Talk:Christian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity.
To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.

[edit] Older posts

I'd like to know why "the message" is in italics. I can't see the reason behind this.

I must say, I was expecting to find either a Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, or perhaps even Fundamentalist Protestant bias in this article, but I find essentially nothing that seems to discount either side.

Is there really much more to say within this article? Perhaps the stub tag is unnecessary?

This would be better as a redirect to Christianity. - SimonP 18:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is meant to be article about the people, along the lines of Jew and Muslim. There is more discussion at Talk:Christian (disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Shouldn't the history sections be removed? They're already covered under Christianity. Perhaps there should be more on the various uses of the term "Christian." For example, many Muslims in Muslims countries consider the US to be a "Christian" nation. This use of the word isn't addressed in the article. barefootmeg 7 Feb 2005 (I'm completely new to wiki so please excuse my fumbling with the code and protocols.)

Why are "Christian" and "Christianity" seperate articles, yet "Lutheran" redirects to "Lutheranism" and "Protestant" redirects to "Protestantism"? I feel we should be consistent: either do as SimonP suggests, or write seperate articles for the Lutheran and Protestant peoples a la Netoholic. -Archola Sept 2, 2005 9:02 AM CDT

I just noticed that this page tops Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the most linked to disambiguation pages, and by a large margin at that. --Joy [shallot] 20:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That report's a little old, After moving the disambiguation page to Christian (disambiguation) a few weeks ago, I ran through those 1900 links and pointed them as needed. It took a few days :), but most everything incoming to this page refers to a "Christian person". -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

That's good, although there's still way too many links pointing here for a page whose content is, well, puny... --Joy [shallot]

page is protected at the moment, so i can't do it myself, but i think maybe rather than saying that the pope is the most famous christian, it might be better to call him the most prominent christian.

I'd add Billy Graham to the list of prominant, present day Christians. I'd also remove Joseph Smith from the list of Christians. He's a Mormon. barefootmeg 7 Feb 2005

I must agree, Joseph Smith doesn't belong on this list any more than Mohammad does. Biases aside, accuracy is paramount. Sweetfreek 06:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying Mormons aren't Christians? They worship Christ.

Normally I would not rail about with my prejudices, but I will say that I try my best to avoid associating myself with the pagan sludge that passes for Christianity. Even that said, I refuse to be inaccurate with my assessment of Mormons--they are not Christians by any credible account. Moreover, if I told any of you what I do know about Mormons, I would be in much more trouble than Salman Rushdie. Sweetfreek 22:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know this is an old post, but it needs a response. My, my, my, Sweetfreek you do have an opinion, but the only thing that is certain about what you have stated is that it is just an opinion. As a member of The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints I state with absolute certainty that the LDS people are Christian. Not only in name, but in deed, which does appear something that might be unknown to individuals of your ilk. You may state whatever you like on your personal "church" page; however, on WIKI we strive to write in a strictly NPOV manner. Latter-day Saints worship Jesus CHrist as the only Begotton Son of the God the Father. Belief in Christ is the only path that leads back to the Father. Christ lived and died on the cross so that our sins might be forgiven; His blood paid for my sins, your sins, as well as those of all people on earth. He is the personal Savior of Mankind and He lives today. When you start trying to define what a Christian is, stick to what Christ stated was a disciple and you will be right becuase it will be what Christ thought. However, if you try to define a Christian by 4th century teachings you will only achieve a definition what men "think" is historical christiainty. Storm Rider 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, to use anyone's definition of Christian is POV. For purposes of this article, anyone who considers themselves as following Christ is a Christian. Playing this "I know something secret about Mormons BS is academically garbage, and your kind can never back up such statements without mindless namecalling. If you are adding or taking away from the definition of Christianity in the Bible, you're adding or taking away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you know what happens then... Non-nicean Christians and non-Protestant Christians (including Mormons, Catholics, JWs, etc.) are still Christians by any non-POV measure. --Mrcolj 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen up, Dabbler, but if you're going to remove Tolkien (the man who converted Lewis), then by extension you must remove (I'll assume "seperate" into another category) every other Catholic on the list! I'll grant you that there may be adequate reason behind creating a seperate page for Catholics, but until then, leave them here.Sweetfreek 04:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

note* it was George MacDonald who Lewis said converted him, not Tolkien. ; ) Just had to add that. --Bob the Great

Plus - Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic--Mikepope 04:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(8-2-05) Why did someone remove the second paragraph of the article? I added it to demonstrate the Biblical philosophy on "what a Christian is." The paragraph was about how one becomes a Christian and is very relevant to the article. Describing how one becomes a Christian is the essence behind what a Christian is, is it not? I think I will add the paragraph again unless someone objects. If someone does object than let us discuss it. It is factual that ALL New Testament conversions were done as adult baptisms and that the New Testament description of what a Christian is, is essentially someone who has been baptized as a repenting adult.

