Talk:Christianity/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

This isn't neutral?

How is this article not neutral? All I see is a fair and balanced opinion of Christianity. Was one of your retarded sysops molested by a priest or something? Even if they were, that guy in no way represents the core beliefs or values of the religion! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mexican Pirate (talk • contribs) .

Well, most of the information presented under the article: Christianity has no basis. So why bother correcting it when it's all untrue and deceptive?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs) .

The claim of Christianity being monotheistic is debatable. Existence of only one God in the pantheon qualifies for montheism, and it works for Christianity (or Islam, for that matter) that the definition of 'God' is a convenient one.

Christians may call only one entity as God, but there is no denying the existence of other super-human entities, viz., Satan, Holy Ghost, angels, archangels, seraphs, cherubs and the like. While Christians tend to superimpose the title God to any such superhuman entity in other faiths, say, Hinduism or Shintoism, there is a marked reluctance to refer to the above-mentioned super-human entities as gods, or subordinate gods.

The Christian/Muslim definition of 'God' is more a convenient one to project monotheism that a truthful one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sudar (talk • contribs) .

Wait a minute. That's what it's all about? The fact that Christians worship one God, but believe in many superior beings? That qualifies for marking the article as not having a neutral POV? Well, I can answer that for you. There are other superior beings, but only one almighty God. God created the angels and such, as well as Satan (who, like all demons, started off as an angel). As for the Holy Ghost, that's another name for God. The Holy Trinity comes from God's ability to be omnipresent. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same God coming to you in different forms. -Mexican Pirate 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ř

Why would God come to us in different forms?? This whole idea is obselete.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs) .

The Trinity concept is generally hard to comprehend at first. I don't know if "coming in different forms" is how I would explain it, but there is this: when speaking with the Irish on the subject St. Patrick (according to legend) spotted a three-leaf clover between his toes, plucked it, and used the analogy that the Trinity is like the three leaves of the clover. Each leaf is different and unique, but it's all one clover.

Identical triplets that are in "continuous thought communication" may be an appropriate analogy. rossnixon 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The Trinity concept is rather too obsolete, let alone hard to "comprehend". So a man, spots a "three-leaf" clover between his toes, and uses its analogy to represent the so-called Trinity. Now think: Could this get any more arbitrary? I do not think so. Suppose the man came across a "X-leaf" clover, where X is any positive integer. So would that have made it the "X-inity"??... In conclusion, there is no doubt that this concept is nothing but a made up nonsense from someone's imagination.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs) .
Your brain has been mutated. Maybe it needs surgery. Scorpionman 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing 'obsolete' about the idea. See the Trinity article for a more complete discussion of this topic. Wesley 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you have about Christianity, but Wikipedia is not the place to express it. The belief in God "coming to us in different forms", whether you subscribe to it or not, is core to Christianity, and therefore should stay in the article. There's nothing biassed about including that element of Christianity. Waggers 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree. The discussed comment didn't seem to be really progressive or helpful. - ElAmericano | talk 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism has a supreme God, Brahman, but it is still considered polytheistic. I think labels such as monotheism are misleading.

NPOV

What do we need to do at this point to get the warning removed? KHM03 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we set a time limit. We who has any objections may speak now, or very well hold his peace. Str1977 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great to split the main entry into two. One would be from the viewpoint of Christians and the other would be from the viewpoint of nonbelievers. I know Wikipedia strives to be neutral, but there any too many people with emotions that are too strong in one direction or another to keep such an important entry neutral. Even if the current issues are ironed out, more will always pop up. 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Helpful archiving?

It seems to me that someone (who has been involved in this talk page for a while) might archive the 'closed' discussions and summarize them so that those of us new to the article know what's already been discussed. I suppose it's easier said than done. - ElAmericano | talk 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not have neither the time nor the energy to archive this nonsense [[130.113.128.11]]
Now you look here. If you don't have either the "time nor the energy to archive this nonsense" then perhaps you'd better not even visit this discussion page. If you hate Christianity that much, then heck, don't even go to the article! But I don't want to read any more of your rantings or angry, unbacked comments. This page is for discussing changes to the article, not to give your silly opinions about "this nonsense". Unless you have something useful to say, and I do mean useful, then quit coming to this page. Scorpionman 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not feed the trolls. SOPHIA 08:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we archive the discussion from | upwards? The articles above that section, which seemed to have been very active around Jan 23-24, seems to have wrapped up around end-January. In contrast, the subsequent section | has some comments in Feb, so we can probably leave that for further discussions. --Joseph Gan 08:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Subtle Vandalism

Has anyone else noticed a small number of contributers indulging in behaviour that at best reflects an extreme devotion to a particular system of belief and at worst a bizarre form of vandalism.

