Talk:List of Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Would the disciples and/or other Biblical figures count as Christians? I think they would have considered themselves Jews still. I remember reading that somewhere. Were they Christian enough to qualify for this list? I'm sure there are other Protestant reformers and Christianizing saints to add, if anybody knows any I've forgotten (most of them).

Seeing possibility of flamewar, Tokerboy

Just a quick note. I don't know if you were around when Jesus was on the list of famous Muslims. Congrats on the new sysop status. Danny

Well they started calling themselves Christians not long after the Resurrection. Even the disciples would have called themselves Christians at least sometime before their death. They were both Jew AND Christian. Granted that originally they wouldn't have called themselves that, but I don't know that we are that picky! -- Ram-Man

<snipping list>


Try again, this time without kidding around, please. Columbus is a noted explorer, and are you sure Hobbes is even a Christian? And as for Rush, what were you smoking? --Ed Poor

Despite the fact that many hold that Columbus was a devout Christian, he is noted almost exclusively for his explorer status. I wouldn't normally put him on a list of noted Christians, not that I don't think he was one, just that *most* people don't think of this attribute first. -- RM

I added Columbus because he was Christian and was influential in the conversion of a large number of people (Native Americans). I might be getting my names confused, but I thought Hobbes was an early Protestant reformer? Am I thinking of someone else? And Rush and Jerry are surely famous Christians, and I think famous enough to qualify for a list of noted Christians. Tokerboy 01:28 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
I think you meant Jan Hus. Danny
We will avoid flambait as long as we don't try to define 'Christian'. Many people who call themselves Christian wouldn't add some of the people like Jerry or Rush, just because they have the extreme views. -- RM
Agreed. Maybe there should be a note that the term "Christian" is defined differently by different people.Tokerboy

Perhaps the standard for inclusion should be:

  • they are a Christian
  • they are not a saint (see List of saints, List of Christian saints)
  • they are noted for something having to do with Christianity, like:
    • an exemplary life
    • instituting a reform
    • contributions to theology

Now that I've had a night to sleep on it, even people like the following are indeed "noted" or at least "famous" Christians:

  • Jerry Falwell, founder of Moral Majority
  • Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition?)
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., fought segregation
  • Jesse Jackson

I got confused and forgot that we could categorize them like we did for the famous Canadians. Some Christians are noted for their unselfish devotion, such as Mother Theresa. Some wrote books or founded movements. Some focus primarily on political issues (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton). Falwell is hard to categorize (political or social?). --Ed Poor

Why don't we move all the "noted" lists to "famous"? That is a far less vague term. We could also use "influential" if we don't want to go by popularity alone. --Eloquence


Sounds good to me -- but you really would have to put most of the Saints listed above on a separate list. "Famous" should mean, well-known to non-Shristians. I am not a Christian but sure have heard a lot about St. Bemedict, Joan of Arc, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, as well as St. Christopher and Sta. Theresa. But I never heard of Saint Pisentius of Qift, Saint Babylas, Saint Callistratus -- as well as many of the Protestants on this list. No offense, but they should be cut -- they may be important and beloved to some, but this does not make them famous or even "noted" in a general sense.

I do have an alternative proposal: divide the list into two: one on famous Christians, the other on important Christians. I think most of Ed's generally very good/well-thought out criteria above would apply to Important Christians. But maybe I am wrong, this is just an idea. However, either way I would add one thing to Ed's criteria: people who made an important contribution to the world as Christians. For example, I do not think MLK Jr. is famous for having something to do with Christianity - he is famous for his role in the Civil Rights movement, and as a great American (warts and all). Nevertheless, he himself found much of his inspiration from within Christianity, identified himself as a Christian and as a Christian leader. See my point? I think Ed's criteria of "something" having to do with Christianity is too vague. Some people are important because of their contribution to Christianity (e.g. Sts Augustin, Benedict, Thomas); some drew faith from Christianity to make a contribution to their nation (Joan of Arc, MLK) or the world. Slrubenstein

