Talk:Christianity

Archives

Archived discussions 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

Changes to the article

I've made a change to the article, added some pages linking to Islam so people can see the differences and distinguish between the two faiths. It'd be great seeing both religions and letting people be informed of both, it's better for the world and will cause less conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.94.110 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 Februarly 2006.

I've removed it. Sorry, but this article is about Christianity, and your link was not to a website that compared the two faiths: it was to a a website that was just dedicated to Islam. By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ann it's fixed now, it was the wrong site but both equally are good. 69.156.94.110 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Steve

Does anyone have any specific changes to the article they would like to suggest? I think it would be easier to gain agreement for limited, incremental improvements. Maybe we could workshop a paragraph or two here. Is converage of the Orthodox perspective adequete? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I brought up changes that I want with my reasons, as a starter, in the section called "Giovanni33's Edits." That serves, as a start, for some changes I'm looking for. Giovanni33 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is one of my issues. With regard to the language, this article was using the Wikepeaia narrative voice to speak from the perspective of the Church, or rather a supposed one true Christianity, which I have endeavored to change in keeping with NPOV policy. For example, see a clear remnant of the old version with this POV coloring that is in the current article it says: "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." This is problematic because there "heresies" also contained Christians, like the Gnostic Christians. They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians, sometimes being only a matter of one vote determining who would be branded as not being "true." Wikipedia should not take sides, but report objectively. Compare with my NPOV language that gets reverted: "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one merged with state power and tried to extterminate its rivals. This fact describing the new orthodoxy merged with State power should be placed in this connection historical accuracy, not decontexualized under the persecutions section. Giovanni33 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." This seems to imply there are multiple, equally valid versions of Christianity, some that accept the divinity of Christ and some that don't, for example. Do you mean Wikipedia should state as fact that "heresy" is just a name people in power use as convenient?

"They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians..." surely it would be as objective to say they are only Christians from the point of view of some heretics.

"The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one merged with state power and tried to extterminate its rivals." This is hardly neutral language. I suppose there are academics who hold that view, but I do not think the minority view should dominate. In fact, I think all of this is far too detailed for the general article on Christianity. It might go better on History of Christianity or Early Christianity. I do not think it belongs here. I would rather see the history section made less prominent, and maybe recast along the lines of KHM03's suggestion: First century, Constantine, Schism, Reformation, Ecumenism, link to History of Christianity. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the voice of Wikipeadia should not comment about which version of Christianity is valid or not valid. It should simply report that there were different groups (list them) that called themselves Christians (maybe even list their differences), and that then one group was able to get enough votes to brand the other one heretical. This is NPOV language. And, I disagree that it would be objective to say, "they are only Christians from the point of view of some heretics." To do that assumes the POV one group--the one with the power to enforce the labels. Why do we assume their voice? We should only report it from an objective 3rd person narrative. About the particularly intolerant nature of the new Christian church after it assumed power, this is not POV, it simply a fact. It should be properly attributed, and if anyone disagrees that this is a fact, then we can talk about it. It might be time to start getting out sources for this point. And, one sentence is appropriate in the history section that gives an understanding of an important defining characteristic of this winning version of Christianity as it would have a huge impact.Giovanni33 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Gio, WP should not judge on this, but it should report on historical events and on what historians say, reflect historical reality and research. Not to use the accurate epithet heresy in order to kowtow before some relativistic zeitgeist is not NPOV. And this isn't about getting enough votes (as I explaine above). But even if it were, do you think we should not note Helmut Kohl as the winner of the 1994 general elections in Germany? You could call him a loser as he lost votes, but ...

What you call "the particularly intolerant nature of the new Christian church after it assumed power" (not disagreeing with the reality behind this wording) is already covered, was already covered before you appeared.

A third person isn't objective, BTW. Str1977 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that WP should not take sides but resport on historical events accurately based on what historians say that reflects historical reality and research. I never said not to use the word that was used against the losing Christians. We should stated that they were defined as hersies. That is what my version says. We should say who called them that, and maybe even why (noting differences probably goes beyond the space here), but we can list several groups as examples. And, then what they did to them. In this way we hold back our judgment and report what happened, from a NPOV. In some cases it was determined by a single vote. Regarding your analogy same thing (although it has limitations): we note what happened, that he won. We note how, etc. If after he wins, then then calls everyone he disagrees with "terrorists" do we assume they are terrorists and call them by that label too, as if it were a fact? No. We simply report so and so were label as "terrorists" by Kohl (maybe even give the reasons why, and and state their differences); then report the action that was taken. This is all basic NPOV langauge. I don't see why its a sticking point here. Giovanni33 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal would bloat the section even further and would distort reality by kowtowing to relativism (as I explained above). And, please, could you provide evidence for your "single vote" legend? As regards to my analogy: we don't say according to the Bundeswahlleiter (Federal election supervisor) Kohl won the 1994 elections, we say he won the elections - and that despite the facts that the official result gives only votes and seats for parties. In our case: the relevant body issued decisions (in 2nd and 3rd century this was not one Council but a series of concurring decisions by bishops and councils) and we report them. Str1977 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think changing the language for NPOV would bloat anything. Even if it did a bit, never was there a better reason to do so as its mandated by the NPOV policy. You did not explain how my simple language reflecting who said what, i.e. "The church defined as heresies,"is a distortion of reality, much less "mumbo-jumbo." What you call relativism is really just NPOV language, which is a form of relativism, quite true, but its quite needed. You have failed to provide any rational counter argument, other than simplistic name calling, which I think is telling of the weakness of your argument. To instead say (your version): "Christinaity (which is a set of beliefs), dealt with heresies" is not only POV in that it assumes the voice as one POV, but it also doesn't make sense since: Christianity is what people decide it to be, it's not an objective entity like a person that exists that can then "deal" with "heresies"---its people, its the institution, the church, which "deals" with other pepole, in this case other Christians because of their differing Christian beliefs by defining them as heresies,and thus giving them a basis to attack them. It was an attempt to get rid of differences both of non-Christians and among Christians. This is not only accurate and makes sense, but it's NPOV---reporting what who actually did what, without assuming their voice. Your version obscures reality with fuzzy language and is blatant POV. Your analogy as I explained does not fit since its not so simple as who won or lost, its about who gets the power to define another group. That is why we should report it by stating who defined who what, esp. if its negative. Those who were defined as heretics, certainly did not view themselves in such a light. In your analogy, the party that did lose, would agree they lost, no? It's clear cut and not subjective. That why when Kohl won in 1994, they didn't try to kill each other.

Irrelvant - the SPD lost regardless of whether they admitted that or not. And killing each other is totally beside the point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, its not and you miss the point. It was made to further illustrate your bad analogy of the elections being in nature something that was objective, agreed to, and thus the results are legitimate, unlike the branding of heresies which were more arbritary, related to political power. The result is that in the former instance, there is acceptance, including the losing party; the latter there is no acceptance and further conflict ensues. This highlights the need to adopt NPOV language in not taking one side in this dispute over another.Giovanni33 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

About the vote "legend" I prefer not to get into tangents, unless we are going to go into this level of detail in this aricle, although its still interesting. I know that the Council of Nicea made women "human" by *one* vote, too. I think the main point is that this was political. It was due to Constantine's desire for unity that he ruthlessly enforced his particular brand of orthodoxy among the various Christian groups - there was just no way he would allow them to be weakened as a political force through internal strife or disagreement. Constantine appropriated this authority for himself, ofcourse by declaring that he was a "bishop, ordained by God." That is why he logically moved first to eliminate the external challenges posed by paganism, destroying their temples and books. After that, he ordered that those Christian groups which had been deemed "unorthodox" also be eliminated, thus removing internal challenges. Very quickly, theological disagreements which had been a part of the Christian experience became "unchristian." For Constantine, religious differences were impediments to the power that had replaced Maxentius and Licinius. In this way, choice ("heresy") to be religiously different became defined as treason, a political crime, later to be punishable by death. This explains the differences in how Early Christianity treated "heresy". So long as Christianity itself was persecuted or powerless, greater freedom of thought was tolerated. However, once Chrisitanity became the state religion, disagreements over doctrine became threats to political and social stability in the empire. As a consequence, those who failed to uphold orthodoxy and fell into heresy were treated as enemies of the social order and tolerance of differences of opinion was no longer very great. Infact, the conflict between the some groups and the more "orthodox" Christians got so bad that open warfare erupted in cities like Constantinople and Alexandria. The violence was so extensive that historian Will Durant argued that more Christians died at the hands of other Christians in 343 than during all of the persecutions suffered by Christians at the hands of pagan Roman authorities.

About the other so-called "legends," I suppose its time to start to pull out references, again. So, I'll do that soon. First the POV issues need to be fixed, though, then I can present a list of some very important facts and argue why they are should be included, after I show they are facts as proven by cited sources. Giovanni33 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep my answer brief:

If "Christianity is what people decide it to be" then the question is who decides - and my proposal is to stick what we leave this to the Christians at the time. That doesn't mean that they were right (I guess the thought that Christianity might be wrong is not foreign to you) but only that they decided it that way. If you can provide a wording that includes both the decision making process in a concise manner without indulging in relativism.

As for the one-vote legend - I don't know what books you read but they are misleading you. There never was a vote that "made woman human", let alone by one vote. There was a local council (in Gaul) sometime in the 2nd century that had to deal with the question whether women had souls. The council forcefully affirmed that women had souls. That doesn't mean that this was denied before, only that the question wasn't asked before. In Nicaea nothing of the kind was voted on - Nicaea dealt with Arianism, the Easter date, some organisatory issues - none of this was decided by a margin of one vote.

You are somewhat right about how Constantine saw himself (and later Emperors cointinued in that vain) but that doesn't mean that it was right. It was a novel thought in the 4th century. He however did not eliminate Paganism etc. Also, yes, Constantine aimed at unity and hence was displeased with these theological dispute. He therefore pushed the bishops towards making a decision (moving the council from Ancyra to his residence Nicaea) but he didn't make that decision. It was a bit like the conclave, locking the relevant men up to force them to decide - but the decision is still theirs, and it was a decision in line with previous tradition (however with a problematic wording). After that, Constantine put all his force behind that decision but also tried to achieve maximal reconciliation, re-admitting Eusebius of N., Theognis of N. and even Arius, while banishing Athanasius, who to the Emperor was merely disturbing the peace. Though Athanasius' suspicion turned out to be right, Constantine doesn't look like your exterminator to me.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The book I read where I learned of the women's soul was Simone de Beauvoir, famouse "The Second Sex." She may be wrong, but I don't want to get off on this tangent (maybe later). My point about heresies and the role of Constantine (and later other emperors) is one of political power. From very early on Christianity was full of bitter ideological disputes and competing sects with conflicting claims. The sect that "won" this internecine propaganda war achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The way you present it is as if the Constantine just threw everyone together (which supports my argument about the political need for unity), but isn't it true that First Council of Constantinople 384, all 186 bishops who attended were from the East - none from the West and no representatives of Pope Damasus I were there? And then for the Second Council of Constantinople, weren't almost all of the bishops who attended from the East? This meant that for a while Pope Virgilius was forced to accept Justinian's condemnations. And for the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which was used to condemn the teachings of Photius, the Eastern Orthodox Church didn't not recognize its authority, and instead recognized the authority of a separate council held in Constantinople which did approved of Photius, annulling the decision made at the other council. Infact didn't Catholicism and Orthodox church both delcare each other as heresies in the Great Schism? Such renders the category "heresy" less than objective, and highlights the need to identify it was a political label, rather than a revelation of the "truth" as its proponents would like to claim. Its not NPOV to take sides and treat one version as the truth and deny the Christian label to all other Christians simply because of these political power machiniations.

