This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Latter Day Saints / Adventist Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

It's pretty much the same notion, eh? They both fall under the rather narrow category of "ethnocentric superiority complex"... The parallels should at least be mentioned. 71.247.177.135 (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read the section regarding that issue under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people#Ethnocentrism . Groups that hold an idea of a chosen people typically regard it as being something very, very different from the notion of a "master race". Asarelah (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I would suggest that different groups have different definitions of what "chosen people" really means. Some might define it similar to a master race; some might define it in terms that only their religion or group can achieve salvation or heaven. Still others might define it to mean that anyone joining their religion is accepted into the "chosen people"; and still others might see it as any who believe certain ideas, no matter what religious affiliation, are "chosen." Of course, this is a very short list and isn't complete. And then defining "chosen" is also varied. Chosen for heaven or salvation after this life, chosen for a better place in this life, chosen to have certain beliefs, chosen to accomplish certain things in the world, etc. Depending on a person's religious beliefs, the definitions can be drastically different. We need to be careful in how concepts and ideas are worded in these articles. It is important to define a religion in terms that it's followers agree with for it to appear legitimate.--Truecolors (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Chosen People" does indeed mean "Master Race", that is why the Herrenrasse ideology of the Nazis should be mentioned in this article. Whether a group of people think themselves better and above the rest of humankind due to a proximity to god (as in Judaism) or due to some grand destiny (as with Nazis) does not matter. The underlying idea of superiority of one's own group is the same. It is the very lowest form of intellectual tribalism. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed advertisement from minor sect. Any particular cults listed need to have risen to a sufficiently known status first to satisfy encyclopaedic Q. Lycurgus 14:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Islamic supersessionism retroactively rewrites the role of Abraham, and presents Muslims as the only people chosen to carry the true word of God.'

This really isn't NPOV, is it? Sam [Spade] 03:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, it is what Muslims believe. No religion's beliefs are NPOV! But this statement is presented in an NPOV fashion. It would be a violation of NPOV to say that "Muslims are the only people chosen to carry the true word of God." To make this statement NPOV, we must rewrite this not as a fact, but rather as a statement which makes it clear that this is what Muslims happen to believe. "Islamic supersessionism retroactively rewrites the role of Abraham, and presents Muslims as the only people chosen to carry the true word of God." RK 14:52, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

ok, lets try again. This sentance is extremely POV. It takes it as a given that muslims "retroactively rewrote" the story. Also this article is the only source I can find for the word "supersessionism". Did you make it up, or what? (found the wiki article on Supersessionism). Sam [Spade] 23:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is the link to Americentrism NPOV? It should be changed to Ethnocentrism, as the link suggests Americentrism is stronger than other kinds of ethnocentrism.

I'm removing this section. This has nothing to do with the definition of exclusivism. It seems more like a straw man against exclusivism being smuggled in.

Why does exclusivism link to "Chosen People". Being chosen in not a necessary inference to exclusivism. Exclusivism is simply a belief that certain ones adhering to a particular religion will be saved or blessed. (In Christianity, go to heaven)

This does not necessitate being chosen. Some would argue exclusivism based upon free will. Some one needs to change this link.

I'm opening a serious can of worms here...

The Nazis considered the Aryan race to be superior, and believed it was their mission to eliminate all races they considered "inferior" in the name of secular human evolution

This statement seems to come from a creationist/anti-evolution POV. One of creationism's key arguments against evolution is that it's the "basis" of Nazism, Communism, "moral relativism," etc. As skeptic Michael Shermer has pointed out, that's like arguing that the printing press is responsible for Mein Kampf. Evolution was no doubt (mis)used to justify Hitler's ideology, but so were genetics and other sciences. Hitler's genocides weren't "in the name of" evolution, they were in the name of racism, white supremacism and Hitler's own perverted megalomania. Szyslak 00:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the only race they did try to wipe out was Jews, chosen not because of theories of evolution but because of longstanding Christian antipathy. Nothing in evolutionary theory, even of the most racist variety, would rationalise singling out Jews. You find it used in the late nineteenth century to justify the elimination of Khoisan peoples and Australian Aborigines as "inferior", but not Jews. The Nazis never had any plans to eliminate all races other than the Aryan (however you define Aryan). Paul B 11:45, 20 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct. The decision to wipe out the Jews was not taken until 1941/42, at the notorious Wannsee Conference. Until then many Jews had been killed, but not gassed im masses. There was a plan to deport them to Madagascar which could not be realised.

