Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list I had started to construct before I found this one. The Anome

Here is a list of some religions, past and present.

Present

Past

Regarding the African Methodist denominations just added... is it the intent to add every single Methodist denomination to the list? When I last checked a few years ago (when I was a Free Methodist), there were more than forty. Do we want every single Protestant denomination? I think there are at least 20,000. Where to draw the line? Wesley 11:42 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

Any objections to sorting the entries within each group (indent level) chronologically instead of alphabetically? (It seems strange to list Christianity before Judaism and Buddhism before Hinduism, when in each case the former evolved from the latter.) Mkweise 19:52 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I think the sacred texts should be taken out, and replaced with a link to sacred text. It seems like an unnecessary duplication. I'm also not sure the mythologies should be listed here, as there is a more complete list at mythology and they aren't practiced anymore -- if they've been revived in some way, they should be at the Pagan and Polytheistic religion section (as dievturiba, goddess worship and others are now). Tuf-Kat

I've got no prob with eliminating this duplication. I just happened to bump into this article when I recently added the 2 Mormon texts to the list. B

How about getting Christianity back to rthodox - Catholic - Protestant? As it is, Christianity takes much more space than the other religions, which is also a sort of bias? And then create a separage article Christian denominations which can be as fine tuned as editors want? -- Irmgard 20:15 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

That's true, but the larger list of Christian religions is simply because, well, there are so many Christian denominations. Depending on how you define a denomination, movement and sect, there are said to be over 10,000 distinct types of Christianity worldwide. However, for purposes of producing an easy to read article, there is much merit in your proposal. Over time this list could become very long, and swamp the entry. We could have this entry discuss only the religions, and their major sub-divisions, but not all the splinter groups, sub-denominations, etc. RK

Sure, there are any number of Christian denominations - but for that matter, Hinduism would be an even longer list, if we want to list all Hinduism subgroups in this cat. Why not just create a Christian Denominations article, refer to it for details on Christian subgroups. There we can then subgroup the subgroups and divisions of subgroups. This article here is about religions, not about denominations and someone looking for an overview on World Religions probably won't care too much about the difference between the Church of God (Cleveland) and the Church of God (Anderson). Irmgard 22:51 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on List of religions or something similar? -- goatasaur

list of religions makes sense to me.
After fixing my wiki I realize that the list redirects here. Shouldn't it be the other way around? -- goatasaur


Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are incorrectly listed as Vedic religions.

Under which category should Bokononism go? I hesitate to put it under "mock" religions, since I am a practicing Bokononist.

How do you practice a fictional religion? Anjouli 11:58, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about the Universal Life Church? It is not really a Christian denomination - any advice on where to put it? Also, it is a strange irony that atheism is always listed as a religion!2toise 13:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you stick to the first paragraph of the article, it IS a religion (the system etc... which denies the supernatural). In the end, believing in the inexistence of God has as strong consequences as believing in His existence. Pfortuny 11:46, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps Religions and Belief Systems would be a better title? Anjouli 12:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think Jedi should be listed under Fictional Religion. First of all, the name of the religion should be The Force, then, as it is officially recognized in Australia, it should be listed in New religions. Any opinion?

I agree. Granted, The Force may seem to be a daft 'religion', but there are plenty of 'authentic' religions that are stranger. Anjouli 07:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The article on Jedi calls it a (fictional) religion, whereas The Force is called "the object of the Jedi and Sith religions", so I think it should be listed as "Jedi", not "The Force". The question of whether it's a "new religion" or a "mock religion" should depend on whether it actually has followers who take it seriously, not on whether it's officially recognized. My impression is that virtually everyone who has ever specified their religion as "Jedi" has done so tongue-in-cheek, and for that reason it should be classified as "fictional". --Arteitle 02:59, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Move?

