Welcome to the Religion-wiki forum. This is the place to post any general questions, comments or musings about this wiki or about religion in general. Please post new conversations at the bottom of the page, and post replies to conversations at the bottom of that conversation's section. Please sign all comments with four tildes (~~~~). Conversations that are considered to have been completed are moved to the archive.


Please read our Wiki Article on Equalism, our new religion. Then discuss what you think on it. Please, if you agree to our ways and core teachings, convert to us and help us multiply, expand and spread our love, happiness and core teachings. --Equalism 13:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple points of view (MPOV)

Mattis formulated a basic idea here about a Religion-wiki policy of multiple points of view (MPOV) in contradistinction to Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view (NPOV). I thought that we needed a simple statement of this and came up with Religion-wiki:Multiple points of view. As it's for the whole community to decide on policy, please edit away at it until we're all happy that we have a policy we can all own. --Gareth Hughes 15:08, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks great. See Religion-wiki talk:Multiple points of view. Andrewa 16:20, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Secure a page

Could someone with authority please secure Västerport from anyone to make edits? We want to make sure that our main page of our church portal isn't altered, since it is our face outwards. I've moved everything to templates, which should make it somewhat harder for people who wrecks things, to actually wreck things... Peter R 20:36, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

No pages are protected at the moment: spamming has been reverted a few hours after it has occurred. I haven't noticed any vandalism of the Västerport page. Moving the contents to templates is a good way to prevent casual alteration of their contents. I think a page would have to be really suffering from a constant stream of vandalism to be considered for protection. This is a policy issue, so it does need discussion here, but I believe that openness dictates that we don't use page protection unless we feel we have no choice. After all, page protection is a blunt instrument: no one can edit a protected page, and the protection has to be lifted each time an edit is needed. I feel that this is unwiki. Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 08:46, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The members in our congregations board is worried of what might happen when I am on vacation and don't check on the Västerport page every day. That is why a page could be considered for protection. I believe this should be the case with the Main Page as well. But if everyone here checks every page that is edited by someone with only an IP address shown, then the protection should be fine as it is, even if I am unable to look at it for a few weeks.
Is it so, that everyone does this? Peter R 10:12, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've put it on my watchlist some time ago, but I'm not sure what I can do. How do I identify good faith edits, when I don't even speak the language? Andrewa 18:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! A typical "bad edit" is of course any links to sex-sites, or viagra, etc. Other edits are of course hard to look out for. Håkan D and myself are the ones that mostly does the edits. Any people who isn't logged in, should be considered to look extra on. Peter R 14:19, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)


MattisManzel: scroll, scroll, scroll (yawn!)

With a 4 cm scroll bar! --Gareth Hughes 15:29, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Any more thoughts that give som substance? ;) Peter R 05:29, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
MattisManzel 15:16, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC): We're disussiing on the deeply religious question of "Is saving on several hundred Kilometers of mouse movement per wiki-life worth it?" Gareth thinks no, I think yes, that's it.


Clicking the Table of contents #4 allowed me to view the last entry or edit 2005-07-10 to 07-14 with no scrolling. Just to make the downside the upside, here is a religious creed I worked on for

WikiChristian Creed
The food that I share with others
Is the food that nourishes me.
The pain I ease in others
Takes away all my pain.
The strength I spend for others
Is the strength I would regain.
The freedom I seek for others
Will make me forever free.
The affront I forgive in others
By GRACE is forgiven of me.
The good that I see in others
My greatest good shall be.
The truth I affirm in others
Still others will confirm in me.
The love I feel for others
Comes back my life to cheer.
The load that I lift from others
Causes my load to disappear.
The path I walk with others
Is the path GOD walks with me.

They didn't use it, so might be adapted as My Religious Creed. Athrash 02:49, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Athrash: I really appreciate you sharing this with us. -- 09:31, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
By the way, that was me. --Gareth Hughes 09:36, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Would the Church of Reality be welcome here? The Church of Reality is a religion based on believing in everything that is real. There are no deities and nothing supernatural in the doctrine. It creates a religious identity for Realists practicing Realism. The Church has established Sacred Principles and has a code of morality and a complex doctrine.

