Talk:Christianity/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Lead Image -- Revisited

"By the 4th century A.D. Christianity had become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire."

This should be corrected to read: "By the fourth century the dominant religious designation in the Roman Empire was 'Christianity'." There are many persons who regard this adoption of the Christian designation as a fraud resulting in a defamation of genuine Christianity. A simple search of the Internet should convince one that the last sentence is true. And the validity of this "regard" can be established simply by comparing the actions of the Roman Empire with the teaching of the Lord Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the New Testament.68.94.237.28 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sin

I have cut the following section from the article:

"Sin

Christians categories many forms of human behavior as "sin"; this term is used to describe any action that violates a rule set out in the Bible, and is also used to refer to the state of having committed such a violation. In some Christian sects, sin can refer to a state of mind rather than a specific action - any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful"."

Str had just marked it dubious, but I find the whole thing to be OR. There are no references and its placement in front of Jesus Christ under the beliefs section is completely out of balance with what major beliefs are in Christianity. Does someone want to take a run at making this worthy of putting in the article or should it just be left out entirely? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Storm, sure it is probably OR ... and not very well done OR.

The section is wrong since

1. Sin is not restricted to behaviour or actions,
2. Sin is certainly not defined merely by some set of rules,
3. And to locate this simply in "the Bible" is Protestant POV.
4. claiming only "some Christian sects" go beyond actions to states of minds or thoughs is mistaken as well - though I can believe that some "sects" or subgroups do focus more on the one than the other, they hardly can dispense with the idea of "sinful thoughts" altogether in the light of what Jesus taught (see Sermon of the Mount - Antitheses). There is a real disagreement between Lutherans and Catholics about whether "concupiscence", the propensity to sin, is a sin itself (Luther yes, Church no) but that's a totally different matter.
5. The last one is also selfcontradicting as the sentence before described the "state of mind" thing as fact, only then to turned around and to ascribe it some "sects".
6. "any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful"." is nonsense. Any thought, word or act that IS (considered) sinful IS (considered) sinful. The description above is not helpful at all. And there well might be acs not considered shameful that are sinful.
7. All in all, nothing in the section is particularly Christian (except for the badly done passage about "sinful thoughts").
8. Nothing in the section even addressed the importance of sin in regard to salvation, God, redemption etc.
9. In the light of these the misuse of "categorize" is mere nitpicking. (No, I am not speaking about the mistyped "Christians categories", but about the misunderstanding what a category is - classify would be more fitting.)
10. Finally, the section is not really needed - if I am not mistaken it was born out of the will of an editor to have every word explained in this article - and certainly badly placed where it was.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are lots of things that need to be done to improve the section. However, whether it should be included and whether it should be given prominence are two questions that are easy to answer, in my view. Christians' belief in Sin is surely their most fundamental belief, isn't it? Without a belief in sin, there wouldn't actually be any reason for Christians to regard Jesus as any more important than any other early 1st Millennium figure? It's necessary for readers to understand the importance that Christians place on Sin for them to understand the importance they place on Jesus. I can't believe anyone actually thinks that the general thrust of the section is OR (some of the details, maybe). It should be incredibly easy to find reliable references to describe what are some of the most basic attitudes prevalent among Christians. SP-KP (talk)

That is an interesting spin I have never considered. To me the most significant belief of Christianity is Jesus Christ and not the presence of sin. The Christian concept of sin is what required a Savior found in Christ, but that is not the same thing as sin being a more significant concept.

That Christians have a concept of right and wrong, sin and righteousness, goes without saying, but the section is so poorly written and its placement improper that I thought it better to move it here to further discuss. In other words, I am not against having a section on sin but the wording should actually reflect Christian beliefs and its placement would be different. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the current version is bad. I also would not be against the idea of a section on Sin, if only because it's a concept frequently associated with Christianity, rightly or wrongly.

I strongly disagree with the statement that "Christians' belief in Sin is surely their most fundamental belief". Even if there had never been any sin, Jesus would still have been God (though admittedly the absence of sin would have negated a major reason for the incarnation). Even if that had been true there are more fundamental doctrines: God's existence, his creative power, his love for his creations, his holiness, his gift of free will; without those sin is pretty much irrelevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some good points above. First, Storm Rider, just to clarify, I wasn't saying that Christianity's most significant belief is a belief in sin, I was merely making a statement about how fundamental a belief this was - you're absolutely right in saying that beliefs that surround Jesus' status are Christianity's most significant beliefs. I agree with you completely that any section on Sin has to reflect the Christian viewpoint accurately, and if the current words don't do that, they must certainly be changed.

DJClayworth, upon reflection, I agree with you that a belief in Sin isn't Christianity's most fundamental belief, and that all of the things you list are definitely more fundamental. What I should have said is that Christians' belief in Sin is a more fundamental belief than any belief regarding Jesus' role in "dealing" with Sin - without the former, the latter is meaningless.

Perhaps the way forward is to split the section about Jesus into two - one, early in the article, dealing with Christianity's beliefs about Jesus himself, and then another, later, which deals with his role in relation to Sin, once we've covered the topic of Sin itself. SP-KP (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against a passage (rather than a section) on sin in principle, only it must be well written, accurate and neutral.

SP-KP, yes it isn't. Sin is not "the most fundamental belief of Christianity" though it plays a part in the basic tenets.

Yes, the general thrust of the section was not original research because it was not researched or informed at all but a badly written assembly of misunderstandings, banalities etc.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic "propaganda"

Catholic "propaganda" is what this article reads like. Non-religious historians agree that the Orthodox Church alone can claim an unbroken line to antiquity. This article places the Catholic Church in a place of prominence throughout. Whoever set the tone of this article is either a biased Catholic or in need of a history lesson. (unsigned contribution by User:Nikoz78)

Exactly, what one earth are you on about? Where in teh article is written as such? It is true that the Orthodox Church has a good claim, if not one of the best claims to antiquity, but tally ho!! One forgets numerous other Oriental Churches! And lets not forget the Assyrian Church of the East one of the oldest Churches, some parts of which are part of Rome. Tourskin (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being a member of either church, but having a deep admiration for both, I don't have a horse in this race. However, I do find that other Christians can bristle at what appears to be an overly Catholic tone. This is an area that demands patience and caution. Patience in that things do not change overnight and caution because no one is interested in swinging the pendulum the other way. First, there is no Christian church larger than the Catholic church; none even comes close. That is not to say that the majority gets to write history, but we generally start out with their position and then move outward. Does that make sense?

Also, if there is something historically incorrect, please correct it using reputable references for the material. To correct tone is tricker, but easily done if you are a good word smith. Why don't you offer a few edits and see how they go. If they are deemed controversial you will find them reverted and then you can just bring them here for discussion. Does that sound acceptable? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just can't stand trolling, regardless of whether its pro or anti catholic or pro or anti orthodox or whatever church one seems to have a phobia of these days. I think people almost forget that no Christian Church actually own Chistianity either. Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reread this article curious about the comment. I am not RC but cannot see much Roman Catholic bias. The only issue I can see in half a dozen places with the placement of the Anglican Communion amongst the Protestant churches whereas it declares itself as Catholic. E.g the diagram "branches of Protestantism" which gives the Roman Catholic POV drawing Anglicanism as a branch of Protestantism versus the official Anglican view that it is a branch of Catholicism encompassing Protestant elements. There is also an issue in the text describing "Pope Paul III then excommunicated King Henry VIII in 1538, beginning what would become a decisive schism between Rome and Canterbury.[131]" which is not even POV but whitewash, see History_of_the_Anglican_Communion: the decisive schism started in 1570 with the excommunication of Elizabeth and the two churches were completely reunited by the Act of Reunion in the middle. Equally the way the headings read placing Anglicanism under Protestant Churches but listing other "Catholic" elsewhere all seem to be in error. They also seem to have been changed since the version used for this [[1]] It does look as though some POV has sneaked in and the wording does need correcting when someone has the energy. The articles elsewhere in WP on the Church of England all seem correct on this point. --BozMo talk 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On balance I think the diagram on Protestantism has to go. Aside the Anglican question there are a number of other issues and lots of cross overs which are not included. It is hard to know about the relative size of things like the Congregational Chuch (which joined the URC) etc but that's the problem with the diagram: its a bit of a DIY job and I cannot find a basis for accepting that these simplifications are the right ones. --BozMo talk 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree - it occupies more real estate than the rest of the text in the section. It's there at Protestantism which is probably a good place for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is overblown to say that the Anglican communion "proclaims itself Catholic". The communion has protestant evangelical, modernist liberal and anglo-catholic streams. "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" is still one of the proper names of the Episcopal Church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) holic

Perhaps a little. Of course both the CoE and the AC contain protestant elements as an integral part, however you have to look at what the church and communion state officially. I cannot find a statement by the AC yet but I'll work on it. --BozMo talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Episcopal church has had opportunities to "declare itself as Catholic" and not a branch of Protestantism, and it has turned them down. But although etymologically "protestant" is a positive or optimistic word ("putting forward a testimony" - "evangelical"), it has almost entirely negative connotations in English ("complainant", "remonstrant", as in "protest"), and this is a good reason for disliking the word "Protestant" as insufficiently expressive of what Anglicanism is - especially because the church more and more in recent times has "officially" distanced itself from anti-Catholicism. I grew up in the Episcopal church, where via media was not a foreign concept to me. But all this recent rhetoric is new to me, and sounds to my ear as though the more descriptive slogan is not both, but "neither Protestant nor catholic", representing some kind of effort to lift Anglicanism out of history and to immunize it from any rational comparison with anything else. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark, isn't there some evidence that the Anglican communion does proclaim itself to be "catholic" not Catholic? There is acknowledgement as being part of the One holy and apostolic catholic church, but does not recognize the papacy.

