This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
"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)
I have cut the following section from the article:
"Sin
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
< 15,000 characters | around 32 kilobytes | > 30,000 characters |
---|---|---|
one or two paragraphs | two or three paragraphs | three or four paragraphs" |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
STR1977 wrote above:
After this he inserts into the questioned text page 566 [1] What's going on here? Looks like silly-world or kindergarden to me!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
"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)
I have cut the following section from the article:
"Sin
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
< 15,000 characters | around 32 kilobytes | > 30,000 characters |
---|---|---|
one or two paragraphs | two or three paragraphs | three or four paragraphs" |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
STR1977 wrote above:
After this he inserts into the questioned text page 566 [1] What's going on here? Looks like silly-world or kindergarden to me!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)