I am also the church founder, in case someone might have a problem with that. So - before I post anything about it I want to see if this is something that is welcome. --Mperkel 00:44, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all religions and faiths are welcome here. ----Celestianpower talk 11:29, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I have posted a Church of Reality page. I don't really grasp the category stuff so if someone wants to get that working that would be great.--Mperkel 16:30, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)


Salve! I just reverted 23 edits by an anonymous user which redirected people to a page on the English Wikipedia. I think I got it all, but please check pages you've edited recently to ensure they reflect the changes that should be on those pages. Thanks! -- SwissCelt 10:12, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I just checked, and it seemns that you got the most of it. Thanks! Peter R 10:33, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Frère Roger is killed

This troubles my heart so much, that Brother Roger of the Taizé Community was killed on tuesday. He was a true icon for the thoughts of ecumenic work and was since several years having open discussions with members of all the world religions. My prayers goes out to the community. / Pjotr'k

Västerportkyrkan moves away...

Due to our congregation's somewhat conservative ideas (my opinion, only) we in Västerportkyrkan, Sweden will not have a wiki here. Another person takes over the webmaster responsibilities and has started a page on I am sorry that they couldn't see the opportunities lying in the wiki concept so with sadness in my heart, I bid you farewell.

I didn't have the possibility to delete our pages, so I'm leaving them where they are. I wish you all good luck in proclaiming the divine worship (or non-worship) in the wiki concept.

Regards Peter R 13:31, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Athrash does not move away

I was using Religion Wiki as a sounding board/sandbox for formatting the N.T. translation on Wikibooks. Experimenting with the Word could have a bad connotation, but it has been quite rewarding so far. Erasing the work of John 2 & 3 on principle stems from one of the admins on Wikibooks telling me that since there was an edit war on Christianity that I should set up my own wiki or go to Wikicities (ha, I was already there.) I responded, the biblical Word of God cannot co-exist or display with the Google Ads, in particular, "God Without Religion." So, guys, I'm here til Wales bails (on the Wikibook). On the other hand, textual criticism is mostly speculation at this point in history because the Jesus phenomenon has prevailed in magnificient fashion, yet work such as Testimonia and the modern equivalent intrigues and can co-exist with questions of faith or religion. Religion-wiki, comparative religion, so be it. Athrash 05:36, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Textured Background

All articles now appear to have the textured background from the Main Page which is uneven on the right edge. Was there any discussion of background change? - Athrash | Talk 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There was some talk between Garzo and myself, in which I displayed a couple of examples. The idea is to make the article more distinct in comparison to the rest of the page. And at the same give us more of a separate identity from the other wiki's.

By unevenness on the right, I'm guessing that you are referring to what appears to be a crease on the right hand side. I suspect that I could probably fix that by stretching the graphic just a little bit more. For that matter, I'm not necessarily attached to that exact color if you think another one might be better. The only color that I can't seem to be able to use of is white because the texturing disappears for some unknown reason.

I do have some other design ideas, but other than applying a double border on the Table of Contents boxes, I want to be sure that the article background is satisfactory first. --Kirk 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the crease appears to be a problem if the image doesn't fit. - Athrash | Talk 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How does the background look now? Also do you have thoughts on what the background of the Table of Contents should look like?

Another thought that has me puzzling is the lable currently used by the Table of Contents. In many of the other Wiki's, Contents actually works fine. In History, Table of Contents works better given the nature of the material. For this wiki, I'm still a bit undecided which way to go. --Kirk 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Background looks OK for some articles, personally I would add text as inset, but printable version has a bigger crease on right side, so what is the point of all the experimentation when it appears Wikia was not designed for such background. More content is what is needed. There are no regular contributors. - Athrash | Talk 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the wiki what works. But for now, the background for article space won't be using an image. --Kirk 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

New atheism page

Hi. I just made a 2 paragraph addition to the atheism page, so you might want 2 go check it out. You don't know me.