[edit] Removing Tolkien

Tolkien was removed because, though he was a Christian, and a teacher, he did not teach Christianity in the way that the other listed persons did. He taught English.

I am thinking about expanding the stub "Modern Times" and putting in Tolkien there as a Christian who was a popular writer - along with G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and possibly Charles Williams.

His Catholicism had nothing to do with the removal.

Stolzi 20:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the writings of the Inklings perhaps, whatever the case they are very highly respected writers for their influnence in the fantasy genre.

[edit] Edit war?

What's going on with the latest edits and reversions by User:Rdsmith4 vs. 142.179.53.247 and User:Wahl? The version Rdsmith4 reverted were certainly no vandalism.
Sebastian 06:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

User Wahl here: I was 142.179.53.247 then I made an account. I don't understand why my contribution was reverted, but I created a new section to separate contributions.

I would like to comment that this article should emphasize the meaning of "Christian" and not be about "Church". I realize they are closely linked, but there is a difference.

[edit] "Christian - a term for derision"

What is the evidence for this comment in the first paragraph of the article?

[edit] NPOVing needed on requirements for consideration as a Christian

"For the major Christian denominations, the only requirement to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Some Christian denominations require a formal committment to become a member. Other denominations (The Church of Christ, International Churches of Christ, and the Independent Christian Churches) teach that the definition of a Christian is someone who has been baptized as a repenting adult “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” – (Matthew 28:19). For them, adult baptism is the transition from non-Christian to Christian."

THIS IS WAY NOT NPOV, AND IS IN FACT WRONG. What did the author consider to be a major denomination? Catholics (Roman and Eastern), Anglicans and Orthodox (and some Reformed / Protestants) consider only a person who has been baptized to be a Christian. One who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God but who has not yet been baptized is regarded as a catechumen. These churches make up the preponderance of Christianity by almost any definition (at least 75%).

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church

Similar statements can be found in the confessional documentation of many other churches: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]...

The following table is derived from a table at adherents.org, and represents a fairly recent breakdown of self-called Christians by denominational grouping.

Breakdown by Major Denominational Groupings
Branch	Number of Adherents	First Mechanism of Initiation
Catholic (Roman and Eastern)	1,050,000,000	Baptism
Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox	240,000,000	Baptism
African indigenous sects (AICs)	110,000,000	Various
Pentecostal	105,000,000	Faith Statement
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United	75,000,000	Baptism
Anglican	73,000,000	Baptism
Baptist	70,000,000	Faith Statement
Methodist	70,000,000	Faith Statement
Lutheran	64,000,000	Baptism
Jehovah's Witnesses	14,800,000	Non-trinitarian
Adventist	12,000,000	Non-trinitarian
Latter Day Saints	12,500,000	Non-trinitarian
Apostolic/New Apostolic	10,000,000	Faith Statement
Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement")	5,400,000	Baptism not necessary
New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.)	1,500,000	Various
Brethren (incl. Plymouth)	1,500,000	Statement of Faith
Mennonite	1,250,000	Statement of Faith
Friends (Quakers)	300,000	Non-trinitarian

Most of the denominationals groupings above consider Baptism to be the first step in Christian initiation, followed by Chrismation/Confirmation and Eucharist, with all baptized persons being nominal Christians.

Most? How do you consider five out of eighteen a majority?207.157.121.50 06:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Furthermore, most of these churches teach that infant Baptism to be appropriate and necessary, and that baptized infants are in fact Christians without regard to their ability to make a profession of faith.

Most churches that do not profess the necessity of trinitarian Baptism practice it regardless, and all churches which profess the necessity of Baptism incorporate a profession of faith in their corporate liturgy or worship, leading most self-nominal Christians to satisfy either criteria at some point.

I'm not saying that the currently present POV is not valid, but it must be qualified as a minority POV and balanced.

I am adding an NPOV template. This needs to be fixed, and I don't have time right now to do it.

--Mm35173 21:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a Catholic leaning on this article?

I just thought I would tackle this and see what was thought about this. I saw the below statement as being very much biased. Many other sects would make the same claim about Roman Catholocism.

          Today many modern Christians live their lives in relation to a community of      
          faith, usually a local church. These churches, with the exception of the Roman   
          Catholic church, stand in a variety of man-made traditions as a result of history."