This ties in with my other point regarding their particular intolerance, i.e. Christians who persecute, torture and execute those whose only “crime” is having a different belief (even a minor difference), their acts reveal the nature of their piety. The proceedings of that council were conducted by Constantine and its no accident that and one of the positions which he insisted upon, and got---to make Pistis a doctrine of the new church. Gnosticism could not be tolerated, because it encouraged its members to question authority. Pistis was thus politically expedient, because it forbade questioning. Your comment about the Arians being less tolerant, I don't think is true as I find this reference in Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [1]

where Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Giovanni33 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, there you have it a totally unreliable source is at the heart of it. She was no historian and probably didn't have a clue what she was talking about. But anyway...

Why is it that people think that this is all power struggle and propaganda war. I wonder what would happen if I entered a science seminar discussing this and that and I interrupted by shouting "propaganda war, power struggle"

I never denied your take on why Constantine got involved. He was not intellectual either. But he didn't dictate the outcome (because he was no intellectual either). Emperors who did this were his son Constantius, Theodosius II, Justinian. In Constantinople 381 (!)there were only Easteners (actually only from some parts of the East) because elsewhere there was no dispute - no dispute in Egypt, no dispute in the West. So the Easterners brought their dispute to a close. We reckon 1st Constantinople as an Ecumenical council because it was later accepted as such.

At the 2nd Constantinople bishops from all regions were present.

As for Photius, not his teachings were condemned at 4th Constantinople but his elevation to the See of Constantinople. This was accepted by the entire Church, including the Eastern Churches. Only later, when Ignatius was dead, was Photius was reinstated on that other council and only later did the Eastern Orthodox Church count this as the Eighth Council.

Reportin events accurately is not taking sides. Levelling everything down is taking side, the side of the "it's all bullocks" ignoramus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot something: that heretics are more tolerant is one of the most common but nonetheless false prejudices - the Arians have proved their "tolerance" in the 4th century, ask Catholics/Orthodox, ask Pagans, in the 5th and 6th century the Artian Goths and especially the Vandals were certainly not more tolerant than the Franks ... Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 03:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the other versions of Christiatnity were tolerant. I only said that the winning orthodoxy was less tolerant than all the rest. Your comment about the Arians being less tolerant, I dispute and provided a reference to support that claim: Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [2] Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Now, saying this is not true, then please cite me a schoarly work which says this. Your giving giving examples of being intolerant fails since it does not give a comparision. Your analogy about going into a science lab is another flawed analogy since Science doesn't operate in the same way. Sure, there are affects of power, also (who gets funding, grants, and what areas of of interest for investigation(, but the method and results are objective and legitimate, where all will accept. Its not based on arbitrary power, its based on what is proven by evidence. More about how Christianity determined who was right take a look at this section: [3] Lastly, reproting things with POV language that assumes the voice of only one side is taking sides. My language reports it from a 3rd person perspective.Giovanni33 08:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, don't twist my words. When I denied that "that heretics are more tolerant" then the Orthodox I meant just that (BTW, your relativistic lingo would render your sentence nonsensical). Heretics are not more tolerant per se and the 4th Arians proved that with their unprecedent intolerance.

Also, I didn't say that theology works like (natural) science - it doesn't. But it works according to its own set of rules, of which you are appearently ignorant of. I phantasized of being an ignoramus too and walking into a science class.

I don't care about what your scripture (infidels.org) says, as they too have no clue what they are talking about. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't twist your words. You claimed tht the Arians were "quite more intolerant." I asked for you to back that up with a reference, as I was able to do that suggests that what you claim is untrue. You seem to miss the point that this is not about one side being tolerant and the other being intolerant. Rather my point is that one was noted for beign particularly intolerant (for whatever reasons). Note this means comparative, relatively speaking. You seems to only want to deal with absolutes and don't like relative thinking but its an important intellectual understanding to have. The reference above makes this point, in particular in comparision to the Arians, who are also noted for their intolerance. If you contest this then you need to provide a reference and quote, otherwise concede the point. The other reference I gave you has nothing to do with "scripture." You are again confusing secular scholarhip with religious methods. I'm not trying to convert you. You refusal to even look at his arguments is indicative of your own intolerance and dogmatism, sad to say. Richard Carrier has an M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, with a graduate major in historiography, religion, and intellectual history, and has several years experience in Greek linguistics, including palaeography and papyrology. But what matters most is not what letters he has behind his name but what the merits of his arguments are. I thought to save space by just giving a link, but if you insist, I'll copy and paste. The arguments and points are valid, and if you want to refute it you need to do so logically and rationally.Giovanni33 02:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You still don't read what I wrote. I was speaking comparatively too, saying that Arians were not less but more intolerant than their Orthodox/Catholic counterparts. Historical events back up my claim, while yours is merely based in modern Enlightenment "Heretics are cool" prejudice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did read what you said and you have been flip-flopping. Now that you are stating what you originally said again, then I will point out that you need to provide support for your claim as I have. Name calling won't do. I provided a reference to support my claims, and I've asked you to do the same many times but so far you have failed to do so. My soure again: Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [4] Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Since you are saying this is not true, then please cite me a schoarly work which says this. Note that simply giving giving examples of being intolerant fails since it does not give a comparision, like my quotation above does.Giovanni33 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a detail Gio alluded to in the Great Schism. Rather than East and West excommunicating each other or declaring each other heretical, the actual excommunications were much more limited in scope. The Pope's representative delivered a bull of excommunication directed specifically at the Patriarch of Constantinople, who in return anathematized (East-speak for excommunicated) the papal representative, but not the Pope himself. It was not immediately evident to people at the time that this pivotal exchange would turn out to mark the beginning of a schism that lasted 1000 years, and these excommunications aren't the only reason for the schism. In fact, they were mutually rescinded in the 1960s by the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, but that alone obviously hasn't ended the schism, though it was an important step in that direction. Wesley 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wesley, and in fact, the Patriarch never was excommunicated legally, as the death of Pope Leo had rendered his legate's authority void. But in the 1960s some historians (it can even be pinpointed to one individual, but I have forgotten his name) thought otherwise and influenced the Holy See to mutually rescind the act. I agree that 1054 is not the one and all of the Schism, hence my inclusion of the deeper causes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my 2 cents. As I follow the conversation I understand that Gio has recommended that the language use to describe heresies be adapted to ensure that there is not a POV problem. That sounds reasonable to me. The period identified was noted for mulitple beliefs that may have contradicted other beliefs. Councils were held in which some belief systems were identifed as heretical. Str1977 and Wesley, surely this could be accomodated. Constantine appears at most to be lukewarm in his doctrinal beliefs. He was a political entity a the time that sought unity of the empire and not a religious leader. History strongly supports that claim. Please Str1977, I know that many of these topics are sensitive to you and we respect them. Let us find a middle ground and not trade accusations with others; I am not asking you to forfeit your strongly held beliefs and understanding of history, but I am asking you to allow that there room for other legitimate viewpoints. Storm Rider 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't object to that. What I object to is relativistic talk like "alternative versions of Christianity", as if all were equally valid (on a Christian basis - that doesn't say anything about whether this or that is right), and with the implied undercurrent of "it doesn't matter anyway" or "victory was merely political power play". We wouldn't discuss any other topic like this, we shouldn't do it here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you StormRider for your reasonableness. That is exactly my point and it is what Str1977 is objecting to. He wants his POV that his version Christianity be given the only right to claim a legitimate name, and to speak from that POV. My solutionis to not takes sides but simply report the facts. Hence, "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." Str1977 objects that this allows the reader to come up with their own possible POV about these other version of Christianity, and question the fact that the label of "heresy" is jut that: a label that one group put on another. I don't argue that my POV about it being a struggle power, that all versions of Christians have an equal right to be respected and accorded with the title of being Christians just as much as the other (thats my POV), should be included here. This stems from a particular understanding of hisotry , how the process of right vs. wrong take place. This legitimate POV is expressed here, as an example:[5] Str1977 refuses to even consider it. I leave that up to more open minded readers, and not not argue the point for inclusion becaue this article is not getting into these quetions on that level.Giovanni33 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a legitimate issue in providing sources that are deemed reputable. However, I have a difficult time determining which sources meet the standard and which do not. I prefer to allow most edits that are referenced unless it is obvious to even someone as dim as me that the reference is not worthy of being quoted. However, it is also recommended to follow policy and small minority positions may be mentioned, but are appropriately not given equal "billing" in the article (length of article, etc.) I believe that STR's objective is to insist that the historical Christian church be presented in an orthodox manner. For example, his issue stated above that, "alternative versions of Christianity" and more importantly that, "it doesn't matter anyway" in speaking about the respective groups. History states which were eventually deemed heretical and which were not. My recommendation is that it would be acceptable to state that there was a transitionary period in early Christian history that a diverse set of beliefs developed as the gospel spread out from Jerusalem. Councils were called by the early church leaders to identify and promote what they deemed correct doctrine. Only after the councils could a belief rightly be identified as heresy and which were correct. If I am not mistaken the Councils at times reversed themselves on some doctrines. STR and Wesley, is this both accurate and acceptable? Gio, we need to work diligently to write things in a manner that does not identify truth, but be repectful of history. You will find both STR and Wesley very knowledgable, at times they may be rigid, but they will work with you. Few them as collegues; when you feel like you are hitting a wall seek help from others until a consensus is reached. I say that from experience and trust both of them even though we may disagree on certain pionts. Keep working at it. Storm Rider 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Storm Rider, my objection is not, regardless of how Gio may paint me, against possible ways of making it more NPOV (though I think it is NPOV enough right now), but against such wordings like "alternative versions of Christianity" that are in themselves POV. That has nothing to do with picking sides of who's right or wrong, but with historical accuracy and the best way to do this is to understand each time out of itself (Ranke) without introducing foreign thoughts or even PC. The problem is that Gio dosn't allow (or rather hasn't allowed thus dar) for any meaningful definition of Christian.

SR, you are right that a heresy is only "formal heresy" after it has been debated and condemned (and hence problematic passages in Church Fathers, possibly containing "matieral heresy" don't make them heretics); Councils somewhat disagreed with each other, but the point is to find out the legitimate ones, e.g. accepting Nicaea but not things like the latrocinium. You are however wrong in asserting (if you do) that these different versions spread out from Jerusalem. Some even didn't exist in Jerusalem, such as Gnosticism.