It looks good. Feel free to create an account. It's easy to do and requires no commitment or personal information. Having an account allows you to personalise and track your contributions to Religion-wiki. Have fun. — Gareth Hughes 09:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

MattisManzel 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC): I've registered and just started on Religions-wiki, the religion-wiki in German, on the oddwiki-hive where I've been busy recently. Let's see if we can get a good cross-engine collaboration going, like transcluding the religious calendar and such ,)

What is the One True Faith?

Just wondering what the One True Faith is? Anyone have any Ideas? I don't have any faith, so I am looking to get some. I need help though.-- 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The word 'faith' is used in a number of different ways, not all of which are religious. One organisational use of the word is to refer to a certain orthodoxy or structured belief system. This is the understanding behind the phrase 'One True Faith'. It is a statement of refrence to a structured belief system that is considered to be the unique and total orthodoxy and sole source of religious truth. Of course, such a viewpoint is totally exclusive of other belief systems. — Gareth Hughes 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a religious scholar or spiritual leader, but I see faith as a GIFT from God. You can ask God for faith and He will probably give it to you. He might do this by first revealing some aspect of Himself to you [This can be mystical vision or something tangible.]; then your faith will germinate from this implanting. Faith is, in my personal understanding, the belief in God, the creator of all things, and in Jesus Christ, the Son of God [Savior and Messiah]-for without them, we might not be here. You may also to start out by reading the Gospel of John. Good Luck. Jdgray 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a programmer with a unique offering...

Hi!, I've created a line-indexing program. I call it the Lynx EC Line-Indexer.

I've formatted the Holy Bible with it, and am willing to post links to the online text. (I can't make the HTML text compatible with Wiki-text because of the tables, even though I've tried) I might then create a system of pages so that a line-by-line concordance, indexes and other useful digital scholarship tools may be built.

Here is the list (TOC) of the books of the Bible linked to the text. Just click on a link to go the head of the chapter named.








1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings






























Wisdom of Solomon













4 Ezra

















1 Timothy

2 Timothy







If the format is agreeable, I would create a site similar to this one :Shakespeare Table of Contents, giving the reader the ability to create indexes, build concordances, make and send links, etc. It might be called the Living Bible Concordance page.

John Sebastian DeGrazia

Constructed religions

This wiki was recently discussed on an Aramaic mailing list. Although the list isn't an academic one, the subject of Gilghadic Aramaic (as in Isarlaism) was brought up, and this wiki is one of the main net witnesses to it. It would seem then important to make it clear which religions here are constructed by users of Religion-wiki, without denigrating the sincerity that may be involved in their creation. I created a template (template:created) that can be used to mark such articles and include them in the relevant category. I realise that, in the past, one creator of a religion disliked having his religion described as created. However, I have tried to make it quite clear that such religions are no less religions as other religions. However, there is a corpus of evidence and sources, traditions and history that separate world religions from them. As readers may reach our pages from a search term, it would be useful to them that we distinguish our creations from more established religions. — Gareth Hughes 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I utterly respect your response and action, but while Gilghadic Aramaic is indeed a constructed dialect of language, Isarlaism is not a constructed religion. Please understand, I honor what you are doing, only I have to relate that Isarlaism is not constructed. Many consider it to just be a form of Christianity, and others say it is a branch of Messianic Judaism. It could be either, I suppose, but it is not a "made-up" or invented religion. All of its principles and teachings are Judeo-Christian, no matter how they may be perceived. The Holy Bible is its sacred book, no other. YHWH is its God and Yeshua (Jesus) is its Messiah. Its views regarding identity are no different from those of some Messianic Jewish groups. If, after reading my statement, you still insist on putting a "constructed religion" tag on the Isarlaism article, I ask that the wiki just be deleted, since I have written most of the info on it. I'm sure the others who contributed to the wiki would agree. Our beliefs and way of life is not is ancient. Peace (Shlam.) {user:}

When I noticed that the Isarlaism wiki had been tagged as a "constructed religion" I was honestly shocked, but I understand why Garzo thought it was. Personally, I'm glad guys like Garzo are keeping check on things. I agree with user that the article should be deleted if the constructed religion tag must be placed on it. Isarlaism is not constructed and it is somewhat offensive to Isarlaeans to hear others say that. Garzo, I read your profile and found that you are an Anglican priest, so I'm asking one "Christian" brother to another, reconsider labeling Isarlaism as "constructed", otherwise you should probably label all forms of Christianity and Messianic Judaism as "constructed" because we share the same core beliefs. {Bar-garbya / 15 Jan 2007}