I did not edit it out, but thought that was a pretty bad Bias.--69.153.227.37 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)nick

Hm, I should edit that out if someone hasn't gotten to it. That's definitely swapped around -- the protestant communion believes in the teachings of the Historical Church, and with the Word of God (Bible) as the primary source of authory. The Roman Catholic Church developed man-made traditions which added to it on equal authority with the Word of God, hence so many protestant splits (Martin Luther). Still, that segment should be edited out all together.--NWalterstorf 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thatcher and Blair

What is the point of noting especially these two prime ministers as Christian. Mr Blair is the current one, but why Mrs Thatcher? Legally, a prime minister is required to be Christian. Str1977 20:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What law requires a prime minister to be Christian? - Nunh-huh 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the PM has a say in appointing bishops of the CoE, he is supposed to be a member. It's a remains of the test act from the 17th century, which (then) obliged all civil servants and MPs to be Anglican. Str1977 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Supposed to be" and "legally required to be" are different things. My understanding is that there is nothing preventing a Muslim or Jewish Prime Minister, and therefore nothing legally preventing a non-Christian from being the person who "advises" the Queen whom she shall appoint as Archbishops in the Church of England. I'm interested to know if that's true or not. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on English law, but there used to be laws like this. Though have been cut back around 1830 (emancipation of Catholics and non-conformists), laws remained in regard to the Monarch himself, and his spouse, and the Lord Chancellor. I cannot positively state that this also applies to the PM, but I heard that it did. Now, my view is that the political government should not determine church appointments (the Queen should do it either by herself or with a special, non-partisan council), but as long as the PM has a say in this, I think it only logical if he has to be Anglican.

Anyway, my real point was, why highlight these two PMs when every PM since Rober Walpole was a Christian (at least nominally)? Str1977 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the only religious restrictions still current are that the monarch must not be Catholic, nor have married one, and be willing to enter into communion with the Church of England. I don't believe any restrictions on the Prime Minister have survived into the present. At present, the Queen's "power" to appoint bishops is pretty much limited to the power of saying "yes" to what the Prime Minister directs her to do<G>. The British have always had a sort of "improvisational" law, so if a "ticklish" situation were to arise (a Muslim PM and a need for a new Archbishop of Canterbury), they would simply improvise. I agree that I don't see any sense in mentioning Thatcher or Blair, or especially both. - Nunh-huh 01:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, there is no point, so I have 'been bold' and cut it out. If it is really that important to be included in *this particular* article, somebody will revert it back in. WLD 11:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, there can't really be any injunction against the Prime Minister being anything other than an Anglican Christian. Wasn't James Callaghan a (nominal) Catholic? And Michael Howard, the contender for the office in the last General Election, was Jewish. I don't remember hearing anything about a potential constitutional crisis in the event of him winning.

I'm sure there are loads of completely mad old laws on the British statute books, most of them anti-Catholic, and most of them are ignored. The only time anyone pays those old laws any intention is when it relates to a mad old institution like the monarchy. And even then, they make up new rules- as with the recent marriage of the Prince of Wales to a divorcee. seanjw 217.196.239.189 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, PM James Callaghan was a Baptist, but you've proved your point! 67.8.201.227 02:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Student 5 November 2006

[edit] Diametrically Opposed Beliefs

I will make some edits to the following paragraph:

The term "Christian" has been used by various groups of diametrically opposed beliefs to describe themselves. Some groups, such as Born Again Christians and others, use a very strict definition of "Christian". They believe to be Christian one must agree with the doctrines and creeds begun in 325 CE which they believe elucidate the essentials of the Christian faith. Other groups, particularly those classified as Restorationist reject these creeds as the doctrines of men.

I would interpret diametrically opposed beliefs to be one group believes Christ is the Son of God and the other group believes Christ was the son of Satan. That is diametrically opposed beliefs. I think what the editor intended was that groups within Christianity disagree with each other to the point of accusing others to be heretical. However, I think they have exaggerated and misrepresented the actual status. Storm Rider 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do you believe in Christianity..?

I have an important question & want an answer... "HOW MANY GODS DO CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN..?"

someone smart will answer..."Trinity..the Father,Son & Holy Spirit" of course i know that..but those are three & i thought that christians are monotheisms...Are they...?

Christians are monotheists because they believe in one God. Period. They also believe that this God exists in three persons/hypostases. This is hard to grasp and you might think it paradox or absurd, but that's what Christians believe.

and another important Q.:jesus is the son of god. right..? then why ADAM is not..?

Because, according to the Christian faith, in Jesus Christ God (more exactly the eternal word of God) himself became man. Jesus is fully human and in that regard can be compared to Adam (or any other human being) but Jesus is also fully God. Adam however never was divine but merely a creature.

also another very imp. Q.: if i believed you for a minute that jesus is really god's son...

"HOW ROMANS COULD CRUCIFY THE SON OF GOD..?"

Because He let it happen because it was according to God's plan. As Jesus himself said "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" (Matthew 26,53f)

and i need someone smart to tell me "IF THE SON OF GOD SUFFERED FROM PAIN THEN HOW COME HE COULD REVEAL PAIN FROM HIS BELIEVERS...?"

