|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian denomination article.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Colon
- 2 LDS
- 3 JW
- 4 Taxonomy graphic
- 5 Non-denominationalism
- 6 Reversion of edits by anonymous user 3-4 December 2005
- 7 Last comment about Islam and Bah'ai
- 8 Edit regarding wide variety of doctrines etc.
- 9 Historical schisms and methods of classification scheme
- 10 Structure of the article
- 11 Organization
- 12 Christian anarchists - rejecting saint Paul?
- 13 New Graphic - Survey
- 14 Jews for Jesus
- 15 New Thought
- 16 Mormonism?
- 17 lead should summarize the topic
- 18 One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
- 19 Armenia
- 20 Messianic movements?
- 21 Christian denomination PNG graphic
- 22 Graphic, and representation of Eastern Catholic Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches
- 23 The current definition is wrong and needs to be changed.
- 24 Proposed a failed definition entry for defining "Christian Denomination"
- 25 I add
- 26 This is as simple and CORRECT a definition for the term as can BE.
- 27 Efforts at unity between RC and EO
- 28 the national pledge of barbados
- 29 Liberal denominations
- 30 Orphaned references in Christian denomination
- 31 Sunni Islam is not a denomination
What's with the colon? Why isn't this just called "Denominations of Christianity"? [Jengog]
The LDS movement's being discussed twice, once in the "Western" and once in the "Other" section. Surely these should be comsolidated. Alai 16:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The closing remarks of the article make it sound like Christianity is so nebulous a concept that it is impossible to define. I would suggest that there are core tenants that are common to all of Christendom. I do not think that Jehovah’s Witnesses even consider themselves to be Christian.
- This is incorrect. A cursory glance at the watchtower website shows they consider themselves Christian, and in fact to go further, the only true Christians. boche 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- So all the people who called themselves "Christians" from the time of Christ weren't actually Christians- they were fake Christians that apostasized from the true faith, which was restored by an American prophet in the 19th century. And now the only true Christians are the ones by whom the successors of that prophet are getting paid. Got it.
- You guys do realize the claims of historical Christianity and marginal Christianity are mutually exclusive, yes...? On the one hand, historical Christianity maintains that it really is Christianity and the restorationist movements like Mormonism and JW's are false. In that their prophets aren't actually prophets and their holy writings aren't actually holy or God-given. Whereas the marginals claim that historical Christians- despite having virtually no problems with the Bible- are actually apostates while they (each, individually, alone) are the true Christians. There's not really any other way to make it NPOV while also making it truthful. Mutually exclusive claims to truthiness have a way of doing that. You can't lump them all in as "different types of Christians." They are different types of self-professing Christians at the exclusion of one other. Some claims are obviously more credible than others, but that's completely obvious even when presented from an entirely NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The yellow lines used on the 'taxonomy' graphic are not readable. And, if the graphic describes lineage, it is not necessary or helpful to try to make it double as a list ("Baptist, Adventist" etc. ") If these weaknesses could be fixed, then it might be useful - although it should not give imbalanced treatment to Protestantism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
===>I'll happily except criticism But I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the graphic "should not give imbalanced treatment to Protestantism." The fonts and line weights are identical to, say, the Assyrian church, in spite of the fact that the former has hundreds of times more congregants and is much more influential in a much shorter history.
If you think the graphic should not have the listing of denominational families, feel free to edit it off. Does anybody else care to weigh in? I would recommend still keeping the Waldensians and Hutterites/Moravians, though, as they are pre-Reformation groups that were initially distinct from the larger Protestant movement.