Hmmm. Well, the article shouldn't be deleted. People need to know what Isarlaism is. The construct religion tag, however, is misleading when applied to the Isarlaism article. Perhaps someone should create a webpage for Isarlaism rather than putting everying on wiki. Wiki is a dangerous place. What most likely happened was that Garzo assumed Isarlaism was constructed because he found out that Gilghadic Aramaic was constructed. At least he pays attention to stuff. The term "Isarlaism" is constructed, but the belief system behind the word is not constructed. I can see how there could be a confusion. {user:}

By constructed I do not mean that a religion is 'made up'. However, I do refer to a religion that has no existence beyond the lives of those who have contributed to their Religion-wiki articles. In this case, Isarlaism has no existence beyond that of a one person, or a few people, involved in writing the article. Even so, as Isarlaism draws on major themes in Christianity and Judaism, the presentation called Isarlaism is not a major expression of these religions. I am concerned that someone used a reference to this wiki to speak about a third major dialect grouping of Aramaic. This is one thing that is complete construction. It is interesting to see that the more concrete expressions of the religion, that is, those that are clearly constructed, have been removed from the article. The question remains: how many Isarlaeans are there and how did the religion develop. Am I wrong in thinking that Isarlaism is the religion of one or a few that has only found its expression recently. I have always applauded Religion-wiki's freedom for people to post articles on all sorts of religious ideas. However, I do see that there is a real issue when articles about religion include what may seem like plausible details which are, in fact, artifice (such as Gilghadic Aramaic). Whereas an article about Messianic Judaism would be about a widely expressed mode of religious thought and practice, I see an article about a newly developed expression of Messianic Judaism that has no widespread use as being such a 'constructed' religion, even though it draws on a well-known religious expression. I believe that this is a matter of straightforward honesty about the awkward subjective/objective mix we deal with when discussing religion: objectively there is an important social difference between religions that have a widespread, recognised expression and local, personal expressions of religious thought and practice, whereas, subjectively, both can be true religions with full devotion. The objective labelling of a religion as constructed does not deny its validity of religious expression, but simply recognises its wider social role is minimal. — Gareth Hughes 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, and I respect it. Know that Gilghadic Aramaic is not used by most Isarlaeans, only by a few, such as Bar-garbya who posted above...and it is known to be constructed. Jacob Moak, the guy who constructed it, just wanted to make Aramaic available to his family and others who were interested, but he calls it Isaric Aramaic not Gilghadic. Some people don't realize that and get all excited about it. Isarlaism, as was mentioned above, is a recently constructed term for a pre-existing system of beliefs that was and is part of mainstream Messianic Judaism. There are several hundred Isarlaeans within the Southern US alone, most of which are part of Messianic Jewish groups, such as the Messianic Israel Alliance. Those of us contributing to the wiki info about Isarlaism are not the people who started Isarlaism. I know that you consider Isarlaism to be constructed, but it would more accurately be labeled a "reconstructed religion," since it did exist in the ancient past. I would be okay with that sort of label, but when people looking for info about Isarlaism see a big tag at the top of the article that reads "Constructed Religion", they will think that Isarlaism is just some kind of invented "joke", instead of a serious belief that shared by hundreds (at least). There are several Isarlaean groups on Yahoo, on MSN, and on other sites, all having at least a few dozen members. Yes, it may not be as well known as other forms of Biblical Messianism, but it has existed for some time within the realm of Messianic Judaism, and it is growing. Isarlaeans intentionally keep a low profile to avoid criticism and to fellowship with Christians and Messianic Jews. {user:}