Move to List of religions? --Jiang|Talk 00:43, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Yes, I was going to suggest that and realized you already had. --Xiaopo's Talk 08:02, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why is Brianism the only 'religious' group that has two entries on this page? Is this allowed for other relgious groups too? Some other religious groups can and should have a double classification e.g. Sathya Sai organization. Andries 17:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the classification of ISKCON under bhakti movement. It should be classified under Gaudiya Vaishnava . I agree though that ISKCON is a bhakti movement but so are some forms of Chrisianity but we don't classify them under bhakti movement. Andries 18:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's the point of the Vedic religions category? it might as well be removed, since its only descendants are all under Hinduism.

Alternatively, there could be a heading of 'Dharmic' religions, (and I'm not sure of this title). Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism all have the concepts of dharma, karma, and reincarnation in common. The current arrangement implies that they these religions are not related except in coming from India, and this is obviously not so. Imc 17:43, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Dharma" is simply the sanskrit word for "teaching" or "doctrine", although there are some new-ageish authors who use that word as a sort of "positive karma" meaning. And Buddhism is not actually reincarnationist. Actually there isn't a whole lot unifying even Hinduism except vocabulary, so the distinction you propose is quite subtle, perhaps to the point of not being useful. Luis Dantas 10:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I disagree entirely with Dantas. In that case, Bible's just a Greek-derived word for book. Dharma is a concept that is found only in the Vedas and later Indian religions. New-agers have nothing to do with it. For this reason, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are also known as Hindu Dharma/Sanatana Dharma, Buddha Dharma, Jaina Dharma and Sikh Dharma. They're very much connected as their philosophies overlap. Also, Hinduism has more than vocabulary and is solidly grounded around Vedic philosophies in Astika traditions as well as Bhakti movements and Puranic sects. Dharma religions is quite appropriate. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:46, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
All religions overlap to some extent. It would be quite puzzling if those born on what is currently India were an exception. And yes, of course "Bible" _is_ just a word meaning "book". If you consider _all_ religious movements that claim to follow Abraham's God, there indeed little (if anything at all) unifying them in either doctrine or practice. The difference is that Hinduism tends to be more inclusive and to welcome an amazing variety of forms of religious interpretation and practice, while the most widespread Abrahamic religions make a point of understanding that there are those who do not "follow the book". I don't see either stance as inherently more "correct" than the other, but the point remains that at the end of the day there is precious little (or nothing) unifying Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism other than language. As a matter of fact I sometimes wonder if there is anything unifying Buddhism either - certainly _not_ language even if we decide that some of the more eccentric branches are not actually Buddhism (yet another can of worms). If there is a core of common beliefs among the four Dharmas mentioned and, say, most forms of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism then it is certainly not too easy to spot. Not to make too big an issue of it, but I take it that you disagree with those who believe that the Upanishads give Hinduism a very different face and in fact oppose much of the teaching of the Vedas? There are many respected authors in either side of this argument. Luis Dantas
but the point remains that at the end of the day there is precious little (or nothing) unifying Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism other than language.