For example no one prepared to edit a sentence on the Nicene creed can really be ignorant of the filioque, yet a certain editor who, as anyone can see from his earlier edits clearly has an agenda, has reinserted text which states falsely that the Western Churches use a version of the Nicene Creed dating from 431. I notice this particular editor who removed it claims some expertise in the field!

I will restore the earlier factuallly correct version, and perhaps the editor in question would be kind enough to provide a citation that he regards as acceptable - he can choose pretty mucgh any authority on the subject he likes. 81.251.45.151 11:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Vandalwatcher

If you're referring to my interest in exactitude and veracity, then thank you. If you refer to something else, please review WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Your edit didn't mention the filioque clause and was extremely misleading, implying something about the Church in the West that is inaccurate. If you are going to make the claim that the "Western version" of the Creed dates from the ninth century, you're going to have to give some context. Otherwise, it's unsourced and misleading and won't last long. Thanks...KHM03 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I've learned something today. From the little reading I have just done it does seem like this is a very important distiction as the filioque is still a distinction between eastern and western christianity to this day. It does need referencing however as it does raise questions that the interested reader will want to follow up. Since it is such a decisive split it doesn't seem a bit POV to assume the western view takes precedence and only deserves a mention. SOPHIA 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The filioque is a distinction between East and West, between RC and Eastern Orthodox. And this merits inclusion into the article.
However, it should be done accurately. The filioque first appears in Spain, based on Latin translations of the Nicene creed or of patristic texts. It was adopted by the Frankish Church under Charlemagne and it was adopted by the Roman Church after the year 1000, under pressure from Emperor Henry II the Saint. Str1977 12:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded it so as to include a link to the Filioque.
Another thing: 81.. included: "adopted as the universal creed of Orthodox Christendom not as is widely assumed by the Council of Nicea but by the Council of Ephesus in 431" but this is misleading:
The original Nicene creed was adopted in 325 at the council of Nicaea. It was supplemented (re the Holy Spirit) in 381 at the council of Constantinople. It this "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" that we are generally referring to when saying "Nicene Creed" (as the NCC is hard to utter). At the next council, Ephesus in 431, the normal thing would have been to supplement the NCC in regard to the Theotokos, but instead the fathers decided to affirm this separetely and to proclaim that the NCC should remain unchanged. Because of this move, the NCC wasn't supplemented in 451 at Chalcedon or on any other council and has remained The Creed until this day. Further doctrinal issues are defined not within the creed but in separate documents.
So yes, the NC was adopted as the universal, definite creed at Ephesus, but it was drawn up at Nicea and Constantinople. Str1977 13:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
interesting and characteristicly ingenious arguments, but the present text appears to deliberately fudge a number of key points: eg that the Nicene creed was a rather late addition to an existing body of contradictory creeds, that the eastern and western churches versions differ in important respects, and that the western form is very late and is known to contain an interpolation.
also, I have seen no evidence that the overwhelming majory of Christians subscibe to the Nicene Creed - and perhaps anyone who would like to provide some evidence should be specific as which of the three versions of the "Nicene Creed" is being referred to.
It would be a refreshing break from custom if the clique could make some positive suggestions free of their very obvious PoV rather than simply revert these changes
86.206.110.1 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Vandalwatcher
86..., thanks for the name calling. It always helps a contructive argument.
The Nicene Creed was not "a rather late addition to an existing body of contradictory creeds" - it was adopted in 325 and supplemented in 381 and from that point onwards remained unchanged. It was the 381 council that confirmed the NC after the continuing Arian dispute sponsored by the Emperors Constantius II and Valens, and clarified a few points left open in Nicaea. You are right that there were creeds that contradicted Nicaea and each other but they were all issued during the Arian dispute and never actually adopted by the Church. After 381 there are only the Nicene(-Const..) Creed and the Apostle's Creed (and earlier creed from Rome) and they don't contradict each other. The only difference remaining is the Filioque and it mainly a difference in wording. And the text now addresses this dispute.
As for the statement that the "overwhelming majory of Christians subscibe to the Nicene Creed". We have the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Old Oriental Churches, the Lutheran Churches, the Anglican Churches, the "Old Catholic" Churches (and possibly others I have forgotten) adhering to the NC as such, and the great majority of Protestants adhering to the substance and content of the creed. That leaves us with Mormons, JWs, various Adventists, various "Arian" groups and Liberals within the mentioned denominations. Str1977 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Having disagreed with these editors and raised the same concerns over their POV myself I can see what you are trying to say. However after much thought I realised that I was no less neutral myself as in that case my arguments were coming from a humanist rather than deist slant (I didn't even realise I had a humanist POV until that point). The problem with trying to summarise a subject is that you will always write things as they seem to you - therefore emphasising the details that seem the most important in your view. POV concerns get flung around continuously in wikipedia, very occasionaly justifiably, but usually all they do is cause bad feeling.