OK, I've come to a better understanding of Isarlaism. I was mislead by the presence of clearly constructed elements like Gilghadic. On another note, Tyluthan the author of articles on the Tyluthan religion, has challenged the label for his religion. I am fairly certain that this looks like the creation of a teenager, but, once again, I may be wrong. I've asked him to present evidence for Tyluthan being something more than it appears to be. — Gareth Hughes 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Garzo doesn't have to believe in Tyluthan. But he should respect it. By lableing it made up he is disrespecting it. All I simply ask for is for the "cunstructed" tags to be romoved. The onyl official documentation is on our site. Anyone with me please reply. Think, how would you fell if the religion you follow was disccredited because it isn't huge or well known. Garzo please remove and stop placing the tags. Our site is Please respect Tyluthan and stop saying it is made up. If you cant accept it Delete all articles about it.user:Tyluthan

I am a Tyluthan and am fully against this asinine discrimination. Leave Tyluthan alone. There is no tags on BARTISM so you are harrasing us.

Garzo isn't harrasing anyone, he's merely being a good wiki-citizen and making the public aware of what is hidden from them. I've heard of Isarlaism, but not of Tyluthan. I checked out the site given above, and it seems rather questionable to me. If Tyluthan is indeed a religion, it is definitely a constructed one. Who was the first supposed Tyluthan? When did this did belief become accepted? — {User:} 23 January 2007


After thinking about the subject for a while I have come to a conclusion. All religions are constructed. Wasn't Christianity formed by a disciple. Was it not? Isn't all religion just the creation of one or many briliant minds. The only difference is that some o\are majority and some minority. But none others have tags.!

Either put tags on the others or remove them on the Tyluthan articles. 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


You guys win. We now have our own wiki. If you wish to check it out Tyluthan 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Tyluthan Articles

Please remove all tyluthan articles thanx. Tyluthan 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Jesus really exist

in German

Frühzeitdatierungen sind schwierig, man kann nicht wie Bischof Ussher 1650 n.C. einen beliebigen Kalender nach Bedarf in die Frühzeit rückschreiben. Damals hatte jede Kultur eigene Zeitangaben und Kalender, die von Sparta und Athen unterschieden sich gravierend um bis zu einem Monat pro Jahr und wurde willkürlich angepasst. Die zeitliche Einordnung alter Dokumente ist nur sinnvoll, wenn der Ort der Aufzeichnung mit den jeweiligen Zeitangaben bekannt und diese willkürliche Skala an astronomischen oder zeitlich gesicherten Fakten zu eichen ist. Die Zeitenwende und Geburt Christi wurde erst 525 n.C. vom Mönch Dionysius Exiguus festgelegt, bis dahin hatte man mit diokletianischen Zyklen bzw. metonischen Zyklen zu 19 Jahren gerechnet. Frühe Kirchenväter wie St. Irenäus und Tertullian hatten sogar noch auf das Jahr 3 v.C. getippt. Die Zahl NULL war noch Jahrhunderte unbekannt, erst ab 1300 n.C. wurde die Zeitenwende langsam publik.

König Herodes (basileus) stirbt nach langer Krankheit im April 4 v.C. Der Sohn Antipas übernimmt als Regionalherrscher (tetrarch) nur Gallilea und die Westbank bis zu seiner Verbannung nach Lyon 38 n.C. Etwa 34 n.C. heiratet er seine verwitwete Schwägerin Herodias, deren Intrigen ihm den Thron kosten. Der andere Sohn Antipas kommt in der Bibel überhaupt nicht vor, beide sind dort nur König Herodes mit einer Regentschaft von fast 80 Jahren bei 69 Jahren Lebenszeit. Der dritte Sohn Archelaus (Matt 2:22), wird nationaler Führer (ethnarch) von Judäa mit Bethlehem und wegen Unfähigkeit bereits 6 n.C. nach Vienne in Gallien verbannt. In Folge vereinigt Rom unter Kaiser Augustus 6 n.C. Judäa, Samaria und Idumea zu einer Provinz unter einem Prokurator. Ein Jesus ben Stada war ein jüdischer religiöser Agitator, den römische Soldaten als Störenfried in Lydda 15 km von Jerusalem entfernt kreuzigten, was alle späteren religiösen Eiferer für ihre Jesuslegende nutzten. Ein Aufstand gegen die Römer 66 n.C. war schnell beendet, Qumram fiel 68 n.C., der Tempel in Jerusalem 70 n.C. und die Bergfeste Massada 73 n.C. Im Anschluss an den Aufstand wurde das Land säkularisiert, es gab nahezu keine Tempel und Priester mehr. ( (

