Template talk:Christianity

Image at top of box

Oh dear! I'm sorry, but I have done the wrong thing again! I didn't realise that there had been a lengthy discussion over the image of Jesus.

I find that image of Jesus frankly mawkish. It is over-sentimental. Given that dear old Alfred Handel was one of Australia's greatest stained glass designers, and the father of a personal friend, I am loathe to say this, but NO, that is not a good image with which to represent Christianity or the person of Christ in the World's biggest encyclopedia.

I've got to ask: is that really the image that you want to present to the world (says I, presuming, perhaps rashly, that people who contribute to articles on Christianity are mostly Christian)

Anyway, being unaware of the discussion until after I had already saved, and hailing from the evangelical diocese of Sydney, I got out a Bible, set the focus on John 3:16 and took 145 photos. I chose the one in which the verse which summarises Christian belief is in the sharpest focus. If you want one that has the other part of the text in better focus, I have several.

I put this before you for consideration. If people don't like it, it can be reverted! Amandajm (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to revert, although a good picture. But this topic has had more discussion than one may imagine, so consensus should be achieved before change. Sorry, I must revert. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK!

I want to register here the fact that I very strongly Object to the present image. And I can't imagine why people who have put up all sorts of different ideas have allowed that mawkishly sentimental image of Jesus with his head down and his eyes turned up like Princess Di at the infamous interview should have been allowed to remain as the default image.

If we must have somebody's imaginary image of what Jesus might have looked like, then there are hundreds of thousands to chose from, with Alfred Handel being way down the list.

Why must we reduce a man of courage and power (aside from any Godly nature with which Christianity might perceive him) to an image of saccharine sweetness? It has to go!

I propose the Bible, because Christians all use it, and I don't think that the image can actually turn anyone's stomach.

Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was funny. but if you want to achieve consensus for a change let that process begin. I would prefer a picture to a book, but I am not attached to this picture. Just a book picture says very little and books are used in templates for other religions too - so not a Christian calling card by any measure. And I think Jesus (the Good Shepherd) did have somewhat of a sweet character after all, rather than an angry figure. In fact he only got angry in the Temple cleansing, etc. Did not even get angry with Herod or Pilate. But let us wait to see what everyone says. There will probably be different opinions and depending on who clicks here this week and who is on vacation, a semi-random outcome will be arrived at. So what is your favorite image of Jesus? History2007 (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus with a less saccharine face?

If you want power, Handel(?) has a depiction of that as well. Or maybe it's by someone else. But I take it from your comments below that it's not about what face he's got on, it's more the problem of whether Jesus is even the most encycopedic representation of Christianity? --99of9 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll engage with this discussion properly later, but for now, I'll just point out that if we go for readable text, the translation has to be out of copyright. Unfortunately Amanda's image (while technically and aesthetically very good) is likely to be deleted from Commons before long. --99of9 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer an image of Jesus, and agree that an image of a book is not necessarily unique to Christianity (though the suggested image is certainly a beautiful photograph). I wouldn't mind a "courage and power" image of Jesus, though I see nothing wrong with the current sentimental depiction. I find it ironic that Amandajm opposes the depicted sentimentality, and yet selected to photograph one of the most sentimental verse of scripture in the Bible ("God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son"). After the last discussion (or was it the one before that), I thought that consensus was leaning towards an image of a cross (despite my preference), but it never went through. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your "nothing wrong with this depiction" statement is valid and again made me think of all these long discussions that consume energy while articles like Fruit of the Holy Spirit do not even have a single inline secondary reference. So there is so much to clean up elsewhere and I wish this type of effort could be directed towards that. What image is used here will not make a huge difference to what Jesus taught, yet what he taught is not well represented in WikiProject Christianity - for so many articles are in need of so much help. Now, on that note, I should type less here. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "File:Bible Johns Gospel 3 16.JPG" would be more the image for Template:Bible related.
2. "File:Bible Johns Gospel 3 16.JPG" is not even very good for the Template:Bible related. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)}

Reply

• The comment about that particular Bible being not out of copyright may well be true. Thanks for pointing this out.
• Just a book picture says very little and books are used in templates for other religions too - so not a Christian calling card by any measure.

Other religions may use a book, but you are wrong in suggesting that the Book is "not the Christian calling card". There is only one other faith in which "the Book" is so revered and read. That is, of course, Judaism. And then, when depicted, it is shown as a scroll.

If you know your Christian history, History2007, then you know just how crucial the written Word has always been to Christianity, and how many people have suffered persecution in order to have the right to read it. Ownership of a Bible marks a Christian to the extent that Christians are still being persecuted for owning one.