It certainly proclaims itself as catholic as well. I don't really have any skin in the issue and was brought up as a congregationalist too (although I guess I am now an Anglican) but as far as I know the formal position of the Church of England is that it has the legitimate claim to being the Catholic church in the UK and that the "Roman Catholic" church was the other half of the Catholic church split off by the excommunication of Elizabeth, which was the schismatic act in 1570. Funnily though, the last formal statement I could find on that was over a hundred years old. Now, the formal position of the C of E is not necessarily what the people in the pews think (many of whom are protestant) and also the Anglican Communion isn't the same as the Church of England, although the continuity back to the Early Church follows the same route. Also as with the Roman Catholics trying to avoid calling themselves "the Church" out of respect for other Christians (even though they apparently believe their members have a degree of unique salvation) many Anglican try to avoid using "Catholic" and many people (like me) think the whole issue of titles is a bit of a waste of time. Nonetheless Catholic with a capital C exists on service sheets and church names and amongst a small core of Anglo-Catholics these things matter a lot. Should Wikipedia care? Bit of an WP:UNDUE issue perhaps. It seems to me a bit like the issue of who is allowed to call what "Cheddar" or "Champagne"... one for the European court perhaps. --BozMo talk 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The depiction of Anglicanism within Protestantism is entirely accurate. The Anglican Church has its origin in Protestantism, splitting of the Catholic Church under Elizabeth I (and not the other way around). For centuries it was staunchly Protestant. Anglo-Catholicism and ideas like the "Third Branch" did not spring up until the 19th century.

It also would be better if one could avoid nonsense like "even though they apparently believe their members have a degree of unique salvation" or capitalisation madness.

This umbrella article is hardly the place to go into the complex labelling issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think the "major branches of Christianity" picture describes matters quite well. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very clear statement of the Roman Catholic POV, for which I thank you. However please do not dream that it amounts to a neutral point of view. --BozMo talk 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally as far as I can see from the edit history you were the original person who changed the article to that form and so it is good to have you involved in the discussion. --BozMo talk 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I agree that the "major branches of Christianity" picture describes matters quite well. But it differs slightly from the protestantism one in this regard. --BozMo talk 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote above is certainly not a "Roman Catholic POV" but the facts of history. How to interpret these is a matter of POV but not the facts, e.g. that the CoE split from the (Roman) Catholic Church under Henry VIII and under Elisabeth I again. That the CoE took a Protestant direction under Edward VI and again under Elisabeth I. That Anglo-Catholicism (along with the branch theory) only emerged in the 19th century. These are facts. These need not be neutralised into a some say, some say structure - the interpretation by these is a matter of opinion but not what actually happened. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah good. Facts, eh? So not hard to demonstrate at all? All through the 18th century, say, to set against the whole congregation declaring weekly in creed that is was variously Catholic or catholic you can stack up lots of official (say liturgical or passed motions of Synod or the like) declarations of protestantism? (Not accusations of Protestantism by others of course since you say fact not POV). You may have a better library than me, do please share them all? --BozMo talk 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Does this mean that the Lutheran Church has "lots of official (say liturgical or passed motions of Synod or the like) declarations of 'Protestantism'"? I would also take it that Luther himself must have self-identified as "Protestant"? (things I would not have guessed, but am interested to know otherwise) For what it's worth, I went to a public school in a largely "Protestant" geopolitical area and was taught in history classes throughout that Anglicanism falls under Protestantism, even if it is a unique entity within that classification, given the original events surrounding the Anglican "protest" against Rome were largely non-doctrinal. LotR (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess if anyone seriously raised the q about Lutheran's there are in their articles references to the book of concord and the first "protestant meeting", and none of them claim to be Catholics from a continuous Catholic line (as the Anglo Catholics do, although Mr Str1977 obviously pours scorn on the claim). On the other bit "the original events surrounding the Anglican "protest" against Rome were largely non-doctrinal" isn't necessarily true although doctrine and politics is muddled. Of course the Henry the 8th stuff wasn't doctrinal, and he self-declared as an alternative pope but that stuff was all completely "irrevocably" reversed by the act of reunion under Bloody Mary. The present anglican protest (if that is what it is) dates to Elizabeth I and seems to be doctrinal to me, as least in part, which I suppose means it is partly protestant. I don't doubt that Ed6 was very protestant mind you. But E1 also succeeded a Queen who had tortured hundreds to death on Romes order's so the claim the break was driven by a political split with Rome not a split with Catholic tradition is one we need to consider. All muddy IMHO. --BozMo talk 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For one, it is only natural for Roman Catholics to get most of the information on apostolic succession. I'm saying this as an Orthodox Christian. Most people on English Wikipedia are going to be from America, Canada, U.K., or Australia (English speaking countries). All English speaking countries have either Roman Catholic or Protestant Christianity in the majority. Naturally, the editors on Wikipedia are going to know a whole lot more about Catholics and Protestants than on Orthodox. I mean, who here went to a school where much was covered on the history of Eastern European nations (countries with an Orthodox majority), except for ancient Greece and the Soviet Union (eras when it had no influence anyway!). If you were to go to a Wikipedia article that is in an Eastern European language, you will find much more covered on Eastern Orthodoxy. Now, most people can't read in those languages anyway, but take a look at the Russian Wikipedia article on Christianity: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B2.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BB.D0.B0.D0.B2.D0.B8.D0.B5 I can't read Russian, but every picture on the page is an Orthodox icon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.164.6 (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I too got the feeling that this article held a bias Catholic slant. I think it had a lot to do with the various references to "saints" and the Catholic doctrine of "Particular Judgment". "Most Christians believe that upon bodily death the soul experiences the particular judgment and is either rewarded with eternal heaven or condemned to an eternal hell." I think most Christians believe they will be judged on Judgment day, not upon death.--Rrand (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are these "most" Christians? You accuse the article of being biased towards Catholics, yet you yourself commit the same fallacy by stating what "most Christian believe". Catholicism is roughly 1.1. Billion Christians, that's at least 50% of Christianity (1.5 - 2.1 billion). So, without counting Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East (which share a lot of theology with Catholics) 50% of Christians have a Catholic theology and therefore most Christians do believe in being judged upon death. After all, the Bible mentions Lazarus being judged to hell after he failed to feed the poor man in front of his home, etc.Tourskin (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not "most", but 50%. (I retracted, can you?) I would like to point out to you that this passage says "Most Christians" and then two sentences later begins with "In Catholicism,". Why not just move that prefix a couple of sentences higher? Or maybe move it all to the Catholicism Wiki page. Catholics believe you are judged by God according to WP: Particular Judgment. (I know you can say Jesus is God, but then why not just say Jesus?) Also, I was not quite aware that cross-chatting is allowed between Heaven and Hell. Thanks for pointing out that I should take that Lazarus passage so literally.--Rrand (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're ranting about; 1.1 billion compromises a majority of 1.5 - 2.1 billion. You're understanding of the Bible is evidently poor; Lazarus was not communicating to Abraham in heaven; rather the bosom of Abraham was a special place in Hell were those true to God rested. Further more, yes "chit-chatting" is allowed between heaven and hell. How else did Abraham talk to the rich man - why can you not take the passage literally? Are you one of those "Christians" who call the feeding of the 5,000 a miracle of generosity (what generous group of people had enough food for 5,000 men and their women and children)? There is a great chasm between the two places - that means that the guy in hell can't go to heaven and vice versa. Furthermore, the reason why it should say "most", which you fail to understand from my previous message, is that Catholics are not alone in their theology with regards to when they will be judged - Orthodox Christianity which is the second largest group in Christianity also believes in such judgment. If you wish to begin a discussion about this as two civilized users, I am more than happy to oblige you on our respective talk pages (this is not an insult or challenge, so please do not take it as such). Finally, Catholics and Orthodox Christians also believe in a Final Judgment. It may seem weird, but if you really want to know, Last JudgmentTourskin (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge of Catholicism is poor. I will just leave it at that and not get into an argument with you. I tried to make fair suggestions to counter the bias here and you were unreceptive. I am going to request a citation validating this statement and hopefully it will be done without using WP:OR.--Rrand (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have made no suggestions, only assertions - of which I have been receptive, but in a critical manner. There is no bias in stating what most Christians believe in considering that they compromise the most (and yet you continue to think only of Catholics and ignore the Eastern Orthodox Church). Tourskin (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no bias, then would you object to my changing the phraseology "Most Christians" to "A minority of Christian denominations"?--Rrand (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not bias to say "Most Christians believe..." A minority is false, because Catholics and Orthodox make up a clear cut majority.Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How? There are 242 Roman Catholic denominations. 781 Orthodox. 9000 Protestants. Anyway, you did not really think I would do that to you would you? I wouldn't marginalize you. I'm absolutely floored that you didn't get the point though.--Rrand (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Woah woah woah!!! Do not count denominations! Lol! Count numbers of people - denominations inflate numbers - due to the dissenting nature of Protestantism (it protests against percieved wrongs) it will naturally dominate, with all due respect. Let me repeat that Catholics at 1.1 billion and Orthodox at 250 million - thats 1.4 billion out of 2.1 billion. That means 66% of all Christians. Denominations mean nothing; we could have a small denomination of Christians compromising only a certain town. Tourskin (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and you guys count every person who was baptized as a baby even if they defect to another church or never step in another church. That's inflating. You know, when I first came here I was not happy with the title of this section, "Catholic Propoganda". I thought the bias was an innocent mistake and I had faith in Wikipedia. Now I am becoming convinced that it was deliberate. I will not make any contributions to this Catholic Propoganda.--Rrand (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deo gratias. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would thank God. Because I am not a Catholic and I challenged your propoganda. Where were you in this conversation? On the side of bias and brainwashing I presume.--Rrand (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I suppose the Protestant Churches don't inflate their numbers as well? What are you trying to prove anyway? I have already shown to you that most Christians do believe in Judgment upon death. If you really want to get personal with Church vs. Church, I can get a lot uglier. With a new Protestant denomination emerging in the United States every day with so called-Prophets - of course there will be 9000 denominations of the Protestant Church and I bet that 8000 of those are within the US and within the last 150 years. I suppose Protestant Churches don't inflate their numbers either!! I suppose they must have perfect statistics! Besides, your argument does not deal with the fact that Catholics and Orthodox compose 66% of Christianity - inflated numbers affect all denominations, Protestant or otherwise. Tourskin (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I think this conversation has gone far enough. It is not helpful to see how "ugly" we can get and to accuse others of gross offenses unjustly. Religion is a topic that engenders strong emotions; when tempers flare it is best to take a wiki-break. It is very easy for respective adherents to not "see" the beliefs of others because they are so focused on their own. In doing so, language is used that makes certain doctrines appear as if all accept them. However, that is not the case and we should be careful of that in our editing.