Der letzte Sohn Philip regiert als Regionalkönig (tetrarch) die nördlichen Gebiete bis zum normalen Tod 34 n.C. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, römischer Proconsul in Syrien hält 6 n.C. in Judäa und Samaria eine Volkszählung zur Steuerschätzung ab wie bereits 14 Jahre vorher in den Provinzen Syrien und Judäa. In Galiläa hat es in römischer Zeit niemals eine Volkszählung gegeben. 1961 n.C. wurde westlich des Toten Meeres in einer Höhle ein römisches Steuerformular von 127 n.C. gefunden, Volkszählungen zur Steuerschätzung sind in Ägypten und Babylonien bereits seit 3050 v.C. bekannt. Wäre Josef und Maria von Jerusalem 148 km nach Bethlehm gereist um als römische Bürger dort ererbten Besitz für die Steuer zu reklamieren, hätte ein Familienmitglied nur von der römischen Verwaltung unter Publius Sulpicius Quirinius verurteilt werden können.

Nichts vom biblischen Mythos um Jesus ist real, Maria gebar einen unehelichen Balg des römischen Soldaten Panthera. Dazu berichtet der Grieche Kelsos (um 180 n.C.), dass Jesus sich fälschlich als den Sohn einer Jungfrau ausgab und von einer armen Handarbeiterin stamme. Diese wurde von ihrem Manne wegen Ehebruch verstoßen und hat ehrlos umherirrend Jesus heimlich geboren. Der ist aus Armut als Tagelöhner nach Ägypten gegangen und hat sich dort an Zauberkräften versucht. Zurückgekehrt hat er sich viel auf diese Kräfte eingebildet und sich öffentlich als Gott erklärt. Nazareth nahe Jerusalem existiert zu dieser Zeit nicht, zumal der Talmud in ganz Galiläa 63 Ortsnamen bei 2.500 km² Fläche, listet, darunter Yafa Japhia nur 1 km südlich mit umfangreichen Gräberfunden in der Neuzeit. Der Name Nazareth taucht erst um 300 n.C. in Evangelien in Rom auf, es gab niemals eine Volkszählung in Galiläa, Jesus ben Stada stammte nicht aus der Linie von Josef und Maria und war kein Nachkomme Davids, Herodes ist schon 4 Jahre tot und die jungfräuliche Geburt kopiert die Kirche 431 Jahre später aus Heidenkulten.

Wikia now has a much better Forum system

Separate items but linked and listed, in the same sorts of ways as those used by other forum and messageboard systems. Check out Genealogy:Forum:Index - works much better than our old Watercooler, which was long and mixed, like this page. Ask a staff member to set it up. Shalom. Robin Patterson 00:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This can help many write for this wiki

I have invested many hours to collect these links. They are related to the major world religions. They are tagged.

A person can go to these many sites and write simple summaries of what they find for this wiki.

American Indian beliefs?

Hello, new to the Religion wiki. There doesn't seem to be an article covering aspects of American Indian beliefs. I searched for "American Indian," "Native American," and "Great Spirit," but came up with nothing. If there is an article, please point me to it. If not, I would be happy to start one.

If I do start the article, though, I am unsure of what to title it. "American Indian religion"? I hesitate to use the word "religion" though because each tribe had different beliefs, though many similarities are shared (which the article would focus on). "American Indian spirituality"? Or perhaps just "American Indian beliefs"? Arcadian 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think "Native American Spirituality" would cover the subject nicely, while acknowledging the Great Spirit in all things. - Athrash | Talk 03:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, when I get the chance, I will get an article started under the title "Native American Spirituality." - Arcadian 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Portals

Anyone know how to edit the "Religious Portals" box on the left?

It is missing many of the religions in this wiki, could someone please add them? In paticular Atheism.

Thank you.