I don't understand what you mean with "reveal" (maybe "relief" or "deliver" is the word) - there are various theories of "how" Christ's life, death and resurrection relate to our salvation. His life teaches us how to live, his death payed our penalty and sharing in his death we will also share in his resurrection.

i think most of the christians are christians because they were born for a christian mother & father... Frozo 09:45, 23 January 2006

You might think so and surely many Christians are Christians because of this (but is it the sole reason), but also many Muslims are Muslims because ... and many Buddhists ... and many atheists ...

Those that are bothered by my answering this question I ask for patience. Given that Frozo sounded so urgent he deserved an answer IMHO. And please, Frozo, sign your posts next time. Str1977 10:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I can honestly say that I can't think of an answer to that particular question. Deadsalmon 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

you didn't answer my questions...you entered into somthings spiritual to make me stop asking...

In fact, Frozo, I did answer your questions, but it seems that you have more in store.

and tell me please...how many times was your holy scripture edited..? and how many versions...?

Evangelists and Apostles wrote the books of the New Testament and after that they weren't edited at all (in the sense you are implying). They were translated, but we still have the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to check these translations.

and all are different in events & numbers..like you said that "twelve legions of angels" i bid you if you opened every scripture you will find different number...

On the contrary, the 12 legions of angels is consistently the same in any

and tell me please...after how many years after the christ the bible was written...if you don't know...it's about 800 years...

The Bible was written from 1400 BC (if you ascribe the actual writing of the Torah to Moses) or 500 BC to approxamitely 100 AD, when the New Testament was finished. There were some disputed which books to include, mainly in the 3rd century, but in some cases lasting into the 4th century. But that is not "writing".

and by the way i am a muslim & i beleive in jesus as a prophet from god like Mohamed.. and about my sign am sorry i forgot to sign...Frozo

I thought that you are a Muslim, drawing conclusions from what you wrote.

Tell me, how many years did it take to write and edit the Quran. What about the "Aramaic" reading?

And why should I believe that Mohammed is a prophet when some things he taught are in contradiction to what Jesus, whom you say was a prophet too, said.

Frozo, article talk pages are intended for discussion related to the editing and maintenance of an individual article. If you'd like to pursue a personal discussion on Christianity, it needs to be done via user talk pages — try Str1977's page, he seems interested. Thanks. Deadsalmon 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Deadsalmon, about the use of article talk pages.

Though I am not sure I am interested in entering into long discussions if they continue like this, but if Frozo has any seriously nagging question he should feel free to post it to my talk page

Str1977 10:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i entered this talk page and i wrote a prase and then saved but i cant find what i wrote... so... first of all...about my holy book...by the research made by professors not muslim professors only but also christians...the holy qura'n is original & not changed since the day it was written in...and never edited coz no one dare to edit god's words and if someone tried to do it he'll not succeed...not by force or something like that..no but no one can write a such uniqe way accept allah my only god... in the other hand the bible was edited many times...and the only defence that your book have towards those who try to edit is a statement in the end of bible that says may the one who edit this book be cursed.... while there is a verse in qura'n challenges editors to edit and tells them that they will fail...i think if someone wrote a report or a research and in the end of it he wrote "i bid you can find a fault in this research" i think the readers will find thousands of ways to find faults and they will... in qura'n allah said this and till this day no one did...hope u understand Frozo

Am out of this discussion for two reasons.. 1. because it's not in my mother tongue language so i cant explain exactly what i want to say 2. i feel am digging in rock...and i dont have to...coz god only is the one who leads people to the right path not me...may god lead u...

Answering the top's question: It depends on which kind of Christian you are. For some Christians god is one thing, but praying to whoever is another. So yeah.inky 06:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only one God, the true God, The Great I Am.Jedizati 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A good way to think about the trinity is the Three Leaf Clover, three in one. There are so many questions to answer, for answers, if i can give you them, come to my talk page.-Jedizati 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"i think most of the christians are christians because they were born for a christian mother & father..." lovely opinion, but cannot be true in light of the massive growth in christianity over the ages that far exceeds the growth in human population. I happen to know many christians (my self included), for whom this is not the case. Still unfortunatley I think most of this is irrelevant to the article, as wikipedia is not a place to discuss different opinions on theology (or try to explain the trinity etc), only to present such opinions (though perhaps an article explaining various christian theological opinions may be sensible). --[guest:Tim] 02:06, 26 May 2006 [GMT]