karma, mantra concepts (bija, like AUM, etc.) rebirth-reincarnation (different but related), symbolism (lotus, gods & goddesses), ahimsa (first appeared in Chandogya Upanishad); such things represent more than language and go to concept.. the biggest unifier is Dharma, which obviously is interpreted differently but such differences, as you pointed, can be found within religions as well as without. Yoga is another unifying factor, and while Patanjali is clearly of the Vedic school, vipassana and later yoga movements in the other faiths call to a sort of Dharma-tradition sharing of the concepts, and following individualization as well. Also, it's been noted by many that core ideas and systems of meditation have been derived from older traditions; the Upanishads seems to have set off reform and Mahavir and Buddhadeb ratified the feeling in their new traditions. Hindus, Jains and Buddhists subsequently imbibed so much from each other that some traditions cannot be distinguished from between religions. The Tirukural, for example, is desparately claimed by members of both the Jain and Hindu faiths. As for Tantra, Vajrayana Buddhism is practically a Tibetan face of right-hand Shiva-Shakta tantra traditions.
"I take it that you disagree with those who believe that the Upanishads give Hinduism a very different face and in fact oppose much of the teaching of the Vedas?"
Not at all. The Upanishads represent one of the world's greatest attempts at reform against dogma and progressions of philosophical and mystical sophistication the world has ever seen. It was largely successful in that, while it may not have off-set the parallel sacerdotalist Brahmin-culture, it certainly sparked of centuries of debate, change and growth. Upanishads laid the philosophical and practical foundation upon which Buddhadeb, Mahavir and Shanakracharya all built.
However, it would be fallacious to say that the Upanishads denied the Vedas. You didn't say that, but you called them on their largely 'different' viewpoint. I would argue that they picked up and worked off of solely Vedic philosophy and ideas, things inherent in the culture. If one reads the Rig and Atharva Vedas, one will note that they represent anything but a steady system of belief. Devotional liturgy, complex monism, monotheism, strongly developed ideas of proto-dharma (as I like to call it: rta) all exist within the greater frameowkr of altar machinations... the Aranyakas, pre-Upanishads, grew naturally from Vedic beliefs and show a more meditative, less ritualistic side of Vedic culture.
The problem with your idea of the separation is that you are reducing the Vedas to Brahmin culture, which is not all they were. Certainly they were dominated by it, but the Upanishads did not grow in a vaccuum. They hailed the Vedas on a different level, shying from empty ritual and praising their divine inspiration. They called for a different outlook and embraced certain aspects of the Vedas, things inspired by oft-repeated phrases like All Is One, the nasadiya and purusha sukta hymns, the Vedic cosmologies and imagery, the philosophies of dharma, the divine self and meditation that had developed and become active realms of philosophic discussion not only within the Rig and Atharva but the Yajur and Sama.
The biggest hurdle is that the Upanishads strictly aligned themselves with the Vedas and sought to impress upon the listener/reader that there existed a marked difference between ritual culture of the Vedas and Vedic knowledge itself. Brahmin culture, Vedanta(Upanishads), Yoga, bhakti movements and most of the Tantra scriptures were natural developments of Vedic culture in that their philosophies and religions are derived therefrom and/or they explicitly align themselves with Vedic traditions.
But anyway... my point is not to get into a minority-concerned discussion about early Hinduism; really, I do understand what your saying about the differences, but I the list makes it seem like jainism, buddhism and hinduism are random Indian faiths, which they're not. The most renowned scholars and people contemporary to the beginnings of the former two faiths listed them as Nastika and Astika, against Vedas or with. The connection is clear, and common understandings of many of the adherents and/or scholars of the religion is that they representa a larger Dharma tradition, much like islam christianity and judaism represent abrahamic tradition. The reliance on Abhraham and common Old Testament stories is so great as to make attempts to render the triple-connection 'superficial' seem strange to me.--LordSuryaofShropshire 13:42, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I love categorization. More specifically, I love catergorizing religions. So, what we really need is to categorize religions by birthplace or by what type of religion it is. The Abrahmic religions get their own category, I renamed the post-vedic religions to be a dharmic religion category. I am just saying I will do the same for all the others unless there is some objection here and we keep the categorization by birthplace, which to me seems silly.