I was concerned about the yellow color myself, so I'll change it tonight. Justin (koavf) 22:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- My largest objection to the graphic is that it lists families of Protestant denominations together. For example, are you sure that Methodists belong to the Protestant family, if the Anglicans do not? Are you sure that all Anabaptists, Baptists, Waldensians and Adventists consider themselves descendent from Catholicism? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- It matters not what one considers themselves to be, it matters what is factual and can be proven and referenced. Just because some of the Protestant denominations have a blind faith that they have been around since before Catholicism does not make it true. If you can source something that backs up their viewpoint (other then some ramblings in a religious text that strings together a few loose threads to try and prove it) then please, feel free to enlighten the rest of the world starting with wikipedia :) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about classifying Calvinism as part of the radical reformation. Calvin and Zwingli both explicitly condemn Anabaptist doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reformation Zwingli initially associated with Swiss Brethren but ultimately broke with them over the issue of baptism; Calvin was never associated with them at all. Both are best remembered as a part of the Magisterial wing of the Protestant Reformation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking for some information on non-denominational churches, specifically their history, for that article. Does anyone have any concrete information on when they started popping up, and how they'd fit into the schematics in this article? Fieari 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC) If non-denominational amounts to independant, the "Independent Fundimental Churches of America (IFCA)" was formed in 1930 to safegard doctrine. There is an article in the "Handbook of Denominatios in the United States" by Frank S. Mead / Samuel S. Hill New Nineth Edition copyright 1990, page 120. Sammy Dyck 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
D.C. 22:50, 30 May, 2013 I am actually a member of one such church. My own follows the beliefs directly from the bible with no alternative/additional texts or traditions. This means no denominating of authority or beliefs.
According to historical and religious texts, these started around ~30 AD for Christianity (around the start of the first christian church). As the apostles were not direct governors of any church or churches and simply went around to visit their friends/ fellow believers. If you look closely at the letters from Paul it is evident that the "Churches of Asia" were non-denominational. This last is all fully based off of the religious text (various New Testament Books authored by Paul).
I'd suggest listing them as an exception at the bottom of the article saying that there are churches who do not follow any structure beyond the local. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Reversion of edits by anonymous user 3-4 December 2005
Some of the reasons why I've reverted these edits (and some encouragement to the anonymous editor who wrote them):
- You may be unaware of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Just one example: The basic premise for the changes is the "fact" or unanimous/majority view that Catholicism ("Roman" + Eastern Rites) is not a denomination. However, even the Catholic Encyclopedia (Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912) deems Catholicism a denomination. Please remember this is an article about Christian denominations, not about the schisms that gave rise to the concept and the need to have a word for it.
- This article already contains a reference to Apostolic Succession. Earlier editors integrated what amounts to an NPOV version of some of your changes in the article itself (as opposed to the introduction). They included a reference and a brief explanation, since the principle itself is fully explained in its own article - all important views, not just a Catholic one.
- Any idea how many people actually hold the view that Catholicism is not a Denomination? If the number is large enough, it would certainly merit mention in the article body. I'm hesitant to add it myself, since locating that information proved a difficult job. It could be inserted somewhere around the Apostolic Succession reference in the article body, something along the lines of: "For the same reason, some/many/most Catholics do not view Catholicism as a Denomination, equating the latter with schismatic churches." or "For the same reason, Catholic doctrine holds that Catholicism is not a Denomination, equating the latter with schismatic churches. In practice, however, this has become a minority view".
- You referred to a non-existing article on private interpretation. Perhaps you're interested in creating this article? However, if you do, and especially if you only present a single viewpoint, don't be surprised if others add substantially to your original article over time.
- You may want to check the spelling of your edits. Examples: "per say" instead of "per se", "cannonically" instead of canonically.
AvB 09:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Last comment about Islam and Bah'ai
Im fairly certain Islamic's do not consider Christ to be the Messiah, as I understand it the Qu'ran even says he didn't die for a single thing, (according to them they snuck Judas onto the cross instead and Christ just went up to heaven instead of dying as I understand it.)isn't Islam limited to only calling Christ's God's most loved prophet or something? and if they do consider Him to be the Messiah, why?Homestarmy 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Different readers may interpret this comment differently depending on their understanding of the name Messiah. I hope you don't mind I have already updated the article. Feel free to incorporate your own changes if you wish. I've used the following sources:
- Islam article: Jesus is seen as a messenger/prophet sent by God — they refer to Him as the Messiah (anointed one) but tell Christians they should stop calling Him the Son of God. Jesus is definitely not Islam's Savior.