Christianity is a collection of diverse denominations with a range of beliefs, but focused on Jesus Christ as the Son of the God and viewed as the Savior of all humanity. It is appropriate that we take the majority opinion first in this article and that is the Catholic position. We flesh out the article by covering the significant minority positions. Editors of all religious persuasions should be motivated to see that we achieve these ends. Let's move forward and focus on the article.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add one more comment to this section before you end it. An true "Sorry" apology to Touskin and Carl.bunderson and anyone else I might have offended. I don't really feel that way. I appreciate the hard work you guys have done here. The thought wouldn't have even crossed my mind if it weren't the topic of this section.--Rrand (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, Rrand. Sorry if I got defensive, and I know the thanks-be-to-God bit was uncalled for. I can see you're trying to improve things. Thanks :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Though I am not ashamed of what I have done, nor should you Rrand, we both got a little ugly toward the end, that is.

"for he who is not against us is for us" Mark 9:40 - thats what I am talking about - for the most important issues - loving God and loving one another, all Christians are unanimous. Tourskin (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good that Rrand wants to pursue a different course now. I applaud him for the change.

BTW, there's no reason to apologize for the thanks-be-to-God bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

LDS in scriptures

When I read the scriptures section I find that the LDS church, representing a tiny fraction of Christians worldwide, gets a paragraph occupying nearly half the section about it's scriptures. Isn't this a case of undue weight? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the material entirely. I could not think of a way to shorten it that would make it relevant and at end felt this article is too high level to cover the specifics of a relatively small group. My objective is not to disparage a group that is seen as the 4th largest church in the US, but that relative to the total number of Christians world wide we are talking about 0.65%, less than 1% of the total group population. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree I think the descion to delete it was good considering the LDS Chruch is not considered part of the Christian Church beacause of its belifs about Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that Jesus was the Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, bled and died for our sins, rose again on the third day, returned to sit on the right hand of the Father and will return again. He is the only way, truth, and life for us to return to God. The only reasons I deleted this material was as I stated above. The LDS church falls completely within Restorationist Christianity. Regardless, this conversation is at an end given the topic of this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry StormRider can't let that rest. While you may believe that LDS is a part of Restorationist Christianity, the views of the majority of Christians are to the contrary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry DJ Clayworth, but how much more Christian can you get than with the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Whether they are considered Restorationalist Christians or not they are still Christians, and all of your denying that won't change the FACT that they are Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're judging a group's theological correctness based on their name now? Ah, that explains why the German Democratic Republic was so much more democratic than the German Federal Republic. Seriously though I didn't say they weren't Christian, I said most Christian groups considered them not Christian. Anyway, probably time this discussion stopped. It's not really relevant to the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity is not made up of only Trinitarians, or evangelicals, or catholics or snake handlers. Christianity is far more diverse than the "mainstream." And no two denominations will agree 100% on doctrine. There simply is no "unity of faith" if you are talking doctrine. Sorry but Christianity simply is not monolithic, and restorationists have every right to claim the term as reformationists and orthodox groups. Bytebear (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I brought back the part about the LDS scriptures, because they are Christian scriptures and should therefore be included in the Christian scripture section.

I did shorten it up a bit though.

It really does not belong, at least not in its current form. Perhaps something can be said about Bible in errancy in some denominations, completion of the Bible (66 books and nothing else), apocrypha, and mention that LDS have additional canon, but to have an entire section on the subject is too much. But it should be noted that canon in different traditions may not be the exact same set of scripture. (Oh, and Mormons are still Christians.) Bytebear (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the section into one sentence, and combined it with the previous section. It should be more apropriate now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic of are Latter-day Saints Christian is rather...unending. What specific sects of Christianity believe of other sects of Christianity is outside of the topic. Who thinks Catholics belong to a cult and who is the "true" Chrisitian Church are in the domain of personal beliefs, but cannot be proven. What is factual is that academics consider the LDS Church to be part of US Restorationism and that is all that is needed for this article.

Scriptures. I have a degree of discomfort highlighting information for such a relatively small group. There are others with specific translations of bibles, writings, etc. If we open the door for one, I would think we would have to open the door for all. My initial preference is that this is too upper level of an article for this to be dicussed, but I will not revert for right now. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Storm Rider; LDS are too small to get their own mention in the scriptures section. There are whole articles on the subject elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In rereading the section I find the whole thing disjointed. Why is sola scriptura mentioned first? The Protestants make up the minority of Christianity, but seem to take precedence over all others. Also, it seems to start and stop when discussing what is canon and what is not. I would like to see more input from other editors in rewriting this section. Currently, it is simply a poor treatment of an important section. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also reread it and I agree. I've been WP:BOLD and moved the Sola Scriptura sentences down into the Protestant sections. This also makes the section read better since it finishes talking about differences in canon before getting on to interpretation. I took the liberty of expanding on Sola Scriptura a bit too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of this section is Scriptures. If only the Bible will be represented then it should be Bible, however this in and of itself would constitute another section for other scripturs that are not the Bible. I think that the sentance about the LDS scriptures should stay on the page.--Fizzos98 (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We already talked about this. See above. The LDS make up less than 1% of Christians, and their special case doesn't need to be mentioned in an overview section. In a whole article about the scriptures the could be mentioned, but if we have to include LDS why don't we include others? Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists etc. Let's make a one sentence summary that there are other scriptures. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bulls***

I think there should be a section added about the criticism of Christianity, notably the many films such as this and this that attempt both to disprove and undermine the fundamental practises of the religion. I am an Atheist myself, but I respect others beliefs, except when those beliefs impact negatively on others, which they often have. As well as there being criticism on religion as a whole, there are specific arguments against Christianity in particular. Are these worth mentioning? --92.3.166.115 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article Criticism of Christianity? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So out of curiosity do you respect atheism when forms of it have negatively impacted on others such as National Socialism and Stalinism? --BozMo talk 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm...National Socialism and Stalinism are no more forms of Atheism than a car is a form of tree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephan. We both have to accept that classification is arbitrary to a degree. One could easily construct a belief tree to classify all beliefs where the first subdivision is "belief in God y/n" and call all the "n" as a subset of Atheism. Then you get the mass murders. Of course you would prefer to do the first subdivision on something else (perhaps "called steven"...). My personal first split one would be "sensible or closed-minded" and I'd throw Dawkins in with all fundamentalists of all religions and say "not me" but I can see other people might have a problem with this....--BozMo talk 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so we get the Buddhists (no God) and the Ancient Greeks (lot's of Gods)? We can wrangle about wether Stalin filled the role of a (and then, of course, "the") god in the Soviet Union. I'm a bit of a fan of Dawkins, and I find his approach to religion quite a bit more subtle and devastating than Hitchens, who quite disappointed me with the old "look at all the bad religion does". Why do you believe into one thing with no tangible evidence, but not another? And why do others, on the same evidence, believe in something different? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am moving my reply to your talk page in case it is considered irrelevant here. --BozMo talk 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious from the title of Bulls*** that this guy is a troll? Tourskin (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion has always been the basis of morality, read Aristotle and Plato please. Tourskin (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone that Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of the article's subject, but on ways to improve the presentation of the article itself.

In any case, we are discouraged from developing a section or article whose specific purpose is to outline criticisms of the subject, mostly due to the danger of forking. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of religions is not valid because the criticisms levelled against specific religions is usually caused by adherents of the religion rather than the religion itself; its difficult to differentiate between the two. We can't say Christianity is a violent religion because of the Crusades, for example because 1) the Popes and Kings who called for Crusades do not represent Christianity or even Catholicism as a whole, acting in unorthodox manners 2) There is a difference between a Pope acting as a man and acting as the head of Church, many popes acting as the former rather than latter 3) the actions of a few cannot be labelled indiscriminantly against a belief held in common by many who are not at fault and a few who are at fault 4) You cannot criticize a religion's beliefs, only its logic in a civlized argument which would produce alot of arguments and counter-arguments and wikipedia article pages are not the places for philosophical discussions. Tourskin (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is indeed valid, but perhaps only when a large number of figures recognise and implement it. Of course certain individuals will not represent a religion as a whole, but as long as the content of the article is purely factual, stating what the criticism is and why it exists, it is surely acceptable, no? Anyway, the criticism I was referring to does not involve actions of a few or a heirachial elite, but rather the actual basis of the religion, the Bible and its contents being the prime example. --92.2.14.223 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course religions can be criticized on different levels - e.g. the philosophical foundations (Is the core creed sound? Can it possibly be true? Is there reasonable evidence that it is true?), but also on the effect of its followers. Excluding all of this borders on the No true Scotsman fallacy. However, to be included in this article without giving them undue weight, such views would have to be notable and widely acknowledged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, what I meant was criticism of the four points I mentioned was not valid, which is often the most common criticism of religions. Criticism of religion is not only valid in some circumstances, but necessary for the religion itself. Any religion that can't take criticism isn't worth its salt. Tourskin (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can criticise a religion's fundamental and supporting beliefs, and that is one of the main points of most criticisms. Sections of the Bible that appear to contradict others, the fact that Jesus' life conforms with "The Hero Pattern," (and that no logical explanation is given by Christianity as to why there are so many other messiahs who share the same features) and that there is no historical evidence that he even existed, yet all teachings stress that he did. The Pope may not represent the entire Catholic institute, but when thousands of Christian men rise up to slaughter those of another religion by his command, surely that is an impactive reflection? And what about the fact that there is so much variety in the Christian beliefs? Surely God would ensure that all worshipped him in the same manner? Anyway, I'm deviating, and I do not wish to cause offence. My point is: do we have a link to the metnioned page on this article and, if not, should we add a section to correspond with this? --92.3.249.228 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely God would ensure that all worshipped him in some manner? Then what would be the point of freewill? When thousands of Christian men rise up to slaughter? I think its quite conclusive that all religions, especially atheism which, with its moral relativism, treats human beings as shit as it does in Norh Korea, China and the Soviet Union, which are Atheistic states, as decreed by their respective constitutions, you'll see that Christianity as an institution is not more guilty. Finally, it is a serious fallacy to judge a religion by the actions of her participants as opposed to her teachings, for it is the case that thousands of men misread the religion and that this has nothing to do with the religion but with the adherents. Any criticism of religion should be levelled soley at its teachings, for I as a Christian and Christianity as a thought cannot be held accountable for what other Christians do if they do not follow Christian values!!Tourskin (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is, in fact. Right here. However, do note that it is already linked on the Christianity template, so any link would be superfluous at best. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Right - issue sorted. As you can see at the top of this section, someone mentioned this article, the existance of which I was unaware of, to me. As long as that page is easily accessible from the Christianity article, I'm happy. --92.3.249.228 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