• I don't really want any imagined portrait of Jesus as the lead to the articles on Christianity. The "Word Incarnate" is no longer with us. The "Word Scriptural" is.

There are two issues here: The encyclopedic issue and the Issue of how committed Christian people might wish their faith and the historical person of Jesus represented.

• The description that accompanies the image states that "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity". From a Christian point of view, this is conceptually and theologically naive.
• The word "Christ" is used as if it was Jesus' surname. It wasn't! For encyclopedic purposes Jesus is either "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth". The word "Christ" when used in conjunction with Jesus (in an encyclopedia) needs to be used in an appropriate context. The context might be a cited quotation, or a sentence such as "Jesus was recognised by his disciples as the Christ". You have to realise that Jews have an equal claim on the term "Christ" and do not recognise Jesus as such.

Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• History2007, I've have just checked out your statement that "books are used in templates for other religions too". This isn't the case. certainly not on their main templates. (I haven't checked to see if there are pics of books as templates referring specifically to the Scriptures of other faiths.)
• Regardless of that, it is the "Book" which defines Christianity, more than any other religion.
• As a Christian art historian, I have entered into great many debates and disputes over the way in which Jesus is depicted in art. It seems to me that this discussion here concerns only a very few people. (I was unaware of it until yesterday.)
• I want to make this clear: It is not simply a case of not liking the image. I do not dislike it in the context of the Anglican Church at St John's Ashfield. I greatly enjoy Alfred Handel's stained glass, in the context of church architecture. (I'm the main author of the Stained glass article and have included Handel's finest window in Rose Window of which I am also the author.)
• What I want you to take on is that from a mature (read elderly), evangelical (read Sydney), messianic (read Jewish father), scholarly (read my articles), Christian point of view, I object to the present image.

It is not simply a case of my not liking the image. This is a case of very strong objection to the use of the image in this particular context.

• If you feel that you can truly justify the use of an imaginary image of Jesus of Nazareth (A.K.A the Christ Incarnate) in the light of my strenuous objections, then please reply.

Otherwise, change it to something that does not attempt to physically represent something we cannot know.

Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, wp:TLDR. History2007 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, History2007, I must say I find a comment like that with a signature like yours, rather amusing. It's a good excuse.

just read this bit:

• History2007, I've have just checked out your statement that "books are used in templates for other religions too". This isn't the case. certainly not on their main templates. (I haven't checked to see if there are pics of books as templates referring specifically to the Scriptures of other faiths.)

Amandajm (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember books used somewhere, could not be bothered to search. Have more useful things to do. TLDW. History2007 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

History2007, I believe reddit eyes are in order. ಠ_ಠ. In response to Amandajm, I do feel an "imaginary image" of Jesus is justified. Firstly, it's not like any "real" images of Jesus exist; I am unaware of any portraits painted during Jesus's life that have survived to this day. Secondly, this is an encyclopedia, and the image is used on a template which represents a(very long) "series of articles" related to Christianity. Several of these are biographical articles on Mary, Jesus, and his apostles. Others are about doctrinal topics and events, such as his resurrection. Generally, it's safe to say that most of the links on this template are directly related to the life and teachings of Jesus (with exceptions: articles on the various denominations are less closely related to this). So when selecting an image for this template, it seems completely natural, for me, to select an image of Jesus, the person that this is all about. Using a photograph of the Bible seems indirect: it is a depiction of a written description of Christianity. Using the face of Jesus seems more direct: it is a depiction of the star of Christianity. For a similar reason (indirectness) I prefer Jesus's face over a cross on this template: a picture of a cross is a depiction of a symbol of Jesus. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as Carl also said above, a Bible would be more the image for Template:Bible related. So the long and short of it seems to be that there is no consensus for using the image of a Bible. Now... on to fixing actual articles.... History2007 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

People, you are not getting it. That book, (the Bible) in whatever form it takes and whatever language it is in, is our one finite connection to Jesus. The book is not "a written description of Christianity". This is a complete misrepresentation and miscomprehension of what the Bible is. It is the evidence, the good news, the testament of those who walked with Jesus and the teachings of the incarnate Christ. It also contains the earliest Christian theology and the earliest formal structuring of "Christianity" at the hands of St Paul and the other apostles. To any person who has not experienced some "mystical revelation" (and that means most people) then the Bible is all that there is, as evidence that Jesus lived, that he was who he was said to be, and that he taught those things which he is said to have taught.

There are no Christians in the World who do not accept a written form of the Bible as the evidence of Jesus, and as containing the subject of his teaching, and the record of his death and resurrection. On the other hand, there are a great many Christians throughout the world, particularly Protestants, who regard "graven images" (representations of Jesus etc) with a deal of suspicion. (For example, there are a great many Protestant churches which have maintained a ruling not to show images of Jesus, and have stained glass that is floral, geometric and textural.)