Rev Bem 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've adjusted the Portal List a bit, to include Atheism. Right now I'm trying to keep the Portal list from getting to big. However I have provided a page where other smaller faiths can be included.--Kirk 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Gita is not only a religious book of Hindus but it also explains about scientific development before Mahabharta. Hinduism is no religion. It is way of life. There is no God. Exploiter has used this word to exploit. Gita explains methods to come out from depression. It also explains theory of life. Kindly read URL: before it is deleted and moved to either Atheism or in Hinduism. I need your help to find suitable place to publish this book which is already published in my link title URL: and for the benefit of humanity. Jaipaldatta 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well why not publish it here, there are already several religous texts and books here, lots of room.
Rev Bem 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Transfiguration of Jesus Christ

Could someone provide an in-depth explanation of Jesus Christ's transfiguration on the mountain before his three apostles [Matthew 17:1-4]? I know that this passagfe speaks clearly of the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I do not understand why Moses and elijah were there and not someone else. What was the significance of having the two important figures? Is is possible that the text was meant to be read without further analysis? I have always felt that there was more to it. Jdgray 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


On an online Christian debate forum a few weeks ago we were debating the Transfiguration of Jesus. I had a few questions that were very hard to answer(for a few )1) Why were there only 3 apostles, Jesus loved them all i would say equally. 2)two out of the 3 did not write any of the Gospels and the one that did- John, did not write about the event??( extremely odd)3)Elijah and Moses were resurrected into heaven before Jesus was,Im sorry i cant find any scripture that supports this, (just an aside if you believe that Elijah and Enoch were taken up in to the Heaven where God the father resides, you may want to do some research on what the real taken up into heaven means.)4) When God speaks, "This is my son who i love- listen to him. Are you kidding me, "LISTEN TO HIM", says God.To me that sounds so made up its almost funny but it's really sad. My contention is Jesus may have Transfigured before the apostles ? but Mark 9:2 the Transfiguration has the marks of Scribes embroidering the truth or the whole story was made up to fit an agenda.I'm still looking on line to find any Textual Criticism of this passage but haven't found any as of yet.Lastly- to me its of little importance (as far as my faith is concerned)whether this event really happened at all,it changes nothing of what Jesus the Christ really did for us!Blessings!!

Who is Melchizedek?

I was wondering if anyone might have something to share about Melchizedek. Many theories have abounded in Jeiwsh and secular history and none seem right. I read where Christ is called High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and since Melchizedek has no beginning or end of days, I came to the conclusion that Melchizedek is God or the title for God in a High Priest role - a role that He bestowed on Christ- but then Christ is God the Son, so Christ must be Melchizedek past and current. If someone has something to add or clarify on this point please let me know. Thanks. Jdgray 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions and improvements

our main portal

I have altered the portal a bit.

  • Added a interlink menu bar to the german and dutch religion wiki
  • Added wikia interlink for the dutch wiki (sadly it is not possible for the german wiki since that one is not hosted by wikia)
  • I noticed that the scripting page was quit long so i have putted most of the subject sections in templates.
  • I ve added edit links in the subject sections so you can add/remove text right away

Let me know if their are any problems I can fix that and its always possible to roll back. .

I also made a second portal on my testpage if you want i can work this one out and addept it to this wiki.

about the wikia layout"
by the way its a pity we have are still using the standard lay-out. wikia has given us a lot of options to alter the layout. If you would alter the Monaco.css we could add a nice banner too. I see that still a lot of things has to be done with such as adding templates and layouts. If you need some help with that i volunteer to assist you. as an example i can show you the wiki's i am administrating:

About the german wiki:
It seems that User:MattisManzel the founder of this wiki is no longer active on this wiki. his last edit was in 2006. he is also the admin of the german wiki wich his last edit was 2008-04-02 I dont know if rev.bev or kirk still in contact with him otherwise I would like to create a german religion wiki on wikia so we can interlink that wiki too. I will transfer the articles to that wiki too.

at last:
I hope you guys dont see me like a pain in the ass like someone who is new and thinks he knows everything better. I really like working on wikis. For me it is kind of addict. Ive started in 2002 on wikipedia and i m still active in the wiki's. Actually i m not a big writer but most of the time i am busy with moderating wiki's, add content to existing articles (expanding articles} , layouts making templates, tables etc for other people.

Regards, Sgt.Friso 15:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.