Note also that "heresy" is not POV as the heretics also labelled the Orthodox as heretics and themselves as Orthodox. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, your very example--the fact that each group has labeled each other as heretical only proves it's a POV. This is why I say we must adopt NPOV language and not assume it as true just because someone hurls the label. Its easy to just say they called them such. Also, you are wrong that I don't allow any meaningful definition of Christianity. I just allow a broader defintion that encompasses the different versions of Christianity, while you, adopting the POV of the winners, wish to say they were the only true Christians and speak from their voice to the exusion of others. That is what is more POV. It's like Catholics saying that protestants can not be called another version of christiaity. Nonsense. To acknowelege different versions of Christianity is not POV. Even if you wish to make the extreme case that it is (in some way it is), then we can solve this by simply claiming that each of these groups claimed to be Christians. I think most reasonable people can adopt a broad based definition of a Christian being one who calls himself a Christian, professing belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord, etc. That is good enough for most reasonable people. Accordingly, lets not deny that there were other versions, and that calling them heretical was a matter of being defined as such by a particular version that was particularly intolerant and wanted to wipe them out of existence. Giovanni33 00:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We are in accord. My contention was that as the gospel spread heresies developed over time. I believe only one gospel spread out from Jerusalem, but then as new converts entered the "body" diverse beliefs developed. I also think that heresies took time before they were identified as such. I think we are on the same page. Storm Rider 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is one valid interpreatation. But others have argued that Gnostics were the original Christians, and that the resulting bureaucracy and literalist orthodoxy was a corruption and vulgarization of it to serve the imperial politics of the state. I don't take a side but simply wish that we respect the Christian traditions off all versions of Christianity by adopting NPOV language that reflect who did what without assuming that "winner" was right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 February 2006.

Storm Rider, I think that that's one way that some of the, er, diverse belief systems developed, but not necessarily the only one. Gnosticism likely predated Christianity by at least a few decades, and some Gnostics borrowed some names and terms from Christianity, and thus we had "Gnostic Christianity". This wasn't a fork or divergence from the gospel that spread out from Jerusalem, but entirely different in its historical development. Something similar may have happened with some Jewish groups that viewed Jesus as "just" a good human teacher, like some so-called "Essenes" or "Nazarenes." These groups may or may not have had a historical connection with Jesus' immediate followers, though they certainly knew of him and used his name. Early Christians did identify and denounce false teachings without waiting for a council to debate it; see the epistles of Paul and John in the New Testament, and the writings of Ignatius and Irenaeus for examples. Sometimes these denunciations were controversial, and had to be discussed and ratified in council; Arianism is certainly an example of this. But in many instances I don't think they were, when enough of the church's trusted leaders were in agreement. Still, Str1977 is I think right about "formal heresy" being something officially denounced through a council. Wesley 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, for pointing this out.

Heresy is a term used by historians. That it was heresy according to the Church is understood, but who is to decide if not the Church.

I don't know where Gio gets the legend that heresies were condemned by mere majority rule, let alone by one vote. He should cite such an example. All Councils decided with large majorities and mostly got the consent for decisions even of those who voted otherwise before (Nicaea had two opposing votes!). This is the way Ecumenical Councils still work. But, in the cases we are addressing here there was no one decision that condemned say Gnosticism or Marcion or Montanus - it was a quite longish and thoughtful process.

In any case, Gio's suggestion is permeated by a very narrow POV (even when in accord with the Zeitgeist): "In religion there is no right or wrong but only subjectivity." Or what else is it to say there were different versions of Christianity. The real Christ only taught this and that and he didn't teach the opposite. To call both alternative different versions is relativistic POV. We should report on how Christians then saw it and how scholars think about it, but not indulge in a relativistic mumbo-jumbo.

As for "the more intolerant" made it: again any nice legend to hit those who made it (as more rewarding victims) but quite different from the truth. The first bishop who used political power for his aims was Paulus of Samosata, a condemned heretic. The Arian party, in power during much of the 4th century, was quite more intolerant than any Catholic bishop. It was the Arian Constantius II who tore down many temples, it was the Arian Valens who persecuted Pagans, philosophers, Catholics. IMHO, Arian intolerance contributed to its eventual downfall.

Finally, regarding proposals for cutting back the history section. I am open to that but I don't see much room for that, based on the current version. What is it you would want to delete? (Please anwer the last issue at the bottom of the section). Str1977 23:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, per above, you still need to provide support for your claim as I have. I provided a reference to support my claims, and I've asked you to do the same many times but so far you have failed to do so. My soure again: Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [6] Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Since you are saying this is not true, then please cite me a schoarly work which says this. Note that simply giving giving examples of being intolerant fails since it does not give a comparision, like my quotation above does.Giovanni33 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The resources list is way too long. In the past, we tried to keep it relatively brief...a theology resource or two, a couple of histories, etc. There's an inordinate amount from Gio's POV. I would ask that when the article is unprotected, Gio go through and pick two or three of the best of those to keep. The mainstream side could, of course, list dozens or hundreds of resources, but that wouldn't accomplish much. If Gio can do that, it would be nice. KHM03 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Infact, I'd even let you pick out the best three. The only reason why I went overkill with the sources was because I was being told that my view was original research or that it was fringe, etc. So, I piled on the sources. :) Giovanni33 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us which the three best were? Str1977 23:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion...Burton Mack, Edwin Johnson, and it would make some sense to add Elaine Pagels. KHM03 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm much too worried about other articles to make specific suggestions right now, but I'll let you know when I have the time. I mainly stumbled around here in thinking I saw other religion articles having an informative table, finding I was wrong, but intrigued by the whole protection thing.

KV 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "table"? What examples can you suggest? KHM03 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of the filioque looks fine to me (for this article). Two small changes I would make in the Nicene Creed section would be removing the quotes from the phrases "sin and death" and "General Resurrection", as the quotes seem to suggest that these exact phrases appear in the Creed, while in fact they do not. "General Resurrection" could be replaced by "resurrection of the dead" since that's the phrase used, but it's not really a big deal. Wesley 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My view is as previously stated.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to succinctly summarize that view for my benefit? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That it should be factually accurate, NPOV and helpful to people who may not know much about the subject. That's the answer to the question, but to help things along a few key points that I'd like to see mentioned are that there were many creeds in the Early Church. That the Nicene creed was not the earliest. That the term Nicene Creed is now used to denote any one of three different texts. That there should be some indication of the Orthodox position on the filioque (as per Orthoxox Wikipedia). I'd also like to see references inter alia to the books: The Making of The Creeds and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I got this idea from KHMO3, who is not at fault if I misunderstood him, or express it badly. My concern is that the article as a whole has become too retrospective. I think we might limit the history section to five paragraphs: The First Century; Constantine; The Great Schism; The Reformation; and Modern Times. We would give up most of what is now in the second and fourth paragraphs, and some of what's in the fifth. This looks more radical than it really is. None of the material would be lost, just moved to History of Christianity or Early Christianity. I hope this new outline would be more accessible to the casual reader who is not interested in arcane theology and ancient politics. Having fewer handles to latch on to, it might also be more resistant to bloating. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, as for your proposals:

• 2nd paragraph: we need the spreading sentence IMO and Gio will certainly oppose the removal of the rest.
• 4th paragraph: we can get rid of Beowulf, but we cannot get rid of the conversion of Western and Eastern Europe.
• 5th paragraph: we cannot ommit the secular conflict with Islam.

I hardly see arcana theology in the current version. But please specify what you want to cut.

Str1977 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is probably too ambitious at this point. Maybe I'll revisit it later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Add more Teachings, Summary of Christianity

There are many notable differences between this article and other articles such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which both provide much more information about the beliefs of those religions. The Christianity article, however, consists mostly of historical information.

I think that the sections on the teachings of Christianity should be expanded, with significant references made to the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, which summarizes the Christian beliefs. Basic beliefs which should be discussed include:

• Original Sin
• The call of Abraham
• The exodus from Egypt
• The Ten Commandments and the Law
• Fighting the indigenous people to claim the Holy Land
• The birth of the Jewish nation
• Priests and Judges
• Prophecies concerning the Messiah
• The 400 years of silence between the Old and New Testaments
• The writing of the Septuagint
• The birth of Jesus
• Jesus defeats the devil's temptations in the desert
• Jesus' public ministry
• Jesus' death on the cross
• Jesus' ressurection and ascension
• The missionary journeys of Paul
• The prophecied Second Coming

DanielMcBride 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how its organized, I'd like to see a secular thought to balance the POV balance added to the interpretation and meaning of teachings where appropriate. I'm not sure if its appropriate but it's something we can think about how to do. Giovanni33 21:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of that; the history section here should be abrief overview...4 or 5 paragraphs hitting the major points (1st century, Constantine/Nicea, Great Schism, Reformation, maybe modern ecumenism), with a link to the History of Christianity article, where there's more space for development.

I also think we should talk about beliefs, and would concur with some of your suggestions. I guess I wouldn't go too far in talking about Abraham through the 400 years of "silence"...that's better discussed elsewhere (we should explain the strong connection to Judaism, of course, but concisely). A brief overview of Jesus & Paul, then important historic doctrines (Grace, Sin, Salvation, Incarnation, Trinity, Bible, Resurrection, Eschatology, Parousia). Worship, too, and a few modern things (ecumenism, maybe Pentecostalism).

Of course, we could redirect the article to Methodism, too.  ;) KHM03 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the history section should be kept promiment, if not expanded. To imbue Historical thinking in general is always a good thing. Hence my pushing for the Beowulf point. Giovanni33 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can cut much of the history section (with the exception of Beowulf), as we even have to put quite some energy into defending it from further bloating (see above). However, I always thought that the history section should be moved down to just above the persecution section.

As for the points raised by Daniel, some are already mentioned in the article but could be expanded (Jesus' death on the cross, Jesus' ressurection and ascension, The prophecied Second Coming). Some are difficult to include (Jesus' public ministry or missionary journeys of Paul). I don't know as they might be too detailed a redendition of the Biblical account (Jesus' temptations). Even more questionable are retelling of the Old Testament history (Abraham, exodus, Ten Commandments ...) - if this should be done most summarily. "Writing of the Septuagint" is completely irrelvant IMHO, and a "400 years silence" is POV.

Str1977 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a pro History bloater, and I don't think we should move it down. It should be the starting point---to undertand what is, we have to understand what was. Giovanni33 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. The History of Christianity is so important that it deserves its own article; but it should not dominate every article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, not dominate just remain prominent. Giovanni33 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03 that the history section is too long. I wonder if it might enjoy broader support and be more bloat-resistent if it were shorter. I also think moving it further down the page is a good idea. If I could make only one change, I would make the article less retrospective. I also like Daniel's suggestions, subject to the constraints of space and neutral presentation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority on this question, unless all my alleged sockets chime in, as Im sure they will in due time. Giovanni33 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind covering history first, but we just should keep it to a general summary, with a link to the main history article. KHM03 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Giovanni33

Giovani33, Would you mind dropping me an e-mail at trollwatcher@gmail.com and then the following day make a note below confirming the title of the e-mail so that I can be sure its from you. Thanks. Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovani33, Apologies, that e-mail address should have read trollwatcher@hotmail.comTrollwatcher 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, has anyone noticed that text on this page has been moved around and in some cases deleted? Anyone know who's doing it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trollwatcher (talk • contribs) .

What does the page history say? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr T, if you are referring to my edits - it is called archiving. The page was very large and I archived various sections [7] into the archives 24 [8] and 25 [9]. I moved your request for Gio, which would have been archived, down to the 2nd section called "A Simple Question" to ensure that Gio could read it. [10] Sorry, if I have confused you. Str1977 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So, it now turns out that you have in fact been deleting material without consulting anyone else and also inserting bogus section headings. You have failed to post any note to indicate what you have done, and your response claiming that you've been merely archiving is, let us say, slightly less than the whole truth. I hesitate to call this troll-like behaviour, but no other description springs to mind. Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A Simple Question

Just a question about the users on the Christianity page and this discussion page:

Are you a non-Christian who habitually contributes to this page ?

