Talk:Christianity

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Older archives
Before July 2003 More old debate

Lead Image -- Revisited

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

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

Sin

I have cut the following section from the article:

"Sin

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

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

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

The section is wrong since

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic "propaganda"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LDS in scriptures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did shorten it up a bit though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulls***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trinity and Monotheism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

censorship?

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

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

Nontrinitarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unitarianism and Universalism

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

Creeds

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

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

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

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

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

Xianity and monotheism

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

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

Is the introduction correct?

Clive Durdle

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

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

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

The Structure of the article

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

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

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

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

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

Clive Durdle

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

Hi Clive

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

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

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

Four times lucky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus (God incarnate?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead shortening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity as Lethal Entity

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

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

Athana, I reverted your edit for a few reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh boy so much to address...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Particular Judgement

Rrand, I'm reverting your edit. Christians do not begin believing things when a bull defines it. Bulls and the like are issued because they are already widely believed. The wording of your edit is patently false, and you would be hard pressed to find a RS that supported what it actually says. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that whole line is unsourced. So it doesn't belong there. This is from Wikipedia, Particular Judgment:

In 1336, Pope Benedict XII (1334-1342) issued the Bull "Benedictus Deus" teaching that souls receive immediately after death their reward or punishment, without waiting for reunion with the body in the resurrection of the dead. This was in contrast to his predecessor, Pope John XXII (1316-1334), who had personally held, while stating that theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in the matter, a view similar to the usual understanding of particular judgment in the Eastern Orthodox Church.[11]

Are you positive it's unsupported?--Rrand (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. If you read the ref for what you got from Particular Judgment, you'll see that befor his death John XXII recanted of the former position, and at his death held that there is a beholding of the Beatific Vision before the general judgement. This was prior to Benedictus Deus. It is analogous to saying no-one believed in the Immaculate Conception until 1854. There is no basis in what you've provided for saying that after 1336 most Christians believed in the particular judgement. And it is such a specific statement, it would be rather hard to find a RS that says it point blank. Again, in conclusion, yes I am positive it's unsupported. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that when John XXII was alive most Christians views contradicted his? And by the way, can I get other opinions? Please see the recent reversion by Carl.bunderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back. Let me think on this a bit.--Rrand (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In Catholic terms, how do you say that this was widely believed, but became official doctrine in 1336, when Pope Benedict XII (1334-1342) issued the Bull "Benedictus Deus"?--Rrand (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"So what you're telling me is that when John XXII was alive most Christians views contradicted his?"

That's exactly what happened. When John voiced his opinion (not in a bull or encyclica but various sermons) that the beatific vision for the saints (i.e. humans who had died in the state of grace and with no more penance to do in purgatory) would be not come immediately but be delayed for a while - and that was what he said, not some general things about particular or universal judgement - it was a major scandal in the church. John's opponents (Spritualist Franciscans, Emperor Louis) used this heresy against him. Ultimately John recanted. But as the issue had flared up, his successor did confirm the Catholic faith on the matter once more in the bull you referred to. Maybe you should also read the references employed in the articles you cite. Or all of the article, as just two paragraphs above, the article attributes the view allegedly new in 1336 to the Summa Theologiae. Or note the views of Hippolytus, Tertullian and Augustinus.

Private opinions, even of scholars or popes, are not the same as the doctrine of the church. John did not even try to proclaim it as such, he merely tried to allow himself to hold that view - with little success however.

You cannot deduce from the fact that a random bull taught some doctrine that this was the first time this was taught. You only can deduce that probably someone contradicted it (but even that can be a fallacy, consider the thought of deducing from the present pope's first encyclica that some disputed the essentiality of love.)