First, I think "important" is likely to create more POV/NPOV discussions than "influential", but that's just a gut feeling. Second, I believe it's reasonable to maintain, at least for the time being, a collective list of people who have been influential within Christianity and one of those who have been influential outside of it, especially as someone can easily be a member of both groups. Let's try to avoid long discussions about whether someone did or did not act in the "true Christian spirit" (same goes for other similar lists as well). We should just have to check:

  • Was X a Christian? (i.e. did/does he call himself that and did/do most people refer to himself as such)
  • Was X influential? (positive or negative, like Time's "Person of the Year")

One important point to consider, however, is whether or not Christianity was a completely voluntary decision. At a time when non-Christians were persecuted, which covers the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages and much of the Renaissance, was being a non-Christian really an option?--Eloquence

Tokerboy summarized his latest article edit as:

(probable naming errors; aside from needing more annotation, how does this strike everyone? (especially Mr. Poor))

I would say that there's so many people on the list that I guess it looks balanced. But dividing them up into musicians, storybook authors, theologians, activists and "really nice people who haven't been canonized as saints yet" would help, too. But I got no time for that tonight. I'll help tomorrow. --Ed Poor 22:37 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Saint George and Lancelot are on this ludicrous list both probably didn't even exist and if they did no one knows if they were Christian. Mintguy 22:56 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian theologian, so some of the names I chose might not be appropriate, but let me explain where the list came from. I went to religioustolerance.org and added one or two of the founders/influential members of each of the groups listed under Christianity. Then, I typed something into Google (I forget what exactly) to find out who has been influential as far as Christianizing a nation or area or something. The handful of others I added came from the Wikipedia article at Protestant Reformation and a handful from my own knowledge.

I'm not sure why saints shouldn't be on this list. Just because they have a list of their own? Popes, Archbishops of Canterbury, Kings of England, Roman and Byzantine Emperors all have their own list too, or probably should, yet I think the most influential members of each list should be on this one. Maybe some of the saints are too obscure, but I think there should be some. Tokerboy 23:19 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Instead of repeating all of the names on those lists, why not just link to those articles? -- Zoe
Agree with Zoe. A similar style to list of scientists would be desirable, imo Martin
Also agree with Zoe. Deciding which names are worth duplicating is entirely too subjective. Just suffice it to say that everyone on the List of saints, List of bishops, and similar lists also considered themselves Christian. We can add other famous/influential Christians who aren't already on one of the other lists. The duplication is wasteful, and also in the case of saints ignores important distinctions concerning which Christians recognize which saints. If we're going by what people called themselves, then none of the people listed should be called a saint, as they did not call themselves that.
As for people who were Christian but most noted for something else, like Christopher Columbus... well, if the article is just "List of Christians", they should be included, and this list should eventually be expanded to include literally millions of names. Perhaps it would be better to revise it to List of famous Christians. ;-) Wesley

I suggested a couple of additional criteria here: Talk:List_of_people

Is St. Peter suitable for inclusion in this list of christians?

  • Yes:
  • No: fonzy
  • Don't Know: Martin
I'm unsure. While St. Peter was born a jew, didn't he convert to xtianity? On the other hand, he's already listed at apostle and list of Biblical figures, so why duplicate that info here?
Of course St. Peter was a christian, though whether he would have used the actual word or term is a question since it originated a bit later in Antioch. Most christians acknowledge that a person can be both a jew and a christian. Most jews (other than jewish christians) do not. I don't know that it's worth having a category for noted post-biblical jewish christians. Grizzly
According to our Judaism article, the only requirement for being a Jew is that one have a Jewish mother. Converting to Christianity would not change who one's mother is, so I don't see how they can conflict. I thought the point of this list was to be broadly inclusive? Wesley

Does anyone know why W.S. Sadler and Urantia are grouped together? --Patrick Corcoran

 -- Never mind, answered my own question.  :)