- Bahá'í Faith article: Jesus is called the Messiah. Baha'i goes a bit further than Islam in viewing Him as the Son of God. However, Baha'i seems to avoid the subject of Christ as the Savior. See also .
- AvB ÷ talk 00:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit regarding wide variety of doctrines etc.
- As explained elsewhere in the article and visible in the "chism flow chart," the splits were not away from the Roman Catholic Church.
- "giving rise to a wide variety of doctrines" - quite true (apart from being the other way round) but superfluous as this is already explained in full in the remainder of the section.
- The statement about the various "beliefs" in the Roman Catholic Church is supported by reputable sources. You can add information to the contrary from other reputable sources but you cannot remove the statement without providing a good reason.
Please do not let this discourage you from editing Wikipedia. This is mostly about the way Wikipedia works, and certainly not about your grasp of logic or your mastery of the English language :-) AvB ÷ talk 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Historical schisms and methods of classification scheme
It would be interesting to see where/how you would place the Coptic Christians (see the Wikipedia article Coptic Christianity). Also, in discussing denominations, there is an excelent book "Handbook of Denominations in the United States" by Frank S. Mead / Samuel S. Hill (Abingdon Press), that will shed a lot of light on the subject. I have a copy of the 9th edition - copyright 1990.
Sammy Dyck 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain Coptic Christians hail from the Eastern Orthodox. Homestarmy 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Coptic Christians are Nestorians - in the Orthodox Communion these days, but schismatic from Chalcedon through the early 20th century. [[[User:Laurenfrank|Laurenfrank]] 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)]
- No, as referred to in the article, Copts are Miaphysites along with the other Oriental Orthodox churches. Which is not the same as Nestorian!! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Structure of the article
I am reading the article and I think the diagram of the tree of Christianity is very good. I don;t know enough about all these denominations, but it seems to be accurate as far as I can tell. But the text seems to classify different groups on religious beliefs, rather than how they fit in that tree. The example I see is "Christianity outside of the mainstream" which I think most fall under "Restorationism". Can anyone enlighten me, or think of a better structure? Basically, I think the chart should match the structure of the article. Maybe both need to be adjusted. Bytebear 08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that Christian denominations, in contrast or relation to other religions, have always been so structural and institutionalized? It's not many other religious denominations that have headquarters and codification and universally centralized direction and such rigid territorial divisions as Christianity. Why have Christians always organized in dividing and governing themselves? Any thoughts? VolatileChemical 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Christianity has been around for awhile, and country or geological boundaries often created divides. For instance, in the Bible Belt of America, that's primarily in the back country which doesn't have access to the often corrupting effects of big cities. (I presume it has something to do with capitalism getting the best of people or something like that) As for why there has to be so much organization, in the Bible's time, it was hard enough just for paul to take care of just a few regions close to each other geographically, doctrines kept diverging in odd ways when sometimes the culture of the area would corrupt the churches. And now, even though there's more ways to organize over large distances thanks to technology, if there wasn't accountability to main church areas, many congregations (especially these days) might dissolve themselves and nobody would know about it. Plus, often some churches like to publish things for all of the churches to benefit from, and they need some centralized authority to ship this stuff to individual churches or things like that. While we are supposed to be accountable to God, in a culture which is not very friendly to Fundamentalist Christianity or the formation of fundamentalism in general, its not easy for large groups of people to all maintain the same sort of beliefs. Of course, that's just me talking about America.... Homestarmy 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The history of the church after Constantine was one where the state intervened to control what was happening in the church; the first ecumenical council of Nicaea was called by the emperor and its decrees enforced by the state. In the East the church remained allied with the state forever (the Greek Orthodox church is still established in Greece) whilst in the West with the fall of the Roman empire the church became a uniquely independent institution that transcended the boundaries of the now diverse statelets. It was not until the 17th century that there was any real possibility of being a Christian of a different doctrine to the ruler of your state. But also the church has taken certain verses in the New Testament to give it the right to impose doctrines and practices on its members Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Christian anarchists - rejecting saint Paul?