There are two tags in the intro asking for clarification, one for "sin" and one for "salvation". Both of them already have links to articles that explain the concept in more detail, and for the life of me I can't think of a way to make either of these clearer without adding a couple of paragraphs to the intro (especially since both are subjects on which Christians have a variety of views). Does anyone object to me just removing the tags, since I can't see they are doing anything useful? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll hear no objection from me. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. --BozMo talk 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies for coming in to this late - it's likely that these clarify tags originated from me. Looking back at the text, I'm fine with the removal of the individual clarify tags from those words, but I think the sentence still needs work. It says (with my comments in brackets), To Christians, (that bit's nice & clear, no need for a wikilink here as I've just added one to the first mention of the term Christian, in the previous sentence) Jesus Christ is (that's fine, Jesus Christ links to Jesus) a teacher, (that's fine, but we might want to wikilink teacher?) the model of a pious life, (again, fine, pious is linked to piety, perhaps we might want to link model to Role model, although that's currently a stub) the revealer of God, (again fine, as revealer links to revelation and God links to God) the mediator of salvation and the saviour who suffered, died and was resurrected in order to bring about salvation from sin for all. (and then, despite the wikilinks for some of the terms, this just reads as gobbledegook to me. I've no idea (but see below) what it's trying to say. Problems include 1. what's meant by mediation - what sense? 2. Why do we need salvation twice and saviour once in these last 20 words of the sentence? 3. Suffered - this has no context and I have no idea of its relevance 4. "In order to bring about" - how? and so what? 5. "salvation from sin" - is this any different from salvation in general? 6. "For all" - for all what? I'm being deliberately obtuse here, of course, in that I have some understanding of what this sentence is trying to get at. However, we have to remember that this article is supposed to be written for people who know little or nothing about Christianity, and that from it, ideally, they should gain a much improved understanding. The first half of the sentence is model material when viewed in this context - can we try to get the latter half up to that standard?)" SP-KP (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some of the requisite changes. The phrase "mediator of salvation" did sound jargon-ish. What do you think? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking a lot better, well done. SP-KP (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

hey, i am trying to get a pic on this wiki on another wiki, can someone help me out? the pic i want is the one under beliefs called sermon on the mount. 75.120.104.158 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Trinity and Monotheism

The article starts off by saying that Christianity is a monotheist religion, however, not all religions in Christianity are entirely monotheistic. I believe it would be more acurate to say that Christianity is a mostly monotheistic, or something along those lines. I also do not know if the article included the fact that not all Christian religions except the trinity. I will not make any changes, however, until I get some feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So to help with this, exactly which significant group declares themselves to be both Christian and Polytheist? Or is the "non monotheistic" your value judgement rather than their declaration? --BozMo talk 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"I also do not know if the article included the fact that not all Christian religions except the trinity.". That kind of implies you didn't read the article. Or indeed the table of contents, where there is a section called "Non-trinitarians". And the word you are looking for is "accept" not "except".

Please feel free to edit the article: however 1) please make sure you have read the article carefully before making changes 2) Virtually all academics and scholars consider Christianity monotheistic, and that's the view Wikipedia reflects. I know of no Christian groups that are anything other than monotheistic, as it would be a clear violation of the first commandment. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is a case of non-trinitarians viewing trinitarians are not truly montheistic... --BozMo talk 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That would not surprise me. But I figure we may as well answer the questions as asked and not assume the questioner has an agenda at the start. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Clearly Fizzos98 has announced his agenda by pasting a couple of paragraphs on Mormon scriptures into the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism declares itself to be monotheistic, but could arguably be labeled henotheistic, which is a charge labeled against Trinitarians also. I don't see an issue stating that Christianity is a monotheistic religion; Fizz, what is your issue specifically? Are there Christian denominations who proclaim otherwise? DJ, do you ever get tired of beating that drum? It gets tedious. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:09, 12 June 200

I do not know if any church officialy declares themselves as henotheistic in Christianity, However I did hear an LDS vlogger youtube state that the LDS religion could possibly be considerd henotheistic. I just thougt that we should stay as close to the facts as possible.--Fizzos98 (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

censorship?

By not allowing a section of criticism the wiki is not entirely complete. There is a tremendous amount of criticism and by not including it wikipedia is not creating a complete article. It is being censored by those not willing to accept criticism from others and is a breach of rights. censorship, unless that of unpleasant language or that with a clear message of pure, unjustified remarks of hatred shouldn't be allowed.

If you look up a couple of sections, whoever you are, you will see there is a whole discussion of this. There is a whole article on Criticism of Christianity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism

The section on nontrinitarianism is nearly as long as the section on the trinity; this doesn't seem justified by the numbers of nontrinitarian Christians. Can we shorten this and make a link to a longer article? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not be asking how many people believe it, but rather how many reliable sources discuss it. (It is the latter, not the former, that determines NPOV.) However, you are correct that there is an imbalance when the nontrinitarianism section is as long as the one about the trinity. Whether one needs to be cut down, or the other expanded, is a matter for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the whole second paragraph which is too detailed for the flow of the article and is all in the nontrinitarians page? Particularly mentioning the individual views of three non-patriarchs is out of keeping with the detail of the rest of the article. --BozMo talk 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ, you seem to target those areas where anything LDS is mentioned. I hope that is not your objective, but just a coincidence. One can assume good faith, but it is getting a little obvious there may be an agenda on your part. To be frank, is this the case or is it just coincidence?

Given that the introduction devotes an entire paragraph to the concept of Trinity being an essential doctrine, I am not sure I accept an your proposed imbalance; it is more an issue of a concept being strung out. I would propose deleting the third paragraph from the introduction and moving it down to the Trinitarian section.

If the objective is to delete all things LDS from the article, then I reject your position outright. It is the fourth largest Christian church in the US and as such merits some mention. More importantly, it's doctrinal positions add flavor to this article. The doctrine of the Trinity is a fascinating topic; it's evolution was first and second century, but did not gain prominence until the 4th century. It is an essential doctrine as judged by most of mainstream Christianity. However, the very fact that it was not an essential doctrine during the time of Jesus and that there are churches today that are not Trinitarian or that don't follow the mainstream enhances the articles rather than detracts from it.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'm sorry you think I have an agenda here, but I assure you there isn't. I certainly have no desire to delete "everything related to LDS" (I didn't mention LDS here - there are other non-trinitarian denominations, you know). The key thing here is balance. Non-trinitarian denominations represent a few percent of Christians worldwide, and a lengthy discussion here gives a false impression. We can link to articles with more detailed descriptions.

As for deleting discussion of the Trinity, I disagree. For 98% of the world's Christians it is an essential doctrine. It needs to be described at an appropriate (i.e. fairly brief) length, mentioning that there are those Christians to don't hold to it, with links to more detailsDJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take any reasonable bet at even odds that less than 98% of Christians can even describe the difference between trinitarianism and non-trinitarianism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And that less than 0.01% care:) --BozMo talk 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. But 98% belong to denominations that are explicitly trinitarian. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree taking the Trinity out of the intro is probably a good way to go. However as far as I can tell less than 1% of Christians are non-Trinitarian so I still think the second para of "non-trinitarian" is best left for that article. Personally, I am looking for a version of this article to replace the old featured one which was used here but it seems unlikely that anything better is in the pipeline? --BozMo talk 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DJ, that is all I needed to hear. We do have to be careful that we describe what churches believe, not what we think inidividual Christians believe. There is an interesting dilemma here; churches/denominations teach that it is an essential doctrine, but very few, if any, will go so far as to say that salvation is withheld if the Trinity is not believed. I do agree that the paragraph where we describe Nontrinitarianism may be shortened. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone OK if I cut down the size of the nontrinitarianism section? Here is what I propose:

Nontrinitarianism includes all Christian beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Various nontrinitarian views, such as adoptionism and Arianism, existed before the Trinity was formally defined as doctrine in AD 325. During the Reformation some nontrinitarians rejected these councils as spiritually tainted, though most Christians continued as trinitarians.

There are nontrinitarian branches of Christianity today. Modalists, such as Oneness Pentecostals, regard God as a single person, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit considered modes or roles. Latter-day Saints and others consider Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be separate beings but united perfectly in will and purpose, forming a single Godhead.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we could probably broaden the list on Nontrinitarians, but I like the wording. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unitarianism and Universalism

While the majority of Unitarian Universalists would not accept the label of "Christian," both traditions are from Christian roots and deserve more mention here, especially on how the unitarian-trinitarian split occurred. While they were the original "counter-protestants," I don't think that "unitarian" is the exact equivalent as "nontrinitarian." Samatva (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Creeds

Should not the article on xianity start with one of the versions of the creeds?