If you are, would you mind noting your own userID below and optionally adding "yes" or "no" to the following question: Do you feel that the Christianity page succeeds in being NPOV and that the majority of principal contributors to it genuinely try to be NPOV ?

If you do not fall into the category being addressed, or want to add anything further, please start another section so as not to complicate responses.

I'm non-Christian, and I do post on the discussion every so often.... in the past week... and I think the whole problem with POV is that Christians and non-Christians alike are in conflict over points that neither documents, so no gain towards the truth happens. The Christians keep out Giovanni33's posts, he reverts them, neither documents and so we have deadlock. So, documentation is the key to any POV.

KV 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that analysis; we all need to be better at documentation. KHM03 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for AnnH

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what this means and what significance it has.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I would appreciate your observations on the fact that almost all of the main contributors to this page are accused of being either sockpuppets or trolls, and that any apparently normal people (Sophia is just the latest of many dating from well before Geovani showed up) soon give up and go away. Why do you think that is ?Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation into whether they are. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Clayworth ? Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

KHMO3 and DJ Clayworth the same!? Nah! Have you never heard of the Documentary hypothesis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollinator (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2006.

That's funny, coming from a user with 14 edits to their name.

Brian:You are all individuals!

Crowd:We are all individuals!

Lone voice:I'm not.

DJ Clayworth 17:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages

Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article.

Not sure what you're getting at here. There has been a couple of weeks of intense accusations about sockpuppets, including a comment that that two IP addresses were similar - clearly designed to suggest something about the contributors in question. I'm wondering why you didn't make this comment during the weeks and pages of witch hunting - but you do now, as soon as someone pitches in in with a genuine question which might be of interest to all non-techies.

Mediation requests are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and you can also contact the the Mediation Cabal for assistance.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanksTrollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollwatcher, please do not interpolate your reply within my original comment. It makes it hard to untangle who said what. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd Goings On

At 11.45 on 18 February Str1977 appears to have deleted an entry on this page (ie the talk page) inviting new arrivals to visit this user page.

I wonder if it is permissable for any individual user to do this. I can't believe it is, otherwise anyone could simply delete anything they didn't happen to like. For example can Giovani delete any comments that he finds offensive or insulting ? Can I ? Shall we all start doing it ? Is there a formal Wikipedia policy on this ?

Also, if it is permited to delete material, can there ever be a justification for not leaving a note on the page mentioning the deletion, or even a note on the relevant user's talk page explaining it. Or is this just another example of one rule for members of the Federation and another for everyone else ? John1838 23:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove this attack on other editors: [11] Deleting personal attacks or spam is, as far as I know, in line with Wiki policy. BTW, your linked page and your edit summary is a personal attack as well, which goes against Wiki policy to say nothing about decent human behaviour. Apart from that, what purpose did your "link" serve in regard to editing this page? However, I am submitting this to the community - what do others think about this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think John's contributions to this page are inflammatory and have nothing to do with discussing possible improvements to the article. I have often seen such remarks removed from talk pages by users, administrators, bureaucrats, arbitration committee members, and even, on one occasion, a steward. The vast majority of John's contributions are inflammatory attacks on other users, and do a lot to undermine his credibility as a genuine new Wikipedian here to build up the encyclopaedia, and with no axe to grind. AnnH ^(talk) 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann, Good to see you back. I guess you missed the following questions:

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what this means and what significance it has. Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I would appreciate your observations on the fact that almost all of the main contributors to this page are accused of being either sockpuppets or trolls, and that any apparently normal people (Sophia is just the latest of many dating from well before Geovani showed up) soon give up and go away. Why do you think that is ? Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation into whether they are. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Clayworth ? Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. Especially coming from someone with 14 edits to their name. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Editting the Article

Tom Harrison asked for my input on the article, and so I'll give what little I can. Now I should state that I am not Christian, though I was raised Roman Catholic, I'm Hermetic. These are the views of a non-Christian on the article.

The article is currently at 38.3kb, which allows it another 11.7 kb approximately to be within the realm of suggested Featured Article size. As such, it should be added to where there are multiple views.... to make the article NPOV, it must include several, well-documented POVs. History and Origins seems to be the part of the article under controversy, and so there should be multiple views put into that, perhaps seperated by different subheadings.

1. Specifically, I think that Hypathia might be mentioned, seeing as she was an early opponent of Christianity, specifically a pagan martyr on the subject, being killed in 1415 CE for preaching against the church.
2. Gnosticism is misrepresented in my opinion, as it wasn't so much a belief that secret knowledge would lead to salvation, but rather that raising one's knowledge of God (much surely coming from secret mystery schools) and through gnosis of God, and reality, came ascension. Also, calling it a heresy is rather POV, rather it should be said that it had been deemed a heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which is what I believe happened, but also why we look for documentation.
3. The roots of Christianity beyond Judaism may want to be explored, or at least pointed to another article right away for Judaism's roots and so on. Much of that can be traced to Ancient Egypt and the Hermetic Mysteries actually, as explained in Hermetism#History.
4. The geography and split of the Roman Empire which was behind the schism in the church should also be explained.
5. There's no mention of Peter and Simon Magus, and their battle (which it is interesting to note that the text of the battle is pretty much the same in the mainstream Christian and Gnostic texts, only the names are flipped, including who won.)
6. The challenge of converting the northern tribes should be mentioned, and it's impact on the Church using a lot of idolatry it hadn't prior to that. The Catholic Church has statues of Jesus's crucifixion and the Orthodox their pictures, as I remember finding from a History professor, as a way of signifying to the new converts, who were seen as too stupid to understand, when to sit, stand, and kneel by way of "Christ on a stick", as the professor put it.
7. There were many cases of politics playing the reason for conversion to Christianity..... such as Poland converting for the sake of preventing invasion by Germany, and subsequently, the high importance of Mary in Poland who was seen as similar to the fertility goddess of high popularity prior. Such political moves changed how Christians saw Christianity.
8. There is also no mention of the Crusades and Inquisition, which is POV by way of whitewashing history. A primary facet of Medieval Christian was blind faith and fanaticism (coupled with the whole blind, not understanding what you say you believe, faith part which was prominent then) which led to horrible events. To keep it from seeming as POV against Christianity, mention the apologies put out.
9. The early Christian Church, according to the book of Acts, was a strict and authoritarian, communal society. This should be mentioned, at least simply in passing. The early ideals of the Church and the Christian societal values are important in understanding the rest.
10. The decline of a central Christian organization through Protestantism should be mentioned, noting primarily that many of the Christian religions of today would be considered heresies back then, and would have been wiped out.... without putting a spin on whether or not this is good or bad.

Look over Giovanni's changes, and try to find what might be valuable and could be implemented in...... I suggest you all go on a citation hunt to cite everything you possibly can in this controversial section. Myself, I'm working too hard on Hermetic stuff to bother with doing that for you, or to implement any of these changes should this become unprotected. Wherever there are multiple views, one Christian, one non-Christian....... try to show BOTH, noting the difference.

This should be a guideline to begin with, until you see too much information being a problem with size, then it's time to look at how to condense. A larger article called History of Christianity may also allow for less detail in that section if it is immediately linked as Main Article: etc.

Think over my reccomendations and I'll see what you discuss about them.

KV 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vegita, let's see:

ad 1. Hypathia is mentioned (though quite frankly I believe she is given too much prominence) as an example for persecution, in the section on persecution (which I guess you haven't read).

ad 2. If Gnostic doctrine is misrepresented it should be rectified. However, calling Gnostics within Christianity a heresy is not POV - I have already argued this over at Talk:Early Christianity.

ad 3. We have already covered theories about non-Jewish roots and influences - any further bloating would be wrong, apart from the dubious nature of anything associated with Hermetism (with all due respect).

ad 4. Further explanations of the split should be very brief and concise.

ad 5. Well, some might call this battle a legend and I would call it a detail (and possibly a legend).

ad 6. KV, please be careful what you are saying. "Idolatry" is something else, even if what you wrote were accurate. And again to much detail.

ad 7. Again too detailed and partly POV and peculative (fertility goddess).

ad 8. The Inquisisition is covered, though not mentioned, in the persecution section. The crusades, which are no subject for whitewashing anyway, are mentioned in the history section in the context of the conflict with Islam. Your classification of Medieval Christians itself is POV and worse and complete inaccurate.

ad 9. Too detailed.

ad 10. We can mention that Christianity was broken asunder by the Protestant Reformation (but I don't know what others think), but the rest is pure speculation.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to trim the history section, not enlarge it. A lot of that could probably be effectively included at History of Christianity. In a brief overview, I can't see mentioning Hypathia, for instance; hardly more important than the Great Schism or the Reformation. Ditto Simon Magus, Poland/Mary. Also, if Hermetism influenced Judaism, it needs to be discussed at Judaism, not here or Islam or any other religion which had been influenced by Judaism (maybe it is already mentioned there). We should mention the Crusades, though, and perhaps the Inquisition. KHM03 11:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But we first have a look into the actual text to see what's already in there: Hypathia, crusades, persecution of heretics (though the word Inquisition is not mentioned). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't look over too much, I was asked for input and so I gave the best that I could, when I was partially tired. so

1) No I hadn't read the persecution, I've only busied myself looking at the history section which seemed to be the part in controversy. If Hypathia is mentioned, I think that that's a good allusion to similar events as well, so that part is already covered then.

2) Calling Gnosticism a heresy is POV for saying that it is specifically wrong. Saying that it was seen as a heresy would be NPOV, because it states what the Church decided without taking a position confirming or conflicting that decision. It's all in the language.

3) I feel a separate article on non-Jewish roots, the roots of Judaism, seeing as the roots of Judaism are also the roots of Christianity and Islam, would be a good addition. But it by no means is necessary, it was merely among the suggestions I had, when prompted.

4) Brief and concise, yes. But a single sentence can put a lot more comprehension into why it happened.

5) A minor point, but the legend view I would imagine is more of a modern view while it would have been accepted in days past, seeing as people were much more believing in such things back then. However, I don't see this as very important, just would be a nice touchup.

6) I may have the wrong term, but I do know that it was seen as sinful prior to those actions, by Christians, and it began as a means of convenience.

7) Well, I got this from a Polish, Christian professor teaching the culture of Poland.... it's very accurate and is the reason for much of the expansion of Christianity. I know that you may feel that it is POV because it suggests that Christianity couldn't spread on it's own merits, but that can be balanced out by showing other examples in which it did expand on it's own merits. However, in such a case, Christianity didn't, and it does explain a part of history. However, it might not be proper for the Christianity article proper and may go into the History of Christianity one.

8) Well, I do believe my "POV" veiw of Medieval Christians to be accurate, I could cite sources which suggest the very same. Blind faith was an important part of getting uneducated and ignorant people, which made up the masses of Medieval European society, to accept something. And the persecution is very much evidence of fanaticism. Truely, there should be a sentence at least about persecution in the history section linking to the persecution section....... or make the persecution section a subheading of the history section.

9) That's not too detailed at all, and it is vital in explaining the roots of Christianity and Christian belief. The very level to which the beliefs were carried out. My impression, right or wrong, is that this is left out because too many Christians stray from these beliefs these days, thinking about improving themselves without regard to others, which is the result of modern politics. Unable to reconcile both, this is often ignored by Christians.