I found this text in the article:
"Christian anarchists believe that the original teachings of Jesus were corrupted first by Saint Paul and then by Roman statism (see early Christianity), and that earthly authority such as government, or indeed the established Church, do not and should not have power over them."
As a Christian anarchist, I strongly object to that statement. As far as I know, most Christian anarchists do not believe that the teachings of Jesus were "corrupted" by Saint Paul. I, for one, do not. 188.8.131.52 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, is there a citation for the sentence? If not, I don't see why it should remain in the article if it can't be defended. Homestarmy 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- This does not justify removing the whole section, which is slightly better referenced than the rest of the article. Johnbod 13:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion had been so old when I noticed this article again, I simply concluded that it wasn't going to be referenced as a result of this discussion, and I wasn't going to go looking for references that might not even exist. Homestarmy 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Surely the original teachings of Jesus were corrupted by the gospel and later epistle writers, not by the more ancient Pauline corpus! Fishhead64 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
New Graphic - Survey
I have set up a survey on the new graphic at the Schism talk page; I didn't then realize it was being used on other pages. It is probably sensible to centalize discussion - the Survey is here Johnbod 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus
I would protest the comparison between Jews for Jesus and Messianic Judaism - while they are related; Jews for Jesus is NOT "one of the best known groups of Messianic Jews in the United States today" because they are not really Messianic Jews. Jews for Jesus is an modern organization founded by evangelical Christians (a Baptist minister, in fact) in an attempt to target Jews for conversion to Christianity, and allow them to continue their cultural heritage in a new religion. Messianic Judaism developed as a movement in the 19th century and is a more inward-focused attempt to adhere to the beliefs of earlier followers of Jesus, who saw him as the Jewish messiah (see Nazarene_(sect)).
There are also Messianic Jews who strongly oppose being associated with Jews for Jesus (see ). For now, I have removed the mention of Jews for Jesus; if anyone thinks it is really necessary to include them, I would add a sentence like "Messianic Judaism is often compared to a well-known group in the United States called Jews for Jesus, which was created primarily by evangelical Christians wishing to reach out and convert Jews." Crito2161 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Before making changes should there not be a discussion. This an over view of NT not just one branch. To remove Emerson and the Transcendenlist is a grave oversight. Thanks184.108.40.206 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is addressed briefly under Christian denomination#Christianity outside of the mainstream and Christian denomination#Messianic movements. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-Note: the catholic church (and another major denomination of christianity) rejects mormonism as christian b/c mormonism does not accept certain doctrines which they believe to be necessary to be considered christian. someone might want to add that little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes Mormonism should be added. While mainstream Christianity considers it a cult, many Protestants once (a few still do) considered Catholicism the "whore of Babylon." The fact is Mormonism claims itself as Christian, and the religion is based on a conception of Christ, even though it deviates from traditional Christianity. Ltwin (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Accusing the Mormon religion of not being a Christian religion and exclusively being a cult is a matter of opinion regarding the definition of Christianity. Just because different definitions exist does not mean you can write others off because they don't fit in with the one you choose to accept. Mormons are followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. In my opinion this makes them Christian, by definition. This is also the belief held by the Mormons. However, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, information should be presented in an unbiased manner. Therefore, I believe that the current article suffices the request to make mention of Mormonism, noting of course that it is referenced by the full name of the church, the name "Mormon" is not cited anywhere in the article. -18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Even if it is a cult (and I'm not saying it is), it has millions of followers, including some very public figures, who call themselves christian, so it at least deserves a one-sentence mention and a link. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
lead should summarize the topic
The lead was a definition. I turned the lead into a summary. Please see WP:LEAD. Anyone care to help by adding hyperlinks? If anyone wants to offer a better summary, I'm flexible. Leadwind (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Should the phrase "Together both the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox consider themselves to faithfully represent the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" also include the Anglican church? I can't say with certainty that all Anglicans use that line, but the Episcopal Church uses the Nicene Creed which includes "We believe in .... One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." AstérixSméagol (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This appears on google for people like me who are looking for a denominational pie chart, and saying it "needs one" is a waste of people's time when they're looking for one.