Including gnostics on this page is silly. Gnosticism is a different religion. Including heretics on this page side by side with the saints who demonstrated the heretical and un-Christian nature of the heretics' teachings and lifestyle is also silly. Wesley 16:43 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Except some gnostics considered themselves both gnostic and christian. Further, some people that one or more churches called heretics were important people in other christian variants.
Perhaps the solution is to have a seperate List of Catholics, list of Protestants - one can debate forever whether or not Martin Luther was a Christian or a heretic, but he certainly was a Protestant.
Oh, see list of Gnostics Martin
But the gnostics who tried to call themselves Christian had fundamentally opposed theology about the nature of God that was rejected by the rest of christendom. If we include them, we may as well include all the hindu groups that say both Krishna and Jesus were avatars of Brahman, and include icons of both on their altars. Is that what you're aiming for? Keeping the lists separate may be safer, although the standard of inclusion still seems very shaky. What's the purpose of this article again? Wesley 17:44 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
I think I was just thrown by the word "heretic" - don't mind me... Martin

This entry is terrible. What possible question can a reader have that could be answered with a list of all Christians throughout history? There is no such question. Do we really want to make an entry that will grow to include millions of people, who have absolutely nothing in common at all except for the fact that they profess to be Christian? There is no reasonable explanation for this entry to exist. Why not also have a monsterously huge list of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc? Obviously, there are uses for meaningful lists, such as a list of Christian theologians, Christian philosophers, Christian saints, etc. But just plain Christians as a subject? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a phone book. I vote for deletion. RK

See talk:list of people by belief


I'm going to reply on the talk page of the article I'm talking about.
As I said when discussing List of saints, I don't think those uses justify this page. Those questions can be better satisfied by directing people to use the search engine, rather than have a page with a list of links and keywords gathered on it that has to be maintained manually. Many List* pages do try to be comprehensive, such as List of popes, List of famous whoevers, etc. It's theoretically possible for even the List of saints page to be comprehensive. This page is frankly unhelpful and misleading... and there's nothing to prevent it from becoming an overwhelming phone book, as RK said. I second his vote for deletion. Wesley 19:27 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
To me, all those votes for deletion are signs of self-mutilation coupled with hysteria. Why would anyone want to annihilate a collaborative effort which has been going on for more than two months? Both the nature and the relevance of lists in general should be reconsidered thoroughly. For example, the question whether a list should aim at being exhaustive or not is a very important point. What all those delete voters seem to ignore is the fact that we are dealing with work in progress rather than a finished product here, so perfectionist attitudes are only okay as far as correctness and authenticity of Wikipedia articles are concerned.
See similar discussions at Talk:Remake and Talk:Losers in literature. --KF 19:46 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Hysteria? No. Why stop what's been going on for two months? Because I (and others) apparently failed to catch it sooner. My apologies. On the contrary, RK and I are perfectly aware that this is a work in progress; one key objection is that it could grow to many millions of names. The discussions at the other two article are unconvincing; in fact, just judging by the discussion, it seems that Remake may have a similar problem unless it's renamed Bad Remakes... even though that would be almost redundant in your opinion. As far as correctness goes, it's often very difficult to be objective when listing who is and isn't a Christian; listing one and not another is often a matter of theological and/or historical opinion. See the recent discussion on List of saints about the importance of identifying who call whom a saint, for instance. Wesley 20:04 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Please keep this page, and the saints page, oh, and the rest of the apparently dubious lists. They'll be useful as seed datasets for the soon-to-come automated category schemes. -- Anon.

Can't make keep or pitch decisions without knowing about automated category schemes. Link? Wesley 20:04 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps some background is in order here. It used to be the case that there were various list entries titled list of notable boozers, list of famous seventh day adventists, list of celebrity Americans, frequentists, famous flamers, [list of IRV advocates]]. I checked on wikipedia talk:naming conventions and decided to rename them all list of X for consistency, findabiliy, linkability, etc. If you were fine with list of notable Jews, you should be fine with list of Jews - it's just a name change to fit in with conventions, not a dramatic repositioning in the market.

In terms of longevity of these articles, going through list of people by belief:

So, ranging from a few months to just over a year. There's a number of articles here, with, together, several hundred edits, so it's right that we're discussing this before deciding on a delete. If one considers all the other lists on list of people (such as those on list of people by nationality and list of people by occupation), then you're talking about even more work removed.