From my point of view, a portrayal of Jesus used to illustrate a Biblical event, a particular theology, a mystical event or a legend is fine. See the article that I wrote: Poor Man's Bible.

On the other hand, Faith (in this case Christian faith) is a deeply personal thing. It differs from person to person, church to church and denomination to denomination. Whatever is used to symbolise Christianity must be acceptable to all.

I do not want my faith (Christianity) represented by one late 19th century man's personal vision of Jesus. To Christians, the man Jesus who described himself as the "Good Shepherd" depicted by Alfred Handel, is also, and most significantly, part of the Divine Godhead, the Holy Trinity.

You keep wanting to represent Jesus as "THE central person of Christianity". This is an extraordinarily naive view of what Christianity is about, and what the "central person" of Christianity is about! It is a child's view of Christianity. The portrayal that has been selected equates with the little prayer "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, look upon this little child. Keep me happy all the day, in my work and in my play....."

I am certainly not insistent that the photo of the Bible that I have provided should be the picture used.

But I am insistent that a more universal symbol of Christianity be found than an imaginary portrayal of one person's concept of one of the person of the Holy Trinity.

Amandajm (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be brief; insistence is one thing, consensus is another. History2007 (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Christ the King from Ashfield looks to me like a Lyon and Cottier window. It's almost certainly not Handel.

There is no consensus here. The number here is far too small to have any sort of reasonable consensus.

This may mean, History2007, re-reading what is here, and the putting aside of self-importance. I am frankly surprised at your frequent attempts to simply fob-off reason in an off hand manner. You are dealing with someone with a serious objection.

It is also plain, from my writings, that you are dealing with someone of a broad view. What is being written here requires you to expand your view and seriously consider the points that are being made. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, what there is, remains. And there is no consensus. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Amandajm and most others who have commented on the Jesus face picture, I agree that an image of Jesus is not the best picture to represent Christianity. That's the majority view. However, no one other picture has gained much support, and most of us have grown weary of arguing about it with History2007 and a couple others, and so the Jesus face remains the "consensus". Just goes to show that a few dedicated people can thwart the majority if they spend enough of their time on it. History2007, if you really have something better to do, no one is forcing you to police this page. I admire your relentless dedication to preserving the face of Jesus on this template (though I disagree with your conviction), but if you're going to spend your time dominating the conversation on the Jesus face, then please stop whining about how much time you spend here - it just serves to belittle the contributions of others, like Amandajm. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, History2007 is right, Amandajm: you don't have consensus to change the pic. Get some votes, then we can talk about changing the pic. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Such matters are not really supposed to be settled by a straight-up vote count. If extended discussions have failed to resolve the issue, the next Wikipedia step is "third opinion" or "mediation" or "request for comment"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, AnonMoos. How might one go about those options? --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm still strongly of the view (explained in detail in previous sections above [now moved to archives]) that the main purpose of a template image is NOT to call attention to its own beauty, but rather to be instantly recognizable at a low pixel size -- so that if dullness equals instant recognizability while artistic beauty brings in various distracting associations and/or only expresses one semi-small part of the subject matter, then dullness is greatly to be preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Though the issue is less important than it used to be, since more articles seem to use {{portal|Christianity}} than this template nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikibojopayne, read WP:Third opinion and/or WP:Request for comment.

If someone wants to give a third opinion, let me sum up my view of the reams of text written about this over the years.

1. Nearly everyone seem to think the way to go is either (1) an image of Jesus or (2) an image of a cross. A few have proposed various other Christian symbols.
2. The number of people who want one of these two main options seem comprable– but there may be more that want (2) over (1).
3. Most that want (1) are happy with or prefer the current stain-glass Jesus image. Even many editors that prefer an image of a cross are happy with this current Jesus image.
4. Most that want (2) seem to prefer a particular cross image that no one else likes. No particular cross image seems to gain the following of more that just couple editors. Many feel strongly against the crosses prefered by others. If I recall, there has never even been an agreement in principle of what to look for in a cross.
5. I have long since concluded that it is be a hopeless cause to develop any consensus on a particular image of a cross . ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)}

Actually a WP:3O requires that there are just two editors, and a 3rd person comes in. Given that there have been so many people talking here for ever and a day, no 3rd can apply. And again, there are so many, many articles in need of content help in this project that I am not sure why all this time is spent on the image issue. History2007 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Caption for the current image