[edit] Born-again def. of Christian

I'm troubled by this paragraph that has been undergoing so much edit lately. I don't doubt that there are Christians who use this definition of who else is Christian, but I'm not sure that "Born again" is a good description of who holds that definition. For example, two famous left-of-center Americans, President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore, identify as born-again Christians, but I suspect that both have an inclusive view of who gets to call themselves Christian. Can we say that some born-again Christians use that definition? --Allen 02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

although 'born again' is often connected with the religious right, the phrase has nothing to do with politics at all as many socialists, liberals and left-leaning people have claimed to be born again. From a biblical perspective one cannot claim to be Christian and not born again, simply because Jesus said that a man cannot enter heaven unless they are born again. To be a non-born again Christian is as logical as a Christian atheist or a meat-eating vegetarian.--62.31.62.229 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit it; currently it seems to attempting to accomplish several things that may be in conflict. Fundamentally, I don't think it is accurate. Most BAC's seem to also be advocates of sola scriptura...which will then bring one to a specific interpretation of scripture. I don't think they are dogmatic regarding the Trinity as a creed, but certainly support it as their interpretation of scripture. Also, BAC's are found in many different denominations so it is difficult to describe a specific belief. Is that a correct understanding? Storm Rider 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I doubt that there should be such a statement in there at all. Concurring with a commonly held definition of who a Christian is is not a pre-requisite to being a born-again Christian. I don't think we can paint this diverse group with such a broad brush. I'll take a look-see at that sentence and see what I can come up with. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm Rider and Matt. Matt, I think the edit you made makes it a lot better. --Allen 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To IP 66.55.54.242

66.55.54.242, the changes you made on this article is destructive and unwanted. If you are keen on editing and want to try out, use the Wikipedia:Sandbox to do so. Keep wikipedia tidy and useful, okay? inky 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the unsourced tag for?

inky 09:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)What needs to be sourced, anyway?

[edit] I would love your help.

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. Empty2005 00:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section

It should be noted as a point of contention that historical revisionism presents a view of this period of Christian history in which Roman Catholicism is precedential to any other 'division' of Christianity, and is indeed considered synonymous with Christianity. However, this history, for reason of either neglect, or political correctness, fails to make mention of the fact that the Catholic Church was persecuting, torturing and executing, particularly by burning, Christians who rejected the doctrines of the Vatican and adhered exclusively to the direct adoption of the Bible, particularly the New Testament as a source of the earliest and most pure Christian doctrines and indeed the most faithful model for church government. The Catholic Church was observed to materially violate the Biblical doctrines that the church claimed to be founded upon, and rigorously oppressed any and all criticism in this vein, as well as imposing a 'dark age' by insisting that the Bible must be accessible only to priests and in Latin, could not be owned privately, and that the translation of the Bible into accessible languages (English) was punishable by death.

During the period it was the diametrical opposition of Biblical christianity or the 'early-church' doctrinal model of Pauline and Petrine influence, and Roman Catholicism which claimed the place of universal (the meaning of the term 'catholic') dominion over Christianity, which resulted in the theological basis of Protestantism and ultimately the Reformation, having formed much of the basis of the objections of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and their contemporaries, to the Catholic doctrine.

Academic historical analysis tends to exclude the doctrinal issues of the Protestant movement and the Reformation, and tends to consign these profound changes to issues of ownership and governance, taxation, and of course the inevitable mention of Henry VIII and his divorces. This, of course, turns the Protestant debate into a mere peevish power struggle and does no justice to the legacy of the theologians tortured, abused and burned alive directly over the issue of Catholic doctrinal authority at the expense of Biblical doctrine. Such Christians died rightfully believing that Christ-ianity was to be exclusively consistant with the Bible which Christ Himself commented upon and advocated, upon his teachings, and with precedence for the doctrines formed by his friends, followers, the eyewitnesses and the earliest and most authoritative converts of the early church, and as such followed the New Testament as the doctrinal model, as opposed to the ecumenically-derived and imperially-adapted revisions of a church organisation of vested interest which originated over three centuries later and fell under, literally, state control by being in control of the state, ultimately.

Catholic history tends to apply a revisionism which rarely mentions Biblical Christianity, or the early church, except to paint a picture of compatibility with early church doctrine, not least the posthumous elevation of the apostle Peter to the role of 'pope', a distinction which Peter himself never adopted and never accepted, which is a dubious and tenuous revision to say the least, given that the role of 'Pope' has more foundation in paganism than it does in New Testament Christianity. The Catholic Church has been seen to present its various 'Councils' as the result of general consensus across the sects of Christianity, although this is an increasingly dishonest view. Formerly, it is historically noted, the councils were hotbeds of contention, but 'minutes' of the discourses were not kept, and neither were notes on the nature of discussion and indeed objection, and ultimately the findings of the council were published under imperial agenda, eventually Vatican agenda, as the 'final verdict.' Additionally the implication of council-defined 'Christianity' is one of uniformity and agreement, which is a fallacious concept considering that a significant number of well-established and influential Christian traditions, groups and personalities refused to even recognise much of what Catholicism tried to acheive based not only on doctrinal objections, but also upon the fact that a massive mistrust existed, following centuries of violent persecution, that the rush to embrace Christianity was a ruse. During the Middle Ages the Vatican applied this exclusive revisionist view to militantly enforce it's own authority as the originator and custodian of Christian doctrine, which promoted the exclusion and elimination of dissenters and those who advocated the restoration of the Bible as the sole source of doctrine, including Protestant martyrs like Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley.