While many lists are exhaustive, many more are not. This can all be easily handled by appropriate introductions - list of popes can say "this is a comlete list of ..." and list of atheists can say "this is a partial list of atheists, focusing on atheists who are particularly notable, famous, or important". Different lists are organised in different ways, according to the subject matter - by date, surname, location, etc. Each list says in the intro how it is organised. So too, lists can be exhaustive or not, and it can be stated on the top of the entry.

Sure, I see the logic. There's a reason I'm keeping my comments on this page, and not on the other list pages.
* You haven't yet really said why this wouldn't or shouldn't grow to list millions of people.
* I'm struggling to stay objective here. The big difference with this list is, Christians tend to get much more particular about who else is called a Christian. Calling everyone who describes themself as a Christian, Christian, might seem to be objective and neutral on the surface, but it's really an endorsement of a particular ecclesiology, with which I and many other strongly disagree.
* I've already had to correct many inaccurate descriptions of various people; listing the same info on people in multiple places makes it easier for errors to creep in.
* This duplicates info already on several other list pages; again, makes it more likely for errors to creep in.
I'd be interested to hear from other wikipedians what they think? Wesley 20:55 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I really think all saints and popes should be off this page -- they already have their own articles. Also, what makes Kathy Ireland of importance on this page, let alone Charles I! What made HIM so important in the history of Christianity? Constantine I was NOT a Christian, he merely allowed Christianity become acceptable. Benjamin Franklin was NOT a Christian, he was a deist. And "Blessed" has go to go. Is Rush Limbaugh particularly imporant religiously, vs. politically? -- Zoe

I believe Constantine I was a Christian catechumen most of his life, and was baptized and chrismated into Christianity shortly before his death; main significance is that he called off the persecution, like you said, and also that he convened the First Ecumenical Council.Other than that, I think I mostly agree with you. Wesley 20:55 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Just checked, and it turns out Constantine I is actually a saint, often remembered with his mother Helen. Although that's a great case in point where someone's Christianity really depends on how you look at history; lists work best when it's unambiguous who should or shouldn't be on the list. Wesley 21:00 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Constantine was definitely a Christian as far as outward image goes. Whether he was a genuine convert, or simply played the part for political reasons, has been questioned, though I think most indications lean towards the former.

FWIW, Charles I is revered as a saint of sorts in Anglicanism, and churches are dedicated in his name. --User:Ihcoyc
Do you mean Charles I of Enland? If so, that should info probably be added to that article, and his name with link to List of saints. :-) Wesley 21:54 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Aye, while I've never heard of Charles I of England referred to as "St. Charles," there are several churches dedicated to him in England, Canada, and the USA as "Charles I, King and Martyr." This would seem to be some indication of a de facto Anglican canonisation. OTOH, someone handier in HTML than I perhaps ought to be the one to add him to that list. ---User:Ihcoyc

I just think that all Christians who are famous should be added, just like all famous Muslims or Cubans or transgendered people are in their respective lists. In the transgendered people list, for example, I dont think we are adding only the ones who were 'influencial' to that genre, are we?

Antonio Spanky Martin

Might it help to organize this page into subdivisions, like theologians, activists, officials, and the like? That might help define some idea of who belongs on this page, and in the event that it proves unworkable make it easier to salvage some material.

What of people not formally canonised by a church but deemed a saint? This happened with a lot of early Irish 'saints', eg. St Braccan, St. Ultan, etc. They werent canonised by the RC church, but were 'canonised' as in effect local holy men, in whose honour churches were dedicated. JTD 22:09 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't considered that the ambiguity over who is or is not a saint would simply strike in reverse at this page - ouch. Wesley is definately convincing me that this particular page, as is, is unworkable. If you decide to scrap it, though, please keep the page as a set of disambiguating links to list of saints, etc - that'd be more useful than deleting it completely. Martin
Regarding early Irish 'informal' saints, if they were pre-1054A.D. (i.e. prior to the Great Schism), and are still locally regarded as saints, they would probably qualify as Eastern Orthodox saints and could be listed as such on the List of saints page. The Orthodox procedure has never been quite as formal, rigid or legalistic as the Roman Catholic canonization process. I know for a fact that the Orthodox Church recognizes St. Patrick and several other Irish saints; I imagine these would be included as well. Wesley 15:59 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. I never thought of that. As far as I know, Ireland has five properly canonised saints, which includes (I presume) St. Patrick and most recently St. Oliver Plunkett. There are hundreds of de facto canonised saints, usually from the first millenium AD; of the top of my head I can think of St. Braccan, St. Ultan, St. Ciaran. etc etc I don't know if St. Columkille (also known as St. Columba) is a de facto or a de jure saint. Ditto with St. Brigid who according to recent research wasn't just a prominent lay saint but a fully ordained bishop of the Catholic Church, a woman bishop. It is amazing the things you find studying history. JTD 19:48 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