Hence, Carl's revert was absolutely correct. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am moving this to a seprate section to focus the discussion on this very issue, untainted by the silly attacks made above. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it was a silly argument. :) I did read the references after Carl pointed them out. Forgive me, but I am not familiar with Catholic Doctrine. Unfortunately, due to the standards proposed on this Wikipedia entry, I am finding it an extremely complex matter to clarify even a simple uncited statement. I don't think that anybody intended to make it difficult, but it is. First there is the matter of starting with the Catholic views and then working our way out from there. That is difficult for someone who is not Catholic to do. Then there is the Wikipedia standard of adding material, but not deleting it. It may seem trivial, but I don't really understand the necessity that the line should read "Most Christians" instead of "Catholics" (or some variation), which in my opinion would be much clearer to the reader. As I'm in the minority on the matter, the only option I can think of is to add something Catholic to the statement. Do you see my dilemma? Can anybody help a WP noob out as to how to proceed?--Rrand (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Rrand, I am not sure I can help, but I will attempt to do so. The issue is understanding what is the majority position and as a minority not being discomforted being in the minority. Just because your position is not the majority opinion does not make it correct, it just means it is a minority position. I tend to lean away from identifying things as Catholic; I think the correct term would be catholic (small "c"), but if we did that we would confuse those who do not understand the distinction being made. We try to use terms like most, etc. to describe a majority position and then follow it with qualifications for significant minority positions. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rrand, if it is difficult, then please be more cautious in addin things.

It doesn't say "Catholics" because not merely Catholics believe that. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm, Please don't delve into orthography. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I think we should avoid words like 'most'. Who is 'most'? One has to do a complete inventory of the beliefs of everyone they know to find out they are in the minority. And then maybe they are in the majority but are ignorant of this one fact? Who knows? 'Who' is the question. If 'most' here implies catholics, then please say catholics, or those who follow catholic doctrines, etc. What I think you just said is that I am uncomfortable being in the minority. No I am not. I am in the lowest minority, as I don't follow any one church. I am probably a protestant who believes works are required. What I am trying to say is that one must know they are in the minority or majority before they can make sense of the questionable statement. In addition, if most Christians are catholic, and it is going to be used that way, then it should be said right from the onset of this article. "Most Christians are catholic and so the focus of this entry is on catholic doctrine (beliefs?), and as such we follow it with significant minority positions." I believe in full disclosure with the general public, not reader beware, and if I am in the minority on that viewpoint, I apologize. Sorry this is so long.--Rrand (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a logical proposal. Most will generally connote Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, all of the other catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and all others in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. If we named every group it would get pretty lengthy. It is difficult when separating between mainstream groups. It is easy when discussing the doctrines the differ between Catholics and Mormons or Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses, but becomes more cumbersome when it is between groups of Protestants that differ from Catholic doctrine. I am speaking as one with a minority position, so I think we are on the same side. Do you have a suggestion rather than attempting to identify all that have specific beliefs? One might be to reference those with differing ideas if it is a significant minority position.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Rrand, when you characterize the reasoning as "Most Christians are Catholic and hence we say "most" when we should be clear in saying in Catholics" - if merely Catholics believed that (like e.g. the Immaculate Conception of Mary) you'd be correct. But things aren't that way - most Christians, including a bulk of Catholics, believe in particular judgement and hence the article states this.

Most Christians means exactly what it says - most Christians. Catholics form the largest group of course but they alone would not justify saying "most Christians".

Storm, what's the "logical proposal" as I see none.

What we do in this article is relate the positions of most Christians, of mainstream Christianity. We also note notable (pardon the tautology) differences. But we cannot give the views of every group. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was stating, not very clearly, that using "most" is the best term. More importantly, I was advocating that we focus on the teachings of the majority. We also provide significant minority positions. To clarify further, by significant I meant that we cannot cover the fringes of the topic; there are just too many diverse teachings from very small groups. I think we are saying the same thing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My efforts to highlight that the Eastern Orthodox Church also shares the opinion of the Catholics is in vain, clearly. Its not just CatholicsTourskin (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Tourskin.

I can only strongly object to Ambrosius' proposed change: this article is about Christianity in general and aims at summarizing what Christians commonly believe. It also notes major disagreements but the starting point is the agreement of the Christian mainstream. Hence a passage about Catholic eschatology has no business in being placed where Ambrosius placed it, no matter how well sourced it is.