Latterly this history has been interpreted by Protestants (and many ex-Catholics) as a clear hallmark of a profound and fundamental doctrinal schism between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, and as a full understanding of the inherent meaning of the various Papal Bulls and Edicts confirm, lends support to the controversial ideas of Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons, which is now considered a staple, if slightly flawed by virtue of being somewhat preemptive of the expanding science of archaeology, of Protestant Apologetics. In this respect, Hislop traces the roots of Catholicism, it's doctrinal and ceremonial values, and it's anti-Biblical incorporation of iconography, Marian worship, and patron saints to pre-existing pagan cultism which, he claims, originates in Ancient Babylon with the dark cultism established, according to speculation, by Semiramis following the reign of Nimrod and continued into the legends of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, indeed ultimately throughout the world in a recurrent pagan themality, through Isis and latterly Marian worship which is at worst anti-Biblical and at best extra-Biblical.

While the Catholic-dominated 'Ecumenical' movement continues to claim broad 'Christian' compatibility and consensus, there are many Biblical christians who continue to be unhappy with the generic association of nomenclature between the most faithful adherence of the Biblical Christian doctrine, and what is seen as cultism deviant from the Bible as the authoritative source of 'Christian' religion.

This is, without question, a controversial subject.

I removed the above addition from the article as I think this is in the wrong place. It's well written and interesting but bloats the section and stops it flowing. Christianity is probably not the place either as that article is already too long - can anyone suggest the correct article for this so it can be placed on the talk page there and discussed (maybe History of Christianity)? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also heavily biased and inaccurate. No one can seriously claim that doctrinal issues of the Reformation are some how glossed over in historical scholarship. The use of Alexander Hislop also indicates a certain tendency, and the use of "Vatican" as a synonym for the Holy See also denotes a lack of actual historical knowledge (the Vatican became the residence of the Pope only in the 15th century). Thanks, Sophia, for stepping in. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Cults?

Just a question: Should anything be included about what many Protestant Christians consider "Christian cults?" The late Dr. Walter Martin (as I assume many Christians) considers Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Unification Church members, and Seventh-Day Adventists as "cults" in his work, The Kingdom of the Cults. Maybe this could be placed in a subsection or in the cult article...--Mikepope 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is already covered in the cults article. It may even be better in his own personal article. I don't have a problem with it as long as we precisely define "cult". If one reads the cult article, it is readily apparent there is no definition that is universal. One thing to remember, if you open this door on which churches are viewed as cults by others, I suspect you will also open the door for appropriate responses and comments on all Christian churches. Sounds like an excellent way to have a mud fight! Interested? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One man's cult is another man's True christianity. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and one man's "True Christianity" is another man's "cult" all the still. When we're looking into this article we want to cover Historical Christianity, not cults and groups which formed within 400 years.--NWalterstorf 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose adding definitions of groups considered cults, especially by "Dr." Martin. Huge POV problems. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I checked the cult articles. I agree. There's no place for it here.--Mikepope 13:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also got rid of Misc Wierdness becuase it was nonsense and personally offensive.--Mikepope 16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecostal/Charismatic

I just want to point out this statement... "Some Christians devote themselves to active participation in prophetic communication and miraculous healing, as represented in the early church and the pre-Christ prophets. They are categorized as Charismatic or Pentecostal, but can be found in other denominations, as well." I feel this is inaccurate, a Pentecostal church is one of a specific denomination (like an Anglican church or Methodist etc) however it is true that they are well known for having such 'charasmatic' beliefs (which are the beliefs in the ability to practise such 'gifts'). I have included in the article what I think it should be, but though I would post here as well as I am knew to this 'wiki' thing and wanted to explain what/why I am doing it. --[guest:Tim] 02:00 26 May 2006 (GMT)

I read the edit. Maybe we should create a stub/internal link on "charismatic Christians." I wonder how in-depth we should go with "charismatic Christians" on the Christian article...If we take time/effort in fleshing out charismatic Christians in this article, then we would, in effect, be taking on the task of describing Reformed Christians, Catholic Christians, Gnostic Christians, etc...--Mikepope 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also added "Great Commission" phrase under "Christian mission".--Mikepope 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it may be worth having an article on the debate between charismatic and sensationalist viewpoints to the holy-spirit power...but then as you said it would in effect be tring to describe all the denominational differences (if we werent careful)...perhaps a brief section on some 'common differences' would be in order.. briefly stating a charismatic 'type' of view, and a sensationalist 'type' of view.. then allow room for other issues such as calvanism and (the other one that doesnt allow pre-destination), but only with a brief summary. Then have links to specific denominations/churches/types of churches which hold versions of these views....