Hitler adhered to a conviction that the Nordic Germans were a kind of chosen people, not by a god, but by providence, a term he liked to use. Another unpopular race with the Nazis were the Slavs, whom they called untermensh. Millions of Russian etc. POWs were killed or left to die. In fact the Slavs are quite Aryan, at least as much as the Germans. Ontologix (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslims who believe that Muslims, Christians and Jews all serve the same God" ALL muslims believe that Muslims, Christians and Jews all serve the same God.. - --Cyprus2k1 22:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph doesn't seem to add any new information, and parts of it are unclear in their meaning. Precisely what does it mean for a movement to be "untrue"? The assertion that movements of all types consider themselves to be "'chosen' in one way or another" is also very debatable. What of atheist movements?
However, it is important to distinguish between the self-importance of a movement and the truth of its message. Movements of all types consider themselves to be "chosen" in one way or another to change the course of history. Some movements may prove to be true, and some movements may prove to be false. The truth of their message and their confidence in their message are entirely separate questions.

I have a problem with this part of the article: "This belief is primarily rooted in the understanding that gentiles can achieve salvation just as Jews." The problem is, "salvation" is a primarily Christian concept that doesn't exist in Judaism. Can someone who knows more about this topic fix this section and remove the salvation reference? --D Monack 03:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation DOES exist in Judaism as a concept, as it says: Isaiah 43:3 "For I the L-RD am your G-d, the Holy One of Israel, YOUR SAVIOR. I gave Egypt as a ransom for you, Ethiopia and Saba in exchange for you." (JPS). Christians interpret this savior as being Jesus, while traditional Jewish thinking refeers to god as the savior. The same applies to Redeemer: Isaiah 60:16 says "...And you shall know that I the L-RD [ie, HaShem] am your Saviour, I The Mighty One of Jacob, am your Redeemer."

Salvation in the sense that a person can "achieve salvation" is NOT a Jewish concept. As I understand it, that kind of salvation is needed by Christians because of original sin, another concept not shared by Jews. The Israelites did not "achieve salvation" at the Red Sea, they were saved from the Egyptian army.

EMV Dec 2005

Some mention needs to be made that this term almost always, in American English, is slang for Jewish people. It is such a well-known slang synonym that born-again Christians and other fundamentalist Christians even routinely joke back, "No, we are the real chosen people, you guys abandoned G_D (Jesus)." This is anecdotal context and story, but the point should be clear. Oemb1905 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus has never mentioned being the son of God. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, No one comes to the Father except through Me" Relation to God was established by man, we can refer to God as the creator, the father, and everything he created deserves respect. There is one simple rule everybody should practice "never do to others what you do not want them to do to you" There is no chosen people, nobody has the right to pretend so, each one of us must find his own path. Life on earth is a bridge, all we have to do is cross that bridge leaving things behind as clean as possible. Man is capable of the best and the worst, we all should focus on best and better.

I removed that. Jinniya 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a picky point, I could accept "Jesus has never mentioned being the son of God" if Jesus had said "our Father" in John 14:2, but (according to John) he said "my Father".

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. (King James version)

Though given that the writing of John is traditionally dated 90-110 CE, it is more a matter of faith and/or ideology than verbatim reporting as to whether Jesus actually said "my" or "our", let alone the rest of that famous verse. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment of Islam throughout the Wikipedia is problematic and especially so where contested topics are under discussion.

One major source of error is the failure to distinguish between "Islam" (more an ideal way of life, based on the Qur'an and sunnah, than a system of beliefs or philosophy) from "Muslims" (whose behavior exhibits great variation, in response to multiple factors that go into the making of their passions and interests). Another, to squeeze out "Islamic" or "Muslim" answers to essentially extra-Islamic questions; questions that are often phrased in terminology that defies any valid translation in the Muslim much less Islamic context.