Regarding the side issue Amanda raises about the caption "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity", I agree that this appears too much like a surname. If we keep this image, I suggest changing it to the present tense version of Amanda's suggestion: "Jesus is recognized by Christians as the Christ", or the possibly more NPOV "Christianity holds Jesus to be the Christ". --99of9 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No big deal for me, just FYI the surname type issue is discussed here I think: "Jesus God and Man by Wolfhart Pannenberg 1968 ISBN 0664244688 pages 30-31". History2007 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

99of 9-- I think your edit losses the main point of the the caption. Can we just say "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity" or maybe "Jesus, called Christ, is the central figure of Christianity" or "Jesus, who is also called Christ, is the central figure of Christianity". ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 02:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)}

I think one of Amandajm's points is that mainstream Christianity is based around a triune God, so it's simplistic to pick on Jesus :). --99of9 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 99!  :) Amandajm (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the original author of the caption "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity". I don't think that "central figure" is a crucial thing to say. It should be fairly obvious from the name that Christ plays a big part in Christianity. But it's rather hard to pick a good short caption that adequately describes Jesus in Christianity, so I went with the most generic thing I could possibly say. I personally don't think the surname issue is a big deal; the name "Jesus Christ" is widely used and generally understood to mean "Jesus, the Christ". However, I think that 99's edit is acceptable, though it's rather vague to those who don't know what the term Christ means. If we really want to go along that vein, then how about something like this: Christianity holds Jesus to be the Christ ("the annointed one" of which Hebrew scripture prophesied). ...comments? ~BFizz 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Two brief side notes: 1. The proclamation of Jesus as Christ is not an issue in Nontrinitarianism. 2. In 4 years of looking at this template, I had not even noticed that pop-up caption. History2007 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A "Allah" Name Locket.

Respectable Father, I Want to know that can A Catholic Girl wear A neck-less or Locket words Name like "Allah" ? in oregional Arabic.ΚΗΆΝ Please help me to know about that.

My E-Mail: solocards@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.239.208 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the right place to ask your question. We are writing an encyclopedia. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

However, you can look at List of Christian terms in Arabic. "Allah" would not be problematic according to the traditional understanding of Arabic-speaking Christians, but a number of other terms (starting with عيسى Isa) might be... AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

jehovah's witnesses are not Christian

They change Bible verses and do not adhere to the beliefs of the Bible originally compiled together by Emperor Constantine. If I take the characteristics of an orange away from it, is it still an orange or another fruit entirely? If I take the colour and make it red, is it still an orange? What if I change the flavour? If you agree that changing characteristics no longer makes it equivalent, then how can you label Jehovah's witnesses as Christians when they change Bible verses and do not believe what the bible says? Jews believe in Jesus Christ and Islam believe in His existence as well, does that make them Christian? No. Then how can you label Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.224.211 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As referenced above, and in the edit history summaries-- to remove or add an article to this template it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove JWs, start a discussion at that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

I agree, and should note that not all parties will ever be happy with whatever designation is arrived at. Whether the JW or the Moonies are Christians or not is not going to be the subject of universal agreement - yet some designation is necessary, regardless. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, meaning the Messiah of the Old Testament. Witnesses do. Muslims call him the Messiah and hold Christian-like beliefs regarding the second coming, but do not believe in his atonement. Witnesses, on the other hand, do embrace New Testament teachings about Jesus's atonement. Categorically, Witnesses clearly are much closer to mainstream Christianity than are Judaism or Islam. This discussion pops up occasionally at the talk page of Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, currently still on that page: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Not Christian. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Per my words above, this is still not the correct location for such a discussion.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)}

Hyperdispensationalism article incorrect

The term hyper dispensationalism or ultra dispensationalism was wholly made up as a personal attack on sincere Bible believers by the denominationalist Ironside. He infers many things which are blatantly untrue about several different groups in an attempt to defend his Baptist denominational beliefs. Defending his views is entirely his right however slander is not. Especially in dealing with Christianity. The entire article is also obviously written from a proponent of this view and these derogatory labels are linked to grace believers. The entire article is a sham. If you want to have an accurate article about this term then take out all references to anything but mr Ironsides slanderous/ inaccurate article.

Pastor Paul McGregor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.207.45 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The validity of the Bible

I am seeking an understanding to some of the church concepts. I personally feel that God knew that some of the bible books would be deleted due to war(the crusades),etc. Because I believe God is all knowing and powerful I believe that what ever humans have done God knew this would happen in advance. Thus I currently believe it is entire. So why do the missionaries say it isn't? I read it and the words touch my heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel 72012 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really not the place for such discussions (it's actually for technical template maintenance talk). You might want to go to a site with forums devoted to religion discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)