--TM-77 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC) (formerly known as guest:Tim]

Just wanted to note, I seem to have lost my source/can't find it again, that said 'the "charismatic movemant" started in the "high-church" first'. I have already stated that such beliefs were around before the protestants split from catholicism, so to an extent this is true, but the term charismatic movemant is normally refering to a very specific event in N.America. I shall continue to try and re-find this source (and then post some kind of link so I don't loose it again, but in the mean time if anyone wants to remove the phrase "Indeed the so called 'charismatic movement' began in high churches first, despite being attributed to more low-church style of worship." I won't contest it ... (for now).. --TM-77 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

What happened to me edits? Thank you. 203.158.34.114 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They were reverted as they did not conform to WP:NPOV. Have a read of this policy as it helps you to format information that you feel could enrich the article. It's always a good idea to suggest changes here first if they so other editors can give their input. Sophia 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

umm... "Christians maintain that Jesus " should be changed to "Christians believe that Jesus ". This isn't really something disputed by Christians. believe: "1. to have a firm religious faith" maintain: "2 : to sustain against opposition or danger : uphold and defend " The word is more appropriate think the wording is better because maintain seems to suggest that they are considering changing or changed at some point in time, while the word believe seems a better fit as it is more specific. Wordsmiter 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the format seems a bit bloated for an introduction with a christian is this but there are those who claim to be christian and believe otherwise. I don't how exactly to go about it, but perhaps using the intro "in general" and then seperating the rest into another section might improve flow though I'll leave that to someone else.

Simple solution to that situation. They wouldn't be a Christian if they don't believe in Jesus. Kinda' defeats the entire term "Christ - ians", or "Followers of Christ" (coined in Antioc).

[edit] A bypasser's viewpoint

I arrived here through the sandbox, but it's still tooooo difficult for me (as an IT numpty) to get to grips with how to engage in the Wki community generally. Therefore, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended.

I read the article from top to bottom and was appalled to find "criticisms of Christianity" relegated to an associated link. Yes, I need to declare my colours - all religion is a bit bonkers in my book (do they have a Wiki for "bonkers"?) - but the point of view is *not* neutral if the balancing points are made a link away.

Anyway, I have resisted the temptation (sooooooo naughty, but soooooo nice) to scribble my own views into the published article but thought you might want to consider a more truly balanced presentation. Something that addresses the interplay between the desperate need we have, as humans, for something to rationalise and contextualise our lives, and the fundamental absurdity of the solution we have concocted (in its many forms).

Generally, I think Wiki is an amazing, and often (*often*) definitive source, so keep up the good work. If anyone has an issue with these comments, please feel free to contact me directly on [personal email removed] my talk page.

Opposing criticisms are minimised in this article, because this article is an explanation of what Christians are, not what people believe is wrong with Christianity. Both subjects are given attention, but they don't need to invade each other's article. Djcartwright 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merging into Christianity

I very strongly oppose merging this article into the Christianity article. I think there is a big difference on what it means to be a Christian as opposed to Christianity as a whole.—Who123 03:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I came here for a good definition of Christian. I'm already a Christian and a member of Christianity, and those are two different subjects. --Mrcolj 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I too oppose. Since there are no "agree" comments, and since this has been up for a few months, I'm removing the merge tag. Akradecki 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging the whole document. But merging the section on the history of the church makses sense to me. (Just nigel 05:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Merging the history makes logical sense. Unfortunately, there has been vandalism in the "Christianity" article which may make it somewhat harder to work on.67.8.201.227 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Student 11/5/2006

Christian is what one is Christianity is what one practises. While there are areas that merge together, I would suggest that keeping them apart gives a section to discuss the individual (Christian) and a section to discuss the group (Christianity) --phalcon 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - it still contains separate information. SparrowsWing 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Albeit, these topics are similar in tone and there is some overlap in content, this still is separate information; focusing on the individual rather than the whole. Also, the topic of "Christianity" itself is getting quite lengthy... Adding this rather long article to it may make it unmanageable, in the sense that it will be more difficult to retain the same focus. Schwenkstar 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I used to wonder why this article wasn't already in the Christianity article. But looking at it now, I realize that the difference is that Christianity is the belief, and a Christian is the one who follows that belief. So they really are two different things. Christknight 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Christians are the people, Christianity is the belief. DebateKid 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbingly POV