This page seems silly. I feel like adding a name like Mario Lemieux or Isaac Brock. Why not? There's not one Anabaptist on this page and just Anabaptists could fill up the entire page, what's next Famous monotheists? Famous Homo sapiens?stoltz (Maybe I should add Kent Hovind).

--- It seems to me that Edith Stein belongs on the List of saints. I mean to move her. -- IHCOYC 05:33 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

I'm nit-picking, I know, but shouldn't this be "List of Notable Christians"? "List of Christians" could include anyone who identifies themself as a Christian, notable or otherwise. -- Jwinters | Talk 22:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a tad perplexed why "List of Unificationists" is also placed here in the "list of Christians" deal, but Lutherans and Quakers are not. Although I suppose I can correct that. --T. Anthony 08:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Adolf Hitler

Some quotes:

  • "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." (Speech in Munich 12 April 1922)
  • "Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!" (Address to the SA in 1930)
  • "The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavoring to develop them." (Speech at the Reichstag 23 March 1933)
  • "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." (Speech before the Reichstag 1936)

Enough? // Liftarn

No, not necessarily. The first is from 1922, fairly early. The second only speaks of God and Lord. I think only a few people argue that he was an atheist. The third sounds like it deals with a political arrangement and speaks of the government rather than him. The fourth is again the "creator" which is the kind of wording a deist can use. Still I wasn't involved in that argument so don't want to get too deeply in it. I'll just say that everything I've read indicates the matter is uncertain and both interpretations have valid support. However as Wikipedia works through concensus, and the place is disproportionately secularist, that tips the balance to counting him as Christian. Still a note on the unconventionality and unorthodoxy of his Christianity should be mentioned as balance.--T. Anthony 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with T. Anthony. KHM03 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the first and third quotes are that history records that he often used Christianity for his propaganda, but was known to think that the Christian Savior was powerless against his will. The third quote is rather silly to quote to support Hitler's inclusion because Hitler feared the Vatican See and they in turn feared Hitler. The "friendly" terms is gravely overexagerated and unfounded. The second and four quote also problematic since Hitler denied the Jewish God, which is the same God as Christians worship. For him to deny this would make him a Marcionist, not a Christian.

Valer 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I took him out. Mostly because I think it's a good idea to limit that section to people who really can't, or aren't, in the above lists yet whose Christianity is notable. To list every Christian not in the above lists would be silly. I'm thinking of limiting it to figures in smaller or less covered denominations or whose Christianity is more noteworthy to their story. Granted that's a bit unilateral of me, but I think there's precedence. Besides which if people really want Hitler listed they can add him to the List of Catholic politicians.--T. Anthony 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your decision. KHM03 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If people want this article to have negative examples of Christians it already has them. For example several members of the KKK and a terrorist are listed. I'm also willing to add a Nazi if I find one that was connected to the effort to reconcile Nazism with Christianity.--T. Anthony 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Catholics don't want Hitler in the list of Catholics since he didn't go to mass. // Liftarn

[edit] And again

Now we have T. Anthony removing Hitler from the list and rewriting the inclusion criteria to be able to (in his mind) exclude disagreeable people. Hitler undeniable was a Christian and his beleif was the basis of his actions. // Liftarn