I think the info you have brought up is very interesting, the links are very worthwhile and I think add valuable insight to other parts of the article such as the great schism. They need to be factually correct however and I have read conflicting info elsewhere on the web about this so it would be real nice if we could stick to the facts and references and try to work out how to present them in a balanced but brief way in the article as this is a summary section. SOPHIA 12:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sophia, thanks for your measured words. However, the valid concerns of 86... have already been addressed in the text. The Filoque play a part in the Great Schism - great on the surface, small in substance - but this is not the article to provide an in-depth study of the Schism. Both Filioque and the Schism have wikilinks to the respective articles. Str1977 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am no expert in this as I didn't even know about it until it was brought up here so I cannot add anything to the debate on how prominent this should be. Howeve with my love of linking and follow up it does seem perfectly adequate if there is a brief mention of the issues with wiki links for those who want the details. SOPHIA 14:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Str1977 "This user strives to be fully faithful to the Church and Pope Benedict XVI." would care to explain why his church executed Greek Orthodox priests in Cyprus over a matter that he describes as "small in substance". He might also like to read Timothy Ware on the Orthodox Church to see that this is still a matter which is not considered "small in substance" outside his own Church.
Vandalwatcher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.251.36.89 (talk • contribs) .
WP:DNFT --LV (Dark Mark) 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Lord Voldemort - many thanks for this. I hadn't understood previous references to "Don't Feed The Trolls". This defines the clique running this page exactly
Trollwatcher, previously known as Vandalwatcher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.251.36.89 (talk • contribs) .
Dear Vandalwatcher,
I hope you have found my user page interesting. As for the two priest, I can only say that I am very sorry for them, as I have no more information on the circumstances of their death. However, I want to explain what I meant by "small in substance": The words Filioque do not change the meaning of the creed at all, merely give a different emphasis. Western and Eastern Church agreed on this on the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and Council of Florence (1439). The origins of the schism are not matters of theology, but matters of discipline and cultural differences. Photius decided to use the Filioque as a theological cloak in his conflict with the Pope, but this issue grew out of proportion after his death. Str1977 15:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, but the Eastern Church did not agree to the Creed at the Council of Florence. Most but not all of its delegates agreed as a compromise to obtain Western military aid, but in doing so they did not represent the views of the Eastern Church, and their compromises were immediately rejected by the Eastern Church as soon as the delegates returned home. Whether the filioque changes the meaning of the creed is a subject that is still being discussed; as far as I can tell there is still not universal agreement on the question. My personal view is that the West insisted on the filioque only to establish papal authority, which is a much more significant point of disagreement between East and West. That said, I don't think all that needs to go into this article; not because it isn't true, but because it's too much detail. Wesley 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You are free to disagree, Wesley, but I stand by what I said. The question is who is to speak for the Eastern Church? The people, the monks, the Emperor or the Bishops - as it was in these two instances the former two disagreed, while the latter agreed. That they did it for political reasons is another matter, just as the start of disagreements for political reasons is another matter.
I agree that the sides argue about whether the filioque changes the meaning and what I gave was merely my (occidental) view.
However, I must disagree entirely with your take on the motivation of the addition. Rome added the Fq because of pressure by the Emperor Henry II (the Frankish church had used for 200 years by then) - it was the Emperor who played a little anti-Eastern politics here. The dispute about the Fq had already been started a few decades earlier by Photius, even before Rome had adopted the Fq. What the Popes insisted on was the orthodoxy of the Fq and not so much the purdence of including it or not - they had to insist on it, as it was a dogmatic matter in which there could be no diversity (of "it's heretical" vs. "it's orthodox") - in contrast to matters of discipline, rite etc. Such an agreement was reached twice, but unfortunately it didn't hold.
I agree with you about the including details or not. Str1977 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived a lot from this talk page. I put it all into Archive 19. I have also created a link at the top of this page to Archive 20, which has not been created. Whoever archives next time can just click on that link to start that archive.