First off, I am 100% Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for my sins. That being said, this article is disturbingly POV. It makes broad statements of what "Christians believe," every one of which I can name you Christian churches which do not believe. It even goes so far as to say "Not all churches believe the above, see Liberal Christianity!" As discussed earlier, it defines "Christian" beyond how Jesus or the Bible have defined it. If you ask me, we can't write off or minimize anyone who considers themselves Christian as being non-Christian. I've read the Bible more times than many of you, and between my wife and I have read it in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; and yet there are many who would not consider me Christian. Those people have a right to their views, but not in an encyclopedic work. --Mrcolj 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 15 minutes later I've changed my mind. That's what sundays afternoons are for. I think most everything I want the article to say is in the article, but the logical order is all backwards. It gives a strict non-general definition of Christianity, and then gives all the statistically normal churches as exceptions below. (It really is inappropriate to in any way define Catholicism and other non-Protestant-ism as an exception, when they define 90% of the population. Ditto with Mormons--any sociologist calls them the 4th largest organized Christian religion in America, but they somehow don't even deserve a mention here.) The first paragraph is pretty good, but the second starts to get both too specific and therefore too defensive. So I'm not saying anyone should rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but that someone should outline the existing paragraph, reorder the points of the outline, and then reorder the sentences accordingly taking care not to change too much of the content of individual sentences. Also, the sentences need to be less hypotactic--it's colloquial and has unnecessary subordination of clauses etc. for the presumed purpose of retaining mysticism so no one questions them. --Mrcolj 19:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a very broad subject, and must be approached as such. If one were to go into great detail in every page, then the resulting article would be exceedingly long. Bear in mind that for folks who are not familiar with Christians or even Christianity will most likely use this as a jumping off point, not as a conclusion. Whenever you talk about Politics or Religion, it can very easily polarize, it's best to keep a broad view on broad articles, and leave the fine tooth comb for more specific articles. Throughthelens 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I agree that Mormons should NOT be defined as christians as most 'large' christian churches (if not all), i.e. catholics, orthodox etc consider them to not be christians due to the divergent beliefs the have. Having said that it might be fair to have a note along the lines of 'some people define mormons as christians too'. --TM-77 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that's relevant. If we go with what is commonly believed, then the page for pencil should mention risks from lead intake. =)

[edit] Christianity being bogus

It should talk about how the entire religion is based on a book that could have come from who knows where, and that these people use that is there proof. It's obviously not proof. There is no proof of any religion, but since christian tends to be the biggest religious group, I think it should be in this article. Religious groups should never force there opinions on others. Christians particular do this to gay people. Lonelyboy 08:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, you say there is no proof. Oh, but there is - the Bible was writen over the coarse of about 1500 years. That is historical fact. The Old Testament was writen long before Jesus ever came into the world. However, in the Old Testament, it is prophesied that God would come to earth in human form, that a messiah would come - and He did(as it was confirmed hundreds of years later when He did come). This means that the Bible's pophesies are true. The Bible itself even claims hundreds of times that what it says is true. Now, you could say, "I don't believe He came to earth at all." Then I would say, "Do you believe that World War I happened?" You weren't there to see it, and yet you know it happened. Secondly, not all Christians try to force Christianity on gay people, just the forceful ones. The Bible even says that we can't change people, only God can. It is wrong of anyone to try to force their beliefes on others. But get this, there is proof that the Bible is true. --Christknight 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed that someone would think this way toward Christians. Its sad, really sad. We Christians are now divided, because of hate. Not the hate from others, but hate towards others. Homosexuality is indeed a sin, but Christians hate instead of hug. We should love these people, after all, we all sin. But New Age Christians are like the Pharisees; they claim to love all, but they cast away their brothers. I am deeply sorry if a Christian has persecuted you if you are gay, I won't. I accept you and I love you, as all Christians should. -66.218.19.31 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to go to my talk page if you want to continue this discussion. But just look at something you wrote; The Bible itself even claims hundreds of times that what it says is true. 1. You wrote CLAIMS. Claims means to assert to be true without really even being proof. The bible should not claim anything is ture. It should assure us that stuff is true. 2. Of course if I wrote something I wanted you to believe, I would tell you it's true a couple of times or here's a better idea. I'll write everything and and end it by going, 'oh by the way, I'm making this all up as I'm going along." We know World War II existed because we have pictures and it's believable unlike people coming up from the dead and turning rods into snakes and all this other far-fetched stuff so please. Lonelyboy 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. If I must, I will continue this discussion on your talk page. --Christknight 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  if anyone nedds proof that the bible tells the truth just look at the history of the facts
  
  In the bible 1.wailing wall=was the ramains of Solomon's temple 2.the painting that date 
  back farthur than we know 3.the Dead Sea Scrolls that mention more than half of the Bible
  4.The fact that the Roman Catholic exist was start by Peter one of the Discipiles of Jesus
  and so on and so on,if want to add please do and of course the miracles that happen every
  in the name of Jesus [Following The Way]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/Talk%7EChristian_61aa.html"