to do with NPOV. Some editors think Christianity makes no sense. Unfortunately, WP guidelines won't allow us to begin the article with, "Christianity is a religion which makes no sense." So, we get all this instead, and are offered the "compromise" of leaving the (by-now-overly) sourced "monotheistic" out of the intro, based not on principle, but the practical consideration that they will cease their daily flooding of the talk page wih the same thoroughly-rebutted transparently arbitrary nonsense.

As nothing prevents the innovation and attempted application of a new brand of nonsense, I don't see the point.Timothy Usher 18:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that people have a beef not with Christianity nor with Western culture, but with the English language. Well, we can always check what the Arabic language Wikipedia says about Christianity. First, we need to find a translator. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WPCD

Well, I have added the WPCD tag as the article is on the CDs. I guess we need to check the version when the next sweep is done. Hmm. But in the meantime I will continue to enjoy these talk pages. :) --BozMo talk 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I never much thought of these arguments as enjoyable, though I do like reference bombing the monotheism thing.....Homestarmy 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that some of the participants in the argument are taking it rather less seriously than others. Hence the enjoyment: Eccl 12:10 comes to mind but the translations vary "he choose his words with pleasure, although they were nothing but the truth" is the one I learnt --BozMo talk 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)