10) I think it would be a nice touch, but not a major issue. I think it does add insight though, perhaps seeming less harsh on so-called heresies.

But, anyways, if you want to trim the section, be sure to be very, very stringent in giving a neutral view that covers all events. Eventually, I'll look at what may be overemphasized.

KV 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vegita, I only want to address some of the points:

1) That's allright. That's one of the reasons I wanted to move the history down, to set it alongside of the persecution. But someone reverted it and I didn't persist. Setting them side by side might also solve some of point 8.

2) I don't think calling it a heresy declares it be wrong per se, only wrong on the basis of Christianity. But my main concern is to avoid a "relativist" POV which declares all things to be equal (as Giovanni proposes)

6) Idolatry is a grave sin (then and today), but the mere setting up of statues or images (icons) is not idolatry per se. BTW, the Frankish Church was much more anti-icon than the Greeks, so I dare to doubt what you wrote.

7) There were always political motives involved when a ruler adopted Christianity (or when he had to decide which denomination he should chose), but we shouldn't convey the (false) idea that it was only about politics. Not even in Poland.

8) Sorry, we differ about the Middle Ages. Maybe you equate faith with "blind faith". Also, what kind of fanaticism are you talking about - was it based on Christian ideas or was it pagan remnants (as the witchhunts that anyway took place in the early modern period). But we may disagree here.

9) I was concerned as what you wrote above was not quite intelligible to me. If we make it understandable it may become bloated or it may be a bit POV. But try your worst.

10) I stand by my rejection of contrafactual historiography.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2) heresy has a very negative connotation, and is defined in the common vernacular as being "wrong".. however, a much bigger point of contention is your claim that you want to avoid a relativist POV.... without realizing that a relativist POV would be NPOV. In your own roundabout way, you just said that you wish to avoid NPOV. From a relativist POV, or NPOV, you look at Gnosticism, and you do not say whether it is right or wrong, you merely state what it is and hold no absolute truth about whether it is a good or a bad set of ideas. Departure from this tells people whether it was right or wrong, not simply that it is or was. For example, and I think this may be an official example, you don't say Hitler was evil or did horrible things in his article, you merely state what he does and let the reader decide if it was evil and horrible. "As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

Hence, you would want this "relativist" POV to be NPOV.

6) In reference to this, the Ten commandments article gives a clue to what I'm talking about: "while Protestants (except Lutherans) separate all six verses into two different commands (one being 'no other gods' and the other being 'no graven images')." Now, the whole no graven images is what I am saying that both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church broke in order to create these depictions of Christ, and from my understanding, understood that they were doing it, but for the greater good.

7) In Poland, it was completely political.... the conversion happened all at once at the behest of the Prince who ordained that they were all Christian...... Just in wikipedia I point out Baptism of Poland and we have the opening line of "In the first centuries of its emergence in the 10th century, the Polish nation was led by a series of strong rulers who converted the Poles to Christendom," in History of Poland. The average person had absolutely no choice, it was directed from above, who had political motives. Now, there's no need to focus only on this, as I said, but something to the effect should be mentioned, even in a simple sentence such as "Christianity spread throughout Europe through both reason and force, sometimes coexisting, sometimes not."

8) I equate faith that isn't based on probability (such as the faith one has that gravity will not reverse, destroying everyone in the process..... or faith that the police will come when you call 911) as blind faith. When people believe without thinking about it, just simply believe because they are told, that is blind faith, and it was prevalent in the Middle Ages. Prior to that, religion had been based upon reason and philosophy, and it is returning to that somewhat today, imo. I have met Christians with both blind faith and reasoned faith..... but I find it highly unlikely one would find a Christian with reasoned faith in Medieval Europe.

By fanaticism, I mean the the witch burnings (which were 2 parts paranoia and 1 part a reaction to pagans in the area who used magic, though much of that is misunderstood, for most of that magic was equivalent to prayer) and the massacre of people of other CHRISTIAN beliefs, and then we have other Inquisition practices. Now, mind you the words I use are not going into the article, nor did I intend for them to be, I am simply trying to convey the idea.

9) To make this intelligible... the early Christians had a strict sense of iminent duty to share all in common, everyone living up to the ideal that somehow got confused with communism, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability", and helping each other out WHENEVER possible. There is a part in that book that relates a couple that didn't sell all of their land and thus were put to death (though perhaps not a literal death, and certainly if so it was done by supernatural powers) for not giving themselves fully. This is right out of the book of Acts, and if it is POV, it is not my POV, as it would be a Christian POV coming from a Christian text, a Christian account. This should be clashed with the Medieval and Modern Churches.

10) There was a sect of Christians killed for nothing more than a belief that they should never give into violence, even to save their own lives...... obviously they didnt' resist... there is no need to speculate that many protestant movements... rejecting the authority of the Pope, Mormons adding in polygamy and the like, the wide diversity of beliefs....... they vary from official Church doctrine more than that non-violent sect..... and it is obvious that they would be called a heresy, like the Gnostics, whether or not they actually are.

KV 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2) I'm ok with saying the church identified/described/defined various variations/deviations as heretical. That the early church (according to Acts) was authoritarian and communal, also seems reasonable. Suggesting that there were many competing 'kinds' of Christianity seems at odds with these observations though. My impression is that Gnosticism for instance slightly predated Christianity, and as it rubbed shoulders with Christians, incorporated some of its names and language into their existing belief structure. In other words, they borrowed some names and terms, but didn't initially 'split off' from Jesus' followers, though they may have converted some as they went along. Wesley \

6) At first Christians did depict Christ just as Jews were in the habit of sometimes painting certain famous scenes from the Old Testament. The use of some form of icons and relics began quite early, as evidenced by the house church in Dura Europa (sp?). Centuries later when use of icons was seriously questioned (8th century), defenders said the commandment against worshipping images didn't apply to Jesus because Jesus was God incarnate, and didn't apply to the saints because they were being conformed to the image of Christ etc. See Icon and Iconoclasm. Wesley \

7) Even in instances like Poland where the conversion was initially led by the rulers, who may well have had political motivation, this does not rule out the possibility of religious conviction as well. There should be a simple way to describe all the known and probable or alleged motivating factors in such a case; I would agree it would be a mistake for the article to try to ignore probably political motivations. Wesley \

8) In medieval europe we see the rise of scholasticism, especially in the West, and a rediscovery of Aristotle and renewed attempts to explain theology in rational, well understood terms. See Thomas Aquinas and his systematic theology, for instance. Similar scholarly efforts occurred in Judaism. In the East, Gregory Palamas argued that direct divine revelation was superior to such reasoned out understanding, which I suppose you might equate with "blind faith." But his views did not generally prevail in the West, I would hold that Palamas' ideas were also grounded in philosophy as well as patristic theology. Wesley \

10) As an Orthodox believer, I think the roots of the Protestant Reformation begin with the Great Schism and the West's insistence on papal infallibility. First the Romans said that the Pope could decide himself what was right, without having to defer to a council. The Protestants extended this principle by making each person their own pope, each individually capable and responsible for deciding what was right (sola scriptura), leading to tremendous fragmentation. But this POV is quite subjective and certainly not the only way of viewing history. Wesley 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

List of suggestions

This is just a summary of where I think we are now; it is not an invitation to vote. If I have misunderstood anyone's suggestions, please correct me. This is meant to be a succinct list for reference, not a general statement of each editor's philisophy. I would appreciate it if additions could be kept to one or two lines. It might be easier to read if discussion took place in another section.

These are what people have suggested:

• Change "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." to "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies."

• Shorten the History section.
• Move the history section down the page.
• Add more on Christian teachings and beliefs.
• Add material on the secular interpretation of Christian beliefs.
• Shorten the list of resources.
• Include more in-text citations.
• Discuss creeds other than the Nicene.
• Provide more detail on filioque and the Orthodox position on it.
• Add two references, "The Making of The Creeds" and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."

In addition to these, King Vegita has provided a list of suggested changes that we can refer to without my summarizing them here, but if someone wants to include them here for completeness, that's fine too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Describe political nature of the new Orthodox Church that arose out of its marriage to state power, specifically that it was particularly intolerant. Giovanni33 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Same church before and after, same empire intolerant of some religions before and after. The empire's list of approved and unapproved religions changed, that's all. It changed back with Emperor Julian the Apostate, and after him returned to favoring Christianity. Even when Christianity was supposed to be legalized and enforced, the Patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom died on his way to exile for criticizing the imperial court. So even while the empire was 'persecuting' pagans, it also punished Christians who preached sermons critical of the empire or the emperor. Wesley 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. While the specifics you mention are true, and certainly anyone who was critical of the imperial court, or seen as a threat the the harmony of the empire, were punished in various ways, there is a fundamental difference between a basic toleration of different public religious beliefs (unless you refused to show respect to the empire), and the complete intolerance of any other religious beliefs by the Christians once they assumed state power, on purely religious grounds, instead of just polical concerns. For these Christians there could be only one religion available to the public. The others had to be stamped out by whatever means necessary. This is what was different and notable. This account here basically accurate that illustrates this point: [12]If this source is disputed I can provide other sources to support these points. They are farily well known and accepted.Giovanni33 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an informative link. I think it's important to distinguish between religious and political intolerance. Christians were always intolerant of other religions, at a religious/philosophical level. As that article says, Christians simply were not pluralistic; Christianity did change from being pluralistic to not being so in the fourth century. Now regarding political toleration, I still maintain that it was the empire establishing and enforcing decrees, not the Church. Constantine wasn't even baptized until the end of his life, and some historians say that he asked to be baptized by an Arian bishop. The link you gave makes no distinction between the actions of the church and the state; granted, the line was more blurred at some times than others, but there was still a line, especially in the Byzantine Empire. Also, the empire did not try to stamp out the Judaism the way it tried to stamp out paganism, so it's plain false to say that no other religions were tolerated. The worst your own article can say in this regard is that some laws "laid a foundation" for later anti-semitism in Europe, but this is hardly the same thing. Wesley 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your' welcome. I don't agree that Christianity was always intolerant (at least not all versions equally); we do see different behavior relevant to this question reflecting the different Christian strains (literalist interpretations and belief that authority can not be questioneD), and relfecting it's political possition within the empire. For example when Christianity was itself being persecuted there greater freedom of thought was tolerated. However, once Chrisitanity became the state religion, disagreements over doctrine were much less tolerated. This marked difference between the intoration of other beliefs and the persecution of the Empire in previous times do not compare equally. For example conflict between the some groups and the more "orthodox" Christians who were very intolerant got so bad that the resulting violence was so extensive that historian Will Durant argued that more Christians died at the hands of other Christians in just one year, 343, than during all of the persecutions suffered by Christians at the hands of pagan Roman authorities. While what you say about Christianity not being pluralistic, there is a difference between what one believes is true and tolerating that others can hold to different beliefs without needing to kill them. Today most Christians are largly tolerant of other religions, no?