The statement on this page that: "Some Muslims believe Islam is Exclusive [sic. -- why capitalised?], and some do not" needs review (as does this entire entry). Even if true, this is misleading; for Islam is no more defined by what "some" (how many?) Muslims believe than Judaism, Christianity, or Budhism by what some Jews, Christians, or Budhists believe. The near unanimous consensus of Muslims would be that "Islam is not exclusive" - in the sense that anyone can be a full and equal member of the Muslim community if she so wishes. In other words, any one who by a simple proclamation renounces all gods other than the One-God and accepts Mohammad as the messenger of the One-God -- and nothing else, becomes a full and equal member of the Muslim community.

Your full and equal member of the Muslim community has several exclusivistic conditions attached. So. you have conceded that Islam is exclusivistic. Why should one renounce one's version of God handed to him/her by generations of tradition? Why should one accept Mohammed as "the messenger"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.134.114 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Islam there is no concept of Muslims as a chosen people (in fact, like Christianity, Islam holds that the people of Moses, historically, were the Chosen People); instead the Qur'an speaks of "mankind" as a chosen creation. Unlike prophets before him, Mohammad did not address his congregation as "O people of Quraysh [the tribe to which he belonged]" or "O people of Makkah [the city to which he belonged]" but as "ya ayyuha al-naas" (or O members of the human race). In my view therefore all references to Islam could be deleted from this article; it doesn't belong here. No Muslim would object to this and I do not see why anyone else would!

Digression: Wiki: "Exclusive - Excluding items or members that do not meet certain conditions". Thus, to say that Bolivians shall be excluded from being considered Brazilians, is not being exclusive; but to say that Bolivians shall not be eligible to become Brazilians is being exclusive. (So, the definition above should really be: "Exclusive - Excluding items or members that do not meet certain conditions, that they can meet.") Two further refinements are possible. First, the conditions should not be onerous (a club that requires a million dollars as membership fee would be called exclusive, just as one with a "whites only" policy. Second, the membership should be full and equal (if new members are not eligible for the same privileges as old members then -- at least until they become so eligible -- then we would call this exclusion, or if they are eligible for all privileges but only in a subsidiary position to some other members then again we would call this exclusion). If this is accepted, then the definition would be: "Exclusive - Excluding from full and equal inclusion items or members that do not meet certain conditions, that they can easily meet." Or some such thing.

If this is accepted, the rest of the entry (on Islam, and other statements about Islam in this article) needs to be deleted (or if you must, re-written). Also, once we agree on this meaning of exclusion, some of the statements about other religions may need further review.

Azlondon 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)azlondon[reply]

This same issue occurs throughout Wikipedia for the term Jew. I suggest you read some of the dsicussions there as we have made changes and suggestions that seem to help. One helpful thing is to refer to the sub groups by specific name, instead of making a hasty generalization, like stating adherents of Islam, or something like that. At the same time, certain groups do contain macro-principles that all adherents believe. For example, all adherents of Islam, would probably agree that Mohammed was prophet of A__ah. Oemb1905 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article talk about groups in general? Somehow, I usually encounter the concept of "chosen people" as using "people" in reference to racial or ethnic groups, not just groups of people. I think it is not fitting to address just about any group that thinks it is superior in some way, such as the Christian and Islamic groups considering themselves as chosen to carry the truth. This non-ethnic religious aspect is definitely worth mention, but I feel that it does not match the meaning of the phrase very well, and such should receive mention elsewhere. Of course, the mention of Christian-Nazi-Aryan mixes and other times where the racial aspect is tied to the religiously chosen notion should still be mentioned, since this identifies one 'people' out of the 'peoples' for some sort of divine selection.

Including all groups that feel chosen(and happen to be composed of people) makes the scope of the article wider than that of "chosen people" as it is commonly used. Thus, I suggest that the parts with an indisputable ethnic/racial tie should be included, but other types(such as a religion considering itself truthful) should be relegated to another article. So I think it just that the sections regarding Jewish, Nazi-Aryan, Christian Identity, and be kept under this name. (About LDS, I think it should also be kept since the usage is really beyond that of a general Christian group, in that it seems to imitate the original Jewish notion in many ways, such as identification of followers with tribes of Israel, and using "Gentile" to describe non-Mormons.) But the inter-religious rivalry over truth alone should not be part of this article. In my opinion, of course.

