Talk:Christianity

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Christianity. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Christianity at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Holiness / Adventist / Charismatic / Evangelical Top‑importance

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).

	Religion Top‑importance
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Mythology Mid‑importance
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

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

Because they continue to say "trinity" this should make Christianity a polytheistic religion regardless of how much Christian propagandists would like to spin it. The trinity is a repeat of what past polytheists believed in such as the Greek, Hindu and Egyptian trinity which Christians hypocritically describe as polytheistic. Elias Ziad (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not propaganda. Please familiarize yourself with Trinity to understand why you are mistaken. Your personal opinion also does not override a supermajority of RSs on the subject. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common Islamic view of Christianity. Here is not the place to be making theological arguments. Epa101 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to argue theology on a wiki talk page as it is not relevant. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Also, the Christian concept of the Trinity is a unique one, comparing it to certain forms of Hinduism makes some sense, but it cannot be compared to Egyptian or Greek polytheism in good faith. Besides, calling Hinduism polytheistic is only true for some sects of Hinduism. GramCanMineAway (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some might say circling, touching, and kissing a black stone is polytheistic and also addressing Mohammed in prayers while himself not being God is polytheistic but we don't take those arguments seriously. As already stated, please familiarize yourself with the Trinity. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s hilarious, according to your logic, Jews are also polytheists because they bow down to and kiss a rock wall in Jerusalem… Whilst Christians put some ridiculous spirit to the cross like it’s gonna protect them while it is just a stick. This is not just an Islamic view, but also a Jewish view that Christianity is an idol worshipping religion who worships a mere man who got humiliated by his own “creation” on a stick, look at how deluded these beliefs are. They had to invent the whole original sin doctrine to somehow prove that a “human god” died for our sins when he could have simply forgive them as he already forgave sins before Jesus since God is described as an all-merciful god… The original sin is easily debunked and disproved in the Old Testament, which collapses the entire Christian doctrine on Jesus.

It’s funny that you say we address Muhammad in our prayers, when we absolutely don’t and that is not our intentions. We believe Muhammad is just like any other prophet who taught his people to return to the faith of Abraham. The Quran is clear that Abraham is the most important prophet in the world as God Almighty appointed him as the “leader of all mankind.” Muhammad died like any other person. And plus, Islamic prayers are NOT monolithic, which means a Muslim can change his words in his daily prayers if the intention is to worship God. So if a Muslim feels like he is (wrongly) addressing Muhammad in his prayers, he can easily change the words to be more fitting to worshipping God alone and there is absolutely no blame for him/her. So you are wrong.Elias Ziad (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Removing the image of Joseph Smith Ilovemyawesomecat (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no compelling reason to remove relevant content. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

In the hope of seeing if Wikipedia had a useful definition, I just had a look at our disambiguation for

Universal religion is a literally accurate description of Christianity within those circles that classify religions, for many of our readers, that literal meaning won't be the first one they think of when they read that term, if they think of it at all. Unless we can provide further clarification in this article, it doesn't seem a good term to use. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, Completely Random Guy, I see you removed it from the

Universal religion. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

After recently cleaning up unreliable sources from Abrahamic religions, I realized that the term has a few more issues than it seems on the first glance. The term originates from Interfaith dialogue and entered academic discourse. However, the academic validity has also been criticized, for oversimplification.^[1] While there are prominent similarities, such as Creatio ex nihilo^[2] and veneration of a Creator-deity, there are also significant differences.

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

Besides these "intra-religious" differences, there also has been objection from an ethno-historical perspective. Islam, as a religion spread through Asia is also an Asia religion, not (only) a religion surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.^[3] Christianity spread across Europe and incorporated European ideas, whereas Islam assimilated to Asian ideas as it spreads. Judaism is a unique situtation again, given that this is also an ethnic religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@StAnselm: @Joshua Jonathan: @VenusFeuerFalle:

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

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

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

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

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

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