I understand your argument that despite the clear marriage of the state with the church, it was the state which was acting as it normally acts, etc. Well, I think we established that it didnt act like it normally acts. The intolerance when the Christians had state power was far greater in breath and scope. What accounts for this change? Clearly it's the particuarly intolerant disposition of the motivating ideology concentrated in the outlook of the resulting orthodoxy of the new church which guided and directed the actions of the state, acting on behalf of the Church. Attacks agianst Jewsish synagogues were also carried out but was not stamped out in the manner that rival versions of Christianity, and pagan religions were. A World History of Christianityby Adrian Hastings (Editor) [13] (A through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[14] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."Every mainstream history account of the emerging Christianity of this period makes the same point. That is the point that I argue this article should present. Giovanni33 00:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Just two minor issues: 1) what you describe, Wesley, is not properly termned intolerance. It is one thing to be convicted of one's beliefs, but another to be intolerant towards others - in fact, one can only be tolerant towards those one utterly disagrees with. 2) Constantine was definitely baptized by an Arian, but he didn't ask for an Arian to baptize him - in fact, that Arian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, had been readmitted after signing a somewhat ambiguous profession of faith. Constantine simply was bapized by a bishop present at court (and Eusebius always had close connections to courtly circles and later even relations my marriage - through his sister), but at the same time he remained adamant in regard to the Nicaean creed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the Constantine vs. Religious Liberty article, I think one poster makes a mistake in thinking that Christianity rose mostly by state/imperial power. In almost every decree, there was a clergy push for it. In almost every church council, there were imperial commissioners to help run things. I must clarify how I am doing these articles from Constantine to Justinian. First I did the imperial decrees and now I am clarifying the church councils. Being a spare time project, I have been on this 2 years. A good example of the church state alliance at work in these days was the period that brought about the council of Chalcedon in 451. See http://community-2.webtv,net/tales_of_the_western_world/THEODOSIUS2/ The same church state alliance processes were there at Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, and Ephesus in 431. WesternWorld 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

oops, I posted the link to my Theodosius the Younger article incorrectly. (Just changed it recently) It is http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RLTHEODOSIUS2

I read about half the article at your second link, above. It's clear what you're trying to show, but you give not one quotation from Augustine or anyone else showing that they asked the empire to take the action it did. When the empire treated pagans or heretics as traitors to the empire, it was only continuing the same policy of Diocletian and other pagan emperors, who had treated Christians as traitors for not burning incense to the emperor. Once I read your account of the murder of Hypatia and the expulsion of the Jews from Alexandria, without any mention of the Jews' massacre of Christians which was the immediate cause of their expulsion, it made the rest of the article extremely suspect. (Alexandrians in that century seem to be very prone to riots and mobs, no matter what their religion.) I believe you've likely done more background reading on this period than I, but your telling of it appears to be designed to support your own opinions. I certainly have my own set of opinions; for purposes of this article, I only wish to point out that there's more than one way to interpret the history of this time. And Str1977, perhaps what I described isn't "intolerance" and we're working with different definitions of that word; I admit this is a very distinct possibility. Wesley 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes supported by concensus

These appear to be accepted; I (or whoever wants to) will apply them unless anyone objects.

• Remove the quotes from the "sin and death" and "General Resurrection" and replace "General Resurrection" by "resurrection of the dead."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

More Odd Goings On

So,Str1977 thinks it's OK to remove references to anything he does not like, and try to keep it secret - stating falsely that he is just doing a bit of archiving. Interesting approach. Jesus will be very proud of you.

Since then KHM03 pops up at John Talk and soon afterwards Sasquatch pops up in the same place and deletes my (John1838) user page claiming that it is abusive to KHM03 and to SOPHIA. Three points are of interest here.

• Sasquatch claims on his home page to be the Devil - I'm not making this up. Take a look.

• KHM03 was mentioned only in passing on my user page.

• SOPHIA was not criticised in any way on my user page.

As I can find no clear guidance on how to get my user page back, I have created a new id (J1838). My new user page does not mention KHM03 and has identical text concerning SOPHIA so anyone can judge for themselves if it's remotely possible to interpret it as critical of SOPHIA.

I assume that the cabal will now start accusing me of sockpuppetry, but there you are. It's a funny old world.

KV, take a look at my new user page if you want to know what you're letting yourself in for with the happy Christian "community" on this page J1838 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

John, on the contrary: not "anything I don't like" but "anything that is an attack" on not specifically me but on other editors in general. As long as you no longer use John1838 there is no basis for such an accusation. I see you are still contributing nothing but personal attacks. BTW, KHM was mentioned on your page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. I've never attacked anyone, let alone "other editors in general". One of the points I made that got mysteriously deleted was something along the lines of what a contrast there was between editors on this page and those on other pages - even the Islam page isn't plastered with "disputed" banners. The only editors I've ever mentioned in a less than laudatary way are you, KHM, Storm Rider and a couple of other minor DWEECs - I'm using the term DWEEC specifically in order not to be offensive but precisely to avoid using words like cabal, clique, band, or troup. Also to help new NPOV editors to prepare for what they are embarking on here in an objective way as I can. If you or anyone else can point to an unsustanable assertion or a factually incorrect statement on my user page I'll happily amend it.

My POV: StormRider has always been pretty reasonable, and a voice of moderation.Giovanni33 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I seem to recall the editors on this page who had not already explicitly identified themselves as Christian believers all being accused just a week or two ago of being Giovani's sock puppets. I Don't recall you deleteing those unsubstantiated accusations. This could't be yet another case of double standards could it ? J1838 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

According to User:Sasquatch that I just checked..... no he doesnt' claim to be the devil.

KV 23:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

KV - You're right. This isn't remotely like the page I saw earlier (which was much more interesting). I notice there's now a notice on the page to the effect that it has recently been vandalised so I can't now accuse of KHM of consorting with the Devil - which I have to admit did seem more than a little unlikely. Also apologies if I seem to have interpolated a response above - we were both editing at the same time J1838 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has little to do with improving the Christianity article. J1838, have you considered using any of wikipedia's formal channels for dispute resolution? You also might consider including some mention on User:J1838 of its connection to User:John1838, if only for the sake of transparency. Wesley 03:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglican is not Protestant

Sorry guys, please see the discussion on this elsewhere. The Church of England has undoubtedly protestant elements but formally it declares itself to be a Catholic, not a Protestant church and you should not include it in lists of Protestant churchs. The figure is wrong in this regard too --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 11:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The position of the Anglican Communion is not easily defined in terms which would be accepted by both 'Reformed' and 'Catholic' wings of the Anglican churches. Formally speaking, yes, the Anglican Church defines itself as Catholic, but it also defines the Eastern Orthodox churches as Catholic. To adopt this Anglican definition of Catholic would therefore make a nonsense of any attempt at a broad classification of Christian denominations, since it would apply the label Catholic to all churches claiming episcopal continuity with the apostolic church. (So would calling any church Catholic which professed belief in the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church".) The Anglican church has existed as an ecclesially distinct body only since the reign of Elizabeth I: before then, it was a national division of the Western (Roman) Catholic Church, which became effectively schismatic under Henry VIII, effectively Protestant under Edward VI, and effectively Roman Catholic again under Mary I, before settling down to a unique 'Reformed and Catholic' compromise under Elizabeth. It is therefore acceptable (at least to all but the more extreme Anglo-Catholics), for pragmatic purposes, to group Anglican churches in the 'Protestant' strand, together with other churches that have formally repudiated the supremacy that the Roman Catholic Church accords to the Pope of Rome. (Some churches that call themselves 'Anglican' are not in communion with the See of Canterbury either, and to classify them as 'Catholic' would not be NPOV as they are only self-defined as such, without general acceptance. On the other hand, the See of Canterbury is now in communion with a number of European churches which are clearly Protestant.)Myopic Bookworm 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the Restoration movement doesn't view itself as Protestant, but they are best grouped there. Same with the Anabaptists and other groups. KHM03 14:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican church is indeed a bit of an anomaly, but it is usually grouped with the Protestant churches and sits best there. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some denominations that have sprung up in just the last one or two hundred years also shy away from being called Protestant because they weren't around during the Reformation and emphasize distinctions that weren't at issue then. All the same, based on common usage today these groups are also best grouped under Protestants, much like the Anglicans. Wesley 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, there is room on the figure for a distinct branch, forking (perhaps more than once) from the Catholic branch, which would encompass churches of a broadly 'catholic' tradition which are not in communion with Rome. This might include not only the Anglican Communion, but also the Anglican Continuing Churches, the Old Catholic Churches, and the Hussite Church of the Czech republic. It could perhaps be labelled as 'Episcopalian'. Myopic Bookworm 11:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions for Discussion

• The three strands of early Christianity - Jewish, Gnostic & Pauline
• A proposal that the term "heresy" should never be used except when refering explicitly to a POV (because, by definition, the identification of heresy is a POV (This is not quite the same as the suggestion made above))
• How about mention of some theories and explanations for the existence and historical success of mainstream Christianity as a belief system (eg sociologigal, scientific, Bogomil, - probably several more if we put our minds to it)

Hope these sound reasonable Trollwatcher 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• There were definitely at least three strands of Christianity. In my version we state this: "...emerged as a Jewish sect around the followers of Jesus Christ, but is followed by the development of three distinct divisions within the Christian movement of the 1st century AD: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who generally believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). I also want it known that each version of Christianity believed themselves to be the one true church, and were highly critical each other. Some were more tolerant, too.
• (middle comment moved to new heading)
• I'm all for explanations to describe the success of Christianity. It's not a pretty picture as it spread through a lot of violence. I also think we should note that since the Enlightenment and with the advance of scientific understanding, the grip of Christianity has been steadily declinging while the ranks and influence of Atheists has been increaseing. :) Giovanni33 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The three divisions proposed are one way to look at things, but not the only way. I think it's established that Gnosticism predates Christianity, so when we find Gnostic Christians, one has to ask whether they're a division of Christianity or a division of Gnosticism? Also, the extent of any division between "Pauline" Christians and "Jewish" Christians is debatable, and not nearly as clear-cut as you suggest. Paul was a Jew, and even 'Pauline' Christians kept many Jewish practices, while Peter himself, also a Jew and supposedly a 'Jewish' Christian, was also bishop in Antioch and later Rome. More than one group claimed to be followers of James. On the other hand, I think I at least partly agree with your proposals regarding how we approach "heresy." Wesley 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Giovanni suggests they were not similar. The similarities you point out as a way to show they are not as clear cut in being different as you think Giovanni suggests refinforces the fact that they were all Christian movements but with enough differences to identify them as distinct versions. Naturally they must have influenced one another as they all were influenced by the same core ideas, hence all being Christians. A good analogy between the differences, as Giovanni has alluded, to the various branches within Christianity today is helpful. Today some claim to have more acient roots, while others are offshoots. Yet, despite their great similiarities and mutual influences, we are able to identify them as distinct and we do not discounted as all being under the same umbrella; We can not do this with early Christianity anymore than we should do so today in our modern era of thousands of varients. I think we have a consensus with regard to how to employ NPOV language for "heresies."