I may have clarified it, but here's the inclusion criteria from April
  • "This is for Christians who do not fit in the above lists. This largely means those of denominations which do not have lists of their own for varied reasons, but others might not fit any existing denomination yet count as important to Christian history or culture. Finally some might be inappropriate in existing lists for unspecified reasons. However if you can reasonably move any of these names to one of the more specific Christian lists feel free to do so. This list is not, and probably can not be, exhaustive."
Now then is Hitler of a small denomination that lacks a list? No. Is he important to the history or culture of Christianity? No. He was not the head of a Christian party, denomination, theological stream, or new Christian movement. He did not write hymns either. Can you reasonably move Hitler to a more specific list? Yes. If you absolutely have to have him in the Catholic list debate with us Catholics there. Or possibly you could put him in Protestant authors if you prefer. Further the intent of the criteria was always to limit it so it doesn't become a random assembly of anyone who went to a small or non-denominational church every Easter. Also the guidelines state that for a name to be on a religion-type list, any of them, it's necessary for them to be notable to the topic or the topic be significant to them. I just spelled this out clearer for people like you who may have not known this. To avoid hypocrasy I've tried to remove others whose Christianity is non-notable and I think I'd done so before you made Hitler an issue.--T. Anthony 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is important to be able to identify the difference between Hitler's public speeches and writing and what he really thought. A devious politician leading a nominally Christian country like 1930s Germany will say lots of Christian-sounding stuff to maintain popularity. Mein Kampf illustrates Hitler's views on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)"

from http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html (who phrased it much better than I could).

Also, some of Hitler's comments on Christianity: "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... "Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... "...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... "Christianity <is> the liar.... "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

from Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953)

No Christian would make these comments.

SparrowsWing 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

One obviously did. It is obvious that he dislikes many forms of Christianty, but he was a Christian himself. His version of Christianity obviously isn't a very popular one today, but it's stilla form of Christianity. Considering how often he stated his Christian beliefs he should qualify as a Christian. // Liftarn

He wasn't of sound mind, he really isn't a reliable source for his faith. -- THLCCD

Why not? He stated several times and with much emphasis that he was a Christian. Hitler's Table Talk isn't really a reliable souce, pertially because it's hearsay and partially because it's a biased source (edited by the anti-Catholic Bormann). So, what's the reason to exclude Hitler when he obviously was a Christian, albeit some dislike for organised religion? // Liftarn
He was a politician in a majority Christian nation. Should we list Fidel V. Ramos, Theodore Roosevelt, Lester B. Pearson, and hundreds of other leaders in Christian nations who may have claimed to be Christian? In addition the claim he was Christian is a matter of dispute among historians. When in doubt you don't add.--T. Anthony 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Liftarn, instead of getting into an edit war - why not read what the people above have said? You are the only person on this thread that asserts that Hitler was a Christian. Show me where it states that Hitler's Table Talk is not valid. Give proof instead of your conjecture. Here is another example of Hitler not being a Christian:
"You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. " http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html
If I see no valid evidence of Hitler being a Christian I will remove the entry. SparrowsWing 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
So that he repetedly stated it doesn't count? He obviously self identified as a Christian. There are also many other sources stating he was a Christian. Other evidence is that he erected a large Christian cross by his house, several artwork with Christan motifs and so on. That some people don't want Hitler to have been a Christian is another issue. Please stick to the facts. // Liftarn
We have Nazis and Klansmen in the list already. And whether you like it or not Hitler being a practicing Christian is a matter of dispute with non-Christian academic historians. If we add Hitler we'd be opening the door to a flood of historically disputed "possible Christians." This could include all of Category:Congregationalists or Category:Methodists. What makes Hitler's Christianity stand out compared to Fidel V. Ramos or Justice Oliver Ellsworth? Neither of whom were in when you added Hitler. No, this is not about our unwillingness to accept some unpleasant "truth" about Hitler. This is about you wanting Hitler here, possibly to make some political point.--T. Anthony 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Liftarn you are the one who is not sticking to the facts. Hitler repeatedly payed LIP SERVICE to Christianity. Read my first post on this thread. ""It is important to be able to identify the difference between Hitler's public speeches and writing and what he really thought. A devious politician leading a nominally Christian country like 1930s Germany will say lots of Christian-sounding stuff to maintain popularity". You have yet to provide evidence that my Table Talk reference is not valid. See T. Anthony's post above as well. SparrowsWing 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any source to your claim thet Hitler's Christianity was just "lip service"? He disliked some perts of organised religion, but that doesn't disqualify him from being a Christian. And he is important in connection with the German Christians and Positive Christianity. He also formed the Protestant Reich Church. After Hitler had absolute power he demanded that all soldiers much be Chrisitans. SS Reich not only prosecuted people going igainst the nazi party, but also those who was against church doctrine. I'm sure you can quote mine Hitler's Table Talk and find some thing where he says he dislike some parts of the church, but keep in mind that it's not a primary source, but even so nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity and instead say things like "Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew.". Other simmilar book like Secret Conversations with Hitler and Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant does not contain anything against Christianity. Instead Hitler talks about "the persecution of the true Christians and sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man and to turn away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past". Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich also stated after visiting Hitler "Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture.". And another quote from Memoirs of a Confinant "I do not remember even a single occasion when Hitler gave any instructions that ran counter to the true Christian spirit and to humaness.". // Liftarn
You make some valid points and perhaps Hitler could count for forming the Protestant Reich Church whether he was Christian or not. However the idea the Nazis "not only prosecuted people going against the nazi party, but also those who was against church doctrine" is utter nonsense. It's well-known many leading Nazis were not Christian and were actively against Christianity. This kind of ahistorical anti-Christian sentiment makes me suspect your motives. Even the forming of the Reich church might not be enough as various kings or despots formed national churches without being personally interested in religion. Still I'll consider it.--T. Anthony 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
God help me I put him back, but only for the historical connection and I added that his own Christianity is disputed. If you, User:Liftarn remove the phrase about "disputed" I'll go right back to removing him.--T. Anthony 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you reading my posts above? I've given you plenty of evidence. SparrowsWing 19:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "not in other lists, list"