That has the advantage of summarising most of the accepted beliefs of this religion, and can actually be used as the contents for the rest of the article and allowing discussion of the variants. --Clive Durdle 82.12.222.230 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think not. The creeds are functions of individual church beliefs about their faith and not a universal sign of Christianity or even Christian churches. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not primarily individual church beliefs. They are a valuable lowest common denominator, or starting point. Yes there are emphases and discussions and disputes but one of the early ones is a useful starting point from which to understand xianity. Of course the process of writing creeds and defining heresies is also required... --82.12.222.230 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC) CD

Please look at the article; there is an entire section on the Creeds. Are you saying that is not enough? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Xianity and monotheism

The early Christian Church was a chaos of contending beliefs. Some groups of Christians claimed that there was not one God but two or twelve or thirty. Some believed that the world had not been created by God but by a lesser, ignorant deity. Certain sects maintained that Jesus was human but not divine, while others said he was divine but not human. In Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman offers a fascinating look at these early forms of Christianity and shows how they came to be suppressed, reformed, or forgotten. All of these groups insisted that they upheld the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and they all possessed writings that bore out their claims, books reputedly produced by Jesus's own followers. Modern archaeological work has recovered a number of key texts, and as Ehrman shows, these spectacular discoveries reveal religious diversity that says much about the ways in which history gets written by the winners.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0195182499/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Is the introduction correct?

Clive Durdle

--82.12.222.230 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds kind of like today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.185.74 (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say below, this article is more about the current state of Christianity than it is about it's history. I'm not familiar with Ehrman's work so I don't know how well respected he is. Whatever may be the case it would seem that his writings are more relevant to an article about early Christianity than they would be to an article about Christianity in general. I don't think the above would be helpful as an introduction to this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Structure of the article

Xianity is probably a series of oriental cults that used Judaism as a root stock to give it credence and a history, born in the Roman Empire.

Over time a form of xianity - the proto orthodoxy gained acceptance and was able to make its views the mainstream one.

The article has to start by clearly recognising xianity did not arrive fully formed and that Jesus probably did not exist.

It should not start with an unstated assumption for example that it is a monotheistic religion.

The article needs to be very clear about this religion's extremely foggy origins and the way it does write history.

Clive Durdle

--82.12.222.230 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clive

Thanks for your contribution. We appreciate your point of view. Wikipedia is writing an encyclopedia which represents things from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - meaning we don't take sides. While some scholars do in fact agree with you, many more do not. The view that Jesus never existed is certainly a minority one, even among atheist scholars.

Most scholars would agree with you about Christianity "not arriving fully formed", and the article History of Christianity covers it to an extent. This particular article covers it much less, since it is more concerned with the present state of Christianity than it's history. It's not clear, and certainly not a consensus opinion, that Christianity derived from oriental cults. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DJ, we need to begin with where Christianity is today. It has been a while since I have read the article from beginning to end, but if Clive thinks we do not cover the beginnings of Christianity adequately, maybe specific recommendation in that vein could be proposed. However, the introduction is not where they should be introduced. Clive, you are correct that the Christianity we know today did not arrive at the time of Christ. There was an evolution of both doctrine and thought. Ehrman, chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a recognized New Testament scholar and textual critic. He is an author of several books. Although once an Evangelical, he is now agnostic. His work is fascinating, but hardly unique. There are many other scholars who echo his work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Four times lucky

This [2] is the fourth time Fizzos98 has added the same, IMUO WP:UNDUE comments into this article on LDS scriptures. I reverted one and two others were reverted, and now it is back again. I am not going to revert again since I think it would be poor form however I also think it is poor form for the same editor to try to put in the same material four times against others. In my view there has to be a stopping point in this case for listing other "scriptural" works here which are believed scripture by say Christian Scientists, Jehovahs witnesses, LDS, Scientologists etc. Also everywhere for not including everything. LDS is less than 1% of the church, is rather exceptional in a number of ways and I would draw the line before adding specific comments of this form in this article. We should not allow the core LDS believes to be constructable from adding extra bits on them everywhere in Christianity, we should note them as a bit unusual and refer interested parties to the many Wikipedia articles on them. Other views? --BozMo talk 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The information should be deleted; I will do so if it is not deleted already.

Unusual is not the term I would use; they do not follow 4th century Christian tenants, they are not orthodox in their belief structure are more informative without the negative connotation. Those that are different are of value to their article simply because they are different. The "church" is hardly uniform or cohesive; with over 36,000 denominations within Christianity it is impossible to say it is uniform.

There is a conversation about what is essential. Essential, fundamental doctrines are a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, rose the third day, returned to his father where he sits on the right side of God as Stephen testified. That was the original essential doctrines. The church grew and eventually "a" church gained the lead declaring specific doctrines that became the new fundamental, essential doctrines of the faith and thus the Trinity came to the fore. That is history fact, brief, but still fact. Today, it remains same when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. In some respects in can be said that not only must believe in Jesus Christ, but you must believe in a specific manner of His nature to truly be called Christian. At no point in the New Testament was this ever the case. It seems odd that we allow the dictates of 4th century Christianity to dictate the complete parameters of Christianity today.

My position is that we focus on the majority and add the color from the minority views in order to paint a full picture of Christianity today. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus (God incarnate?)

This may be a major belief in Christianity, however it does not represent the view of all Christianity. This article seems to get pretty confusing to say that Jesus is God incarnate, and then say that God rose him from the dead and he now sits on his own right hand. I believe that this part of the article should be deleted and the view of the God incarnate concept be moved to the Trinitarian section.--Fizzos98 (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not confusing; trinitarians believe that Jesus himself rose his own body from the dead; "I shall rebuild the temple in 3 days", thats how Trinitarians view it - Jesus is God and God raised himself from the dead.

I'm not sure what the position of wikipedia is on non-trinitarian christian views, which make up a minority of Christianity. Tourskin (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The position is exactly the same as any minority view. They aren't excluded from being mentioned but shouldn't be given undue weight either. We can't possibly restrict ourselves to describing what "all Christians" believe, since that would leave us with a blank article. In general it's not a problem to say "Christians believe..." when a few percent disagree (the case with non-trinitarianism) , but "Most Christians believe..." is usually better if we can. In general we don't need to go into detaill about exactly what the dissent is in an overview article like this one - all of the dissenters have their own articles where that can be explained. Non-trinitiarians get their own discussion under "Trinity". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Christians believe should be frowned upon; as the old saying goes when you have 3 Christians in a room you will have five opinions. Always, always stick to what most Christian churches teach. We can always support what orthodoxy states as doctrine, but beginning to state what most Christians believe is another matter entirely. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

StormRider is completely correct here. Sorry for my inaccurate suggestions above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead shortening

I took the liberty of moving some parts of the lead to a new first section, and also added 3 sentences on Christian history there. That section could probably be expanded to something like an overview of the whole article. And by the way: I don't know what the Manual of Style says on references in the lead, but frankly I don't care. The refs for something like "Monotheism" need to stay in there, because there are people who have different views (Muslism e.g., who sometimes consider Christianity not as monotheistic because of the Trinity.) Zara1709 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You should care (WP:LEADCITE), and moreover the lead should be a summary of the article, so the shortening is not appropriate - the lead should have 3 - 4 full paragraphs in such long articles (WP:LEAD). The citations are possible in leads, but should be well reasoned exceptions. There is a chapter about Trinity here, so the citations about different positions regarding the subject can be and should be there, in the Trinity chapter. I do not think that it deserves to be in the lead.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? The lead should have up to 4 paragraphs, it doesn't have to have exactly 4. The shorter the lead, the better. It is very likely that this material might be challenged, and for wp:verifiabilty, more refs are better than less. Your usual anti-trinitarian (whether Muslim or from some anti-trinitarian Christian denomination) might not read the full article, because he already objects to the first line, so the ref definitely needs to stay. We could include a little more information in the lead, but I would suspect that nearly all readers already know that Christianity originated in the first century A.D and that it is a very large religion, so I'd say that it is ok the give those facts in the first section. Zara1709 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Zara1709, please read the manual links I gave you, you will find the answer about what is my point: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, etc." And: "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. (...) The following suggestion may be useful:

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs"

This article has >90 kb, that means it should have three or four paragraphs in the lead according to WP:LEAD. Full paragraphs, as the theme is very complicated, huge, complex. The only chance to bring this important article to a higher level is to complain with WP:MOS. --Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't continue this discussion previously because I didn't see a point in it. As far as I understood it, for a printed or a Cd version of Wp 'they' want to have the option of just including the lead, and for this reason the lead should be a complete summary of the article and in this case 4 paragraphs long. Well, fine, I didn't previously consider this. What I have considered, though, is WP: reliable sources and the point, that we here, at the online edition, have an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. So if you take out the ref for Christianity being a monotheistic religion there is the acute possibility that some anti-trinitarian comes along and changes that to "Christianity is a polytheistic religion." This doesn't mean that we need to keep all references that are currently present in the lead, but we need to keep some. And don't take this personal: You can not remove the sentence "Christians, believe that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah (or Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament," from the article on Christianity - you'd get an article on Christianity that doesn't say what Christians actually believe. If you want to make any changes to the lead, please discuss them here first. Zara1709 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Zara1709, please do yourself what you demand from me. You are in no way my boss here and you should not revert a discussed change without previous discussion. If you think that you are the owner of the article, read please WP:OWN. If you didn't see a point in WP:MOS, then it is really hard to work together with you. - Regarding the allegedly removed sentence, I tried to put the same thing in other words; if you think that my way was not correct, please amend or discuss it and do not revert the whole.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zara saved me the trouble. My first reaction was that vandalism had occurred. But I didn't have time to look at it in detail until later. What I eventually saw was a good faith edit that eliminated some necessary anchors to the points in the intro. For instance, "monotheistic" has to be anchored. There's been some minor edit warring over that designation and I've been hard pressed to keep it, even with the citations. To your point of owning the text or discussing the text... sometimes non-responsiveness means that a person doesn't feel that he can persuade you. As such, endless argument doesn't serve Wikipedia standards. In the same way, massive re-edits don't either. What I would suggest in the future is that you do not assume silence is agreement. It is just as equally lack of agreement. If no one approves of your idea, or says anything at all, try a re-edit (as you have done). Once that gets everyone's attention -- chill a bit. You've kicked the log and us bugs are coming out for a peek. Well, you got that much attention. But you may not get much more than that. We've woken up to disagree with your wholesale edit. There are too many points in it to argue. So, now, try one step at a time. A little here, a little there. Whether it gets undo'd or not, go to the next. The ones people don't actively disagree with, they'll leave alone. In other words -- instead of wholesale edits, try retail.Tim (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course everything has to be anchored, but not always in the intro. The intro has to be, well, an introduction. Regarding your advice to do a series of small edits, OK, it is perhaps possible, but I have only limited time and patience, and moreover when things are structurally bad, it is sometimes better to build the whole structure from scratch. - So I will add the template wikify in order not to forget the point, and that is all for now.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity as Lethal Entity

I think it's terribly important to include in this article at least a few statements about those who see Christianity as a danger to society, and, indeed, to the entire planet. I've therefore added a few sentences about the important recent work of Dawkins and Hedges. I hope these statements are not deleted or shunted off to a corner somewhere. As we know, this article is not a forum for Christians to promote their religion; it's to be a balanced academic article about the phenomenon called "Christianity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athana (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For other readers' convenience, here's the diff for Athana's edit.