I find it weird that the first ever Christian Nation on Earth, Armenia, is not mentioned in this article.
Armenians technically were the first Official Christians as a state religion, shouldn't that be mentioned?
It shouldnt be.
I don't know who's resposible for the term "Oriental Orthodox", but it's used to refer to a group of churches who identify themselves as a group, comprising
- Armenian Apostolic Church
- Syrian Jacobite Church
- Coptic Orthodox Church
- Ethiopian Orthodox Church
- Eritrean Orthodox Church
- one of the Saint Thomas churches in India
The section "Messianic movements" seems to be a bit of a mislabel. I would call it "Restorationism" When I read the article Messianic movement I hear about a Jewish-Christian movement, which none of this information is related to. Bytebear (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent point, thank you for bringing this to my attention. You are entirely correct; in fact, Messianic movements are often founded by someone who claims they are a Messianic figure; that does not fit the movements described in this paragraph at all. They seem better served by the title "Restorationism" or, perhaps, "Christian Primitivism". I am sorry it took this long for someone else to notice. I will make this change straight away.
- -- Joren (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Christian denomination PNG graphic
BreadBran and/or anonymous editors, can you please explain on this talk page why you think we should use this PNG? With respect, it looks like all it is is a simple conversion from File:ChristianityBranches.svg to File:ChristianBranches.png with the words "early Christianity" deleted from the left branch. It doesn't seem to me that this offers anything the old graphic did not offer.
Wikipedia apparently has consensus favoring the use of SVGs over PNGs where possible for things like drawings, charts, etc (please see WP:IUP#FORMAT); we already have a perfectly good SVG which complies with this guideline; the PNG does not. That is why these edits are being reverted by multiple editors. (on that topic, I would urge you to be aware of the three-revert rule, which asks editors not to make more than three reversions in a 24-hour period) Please, before making this edit again, would you kindly talk about your reasons for wanting this change on the talk page here?
I have explained the situation and asked for clarification on User_talk:BreadBran, and have just posted the same query at User_talk:22.214.171.124. I think all of us would much prefer it if we simply discussed the different images here and tried to reach an agreement, but continuing to edit while refusing to discuss it is considered disruptive editing and may require administrator intervention, which I will seek if this discussion-less editing continues.
- In fact, not only do I agree with Joren here, but the png graphic should be deleted as a duplication of the svg. Tb (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, with the caveat that I'm not really that familiar with the ANI process, I have now put together a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_of_image_link_in_Christian_denomination. Would appreciate everyone's comments. Thank you,
- -- Joren (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Graphic, and representation of Eastern Catholic Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches
As I understand the history of the Eastern Churches, the graphic needs the following additions for accuracy: First, a branch off of the Assyrian Church marked 1665 should join up with the Oriental Orthodox line, representing the later communion of some Syrian Indian Churches with the Oriental tradition. Second, there should be two branches coming off of the Oriental Orthodox branch and Assyrian church branch that both turn red and join up with the "Eastern Rite" Catholic branch, representing the Armenian Catholic Church (split off from the Oriental Armenian Apostolic Church) and the various Syrian Churches (both Oriental Orthodox and old Assyrian) that have (re)entered communion with Rome at various dates. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The current definition is wrong and needs to be changed.
First error---- the page is not titled "-A- Christian denomination" it is simply "Christian Denomination" the first word in the definition is faulty, "A" would denote one particular denomination, there are many.
Second error---- "an identifiable religious body under a common name" -there are MANY denominations and are in fact NOT "an identifiable religious body under any single ***common name****" because there are over 200 different bodies "faiths" or denominations INSIDE what people call the Christian "Faith" ALL CALLED BY DIFFERENT NAMES Ie. Catholic, Baptist, pentecostal etc. etc... so "common name" is out.
Third error------", structure, and doctrine within Christianity." All the different denominations exist because of variations in doctrine therefore this statement which says "common structure and common doctrine" is also false as if they were all common there would be no divisions or difference in doctrine but there are MANY.