The headings are a good start but some moving around would be in order. I am thinking headings like:


Shinko Shukyo (new religions of japan, these could also go under the next category)

tenrikyo
seich-no-ie
konkokyo

Eclectic unification religions

manicheanism
baha'i
all others currently under this heading

Order religions

Confucianism
Mohism
Taoism
Shinto (maybe not)

Left-Hand Path religions

all currently under this heading

Xenotheism (alien religions)

Raelism
Urantia
Scientology (maybe) (probably not)

Neopaganism

all currently under this heading
summum (probably)

Shamanism/Animism

What is now the pagan belief religions

Orisha religions

what is now African-American religions

Unique religions

Zoroastrianism
Yezidism
Scientology (maybe)

--The Sunborn 21:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really feel Baha'i is an Abrahamic religion, however it is not strictly Abrahamic and recognizes many nonabrahamic prophets and names for God (most notably Shiva), therefore I think it should be moved (or <gasp> listed twice) 1.9 Eclectic unification religions. It has as much Abrahamic source as, say, Unitarianism (which I feel should also be double listed).

Also, the term "Electic" bothers me because it, to me, implies a kind of jumbled together mess. Now I realize the electic reffers to the grouping and not the individual religions, but I think "Various" or something along those lines would be more appropriate.

Also, Humanistic Judaism should be added to the Jewish section (if I remember I will add more the Humanistic Judaism entry sometime this week). It has now gained official recognition from the American Council of Rabbis (or something like that, I dont remember the official title) as a legitimate fifth branch of modern Judaism.

Also is Falun Dafa really a unification religion? I mean, I guess it is, becauseit grew out of Chinese Folk Religion which is a combination of Buddhism, Confucionism, Ancestor Veneration/Filial Piety and Taoism which are all practiced together in some combination. So, well, I guess I see it completely is now. Interesting.

I really don't want dual listing. Baha'i is usually considered Abrahmic but it prolly is no more Abrahmic than cao dai, or unitarianism. If you want to move it to the sycreticism section, go for it. I didn't change the eclectic section name 'cause I thought it fit. If you find it offensive, I will change it to syncretic religions. I thought scientology would turn heads under alien religions. Scientology clearly belongs under alien religions, after-all they believe we are decended from clams and the earth was used as a nuke testing spot by Xenu 75,000 years ago. The Baha'i also don't revire Shiva, they consider Krishna a prophet. Harry, harry, Krishna :p

--metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, along with all the other edits to this list I have moved the bahai faith down to the syncretic religion category. I also put it under the category babism. They might not like it there, however, it fits.

Comments on the new arrangement

I have done many re-arrangements to the list, I would apreciate any and all comments on the new design. Especially if the indian subcontenental belongs next to the dharmic religion section. I removed it at first however, LordSuryaofShropshire put it back thinking that it was necessary. I really don't think it works in the new flow of things, I might message him and ask his ideas myself. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 01:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone decided that non-theist religions didn't fit the bill of a religion. However, they thought fictional religions did. There are some crazy people here. I will leave it for now. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 20:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Two questions. Where should the Traditional Chinese Religion go? And is Bön a sufficently different religion now or has it ever been? (Different from buddhism or animism)
Bon should be seperated from Buddhism as it was in the area of China before Buddhism. Buddhism assimilated Bon. It should be under the list with other world religions (e.g., native americans, african religions, aboriginal religions, etc).

Two things

Since it's bulky I'll take out Indian subcontinental and re-title it "Indic religions". I think it is quite central to the issue, and most other scholars of not only religious but also sociological history would agree that the Indic origin of the four Dharmic faiths is central to any true undertsanding of their context. I'll also add a mention about the now-reverted removal of 'Yoga'. It's several things. It's not a 'mix' of meditative, devotional and self-transcending practice. There are several forms of Yoga, among these a meditative path, a devotional path, a selfless-duty path, and an intuitional-knowledge path. It's like trying to define the term 'liberal arts.' Sure it's got one collective name, and several common characteristics, but there are several distinct fields contained within. But in addition, it is a school of Hinduism, a traditional system of thought. It is for that reason always listed as one of the six Vedic schools (side by side with Vedanta) of Hindu philosophy. For this reason, while I can understand someone's pruning, even entirely removing, the explanatory note, I would resist an erroneous removal of Yoga from the Hinduism section, since it is clearly a branch of Hinduism, as much as is Vedanta. What Westerners may be confusing all of yoga with is the Tantric-Raja Yogic branch of Hinduism known as Hatha Yoga and it is an ignorant fallacy to try and render Yoga equivalent to one sub-branch. It's not merely equivalent to Vipassana in Buddhism. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:33, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

