Talk:Christianity/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Universal religion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In the hope of seeing if Wikipedia had a useful definition, I just had a look at our disambiguation for Universal. Wow, I doubt if there would be many pages containing more different meanings. While 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)

OK, Completely Random Guy, I see you removed it from the Islam article but then got reverted. We could have a centralised discussion, I suppose. Just as someone could create an article on Universal religion. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. While there are prominent similarities, such as Creatio ex nihilo 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. 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)

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)
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)

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) @StAnselm: @Joshua Jonathan: @VenusFeuerFalle:

• Comment: As I've started at talk:Islam, the term "universal" religion is very subjective. African spirituality, Hinduism, etc are all universal, as they have followers from various parts of the world. Abrahamic religions on the other hand is more objective as per sources as it is specifically about the 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which derived from Abraham - according to the followers of those religions. Many people know what you mean when you use the term Abrahamic religions. Using universal on the other hand may confuse the general reader.Tamsier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Reason for removal of Greek text in infobox title

While I'm not necessarily advocating restoring it, I am wondering why the Greek name for Christianity was removed from the infobox title. The Islam article has the name of the religion written in Arabic, with a romanized transcription.

Is it because most Christians don't use Greek as a liturgical language, in the same way that Muslims use Arabic? This is a valid reason, but Koine Greek still has historical significance for the religion nonetheless.

Some insight into the reason would be appreciated.

Thanks! Zoozoor (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2024

< Change "religion" to "relationship with God". Explanation: religion is created by us humans, God did not do all that he did (and is actively doing in our lives) for us to be robots to what we have made look obeying and believing in Him is. He wants to have a relationship with every one of us as we are created by Him, He is our Creator. A relationship is a personal connection with Him as our Heavenly Father. He loves us and longs for us so much and doesn't want us to feel like we are in a jail because of religion, but to understand that we can be set free ,by His mercy and sacrifice on the cross for our sins,through a relationship with Him,so that we shall not perish (John 3:16).His Word is TRUE, and The Truth will set us free (John 8:31-32) . > Frommetoyou1 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You are using the word "religion" in a non-mainstream meaning. It is not a meaning supported by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. FYI, Christianity is a religion. If you want to protest against that, take it to your own blog, or Conservapedia. Here we abide by WP:NOTFREESPEECH. And, yup, I was once a Bible thumper, but I have never understood Christians who claim to have a relationship with God. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to let your God mutilate my use of the English language by random capitalization and misuse of words. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)