Now dissect the word denomination: the root of the word denomination is denominator Websters: de·nom·i·na·tor noun \di-ˈnä-mə-ˌnā-tər\ Definition of DENOMINATOR 1: the part of a fraction that is below the line and that functions as the divisor of the numerator.
A denominator is part of a DIVISION PROBLEM.
Websters: di·vi·sion noun \də-ˈvi-zhən\ 1 a : the act or process of dividing : the state of being divided
The bible which is the source of doctrine of the "Christian Faith" says that Jesus IS NOT DIVIDED and this concept is broken down into detail explaining how if Christ's kingdom be divided it cannot stand. So as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should recognize the Holy Bible as being the authority on the foundational teaching of HOW the institution of the church is defined. 08:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs)
Proposed a failed definition entry for defining "Christian Denomination"
A Christian denomination is: A.) an establishment promoting one of many versions of teaching that differs from the original doctrine established by the first church of Jesus Christ; B.) A sect or cult who proclaims their own variation of doctrine valid giving it a title and classifying it a "denomination" of Christianity. C.) A product of failure of church leadership to either maintain or attain the common doctrine of Jesus.
1Tm.1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." Mat.12:25 "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" and 1Cor.1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement." 09:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there are two problems with this proposal:
- No sources. We have to use the same definitions as provided by sources. (however the current definition is unsourced as well, this article is not in compliance with verifiability)
- It is original research, and makes the assumption that all denominations do not follow the "original doctrine". It appears to be promoting a point of view that denominations are bad and that primitive/original Christianity is good.
- -- Joren (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This is as simple and CORRECT a definition for the term as can BE.
Efforts at unity between RC and EO
The article says it wasn't until the 1960's that the East and West made any steps toward re-unifying. I wish to submit the following information in a manner that is un-sourced, without citation, and in need of major follow-up to that effect:
The East and West spent a couple of centuries without really talking to each other coming out of the 13th century, largely due to things that happened during the Fourth Crusade. (Thessalonika and Constantinople in particular). After that initial period of silence, however, there were two occasions on which the East and West achieved tenuous, transitory agreement on re-unification. On both occasions, the East backed out before anything substantial or permanent came of it, but it's worth noting that they backed out after an agreement had been reached, not before. Then- after another multiple-century run of no progress and no talks- they resumed in the 1960's. It is unclear as to whether these will culminate in the same thing as the last two attempts or if there's really a chance that something permanent will be put in place.
My personal opinion is that there's less chance of it working out now than there was before, but that's just my opinion. I have my reasons, and I think they're good ones, but that doesn't have anything to do with this article. The two previous aborted efforts at unity, though- those are worthy of a place in the article, provided that they're followed up on and properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
the national pledge of barbados
I pledge allegiance to my country Barbados and to my flag,
to uphold and defend their honor, and by my living to do credit to my nation, where ever I go, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silence246009 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Christian denomination
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian denomination's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hemleben":
- From Rudolf Steiner: Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: A documentary biography, Henry Goulden Ltd, 1975, ISBN 0-904822-02-8, pp. 37–49 and pp. 96–100 (German edition: Rowohlt Verlag, 1990, ISBN 3-499-50079-5)
- From The Christian Community: Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: A documentary biography, Henry Goulden Ltd, 1975, ISBN 0-904822-02-8, pp. 134–138 (German edition: Rowohlt Verlag, 1990, ISBN 3-499-50079-5)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sunni Islam is not a denomination
The introduction says that Catholicism is the world's largest denomination, after Sunni Islam. But Sunni Islam isn't a denomination, or even if it is then this still isn't at all a fair comparison. Catholicism is properly called a denomination as it is run by a single governing body etc (and I know there are various groups within it). But Sunni Islam is a loose umbrella term, like Protestantism. There is no single Protestant or Sunni pope; there isn't even a single mandatory collection of writings or rules in either of these groups (aside from the basic writings like the Bible, Koran and Hadith, but then the DENOMINATIONS within these groups have their own additional writings). I suggest that the size caparison between Catholicism and Sunni Islam be made, but that the wording be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)