Athana, I reverted your edit for a few reasons:

1. Your claim was unsourced. A reference to two authors isn't sufficient to support the claim that "Modern writers are beginning to" anything.
2. It is unlikely that the writers you mention don't think of Christianity as a religion, as your text claimed.
3. Your summary of their position ("a lethal cultural system driving the human race "to the abyss," i.e., to the brink of extinction") is quite clearly non-neutral.
4. This kind of information does not belong in the lead. We actually have an entire article dedicated to criticism of Christianity, which presumably already conveys the information you intended to convey here. It's linked at the bottom of the page.

Ilkali (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Athana, if you wish to discuss what Christianity is, by all means post a message on my talk page and I shall respond there. Otherwise, personal opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia.Tourskin (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution, Athana, is not completely unjustified, but directly on top of the article it is at the wrong place. I'll remove it any we can then see if it fits some place else.Zara1709 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? That calling a religion "a lethal entity" is not completely unjustified? Exactly what part of the edit is not unjustified? The lack of sources, the harsh POV language? Its nothing short of a blatant attack on Christianity, rather than Christianity's teachings. You can try to add to the Criticisms of Christianity article, but attacking Christianity itself without actually attacking its teachings is a logical fallacy of irrelevance and we can't cite what every author out there says. I've never heard of the writers that Athana has posted before and I seriously doubt that they are well known enough to be included - like I said, we can't include the opinion of every author. Besides the point, Athana has made a blatant attack on the religion, not on the religion's teachings, theres a difference and the difference in wikipedia is that the former is not tolerated. Tourskin (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"What are you saying? That calling a religion "a lethal entity" is not completely unjustified?". The content in question did not contain those words.

"I seriously doubt that [Richard Dawkins and Chris Hedges] are well known enough to be included". Dawkins isn't well-known? Seriously?

"Athana has made a blatant attack on the religion". Athana is permitted to state her opinion on the talk page, and her edit to the article did not directly claim anything about the religion. It only made reference to other people's opinions of it. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this. Ilkali (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the opinion is a fringe concept. People can be lethal, but an organization cannot be; an organization can promote violence, but is incapable of action in and of itself. I see no reason to include every insignifciant opinion of individuals and balance, fringe would seem to apply here. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I was the one who reverted Athana in the first place. I am not supporting her edit, just arguing against a mischaracterisation. Ilkali (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy so much to address...

• Ilkali, Zara said that Athana's edit was not unjustified completely, I was asking which part was. I'm addressing Zara's semi-accepting stance.

• Secondly, I don't know who Dawkins is. Since when did such a name appear on the media recently? Do not assume that you are as well educated as me or that I am as well educated as you.
• No one is saying you are supporting the edit.
• Fourthly, you have skewed Athana's remarks - As we know, this article is not a forum for Christians to promote their religion; it's to be a balanced academic article about the phenomenon called "Christianity." - Phenomenon? Are you telling me that is not POV?
• Fifthly, no we do not have a right to post our opinions on these talk pages, these talk pages are for improving the article!!
• I think it's terribly important - when someone thinks something is "terribly important", it usually means they buy into that idea!! You don't have to be explicit to state a belief!! Tourskin (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tour, you might want to google Richard Dawkins; he is both an author and scholar. Rather significant fellow and in the news relatively often. He would be recognized as a reputable source for some things. This area is still fringe to me. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wikipedia-d him and he seems like a pretty fun chap, not. Lol. Tourskin (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"you have skewed Athana's remarks - As we know, this article is not a forum for Christians to promote their religion; it's to be a balanced academic article about the phenomenon called "Christianity." - Phenomenon? Are you telling me that is not POV?" I don't actually see a problem with calling Christianity a phenomenon, but it's immaterial. Those are comments Athana made on the talk page. Editors are permitted to express personal opinions on talk pages.

"Fifthly, no we do not have a right to post our opinions on these talk pages, these talk pages are for improving the article!!". Then you should definitely strike out the opinion you just expressed on Richard Dawkins ("seems like a pretty fun chap, not. Lol"). Ilkali (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should. As for Athana, let us also remind that person that this is not a forum for promoting anti-Christianity, not that I am accusing anyone of that at this stage. Tourskin (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism with foreign quotes

I have repeatedly taken out a German quote Ludwig Ott, Grundriß der Dogmatik, Herder, Freiburg, 1965, p. 571f from the section on afterlife. I had used this quote in a different context, which was erased by STR1977. He now uses this German quote which has nothing to do with his sentence, what "most Christians" or Catholics believe. I have Ott, page 571 in front of me and would like to ask:

which part or sentence on that page justifies the use of this quote.

Unless he can show us, that this quote backs up his statements, it will be erased. Continued vandalizing and edit wars will result in arbitration. Thank you --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in which context you used it - the ref doesn't belong to you.

If the ref says something else, present this here.

You CERTAINLY should NOT mess up the sentence, turning it into gibberish. Because of you, it now reads "Most Christians Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants - believe that upon bodily death ..." (leaving out tags and refs)

If your edits are genuine, if you really care about this article, you should instantly revert it to

"Most Christians - Roman Catholics (fact), Eastern Orthodox (ref as provided) and many Protestants (fact) - believe that upon bodily death ..."

Otherwise you are just being disruptive.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. It is still considered uncivil to label honest edits as vandalism. The only vandalism occuring here is by you, as you mess up the sentence. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, what Ambrosius used to insert into the article by using the Ott ref was

"For Catholics, it is a matter of faith (De Fide) that the souls of those who died in a state of mortal sin, will go to hell everlasting. < ref > Ott < / ref > This belief goes back to the early Fathers of the Church, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others < ref >Ott < / ref > The teaching that upon bodily death, the soul experiences the particular judgment has never been defined as binding, but is a precondition for the notion that the souls after death are either condemned to an eternal hell, stay for a while in purgatory, or are rewarded with eternal heaven. < ref > Ott 566 </ ref >"

Note the parts in bold. And he has the audacity to claim that this doesn't reference the fact that Catholics believe in particular judgement? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote: The early Fathers of the Church, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others all talked about judgement and hell.Ludwig Ott, Grundriß der Dogmatik, Herder, Freiburg, 1965, p. 571f

Ludwig Ott, Grundriß der Dogmatik, Herder, Freiburg, 1965, p. 571f

Now this source Ludwig Ott, Grundriß der Dogmatik, Herder, Freiburg, 1965, p. 571f is used by STR1977 to show that Catholics believe in Particular judgement. Why? There is no relation to it! -- Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote what you wrote. I quote it verbatim above. And I have explained it to you. The ref does cover, among other things of course, a Catholic belief in particular judgement. Hence, my usage is accurate. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you and everybody else here that page 571 of Ludwig Ott, Grundriß der Dogmatik, Herder, Freiburg, 1965 does not cover or mention Particular judgement.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Then it was you who misused it as in your previous edit, the one in which you introduced Ott as a source you did mention particular judgement. And don't tell me it is on page 566 and not 571 because if that is your problem you could have just told me so. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me announce that I shall not be actively editting nor arguing/discussing/screaming anymore. I am exhausted in attempting to argue what most Christians believe, originally I was trying to argue against accusations that there was a Catholic bias. I still believe that particular judgment is pretty prevalent (most or not), if not at least on a face value level. But I can think of better ways to redirect my energies. However, if you wish to call upon my opinion, I will give it. Right now I must study for some lame exams...Peace, or Shlama amkhon. Tourskin (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait!!! Before I go!!! Let me cite Dante's Comedy as proof for the prevalence of particular judgment!! Dante sees hell in real time, not in the future!!! Tourskin (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration.

As for the content: Ambrosius has removed the Ott source once again. I restored it, this time with the correct page number, and also added two more sources, one for the Catholic side and one for the Orthodox side. We still need Protestant sources (unsurprisingly, here matters are most difficult.) Str1977 ^(talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening assumptions

Please correct me if I am being unfairly biased, but why is the opening section written under the assumption that god does, in fact, exist? Perhaps it should say "... Believe Jesus to be the son of the alleged 'God' whom they believe in..." Again, please correct me if that would be a violation of NPOV. S8333631 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your approach is very courteous. The reason why is because

1) Disproving the existence of God is as impossible as proving the existence of God (otherwise whats the point of faith?) Therefore, why should a neutral position take sides when neither side is conclusive?

2) By placing the word "alleged", you are introducing your own POV, so you're worsening the problem.

3) The word "belief" signifies that Christians are making an assumption. Part of the belief in the sentence is a belief in God. In other words, the premise that God exists is part of Christian belief, and is taken for granted. Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. So therefore, Christians must believe in God.