Btw, I work full time so while I find the time to catch up in my readings here to follow the discussions, I don't always have time to contribute a great deal. Still, I find most resonence for my pov with the arguments Giovani has made. I am in basic agreement with his perspective. And, no, I am not his socketpuppet, so lets not start down that path again please. I think we should let cited sources of persons of authority settle disputes of questions of fact, instead of we happen to think. If what we think is right it should be easy to supply a citation of said fact. None of us is always right. Issues of NPOV language, we are better able to settle with arguments. MikaM 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, that same logic could be applied to Jewish Christianity. e.g. "I think it's established that Judaism predates Christianity, so when we find Jewish Christians, one has to ask whether they're a division of Christianity or a division of Judaism?" joshbuddy^talk 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy, I would agree that in many respects the Christianity of the first several centuries did look and act like a division or sect of Judaism. Wesley 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I must not have made myself clear, so I'll try again. I don't believe it's at all clear that Gnostic Christians and Pauline Christians had the "same core ideas" or even the same main influences. Adopting Gio's nomenclature for the moment, Pauline and Jewish Christians both clearly derived mainly from Judaism, keeping the Old Testament as scripture, and adding to that the life and teachings of Jesus, etc. The Gnostic Christians did not derive from Judaism at all, did not accept the Old Testament except as perhaps an account of an evil demiurge's actions rather than of a good god. They began with gnostic ideas and then incorporated some names and ideas from Christianity. Regarding "Jewish Christians", if he means the group in Jerusalem led by James, who initially wanted to keep circumcision etc. as described in Acts, that's one thing. If he means certain Jewish sects that acknowledged Jesus as a human teacher but not as God, such as some "Essenes", I would think it doubtful that they were truly associated with either James or John the Baptist, though they may have claimed such association. If their own claims are to be taken at face value, then we must at least also take conflicting claims at face value, that "Pauline" Christians were also associated with the Jerusalem Jewish Christians. If we truly want to treat all as equal, then I suppose we would have to present different ways of categorizing the early groups, because any given way of categorizing them is itself a POV. Wesley 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, that's an excellent point: "If we truly want to treat all as equal, then I suppose we would have to present different ways of categorizing the early groups, because any given way of categorizing them is itself a POV." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is we lack knowelege (thanks to the Christians who burned the books, and tried to wipe them out), in order to be certain about the nature of their beliefs. Contemporary research does indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy and thus no heresy either. Instead, many opinions on religious matters, including gnosis, flourished side by side. Certainly there were disagreements, but to arbitrarily extrapolate standards of falsity and authenticity from these polemics against "heresies," is not justified, which is my main point.

As far as its origins, there is controversy. Was it indeed no more than a heretical offshoot, an eccentric and aberrant branch of Christianity as the mainline Christians had argued to paint it a heresy, or was it the latest expression of a long, mostly hidden tradition that had existed for centuries before the Christian era? No one has answered these questions with final authority. What is clear is that there were several schools of Gnostisicm, itself, and its probably that some of these had more acient lines while others were offshoots from a developing Christian school who were just stronlgy influenced, hence a Chsitian Gnostistism.

The heresiologists paint a picture of that gnosticism marked a heretical deviation from a fully-formed orthodox Christianity in the three centuries immediately following Christ's death, but the propagandist nature of these polemics can't be trusted. The availability of original texts not only allowed an unsullied transmission of gnostic ideas, but also demonstrated the fluidity of early Christian scripture and, by extension, Christianity itself. This is a point that the scholar Bentley Layton:'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, xviii).

Thus, although it is still correct (from the mainstream consensus) to speak of early Christianity as a single tradition, it is also a complex network of competing sects and individual parties, which express their contrasting natures through differences in their scriptural interests. These differences may have arisen as much from differences in cultural, social milieus, the coexistence of essentially different theological conceptions of Jesus, as well as the differences in the philosophical or symbolic systems in which early Christian writers might have expressed themselves.

The Nag Hammadi library offers an intriguing source of texts. 'Orthodox Christian doctrine of the ancient world - and thus of the modern church - was partly conceived of as being what gnostic scripture was not' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures). Thus a study of Gnostic scripture might also increase our knowledge of nascent orthodoxy, the intentions of the orthodox formulators, the effect of social setting on early Christian expression, and the Judaic foundations it rests upon.

A review of Valentinus (100–175 CE/AD) who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both Alexandria and Rome, whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development would be good. Valentinianism flourished throughout the early centuries. The school is known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 94).

Jumping forward many centuries in the Languedoc, famous at the time for its high culture, tolerance and liberalism, Catharism took root and gained more and more adherents, which is thought to be another Gnostic influenced Christianity. By the early thirteenth century it was probably the majority religion in the area, supported by the nobility as well as the common people. Even in the Roman Church some of their own priests had become Cathars. Ofcourse we know what happned to the--they were wiped out and murdered, when the pope sent the inquisition against them, and the "holy" army wiped out the whole population-- some 500,000 Languedoc men women and children were massacred--leaders were gathered and burned alive, etc. This goes back to my extreme intolerance point,which is one I insist is made, as well. [15]

"During the 2nd Century, several systems of Gnosticism grew in Alexandria and the Mediterranean area, most of which were closely related to Christianity. This was a period in which Gnosticism came to focus on Gnosis itself, as a goal for Gnostics to reach (Edwards). This century was also a period when Pagan, Jewish and Christian forms of Gnosticism had the most influence on the doctrine and structure of the Christian Church, even though critics treated it a Christian heresy (Crim: 277). Valentinus and another strong Gnostic leader, Marcion, were the most feared by the Catholic church (Crim: 278 and Rudolph: 296). They offered an alternate or rival form of Christianity, which caused the church to begin setting up barriers to Gnosticism (McManners: 27)." From this site univerity site that I found scholarly and balnaced: [16]

The site RT, seems to describe the divisions similarly, to how I did.[17]

"Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from different pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. The site They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity: the other two being:

The remnants of the Jewish Christian sect which was founded by Jesus' disciples after his execution and centered in Jerusalem, and The churches started by Paul, that were eventually to grow and develop into "mainline" Christianity by the end of the third century.

By the second century CE, many very different Christian-Gnostic sects had formed within the Roman Empire at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Some Gnostics worked within Jewish Christian and mainline Christian groups, and greatly influenced their beliefs from within. Others formed separate communities. Still others were solitary practitioners." Giovanni33 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you seem to have cut and pasted the above from Gnosticism, What Is a Gnostic?, and a couple of other websites. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that, but I don't quite see the point. It doesn't seem to be relevent to Wesley's or my remarks, but maybe I've misunderstood. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Giovanni has given a good outline of some of the more important points in the outline of Gnosticism and Christiainity, esp. Gnostic Christianity. Wesley says that Gnosticism predates Christianity, but as Giovanni shows that is not definitive as there were different schools of Gnosticism, and ofcourse some of the ideas predates Christianity, just as the ideas within Christianity proper predates itself, too. He also makes clear the difficulty with categorizing in any definitive way, since its really not known. What we do know is that there were those who called thesmselves Christian but were clearly of a Gnostistic variety, or heavy influence, yet we should not say they were not Christians. Infact the nature of early Christianity itself was diverse. To quote Giovanni above, who quotes "Bentley Layton:'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, xviii). This supports the view for a need to have a great degree "relativity" when talking about Christianity. I especially liked this site that Giovani provided: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/gnosticism.html MikaM 05:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that has bothered me is that we keep citing scholars (here, at Jesus, Jesus-Myth, and elsewhere) who are virtually unknown or way out there in terms of being fringe and (at times) rejected by academia, or we cite scholars of related fields (Gnosticism, philosophy, whatever) without citing scholars of Christianity or Christian history. Now, yes, there's an overlap at times. But if these views are accepted, if they are more than just "on the fringe", surely we can find some scholars of Christian history who support the ideas.

At any rate, I think much of the discussion is moot. On this article, which has to cover so much of Christianity in a relatively small space, we just don't have the space to go into any kind of detail about the early Church, other than a few sentences. So...was the Gnostic issue a big enough issue in that period to mention? Is there a scholarly consensus on this? I know, for instance, we have to mention Arianism, which was a big deal in the Nicene era. But was Gnosticism really that big? Or should we instead mention it in more detail at History of Christianity, Early Christianity, and (of course) Gnosticism? KHM03 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your right that this level of details does not go into the article. Intead it merits just a sentence or two in the appropriate section/subject dealing with these issues. However, how to represent this depends a lot on understanding the deails, which are given here as part of making arguments for a certain kind of understanding, which could then reflect how its represented in the article. About the use of scholars, I beg to differ. These are valid scholars in their repsective field, who are authorities on these early Christian groups. A scholar in Gnosticism is just as much a scholar in Christitanity. Also, related fields where they really must cross over are equally valid. Their scholarship should be respected. These views are not rejected by the mainstream of academia, either. They are pretty mainstream, infact. Layton, that I used above is a good example of a respected scholar, and so is Elaine Pagels, who I've referenced before and youve already admitted was an acceptable scholar to you. About Layton's academic credencials are here: [18] 1972 Harvard, Ph.D., highest honors. Dissertation: "The Treatise on Resurrection (from the Coptic Gnostic Library): Edition, Translation, and Commentary." Director: Helmut Koester.

1970, 1972—1975, private study of Coptic and linguistics with H. J. Polotsky, Jerusalem. 1963, Harvard, A.B. summa cum laude. 1983— : Professor of Religious Studies (Ancient Christianity) and Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (Coptic), Yale University. Affiliated faculty in departments of Classics and History. 1978—83: Associate Professor, Yale. 1976—78: Assistant Professor, Yale. 1971—76: Visiting Professor (Early Christian Literature), École biblique et archéologique française, Jerusalem. Subjects taught History of Christianity from the origins to Islam especially ecclesiastical history and literature related graduate seminars tutorials. Gnostic religion and literature. Techniques of Greek epigraphy (inscriptions on stone). Coptic language and theory of syntax. Critical edition of texts. Ancient manuscript studies. Ancient Monasticism. Historiography. Giovanni33 17:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But if these views are mainstream and widely accepted, it couldn't be too difficult to name some scholars of Christian history who agree with them. Why must we always use scholars in these related fields (where, granted, there is overlap)? KHM03 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to... If you look quite closely at that (fairly impressive) list of academic credentials above, you'll see that Layton seems to pretty well qualify as a scholar of early Christian history as well as a scholar of Gnosticism. More than that, you might note that topic of this particular part of the conversation is the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity (based on Wesley's comments above). The best people to answer this question are, of course, scholars of early Christian history and of Gnosticism (which, again Layton seems to be).