The passage that fits in that place is what "most Christians believe" - this cannot and will not be changed into what Catholics believe, especially since the Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants agree on the substantial note. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Most Christians believe

Most Christians believe (and other allegations) require verification. To argue, that Catholics + East Ortho = 66% = "most" is really not sufficient in this context. The proof of the pudding is verification, that they actually believe this. Maybe they are expected to believe, but that would to be verified as well. It is a quantum jump from the theology of the Catholic & Orthodox Churches to the actual beliefs of most Christians. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. We are incapable of stating what individuals believe and should always make statements about what churches teach or identify the doctrine of churches. In doing so we not only are able to easily reference the statements, but we more accurately state what is supported by RS. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank's I fully agree. It is theoretically possible to cite Gallup polls, but rewording is the better way. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that what churches teach is quite as relevant to article title tho. There are a lot of polls out there but many many are small polls. When it comes to creeds some of the beliefs are self defining but I agree on salvation universalism etc it ain't necessarily so. --BozMo talk 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that people are too stupid to know what "they are suppose to believe", which is in itself a fallacy and unverifiable. We can only assume that Catholics are Catholics, Protestants are Protestants. Now then, even if we did assume that a lot of Christians were ignorant, that would not mean that the Catholico-Orthodox view would somehow end up in the minority because I imagine Protestant Churches as well as Catholic and Orthodox Churches to suffer an equal percent ignorance in their flocks - and in the Middle East were Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is an overwhelming majority, people are far more connected with their religion. You are basically replacing one assumption for another, and I am refuting yours, but you have yet to refute mine. Tourskin (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what exactly do you think happens in a Catholic Church, other than for the Priest to highlight the connections between Christian life, the Bible and theology, as in all Churches, I imagine?Tourskin (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I will restrict myself here to the issue of whether we should say "most Christians believe".

Sure noone can look into anyone's heart or do polls about individuals but the assumption that a member of a church believes in that church's doctrinal points is not unreasonable.

"Most Christian churches" is problematic, as the most literal meaning of this is out all Christian churches (each counting as one) most churches teach ... But that places the RCC with a billion members en par with New Horizons Church with perhabs a few hundred. If we stick to the "churches teach" it must be reworded to make it clear that we are counting heads, not churches.

Finally, let me emphasize again that, though some editors used it as a short hand, the argument is not merely "Catholic + Orthodox = 66% = most". This equation is of course important but it is also true (though right now lacking a source) that many Protestants believe in particular judgement too, pushing this way beyong the 66% mark. In other words, most Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Str, do you have a suggestion. I think we all understand the need for references and I did not think of your point, which would abnormally skew the result when counting each church. Does anyone see an easy way to word this? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My first choice would be to say "Most Christians believe", possibly ammended into "Most Christians - Catholics, Orthodox and many (whatever qualification needed) Protestants - believe".

A lesser alternative would be to say something like "The bulk of Christian churches teach.

But I do favour the former suggestion. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prevalent among Christian belief is that..."Tourskin (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that too. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin's proposal would be the easiest to reference. Anyone else? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Str, "Most Christian churches" is a problem, unless a source specifically says that. I think "Prevalent among Christian belief..." is fine, but I think "Most Christians believe" has nothing wrong with it and is preferable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that people are too stupid to know what "they are suppose to believe", which is in itself a fallacy and unverifiable. We can only assume that Catholics are Catholics, Protestants are Protestants. It's not that easy, as the Catholic Church found out in its teachings on birth control.:-)) We should either name and reference the (major) churches, which hold this view or use "Prevalent among Christian teaching (or belief) is ... "with references of course. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's not that easy, as the Catholic Church found out in its teachings on birth control.:-))"

That's totally irrelevant. :-(

Without contrary evidence, we must assume that the bulk of church members agree with their church's doctrine. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I float "The majority of Christians are taught to believe" for consideration? This deals with Ambrosius's issue of people not believing what their churches tell them, doesn't make Str1977's assumption (Str's words) that they do, does the maths correctly (i.e. small churches are treated as such in the sums, not equated with big ones), and more accurately reflects what we actually know (i.e. we know what the majority of the world's Christians arew taught to believe, but we don't know what they actually believe ... except where we do, of course, as a result of polls etc., but in those cases we CAN use "Most Christians believe" with a clean conscience). SP-KP (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable as it is needlessly complicated and sneaks in POVs of their own kind. Also, the majority is of no consequence here, where we deal with Christianity in general, i.e. with the large bulk of Christians. And of course, it is what Christians believe that matters. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, I don't disagree with you that what Christians believe is important, and where we can find reliable sources which tell us what Christian's believe, we can use those to make statements about this with authority - I don't think anyone is disputing this. What's being discussed here are those situations where we don't know what (the majority of / most / generally) Christians believe, because there just isn't the information available. It would be a shame not to be able to say anything in those situations, or to overstate the case and say "... Christians believe" when we don't know that to be the case. Can you tell me a bit more anout why you think this option is "unnecessarily complicated" and what the POVs that it "sneaks in" are? I'm not sure I understand your second sentence - I thought we WERE talking about what the what "the majority of / most / in general" Christians believe - can you have another go at explaining the point you're trying to make in that sentence? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"because there just isn't the information available."