Tourskin (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think the current wording is a little sub-optimal, but I don't think the presupposition is as strong as you suggest. It might help if this weren't the first reference to God - if he were properly introduced earlier in the article before having sons assigned to him. Ilkali (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be changed. Atheists are well aware of the fact that Christians take God's existence for granted. If they believe in a Son of God, then of course a God must exists who is the Father. The above user had issues with the fact that this assumption is taken for granted. However, because it is enclosed in the words "Christians believe", it is a description of their belief, not of wikipedia's belief. In other words, of course this sentence will have a POV because it is describing the views of Christians!Tourskin (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Atheists are well aware of the fact that Christians take God's existence for granted". Why are you talking about atheists?

"because it is enclosed in the words "Christians believe", it is a description of their belief". The claim enclosed in that way is a statement about Jesus's relation with God, not about God's existence. The fact that the first mention of God is in ascribing a property or relationship to him gives rise to a possible interpretation that God is being presupposed to exist. For S8333631, that is apparently even the primary interpretation. I am not proposing anything more than a slight reorganisation of the information in the article. Ilkali (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia article is written as a presentation of a subject, using words and terminologies, with which the subject defines itself. This applies to Wikipedia articles as well within the given rules of verifiability and other rules. It is therefore not necessary, to make any changes. The article does not need to prove that God exists or that he has a son. It has only to verify the Christianity either teaches (easy to prove) or believes, that Jesus is the Son of God (difficult to prove).--Thomaq (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is nonexistent. We do not start any article with disclaimers about assumptions that what is described or elements thereof exist. And "alleged" can already be POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But "alleged" is used in several cryptid/UFO related articles. And Christians are, in fact, globally, a minority, so, in the light of these statistics/external examples, I believe that "alleged" would be quite well applied. 76.199.169.4 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Christianity is still the largest religion in the world. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:76.199.169.4 your argument is very fallacious. 1) It does not matter whether an ideology is in the minority or not. That does not make it any less true. The fact that tanning causes cancer is a truth that is held by a minority of people. 2) Ideologies cannot be proven or dis proven, they are beliefs and therefore what is believed is not alleged, but exists in the minds of those who believe in it. Therefore, the Christians do not believe in an alleged God, they believe in a God. You and others who do not believe will consider him to be alleged. This is simply your belief vs. our belief. Therefore, why should one be chosen over another? There is no reason, Wikipedia does not care for a reason - what Wikipedia does care for is verifiable fact. And it is a verifiable fact that Christians believe in a God. They do not allege there is a God but are have come to a firm conclusion that he exists, hence Wikipedia does not include the word "allege" in its attempt to describe what Christians believe in. 3) UFO's and Cryptids are claims made based upon Empirical evidence or the lack of. Therefore, they can be dis proven, by empirically showing that there is no empirical evidence for them. 4) Your linking of UFO's to God is also ridiculous, for they are two separate matters - as explained, one of them (UFO's) is based entirely on the physical world and can be proven or dis proven and the other (God) can never be proven or dis proven. Tourskin (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Christanity as Kindergarden?

STR1977 wrote above:

And don't tell me it is on page 566 and not 571 because if that is your problem you could have just told me so.

After this he inserts into the questioned text page 566 What's going on here? Looks like silly-world or kindergarden to me!

That's because you're not a part of the discussion to improve the article. So save your insults. Tourskin (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And who is this complaining here about me without signing?

To explain matters again:

Ambrosius posted some things referenced to Ott (various pages). Most of these facts were irrelevant to the passage but one (about particular judgement) was useful. I used the Ott ref to reference particular judgement and Ambrosius complained, edit warred, deleted the entire passage, mutilated sentences, always complaining about my misusing "his" ref. There can be two reasons for that:

• either he was angry that I was using the wrong page number (indeed I was, as the passage about particular judgement in his posting was referenced to page 566) - but Ambrosius never told me so.
• or he was just being difficult, for whatever reason.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref section

I have started to finally create a references section for this article. This will contain the bibliographical information of all the printed works cited in the footnotes, at least all secondary sources. The footnotes will be thinned out of that information in the process, restricting them to author, book and page number. I will also aim at uniformity, especially concerning how page numbers are presented (hence no "Pp", "pp", "Pg", "pg" or whatever) and in the ref section. Str1977 ^(talk)

Those missing some piece of information I will tag "clarifyme" - this can range from a mere lack of the author(s) first name to the total lack of basic information about the title etc.

The information needed is: author (family name, first name). Title. Publisher + place (year), page numbers belong into the footnote, not the ref section. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Christianity is not a religion

The first sentence of the article states: "Christianity is a monotheistic religion[1]". This simply is not true. Roman Catholicism is a religion, for instance, with a defined set of opinions and teachings. Christianity simply is not. It is a general term used to group a number of self-identified religions who - in one part or another - centre on the historical figure of Jesus Christ. But they differ on almost everything relating to that. "Christianity" does not teach something, it is a sociological umbrella-term.

In earlier days, christianity and catholicism were pseudonyms. Hence a historical meaning for the word christianity exists. But to pretend as if there is one religion called christianity, is simply false. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and the word you are looking for is synonyms, not pseudonyms. For the rest, see below. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is too close to WP:OR I am afraid (particularly on what you define as a religion). A vast body of consensus lumps Christianity within some sort of bracket as a religion (e.g. members of the world council of churches or whatever) and the fact that some groups within the bracket think others will go to hell etc makes it no different from other world religions where factions kill each other too. You cannot redefine religion to suit your own desire to make a point, sorry. --BozMo talk 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're confused as to the distinction between the two, compare religion with Christian denominations. fishhead64 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that there is no mainstream scholar on the face of the earth that does not define Christianity. There are denominations to nearly every single religion. By your definition, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and several other relgions are not to be considered religions. Wikipedia cannot be the first to say that Christianity is not a religion. Wikipedia states what others have already written about a subject, rather then draw conclusions of its own. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, every now and then somebody big on opinion but small on perspective and knowledge comes along and cries about how this article is wrong because it either says Christianity is only allegedly monotheistic, or believes only in an alleged God, or (as now) is only allegedly a religion (either because it is allegedly not one but many religions or because it is allegedly a "religion" but a "faith" in the terms of a vulgo-Barthian view).

To all these people I'd like to say (and I am certain I am not the only one with that sentiment) that there alleged complaint has already been raised at least half a dozen time. The result has always been the same and it will be so in the future. So please, save your and our energy and DO NOT TRY AGAIN.

Thank you! Str1977 ^(talk) 17:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there are plenty of sources discussing the difficulty in delineating a standalone religion from a mere denomination. It is clear that Christianity is commonly seen as "a religion". Note that even Hinduism is commonly seen as "a religion", although far more disparate than the various "Christianities", although it is easy to cite references that point out that this is merely by convention. It would be interesting to look for similar discussions on Christianity, but of course we'll need sources first, and once we have them, we still need to keep within WP:DUE. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

already searching for "Christianities" on google scholar yields interesting results. We get "Early Christianities", "Jewish-Christianities" "Kikuyu Christianities", "contrasting Christianities in post-transition Malawi", "the place of Jerusalém pilgrimage in the various Christianities" and so on, all of these clearly indicating the notion that there are in fact various separate religions under the "Christianity" umbrella. There's even a monograph on "Afro-Christian religions". This would be an interesting topic to pursue. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've now found an 1854 source addressing this question directly: [3] ("there seem to be a great many Christian Religions") I'll grant that this is all mostly rhetorical and/or postmodernist, but it is wrong to imply it isn't possible to document it encyclopedically. dab (𒁳) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you here dab. So you've pulled out a few minor sources saying otherwise, well how many do you suppose exist that counter this? Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia policy to include every fringe idea. Tourskin (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I am not saying we should change the lead. I am saying it may be worthwhile to stash away something on this somewhere in Category:Christianity, and that it isn't really justified to treat the original poster as a moron. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. "Denomination" (or "sect") is to "religion" as "dialect" is to "language." There's a lot of disagreement about where to draw the line. Christianity is referred to as a religion often enough in reliable sources and common usage that the lead is fine as-is, but it may be appropriate to address the issue of whether Christianity is a single religion or a collection of genetically related religions somewhere further down in the article. User:PubliusFL (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a couple sentences on the topic would fit well in the lead of the "Branches of Christianity in the present day" section. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we need neither a discussion nor any change or addition to the article to entertain this fallacy. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Str (and others), regarding recurring issues like this one & others, one solution we might want to consider is to agree on a few basic principles upon which the article is based. We can't and mustn't override anything in Wikipedia policy, but it might be a useful exercise to supplement what policy has to say. The editors of Evolution have, as you can probably imagine, had to put up with just as much of this kind of stuff over the years, and as a result have agreed a set of basic principles and documented it in an FAQ. Any time someone brings up any issue which is answered therein, they can just be directed there (and any discussion about changeing those basic principles can happen at the talk FAQ, leaving discussion at the article's talk page for the real issues). What do people think, would a similar idea have some mileage for this article? SP-KP (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the Evolution FAQ keep people from bringing things up, or do they disregard it? It is definitely a good idea, but I'm afraid that we'd put in a lot of effort and end up with people still bringing up these issues which are discussed ad nauseum in the archives. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem is with people repeatedly bringing up the same idea without referring to specific quotable sources. These can just be asked to do their own homework and come back with some RS. Once a quotable source is brought up, debate immediately revolves around WP:DUE, and the best defence is to actually include the reference somewhere it is due, so that future complaints can be met by merely pointing to how the issue is already duly discussed. Evolution? There is a long history of actually covering these objections, as a topic in itself, grouped under Category:Creationist objections to evolution. In the "religions or denominations" case, the best place to discuss this would probably be the religious denomination article. This should make clear that, as in the language vs. dialect case, it is purely conventional whether a given group is referred to as a "religion" or as a "denomination". That's really it, there's nothing substantial to the distinction, it's simply a case of checking common usage. Case in point, Islam was considered a Christian heresy for centuries, but is now commonly taken as a "religion" in its own right. Otoh, Unitarianism, which is theologically closer to Islam than to Trinitarian Christianity, is still considered a Christian denomination by convention. --dab (𒁳) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between this case and the case of Evolution. There are objections to Evolution and they can be put into an article. However, in the case of Christianity, the three "objections" I described are not valid in any way. And I don't see either how an FAQ can help or why we should put work into such a catalogue just in the vain hope that it would prevent trolls from trolling. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolution? Woah, we have gone to tangent. Now then, dialect is to language as denomination is to religion? I can draw the line, those within it call themselves and others Christians and share core Christian beliefs. There are variations in interpretation of the Bible, theology and relationship/existence of the Holy Spirit, but these do not drive in religious boundaries - how can we decide what does? How about we live it to Christians to decide what makes them a Christian, since they are Christian?Tourskin (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Even Unitarianism is far away from Islam because Islam is against the belief that Jesus Christ died and rose again for our sins. Thus we can't say that one form of Christianity is closer to Islam because the centrality of Jesus Christ is decisive in the split, regardless of whether he is seen as just the Son of God or God as well. Tourskin (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, well, this is a tangent. I don't think there is any real disagreement here. I was just collecting some sources for the discussion of the scope of varieties of Christianity for possible future use. You'll need to admit that especially where Christianity blends with Voodoo and other elements of tribal religion (folk Christianity), the line becomes difficult to draw. A good example of a movement gradually becoming unrecognizable as "Christian" is Unitarian Universalism. Various crackpot, extremist, eclecticist or syncretist movements are also often difficult to classify as "Christian" ("garbage eaters", Aladura, Christian Identity, Grail Movement). Your suggestion of "let the Christians decide for themselves if they are Christian" isn't helpful, since the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, claim to be Christian, but aren't recognized as Christian by other Christians. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the definition gets fuzzy at the borders, just as with any group that is not a tightly knit organisation. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a single group (here, a religion) to begin with. Compare it with kingdoms in the middle ages, when borders were not as minutely defined as they are nowadays - one could argue that some region was part of a realm or not. One could not argue that the realm didn't exist.