I removed some names because we can't just list every Christian not in other lists. I think their Christianity should be in some way important. Now then I kept many KKK members and I'm willing to add more, but George Gordon's article didn't indicate his Christianity was all that noteworthy. If a case can be made otherwise do so.--T. Anthony 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I added another Nazi to keep the balance of "racist idiot Christians."--T. Anthony 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

George Gordon was one of the first members of KKK, the first Grand Dragon for the Realm of Tennessee, and wrote its "Precept," a book describing its organization, purpose and principles. Sine the KKK is a Christian organisation it's notable. // Liftarn

The KKK isn't a religious order, denomination, or school of Christian philosophy so know it's not. I kept many KKK members who were ministers or who just made a point of talking on the Christian aspects of the organization. If we add anyone in a Christian organization this could get unnecessarily huge and I'm already hearing concerns elsewhere it will. Added to that there are people like David Lane who were in the Klan, but were Neo-Pagan. Several people became active in the Klan primarily for the racist component not the Protestant one.--T. Anthony 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Also a few KKK members I took out because they'd better fit existing lists. For example a couple would fit List of Baptists. If George Gordon fits an existing denominational list it might be more appropriate to place him in one. I'm not saying you should do that, but I think names should be in more specific lists, when possible, if they are to be listed. --T. Anthony 17:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a KKK woman though to even things up moreso.--T. Anthony 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

Guys, i need help: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim politicians

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim athletes

Lets stop this anti-list deletion trend, before all lists are consumed.

Peace!

--Striver 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I thought you put it on delete because you wanted it deleted. I was tempted to be ticked off at you. That said I think what you did might be a "making a point" violation. I would've been against deleting all Muslim lists anyway.--T. Anthony 06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Deletion

I believe that this page should be deleted for it's lack of content and it's misleading title. List of Christians? It is not an entire list of christians, and therefore should be deleted. Wesleystuben 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty unconvincing reasoning. Most Wikipedia lists are incomplete, many deliberately so. And it has plenty of content: it contains links to numerous specialized lists of Christians, plus a listing of ones who don't fall under any more specific page. If this was deleted, it would be more difficult to navigate from, say, Lists of Roman Catholics to List of Quakers to List of popes. The page is useful. -Silence 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Christians_804f.html"