Talk:Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Christianity is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2004.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Christianity:

Descriptivism vs Prescriptivism[edit]

This article seems to do a good job of describing how academics with theology degrees think about Christianity, but does it describe Christianity as it is actually practiced? In the United States, which is the most populous Christian country in the world, Christianity is a highly political religion. That often manifests itself in Christianity's activist approach to abortion and homosexuality. Obviously, the US is not alone in that regard. Yet, neither abortion nor homosexuality appear in this article. How is that even possible? Dansan99 (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely sticks to what mainstream academic and journalistic sources describe. There are 2.4 billion Christians on the planet, and only about 0.2 billion of them are in America. About 8%. What a disproportionately vocal minority in American Christianity does and encourages other nations to do is not necessarily representative of the rest of the Christian world (half of which is Catholic, not Conservative Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant).
As it is, the article takes a descriptive approach. Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:NOTHOWTO, Wikipedia does not take prescriptive approaches. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The are separate articles about Christianity and abortion, Christianity and homosexuality, Christianity in the United States and Christianity and politics. So each of the mentioned topics are covered, just not in this article. Goto Category:Christianity to browse more. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fivefold Ministry[edit]

I have heard many people say the Fivefold Ministry found in Ephesians 4vs 111 ceased how true is this?? T.B Man-G (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. Talk pages are for article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Descended into Hell?[edit]

Hey I think the intro is a little biased when it says that Christ descended into hell. I honestly don't know whose doctrine that is, but it is wrong by the way. Christ is no demon, and so there was no need for him to go to hell. So try to be mindful of Christian beliefs that don't fit your brand of Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talkcontribs) 13:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to post a comment contradicting your statement based on the Apostles' Creed, but discovered in some quick research that the statement "He descended into hell" was not in the earliest version of the Creed. Furthermore, while the Bible unequivocally states that Jesus went into the afterlife ("sheol" or "hades", which in Christian theology encompasses both "heaven" and "hell"), there is little support for the idea he went to hell. See for example [[1]] and [[2]] - not academic sources to be sure but they are adequate for a theological question.
Therefore I recommend changing the lede from "descended into hell" to "entered into the afterlife", or similar. Note that I do NOT recommend changing the Apostles' Creed section as it is accurate. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Please look at the articles for "Harrowing of Hell" and "Holy Saturday" to see that this is believed by most Christians that the concept has been around since at least the second century. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Links: Harrowing of Hell, Holy Saturday Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Both articles support my position. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh??? They both contradict your position other than acknowledging that a few Christians reject the doctrine (Harrowing_of_Hell#Rejection_of_the_doctrine) which is a very small section in the article! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh?? Did you actually read "Harrowing of Hell"? Specifically, and I quote, "After his death, the soul of Jesus was supposed to have descended into the realm of the dead, which the Apostles' Creed calls "hell" in the old English usage. The realm into which Jesus descended is called Sheol or Limbo by some Christian theologians to distinguish it from the hell of the damned". That is exactly my point - he is NOT believed to have descended into hell; he is believed to have gone to Sheol, aka the afterlife, which encompasses both heaven and hell in theology. It even addresses the Apostles' Creeds' misuse of the term "hell". In short, the article makes clear, right in the lede, that it is in agreement with my position. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
[…] not academic sources to be sure but they are adequate for a theological question. Why would theological questions have a lower standard with respect to WP:V and WP:RS? Graham (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are reputable theological sources not adequate for the addressing of theological questions? I just pulled the first two Google hits but, as I hinted, a more thorough search shows literally hundreds of sites and articles, many more reputable than the two I posted, supporting my position. In fact, I haven't yet found a single reputable article that claims Christ actually descended into Hell (aka the realm of the punished); they all clearly state he went to the afterlife, aka Sheol, aka both heaven and hell.
This comment was an attempt to defuse the inevitable conversation along the lines of "you must have secular sources; theological sources are not appropriate for WP". I have debated that issue ad nauseum with other editors; despite showing their position conflicts with WP policy they have refused to budge on multiple occasions. So I am sick of that debate. A reputable theological scholar is more than sufficient for addressing a theological question. Sure, the first two sources I picked probably don't qualify as "reputable theological scholars", and I acknowledge that. But I just picked the first two Google links; I'm sure some of the hundreds of others come from good sources.Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't suggest they were inadequate (nor am I saying the reverse, for that matter). I just don't understand what is meant by "adequate for a theological question". Does that mean you have different, higher standards for non-theological questions? Graham (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not at all...I just didn't want to have the discussion I've had half a dozen times before about "this person is a theologic scholar...you can't use him as a source, even for theological questions". :) I apologize for assuming that's where we were going this time. BTW I did a bit more reading, and found a quote from AT Robertson (a noted scholar) who sheds more light on this. He said (and I quote): "Hades is the unseen world, Hebrew Sheol [...] It does not mean the place of punishment, though both heaven and the place of torment are in Hades (Luke 16:23). Death and Hades are strictly parallel terms: he who is dead is in Hades." (Word Pictures in the New Testament III, 1930). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, Sinebot is FAST! I tried to fix my missing sig 15 seconds after making the above edit but it was edit-conflicted out. Oh well. Anyway, rereading my opening comment here, I can see how I caused so much confusion - it was very poorly worded and I apologize for that. Again, I merely was trying to state that authoritative theological sources should be sufficient for addressing theological questions on WP, provided of course they generally adhere to WP's guidelines on trustworthy sources. Since no one here has questioned that, my prior experience of having to defend that multiple times is moot, so I'm sorry for having sidetracked this conversation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Face-smile.svg Graham (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)