Of course we leave the definition to Christians but that only moves the problem because mostly the group in dispute will consider itself Christian (e.g. Mormons) and hence the basis for the decision is identical to the problem to be decided. Hence there will always be a matter of POV included here. But here, on WP, we simply report what reliable sources tell us. And if there is a dispute we report that also, with the due weight given to the individual positions. We will also try not to presuppose one view over the other in passages not actually concerned with the issue.

All these are issues of where to draw the line. However, the superfluous posting at the top of this section was about something completely different: it claimed that there was no religion of Christianity to begin with. And that's nonsense. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

May I now destroy the myth that Catholicism was a synonymn for Christianity - Orthodox, Nestorian, Arian and Manichean are all forms of Christianity that have at one point in time been a powerful, if not the dominant Christian thought in certain areas. Tourskin (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Though it is hardly of any consequence to the article, you are not completely right:

• Nestorian was hardly ever dominant in any area. (And I don't know whether Nestorians use the term Catholic too.)
• Manichaeism is not Christian at all, though you might as well cite Islam as an example. And Manichaeism was not dominant in any area either.
• Arianism was dominant for political reasons. But it never was a large movement.
• Orthodox is merely the eastern half of Catholicism or Catholicism the western half of Orthodoxy. Both were once one and both sides use the terms "orthodox" and "catholic".

Finally, I think Stijn was actually speaking in terms of Western Europe. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Manichaeism is gnosticism, so it has trace roots in Christianity. But never mind that one. It was dominant in the East until Nestorianism overtook it. Check out the respective articles. Tourskin (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. Not all Gnosticism is Christian - there was also Jewish Gnosticism and Pagan Gnosticism. And Manichaeism happened to grow into a separate religion. It was never dominant anywhere: in the very first days it enjoyed the favour of the Sassanid ruler who however soon viciously persecuted Mani and his followers. And Nestorianism never "overtook" anything. It merely became the predominant form of Christianity in the Persian Empire, albeit under still heavily suppressed conditions. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying all gnsoticism is christianity. I said this one in particularhad trace roots in Christianity. Its got to be more than coincidence that Manicheanism arose at the same time as Christianity. Besides, Mani was influenced by Mandeanism, considered himself an apostle of Jesus and wrote in Aramaic and was of Assyrian parentage himself (many were Christian by the 3rd century). Therefore, to deny the Christian influence is impossible. This form of Gnosticism has sproutout of Christianity, a part of it at least. Anyways, I'm getting this from wikipedia - it says that Manicheanism was the most wide-spread religions at its height. Finally, the article says that Manicheanism preserved many of the non-canonical gospels Tourskin (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about this but I cannot pass over this. I am not denying any influence (though Mandaeism is certainly not Christianity) - I am merely repeating the Manichaeism is a separate religion just like Islam. Hence, Manichaeism is utterly irrelevant here. Furthermore, Manichaeism did not arise at the same time as Christianity, it arose 200 years later, "wide-spread" does not mean dominant and WP is not a source for WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

• Iglesia Metodista Unida Emmanuel: 925 Joseph Ave. Rochester, NY 14621 (585) 467-2455 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnclimited (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. We do not link to the websites of individual ecclesial communities from this page, as well as the foreign-language issue barring it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of 'the Gospel'

The term 'Gospel' refers to the first four books of the New Testament, Matthew Mark Luke and John. 203.212.149.146 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)laserforce

No, it doesn't - "the Gospel" refers to the message preached by Christ. Only when for instance "the Gospel according to John" or "the Gospels" is used, does it refer to these books. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

you could be less pedantic, Str1977, and try some good grace. You are both correct. "gospel" simply translates evangelium "good news". As we state at gospel, "a gospel is generally one of four canonical books of the New Testament". If you want to be really, really, really pedantic, "the gospel of Mark" is strictly incorrect, since the news arent' Mark's, Mark is only relating them. This hasn't so far kept us from keeping the article at Gospel of Mark, although you could of course start looking for a consensus for a move to the really correct Gospel according to Mark. I am not sure why this is even discussed here. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem. gospel is our article on the canonical texts, while Good news (Christianity) is our artcle on "the Gospel" according to Str1977. Evangelium redirects to gospel. This needs some disambiguation and disentanglement to avoid confusion. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I am being told for being "pedantic", dab. Some anon IP comes along posts this message without any motivation or explanation, lecturing others about the definition of "the Gospel", a definition hardly needed. And it was "the Gospel" that he talked about which in this form simply doesn't apply to the books he mentioned.

But I agree that the various links possibly need disentangling. But that problem was not addressed by the original poster here. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that your problem is that if you find "some IP" making a comment that isn't immediately clear, you tend to go into "anti-troll" mode and essentially tell people they are morons. I understand the reflex, and I am guilty of similar reflexes at much-trolled articles on my watchlist, but this tends to be classified under WP:BITE by the community. What I believe the original poster was trying to say is that the lead of this article has

"Christians describe the New Testament account of Jesus' ministry as the Gospel ("good news")."

but when you click on gospel, you are taken to an article on the various texts known as gospels, not the "good news" article. This was a valid observation of a genuine problem, and the anon poster has induced me to try and fix it with my recent edits to Good news (Christianity). This has further drawn my attention to problems with the Christian Church article, which I've also tried to fix (but please see my comments at Talk:Christian Church). --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I admit that I was in anti-troll mode (but given the recent talk page history that is only too understable). I should improve on that and I meant not disrespect to the IP personally. However, I still can't see how this drive-by comment helps as I think it utterly egnimatic. If that poster has been clearer to you, even told you what he meant I am glad.

As for your point: I see now that the sentence is problematic as "the Gospel" is by no means the "New Testament accounts of Jesus' ministry" but the message of Christ (which is of course intertwined with his life). This indeed needs fixing. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the statement "Christians describe the New Testament account of Jesus' ministry as the Gospel ('good news')" is itself dubious and apparently suffering from the same confusion. Christians describe the message that "Jesus the Christ has died for our sins, and we are now saved" (ironically carrying the less-than-obvious bad news that we were in need of being saved in the first place as an implication) as "the Gospel". From this usage, a text dedicated to conveying this message is also known as "a gospel", in particular the four canonical ones. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the earliest generally agreed usage is in Corinthians and was emphatically the gospel that "Christ is risen". I think you need to read Christus Victor by Gustav Aulen if you think the gospel is "Christ has died for our sins". Without the resurrection "dying for our sins" would be pointless (if Christ is not raised your faith is futile etc etc) according to St Paul and its only in recent centuries than specialists in "how A can mean the opposite of A" have managed to change the meaning to make such obvious statements about the resurrection all about the cross. --BozMo talk 11:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, sorry, I was being a little facetious. I grant your points re the content of the "message". The point is the distinction between "message" ("XP is risen") and "(canonical) text". --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I agree with your overall point and take BozMo's posting as a caveat that we should not be too specific about what actually is. I suggest the following sentence:

Christians call the message of Jesus Christ the Gospel ("good news") and hence label the written accounts of his ministry as gospels.

I will implement it immediately but am open to any improvements. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

sounds ok, or at least is an improvement over the previous version. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any further suggestions are welcome. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the word "gospel" is used to mean the telling of the story of Jesus as savior, whether by the evangelists (in "the Gospels") or by anyone else ("preaching the gospel"). After all, when someone preaches (or spreads) the gospel, they are not necessarily literally reciting out of the Gospels. --FOo (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

that's precisely why we have two articles, and why the confusion arises in the first place. fwiiw, the OED has:

1. a. ‘The glad tidings (of the kingdom of God)’ announced to the world by Jesus Christ. Hence, the body of religious doctrine taught by Christ and His apostles; the Christian revelation, religion or dispensation. Often contrasted with the Law, i.e. the Old Testament dispensation.

2. a. The record of Christ's life and teaching, contained in the books written by the ‘four evangelists’.

3. Eccl. the gospel (for or of the day): the portion from one of the four gospels read at the Communion Service.

dab (𒁳) 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource boxes

Does anybody know what went wrong with the two wikisource boxes containing links to two creeds? I tried to locate the problem but didn't find it. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone care? Please help! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They're working for me, how is it not working for you? Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see they are now for me too. When I raised this issue, they contained the url of the wikisource article and some stray formatting. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)