As for the relevence of Gnosticism, well, arguably, it is much more important than Arianism (since the homoousia doctrine was pretty firmly established after Constantinople I and the Gnostic influence carried on well into the 8th century and perhaps beyond). In any case, all of this is pretty irrelevant to the discussion of how to best apply NPOV... Ig0774 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll disagree there. While Gnosticism was certainly an issue, the Arianism issue may be the most important issue in Church history (post-first century). Also, we're guessing at a lot of what went on as far as Gnosticism is concerned (albeit educated guesses), whereas we have a far greater historical understanding of the Arianism debates (granted, mostly from an orthodox perspective). KHM03 10:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

MikaM and Giovanni33 are emphasizing the great diversity in what they call early Christianity, saying that it calls for a relativistic approach. I won't argue that there were a lot of different ideas and groups calling themselves Christian or using at least some of the names and terms from Christianity, but that should not be taken to mean that there was no established orthodoxy, or that early Christianity was pluralistic. If there were not an established orthodoxy, then apologists from Paul to Irenaeus could not have appealed to their readers to continue in what they had already learned, to continue in the faith of the apostles. (And would Paul have asked his readers to continue in the faith of the apostles if he thought all the Jerusalem Christians still insisted on circumcision and denied Christ's deity?) If there were no such things as heresies, or false teachings, we would not find so many writings saying that there were. Right or wrong, some influential contemporaries certainly thought that heresies existed, beginning with Paul and John in the New Testament and continuing with Ignatius and other early writers. Marcion also thought that false teachers were about, and so he rejected three gospels and edited a fourth, Luke, to remove those corrupt Jewish influences from it. So it wasn't just the "orthodox" Christians that were intolerant of opposing views. Gnosticism was important to Christianity's formation in that it forced them to address the question of which texts were authoritative or even acceptable (especially Marcion of Sinope), and it forced them to spell out their theology in greater detail and answer questions raised by gnostic teachers; questions that had not been answered earlier because there was no need to answer them until the questions were raised. Wesley 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But there was no esablished orthodoxy, although I'd agree Christianity was never pluralistic. The experts I referenced above state that contemporary research indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy. It was with the Council of Nicaea in 325 (convened during the reign of the Emperor Constantine; 272–337) and the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397, which progressively cemented Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire, that a structurally coherent and crystallized form of orthodox Christianity began to emerge. Central to the formation of orthodoxy was the creation of a binding and coherent scriptural 'canon', which was to be strictly observed by the adherents of that church. As I've argued, these creations of an orthodoxy had a lot to do with many factors unrelated to authenticity, or truth, but rather power and politics. Also, the fact is that all the different Christian versions each called all the others teachings false; every version of earlier Christianity believed they were the one true Christianity, calling the others false teachings. So, other than the core beliefs, it varied greatly and there was no unified orthodoxy, yet established. Its only in retrospect knowing very well the resulting orthoxy that did result with all the polemetics against the "heresies," along with the destruction of the other views (burning their books, and wiping them out), that we can look back and think we see an orthodoxy before there was one.

Also, lets dispense with the notion that only the orthodox version was intolerant. It's a strawman, that I keep running into. I thought I made myself very clear on the matter. I've never argued that the non-mainline Christians were not also intolerant. There is no tolerant vs. intolerant dichotomy. What the point has always been that the resulting orthodoxy was particularly intolerant in both its outlook and its acutal practices. I have provided references to support this point. Str1977 has disputed it, but he has yet to provide a single references to support his claim despite my asking for it each time---while I have done so to support my claim.

As this historial fact about the nature of the resulting orthodoxy has had profound ramifications, in ushering in the dark ages, it is vitally important that its included. I still think my origianl pasage about this point puts the matter in strongest terms, and I did so by referecing three respected scholars, and stated it as an attributed statment of fact according to these scholars. If its disputed, then lets see a counter quote: "According to American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler, the resulting orthodoxy "emphasised faith, produced a thinking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"), a reliance on the miraculous and supernatural, under the old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed." Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. To support this source as one that is a reputable one, I offered a further source: "historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14."

Again, if the super intolerant nature of the resulting orthodoxy is thought not to be true, then lets see the some sources aruging the other side. There are a couple of other facts that I think the article might mention which are important historical milestones in this connection: In 0382 Emperor Theodosius the Great passed laws making heresy punishable by death; in 0393 Christian conquerors abolished the Greek Olympics. Pelagius (c. 0354 - 0420), a British monk, was excommunicated. Pelagius denied original sin and the need for baptism, asserting that if God asked men to do good, then they must be capable of doing good on their own. He was condemned by Augustine. March 10, 0418 Jews were officially excluded from holding public offices in the Roman Empire. April 30, 0418 Roman Emperor Honorius issued a decree denouncing Pelagianism, defined as a Christian heresy which taught that humans can do good of their own free will, independent of God's grace. Giovanni33 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree...in the same way that Arianism was important because it forced the development of an authoritative orthodox Christology. Early Christianity was not monolithic, in that there were several groups, but there was one primary, orthodox group (and, I think, Arianism was the only system to really challenge orthodoxy for dominance). We can (and should) certainly mention these other groups, but let's not give them more attention than we ought to. KHM03 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On Heresy

• A proposal that the term "heresy" should never be used except when refering explicitly to a POV (because, by definition, the identification of heresy is a POV (This is not quite the same as the suggestion made above)) Trollwatcher 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your proposal of the term "heresy" is indeed not the same as my suggestion above. While I agree that the label of "heresy" is a POV, I say it should be included as long as we report using NPOV language that such and such labeled such and such a "heresy." Historians use the term and those that have been historically defined as such (rightly or wrongly)has been established. But we should not assume it's true and legitimate, and never take the voice of the winner. That is POV. This means allowing a broad defintion of Christianity that encompasses its different versions. My opponents want to adopt the POV of the winners to say they were the only true Christian group, and then speak from their voice to the exclusion of others. That is what is unacceptable POV, to me. So lets not deny that there were other versions, and that calling them heretical was a matter of being defined as such by a particular version that was particularly intolerant and wanted to wipe them out of existence.

Giovanni33 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I at least partly agree with your proposals regarding how we approach "heresy." Wesley 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus with regard to how to employ NPOV language for "heresies." MikaM 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that I agree with Giovanni's point of POV. You cannot only take the winner's side, but also that of the losers. NPOV is relativism, treat all as equal, do not be biased for or against any of those viewpoints.

KV 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth making the distinction, in using the term 'heresy', between descriptions of purely historical groups (however much one may sympathize with their position) and use of the term with contemporary reference. In the context of history, 'heretic' is not a term of abuse. For example, to call marginalized medieval groups 'heretics' is a historical statement about their position as against the church authorities of the day. They can't be offended by the term: they're all long dead, and to impose 'neutrality' on their behalf seems to me not NPOV but merely PC ('political correctness'). The concept of 'orthodoxy' has always been a powerful one in Christian thought (even if not universal), and the contrasting term 'heretical' is often unavoidable, though in some contexts it may be better to use the term 'heterodox'. Giovanni33 said: My opponents want to adopt the POV of the winners to say they were the only true Christian group, and then speak from their voice to the exclusion of others. That is what is unacceptable POV, to me. But there is not really any POV that can be characterized as 'the winners', since there is scarecely an agreed modern Christian POV. The only distinction that can be made (and even that is a bit shaky) is between communities that survived and those that didn't.

To refer to modern Christians as 'heretics' because they happen to hold differing theological views is clearly not neutral. The term 'heretic' may be justly applied (let us say, for the purpose of argument) to present-day Methodists by the Armenian Orthodox Church, from their POV: but this would be too POV a term to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. In the terms of the mainstream Christian Church of the 6th century, my own beliefs are undoubtedly heretical: that's just how it is, I'm happy to admit it, and I'm not offended if anyone points it out. But I am a little put out to be called 'heretic' to my face by modern Christians of other traditions (or even my own). Myopic Bookworm 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the term should not be applied, or used. But, it should be done in the manner of reporting it, not asserting it correctness. That is why a simple adjustment reporting who defined who as a heresy, is fine with me. This is NPOV, consistent with the notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

So as you can see, if one is endorsing a view as correct, its a violation of NPOV. If one is stating, implying, insinuating, or subtly massaging the reader into believing that a particular view is correct, its violating NPOV. It doesn't matter how strongly one believes a view is correct, or how much one thinks something is true. Giovanni33 13:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing

I wanted to point out something that should probably be included. Christianity had a belief in reincarnation, which was removed as a doctrine at the Council of Constanople in 550 CE. This is referenced in Manly P. Hall's book The Hermetic Marriage on page 234.

KV 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to the council that condemned certain writings of Origen? It's probably more accurate to say that Origen, and later some (all?) Origenists, had a belief in reincarnation, or something like it. I don't believe it was ever a universally held dogma though. Wesley 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I know I'm discounted as a sockpuppet - I'd like to say that I agree with Giovanni and KV on pretty much everything they've said. Also, if we we limit ourselves to universally held dogmas we can probably keep the article down to one line - something along the lines "There have never been any universally held dogmas in Christianity" Trollwatcher 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear. What I meant was that reincarnation was never a dogma adopted and promulgated by the "Catholic / Orthodox" "mainstream" church. Or by any other sect that was distinct from that church, to my knowledge. It was the opinion of Origen, and some later theologians who agreed with it; they just failed to persuade the rest of the church they belonged to to adopt the same opinion. Examples of "universally held dogmas" include the teachings expressed in the Nicene Creed, which was adopted, amended and later affirmed by councils that were at least thought to represent all of Christianity at that time. Some things that were widely believed by that same church were not held as dogmas because they were considered non-essential, such as the idea that Mary committed no sin. It was a majority opinion, but most people even then didn't see a great danger in thinking that Mary did sin. Wesley 16:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm removing the tag from the article -- while people may well always argue over details of Christianity, the lever of disagreements does not call into question the actual neutral point of view of this important article. BCorr|Брайен 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also removing the npov tag from the history section for the same reason. Alienus, please don't revert without discussion again. BCorr|Брайен 11:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, here. This page was just recently locked due to do a bitter dispute about the nuetrality of the content; all sides have been holding discussions, in good faith, without continuing the mostly unproductive edit war that has been going on. Meanwhile the page has been left untouched in a version that I regard is POV. The dispute here is more than just people "always arguing over details," its about what is a balanced and NPOV presentation. If the POV tags are removed, I will start to effect back the changes to make it NPOV. Giovanni33 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this time fellow editors can work with the text, and point out issues, instead of simply blindly reverting in whole to an outdated version. I call on all the editors who may have been scared away by false allusions to being socketpuppets to come back to help ensure that the text is presented according to your best understanding of NPOV and per the consensus we've been reaching here. Giovanni33 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You have yourself reverted the article twice this morning. I don't believe the edits you have applied are supported by any consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is more consensus for it the other version. I don't believe the version you reverted is supported by any consensus.Giovanni33 15:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do know the removal of the NPOV tags was not done by consensus, and I suggest there be a reversion to the last version they were in. KV 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the tags should stay for now, section-by-section. The goal is to get rid of them but not by edit-warring them away but by backing up contentious claims by citations and continuing work until everyone can mostly live with the text. Haukur 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I will add the tags, again, and keep the changes I made, while we still work out the differences. I think we are coming to a consensus, and my changes do reflect substancial agreement here with content and NPOV language. Giovanni33 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-added the POV tag. Now, I'd like to iron out the changes that editors feel nees to be made the the current version as it stands, so it can be removed. That is also my goal. I do think the removal of the POV tag was premature, because although we've been talking a lot here about our disagreements, we have not translated that into actual changes to the article. Seems we should make the changes, based on agreements and consensus first, and then when everyone is happy we can remove the POV tags. Am I right? Giovanni33

It's very obvious that the tags should stay. Might I make a suggestion to help things along. I've noticed a great deal of confusion being caused by mixing up what we want to say with how we want to say it. Why don't we all try to agree on the points that should be made. Then when that's agreed we can work out as a separate exercise how to say it. It might save us going round in circles, whether by accident or design. Trollwatcher 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a second suggestion too. I've noticed the argument being used that a point should be excluded on the grounds that the article is already too long. This argument is invoked only for a certain type of edit and usually at the end of a long wrangle over whether the point is in question is valid. Why don't we agree that all valid points should be included and if that makes the article too long, then we'll just carve off chunks to make new articles and leave summaries in this one. Seems fair to me. Trollwatcher 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)