What do you all think of this proposal?

My responce to this anon user from over a year ago is this. Your proposal is highly offensive and absolutely POV (see WP:NPOV) (and at the same time incorrect). The belief in Jewish "chosenness" is religiously based, like Christianity and Islam, and not racial or ethnic as you try to group it as, like White Supremacists. In case you are unaware, anyone can be come Jewish through conversion, just like any other religion, at which point they are a full Jew in every way. You're statement is made on false beliefs, one cannot become "Aryan" if they were not born as one. Epson291 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need evidence for the statements regarding Rastafari. Rastafaris are divided along Muslim, Christian, and other groups. Some believe, in a positive way, that they are inferior to the white race and destined to serve them in a biblical sense. And they trace this to allegorical and biblical stories. Would a Rastafari expert please be consulted ASAP, since this information seems at the best incomplete, and at the worst, wrong. Oemb1905 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a reference for the "kin blood of the Jews" statement? I've never heard the claim stated this way, and the quotes make it appear as though it is a direct quote from something doctrinal. I've inserted a citation request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulistano (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can religious standards be self-imposed when God allegedly "chose" the people? (If God chose them, HE imposed whatever religious standards, and if only by choosing)

It is logically impossible, and clearly serves only to embellish a concept akin to that of being a master race. Somebody please edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.154.104 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, don't be so naive. If one makes a claim to be chosen by god, then it is not actually the god (which is likely non-existing anyways) who chooses, but the one making the claim self-imposes the choseness. · CUSH · 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christians consider themselves "chosen" as well? This is new to me. Citation/quote/source anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.155.52 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See supersessionism Epson291 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please partake in the discussion whether Manichaean paranoia should be deleted or not on this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination)! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please paraphrase the following sentence, as I think there is a mistake in translation in the Japanese version of the article "Chosen people".

Although the paragraph about "Roman Catholicism", which was added by RK by copying from the God article, has been deleted by Rchamberlain, it still remains in the Japanese version of the article and needs clarification.

The question is that in the sentence shown at the bottom, the word "nor" is used to negage the noun phrase "the possibility of asking to be baptized"; then, what is the first instance of negation which introduded the word "nor"?

The paragraph in question is as follows:

"Roman Catholicism had traditionally taught that all non-Christians would not be saved. Today many within the Roman Catholic Church teach that salvation is not ruled out for those who have not had the Gospel proclaimed to them, nor the possibility of asking to be baptized."

PS: Please be reminded that this does not concern legitimacy or authenticity of the article, but concerns the correctness of the translation. Thanks in advance.--YOSHIYUKI OGAWA (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that the negation is a reiterated one. "Nor" reiterates the lack of possibility of being Christianized. You shouldn't expect too much logical precision in the use of language in this arena. The common thing negated as I stated is the possibility of receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ, which apparently it is being stated that RC doctrine then does not say those who nonetheless live lives in accordance with Christian principles, though they may have lived in times and places where christian evangelism could not reach them, would still nonetheless receive salvation. I don't know if it's still the case but I believe the doctrine was that they would still have to cool their heels in purgatory while all the proper Christians were processed first. So the paraphrase would be:

"Roman Catholicism had traditionally taught that all non-Christians would not be saved. Today many within the Roman Catholic Church teach that salvation is not ruled out for those who have lived in accord with the teachings of Jesus Christ whether or not they had the Gospel proclaimed to them, or had the possibility of asking to be baptized."

Also it should be made clear that the RC is a monolithic top-down organization and its doctrine is not determined by what some faction believes or teaches. So the weasel wording probably can be replaced by a reference to an encyclical or bull or refuted by same. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity Section Heading divides the views of SDA and Mormons (Christians) from those of Islam, Rastafari and the Unification Church. The supersessionism link describes a common christian belief that Christians are the new chosen people. I think that it is useful. Editor2020 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you prefer to put it back, feel free to do so. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it was more general!!!

Is it only the Abrahamic related religions that have this particular viewpoint? Wouldn't really be a shocker if this was the case, but is this really the case? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 07:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chosen people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150729081815/http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/bigotry-behind-bars-racist-groups-in-US-prisons.html to http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/bigotry-behind-bars-racist-groups-in-US-prisons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]