But there is enough information avaiable. We know the various churches' doctrinal positions on this matter and in contrast to other issues we have nothing about a supposed, hypothetical non-acceptance by the believers. Particular judgement happens to be one of the most widely held beliefs, even among theologically "liberal" Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's not that easy, as the Catholic Church found out in its teachings on birth control.:-))"

That's totally irrelevant. :-( Without contrary evidence, we must assume that the bulkof church members agree with their church's doctrine. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What a contradiction! More than 75% of U.S. Catholics disagree with Church doctrine on birth control and want change according to a recent Gallup poll what contrary evidence is needed to show that Church members do not automatically agree with their Church's doctrine?

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You can say anything you want, as long as you back it up. It's easy to verify, what Churches teach. It is difficult to verify, what a majority of Christians believe. Should you be able to, good for you! That's the only issue here --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. We are not talking about birth control but about particular judgement! Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply word it specifically, writing that "the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox churches teach that..." This way, you avoid the pitfall of having to interpret what "most Christians" actually means, both individually and collectively. fishhead64 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not what this article is all about. We can specify that "most christians" here means Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants", but the main thrust of the entire article is what most Christians believe. That has already been explained and it would be profitable if people actually read the discussion before posting the same stuff over and over again. Solutions are never simple. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the relevance of US Catholic's opinion on the Church's teaching on contraception has limited relevance. It provides an example of where Catholics do not believe what the Church has taught them is the path of Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, it cannot be used to extrapolate what Catholics believe in particular judgment because particular judgement is a far less controversial doctrine than is contraception - you see, contraception views of the RCC stop people from having sex everyday, but particular judgment is an issue of theology, of the afterlife, not of the life on earth. I believe that many Protestants with their own varied opinions on contraception and abortion do not agree with their church's stances, whatever those stances are. You only have to look at Anglican Protestant views on gay priests, married priests, woman priests, married gay priests and woman bishops to find out that there is very little common ground in which a majority of Protestants agree on these issues. I can go on and on but you see the stupidity of talking about earthly issues in comparison with theological issues? Tourskin (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, there is evidence that most Christians belong to a denomination of Christianity that believes in particular judgment. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that these Christians do not accept the theology of their Church. They may not accept contraception views, or views on gay priests or married ga priests, but as I have shown already, sexual matters are a far off topic from theological matters.

Listing every Church would be tiresome, because I imagine that Catholics and Orthodox are not alone in their belief. Tourskin (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, as I said before, we could amend "most Christians" by "Catholics, Orthodox and many/most Protestants" - but the risk is that after that a "many Protestants" discussion would ensue.