non-theist religions

My personal take on these are real religions an should be grouped with the other religions. Buddhism and Jainism are not nessisarily theist religions. Brianism is definately a religion. Deism is a theist religion and is still active but it too is under "world-views". Can we put this list under religions? Is Agnosticism a religion? Is Atheism? How about the rest of the list? These are some really tough questions. I won't change anything until a response is heard. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 02:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree about Buddhism, Jainism, Brianism. Agnosticism should even be here consitering it is a philosophy, not a religion. Agnosticism deals with knowlege not God. It answers many questions with "it can't be known" not just the question of the existance of a creator or supreme being. I don't think atheism is a religion, and won't even capitolize it, because it is not organized in any way. However, the American Atheists are an organized group and could be put on the list. Dustin Asby 00:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. Religion is erroneously defined by some (with little understanding, imho) when it necessitates a Creator-God or some such vision of divinity. The word religion itself does not imply a God or theism of sorts. However, agnosticism and atheism are not religions. This is because it merely describes a common pattern of belief, not a hierarchical or even remotely cohesive structure/framework of beliefs with any sort of consistent ethic or set of laws. Calling atheism or agnosticism religions is like calling "theism" a religion! In my opinion atheism and agnosticism should not be removed from the page, but placed in a section clearly denoting their relation to 'religions', much like one might, in a thesaurus/dictionary, mention an antonym in the definition of a word. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well not exactly like calling theism a religion it would be more akin to calling anarchy a form of government, or calling a vacuum a form of matter. I tentatively agree that organization should be the key to what is a religion. However, what about the unorganized religions like the Amerindian belief system? Or other shamanistic beliefs. I guess their post-modern beliefs border on simply spiritualism. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 03:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If your list is only going to include organized religions, then you need to say so, change the article name to list of organized religions, and then a list of unorganized religions could be created without fear of duplication. I don't think that all valid religions are organized, though. Is Christianity by itself an organized religion? No; it's a banner under which many contrasting denominations identify themselves, but it has no cohesive structure. Yet, it's on the list. - KeithTyler 16:44, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Christianity is one of the most organized religions out there. There is a separate clergy, unlike islam. There are the creeds and the holy book has very little variation across 2 billion people and 1000 denominations. Really, the only more organized religion is bahai. --Sunborn
I disagree, and I cite Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses as evidence. Both have their own sources which are often at odds with the Bible, much less the teachings of other Christianities. This is without even going into the serious philosophical rifts between Catholicism and Protestantism. KeithTyler 18:28, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't think your anarchy analogue is appropriate. I, LSoS, may believe in anarchy. But my form of anarchy may be my own personal concoction with no relation to the organized and systematized 'Anarchy' movements that exist out there. My anarchic colors may be pink and blue! Now I'm not saying that in order to be a part of a religious institution that one must have the exact some beliefs and coordinate all one's ideas with those of the institution. However, there has to be some sort of link, commonality. Christianity, as a whole, is very diverse. However, there is enough commonality in the parts to relate to a general whole, some examples being the Bible, belief in and acceptance of Christ, the use of churches (of varying designs, albeit) as houses of worship, the use of liturgy and song in prayer, a practically identical mythology, etc. The same cannot be said for theism or atheism. Neither are religions, organized or not! They're classifications of belief. Monotheism, by itself, is not a religion. It is a belief. However, monotheism does describe several religions, including the Abrahamic faiths. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:12, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, a number of those common threads you provide for Christianity are not universal. Not all Christians worship in a church (born-again Christians, for example), not all use song in worship (some find it sinful), and not all necessarily use the Bible as their primary source (though it is generally accepted as truth, more or less). Basically, there is as much holding all of Christianity together as there is any other unorganized definable religion. I argue that treating Christianity as a religion while excluding any other unorganized religion is POV. KeithTyler 18:28, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I should be packing for school but I am a wikiholic so here we go. The definition of a Christian (or a Christian denomination) is a person (or group) that they consider Christ (get it, Christian) to be the son of the Hebrew god Yahweh (whatever that means, depending on POV) and that he died for the sins of all people. And on the third day after his death he rose from the dead. He is also held to have accended into heaven later. Christians also hold no higher or equal status to any other prophet. This is what all Christians have in common. If this doesn't hold to the group or person, no matter what they say, they are not Christians. It is not a POV, it is what happens when all religions are compaired togeather. You must look at world religion as a whole. I might be biased because I left Christianity but LordSuryaofShropshire would have a picture from outside Christianity and even possibly the western stance. If you say that Christianity is unorganized, what is the name of an organized religion? Please tell us so we can compare. --The Sunborn
Being definable is not the same thing as being organized. All you've proven that it is a shared belief system; it isn't an organization. I could use the same method to describe any unorganized religion or shared belief structure. That's why I don't believe that being unorganized should exclude a religion (or shared belief structure about spirtuality) from a List of religions. KeithTyler 20:34, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Let me tell you again, If you say that Christianity is unorganized, what is the name of an organized religion? Please tell us so we can compare. --The Sunborn
Actually, my view of Christianity is as much that of an insider's, if not more so, as any Christian's. I will say to Keith that yes, there are indeed sects which differ greatly in some manners, such as you say. But you are being nitpicky and casuist to the extent that at least Christians have a common basis of belief, similar mythologies, a simlilarly respected scripture, and a reverence for Jesus. My point is that atheists in general do not have so much as a common scripture or set of beliefs regarding the lack of gods or the nature of ontology; there may be groups or sets within them. We seem to be forgetting that your logic (keithtyler's logic) is that of a slippery slope. If you say that you cannot consider Christianity a separate religion, then there is no single group in the world which is cohesive enough to really be considered one group! Muslims across the world differ wildly, but they look towards a single source. Atheists have nothing of the sort. You're throwing the word POV around like McCarthy did 'communist' but the issue here is not bias but merely trying to stick to a definition. No one's saying that atheists are not 'religious,' or that they shouldn't be included on an article. for instance, if I believe in a magical woodpuppet who created the world, and a lot of other people happened to have, through happenstance, similar ideas of the world's having been created by some sort of wooden figurine, but there's no common origin, no common theology, no common book, no common ideas about the morality inherent in the wooden-figure religion, you can't call it a religion! It's a belief that happens to be shared by many.
KeithTyler: answer this: Is monotheism a religion? (or a belief?)--LordSuryaofShropshire 03:14, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
It's a category of beliefs, actually, as it describes the nature of the belief (a single deity). No one goes around calling themselves a "monotheist"; they describe themselves as a worshipper of the specific deity they believe in. One could argue that an atheist does about the same -- they describe themselves as a worshipper of no deity. With no deity, there's no distinction to make between what sort of deity/ies you worship and which one(s) they are, when there are none. (It wouldn't hurt the article to include such designations as "monotheist", actually, though you'd probably have a number of people making cracks about Catholicism being miscategorized.) So in short, "monotheist" is not a spiritual identity -- but "atheist" is.
I worry that if the decision was made to exclude non-organized religions, only the first section of the current list (and only about 3/4s of it) would survive that definition. KeithTyler 03:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I cannot believe the verbal gymnastics you're going through to force atheism into the category of a religion. And yes, I know it's a category of beliefs. This is why I asked the question, to demonstrate to you the invalidity of calling atheism a religion as opposed to a 'belief', 'set of beliefs' or a particular 'religious belief'. You're making assumptions that just because someone doesn't believe in a deity, and a lot of others don't, they're part of a religion!!!! That's ludicrous. This is not about merely being organized, it's about having some definable set of characteristics that differentiates different groups of beliefs. Agnostics and Atheists aren't a part of a world religion, and if you told them that they were part of a single worldwide religious institution called Agnosticism or Atheism, they and everyone else in the world would laugh at you. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:41, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions/Archive_1&oldid=881323507"