I appreciate this issue getting some consideration here. As I have not been a regular editor, naturally I will defer my opinion to whatever you experts decide. However, I would like to reintroduce the idea of full disclosure on the policies that are used to create this page. Mainly, that there are so many beliefs that it was deemed necessary to make it Catholic-centric as the Church makes up the majority of Christians and have the richest history. That those views are then followed by prevalent challenging or contradictory views. It can certainly be carefully worded so as not to invoke criticism. Then maybe people will have a firm context to draw upon when they come across these types of generalized statements. Just a thought.--Rrand (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not Catholic-centric (apart maybe from the history, which is western centric and hence prior to 1500 exclusively Catholic) hence the whole argument falls apart. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts are more than appreciated Rrand, as is your courtesy. I have suggested the wording "Prevalent among Christians is the belief in Particular judgment", which avoids the "most" issue. Tourskin (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "Prevalent among Christians is the the beleif...", but to play devil's advocate...how does it avoid the "most" issue? The words mean substantially the same thing. If something prevails, it is what "wins", or what is in the majority, is it not? Carl.bunderson 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all because Wikipedia is a semantic argument masquerading as an encyclopedia :) fishhead64 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it goes to show that such a pseudo-acceptance of a similar statement means that it is not the verifiability of the content but the wording that my opponents are worried about. I continue to receive no solid argument against the words "most christians", yet now people refuse accept this compromise, despite a lack of a non-fallacious response from the other end? It has yet to be dis-proven that most Christians believe in particular judgment. Choose the poison pill: "most" or "prevalent" - either way, it is more verifiable than not, and relevant to this article. Tourskin (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my argument above, which I thought was pretty solid, was that some people reading it won't know who "most" is. What good is a word if people don't know what it means? On top of that, when people think of "most Christians" I think they look at most of the Christians they are surrounded by. (Yes, I know it's wrong and they shouldn't think that way.) Statistics don't automatically come to mind. But like I said, I'll leave it up to you guys. The strange thing is, I googled "Most Christians are Catholic" hoping to cite a reference but there's only 8 unreliable sources. So probably the best thing to do is to just cite Lazarus and Dives which says "Most Christians believe in Particular Judgment..." and be done with it. :-) --Rrand (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rrand, you don't need a citation - basic math is all - there 1.1 billion Catholics, there are 0.25 billion Orthodox. There are 1.35 billion Catholico-Orthodox Christians. There are 2.1 billion Christians tota.

1.35 billion

2.1 billion total

1.35 out of 2.1 is 64%. Tourskin (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't get a RS for "Most Christians are Catholic" because it happens to be inaccurate. There are basically one billion Catholics out of two billion Christians, hence 50% which is not "most" but merely a majority. But that doesn't need to concern us here.

We know which churches believe in particular judgement: RCC, EOC and many Protestant denominations. And then we can do the maths. The result is that most Christians believe in particular judgement. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual matters are a far off topic from theological matters

Not really! The Catholic Church teaches thatmatrimony is a sacrament, and that in the act of marriage, the persons involved form a partnership with God in the creation of new life. (Husband and wife create the material basis and God the soul of the new person. This is the very basis for Catholic teachings on sexual behavior. Is this really far off from theological matters? The point being that many do not share or even understand this theology. Bean-counting does not tell us, what people actually believe. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What has the Catholic conception of matrimony got to do with this anyway? Contraception is a sexual thing, the afterlife is not a sexual thing. Ambrosius, you are taking too many tangents with this argument, making illogical connections between loosely related material to prove yet another irrelevant point. Basically, your whole argument against using "most christians" is underpinned by:

the belief that because 75% of Catholics in the US (not Catholics in developing countries which experience pop. growth), that because 55 million Catholics in the US do not agree with contraception views, that we must then doubt whether or not all the remaining 1.34 billion Catholics and Orthodox agree with Church theology, just because of this tenuous link:

contraception -> sex -> marriage -> matrimony -> theology - so then using a contraception example is suppose to be valid by these connections? To everyone else, are we done tearing apart Ambrosius' argument, and begin implementing the agreed edits? As far as I am hearing, "prevalent" is a more favorable word despite its similarities with "most". Tourskin (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, whilst owning your argument is fun, it is getting tiring. What makes me laugh is what you said, "Bean-counting does not tell us, what people actually believe. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" - by listing the numbers 75% you are the one doing bean counting too. Exactly what part of your argument that most Christians do not believe in particular judgment is verifiable? The assumption that Christians believe in the Church that they belong to is far more verifiable than the assumption that they do not. Otherwise, if Catholics do not buy into their theology, why should Christians of non-Catholico-Orthodox origin do so? Tourskin (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin stated Sexual matters are a far off topic from theological matters, and the opposite is true. This was only one example. If you ever take a course in sociology of religion or read Gallup and other polls, you quickly find out that there are gaps, what Churches teach and what people actually believe in. You can say what you please, as long as it is not based on assumptions but verifications. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That is Wikipedia policy, which we intend to uphold here!nothing else matters. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, you can of course now chose to pick on Tourskin's words and criticize the alleged claim that "sexual matters" and "theological matters" are distinct. Of course that is wrong because there is an overlap, when theology discusses sex. But that was not Tourskin's point at all. Fact is you cannot use dissent with the RCC (or parts of it) on one matter to claim there is dissent on another matter. There theoretically might be dissent but in order to claim dissent on one particular matter you would have to provide evidence for that dissent, not evidence for dissent on another matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of your points does not earn your extra logical points. To some extent sexual matters are far off topic. I believe that 100% of Catholics will tell you that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, in the US or otherwise, regardless of what they think sex is about. Finally, as I have said your argument that there are gaps is unverifiable as well. The status quo before this was that "most Christians believe in particular judgment". Do not place the burden of evidence against this statement on me. If you want to prove this statement wrong, by all means lets see some verifiable sources. Otherwise, I have already by amply clear math demonstrated that particular judgment is at the least the prevailing if not majority view and all other users seem to be in agreement with one of the above compromises except you. Tourskin (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add one more point - when people talk about death, they talk about whether thy are going to heaven or hell immediately afterward - people say, "I'm sure shes watching over us from heave" or "I'm sure they've moved on to a better place". You cannot deny the cliches I have just mentioned and this further weakens the argument that particular judgment is not the majority view. Tourskin (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, "particular judgement" (with the emphasis on particular) is probably by far the most widely held Christian belief, far surpassing anything about the divinity of Christ and going beyond the boundaries of Christianity. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Verify this, end of story --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we ar under no obligation to verify anything - you are the one who is demanding to change the status quo of the article. Therefore, if you know anything about logic, you are committing a fallacy by placing the burden of evidence on us. If you wish to disprove this, then you must find evidence for the contrary. There are two reasons why we cannot cite this directly, 1) Few people are willing to survey such a widely held opinion. 2)More interesting to surveyors is whether people believe they will be judged, not when. You are proving to be a pain. You will not be satisfied with our logical arguments, with our mathematics, with our cliche's proving the prevalence of particular judgment. You are basically approaching the point in which you are no longer able to function as a beneficial user in this discussion. Anything we present to you, you refuse to acknowledge or listen to. Since we have been unable to attain a consensus with your vote, we shall do so without it. Since everyone else except you has issues with it, we win by consensus. Tourskin (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, please do not put my statement in bold and italics.

We have to verify statements put into the article, not statements made on the talk page. It is you who wants to change the article's wording, so you have something to verify too.

But I agree that we still need refs for the Orthodox and the many Protestants. But there is no reason to doubt that the statements are true. Hence the "citation needed" tags are in order.

As for the rest, I agree with what Tourskin wrote above. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As this topic is generating much more heat than light, I think the discussion would benefit from some outside input, hence the RFC below. I'm happy to contribute in an "outsider" capacity myself, but from past experience here one person's outside input doesn't usually seem to be enough. Hopefully a few more minds on the case will help us arrive at a position we can all agree on. SP-KP (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of my previous statement, it would be hypocritical if I did not agree to your proposal - so I do. Tourskin (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion follows: I think when some people say things like "I'm sure shes watching over us from heaven" as Tourskin wrote above, it is really a matter of wishful thinking, comforting others, and drawing conclusions from unreliable sources like movies and songs and conventional wisdom. I think if you asked them to be honest and critical about their beliefs many (not most) would have a more difficult time supporting it. In any case, it sounds like omnipresence to me, which I think only applies to God. I admit to having said this a few times for the aforementioned reasons.--Rrand (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Most Christians believe

Whether it is acceptable to use the phrase "Most Christians believe" based on knowledge of the theological position of churches, or whether this phrase should only be used when this is more direct evidence of Christians' beliefs

I've been looking around to see whether WP policy has anything to say on this question; WP:BURDEN is worth a read as it seems (to my eyes) to support the view that direct evidence of Christians' beliefs are required. I may be misreading it though - can I suggest other editors take a look and give a view here on whether it's relevant / which view it supports. SP-KP (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

The Greek Orthodox Church, the prime Church in Eastern Orthodoxy, defines it as "temporary judgment", which is exactly the same as the Particular judgment notion - the word temporary emphasizing the Catholic and other Protestant belief that the final judgment is the real deal.

Here is a greater clarification: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/about-prayer-for-the-dead.html

However, it must be noted that Orthodox and Catholic views on Particular judgment differ from some Protestant views, in that according to the above link, the former two believe in a final judgment afterwards, whilst the latter believe that particular judgment afterward is eternal and there is no further judgment. We must clarify this difference in the article.

Tourskin (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)