I think we should try to start new threads more frequently. The archive I have just created has 156 kilobytes, and has only six threads. Even if something is relevant to a particular thread, I think it would be better to have a new thread called "Changes part 2", or "Changes revisited". Otherwise, it's very difficult to find the right part of the page. I hope I haven't archived anything that was active. Discussion can, of course, continue on this page, perhaps even by saying something like, "As mentioned in Talk:Christianity/Archive_19#Beowulf". AnnH (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed

I have restored and edited a version of the opening that I think is better. My concern about the version I replaced is that it contained too much about the history of the creed. I think that level of detail would go better in Filioque, or Nicene creed, or even Early Christianity. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier version had too much detail. I did add that it was first adopted at the Synod of Toledo in Spain, as the location is important, as well as the fact that it was at that time adopted at a regional synod and not an ecumenical one. Wesley 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Response to Str1977 above
Very interesting. I've never come across anyone who listed as one of his dislikes "Voltaire".
I can see that unlike many other members of your clique you do actually know something about the history of Christianity, and this makes it even more curious that you chose to take the approach that you do to this article, almost every aspect of which is tainted by your clique's particular PoV. I notice that a long succession of honest objective and knowledgeable contributors have simply given up and gone away after having won prolonged arguments with you and your clique only to have their contributions reverted anyway. I have to say that a troll is a troll however polite he might be and however strictly he technically complies with the letter of the rules. Has it never occured to you that your undoubtedly strong commitment to one particular sect might be distorting your ability to be objective? How many people have to tell you that you're biased before you take notice ? Does it not occur to you that your dislike of Voltaire might tell us more about you than you'd care to admit, even to yourself.
On the immediate question of the filioque: I think you know that your comments are at best disingenuous. You must also know that the Orthodox Church does not regard this this as a minor matter even today - a fact of which you must be aware if you have read Ware, who, you will also know, is an Orthodox Bishop and so something of an authority on the subject. You say that "the words Filioque do not change the meaning of the creed at all". I wonder if you are not aware that you are expressing a blatent PoV, that the assertion is 100% false by any normal standards of language and logic, and that it is precisely because of its theological implications that the filioque continues to cause such offence to Orthodox Christians.
I notice that the relevant text has been reverted yet again to a version that is factually inaccurate, so I will be putting back a version that whatever else it's failings is at least factually accurate. Your clique by the way needs to be a bit more careful - they reverted one version on the gounds that it didn't mention the filioque, now this one on the grounds that it did. If this contribution is trolled again, I will be putting back the disputed flag, and yet another section of this article will become effectively redundant.
For anyone new to this discussion, please read WP:DNFT. Then, if you have nothing better to do, take a look at edits of the Christianity page over any period during the last few months and play "Spot the Troll".
82.22.236.111 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Trollspotter
82.22.236.111: I don't think your tone toward Str1977 will bear much fruit. As I read the comments, it seems to me that he and Tom Harrison are primarily interested in keeping the bit about the clause brief, with a link (or two or three) to other articles where there is more "room" for discussion. This main article has room enough only for brief overviews of the subject. No one is trying to minimize the importance of the clause or the controversy surrounding it, but a few editors have attempted to prevent the article from dealing with every issue in Christianity in detail. Regarding your accusatory tone toward Str1977, please review WP:AGF. Also, have you edited using other aliases? You seem to suggest that you've made previous edits, but they don't appear at your contributions page. Thanks...KHM03 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr T,
I have my reasons for disliking many things about Voltaire, though I hope his last move was not in vain. And I didn't put him up there all alone. Though he's the most prominent of the bunch others are worse than he was.
My primary motivations in editing are to keep or make it accurate, NPOV and informative. I don't know of any clique - other editors agree or disagree with me as they come.
However, I don't think that an objective editor does really exist. And if he/she does, than I pitie him/her. We all have our biases, prejudices, opinions and we have to deal with them conciously.
As for what I wrote about the Filioque: Yes, that was my opinion, my POV, if you will. Note that NPOV applies to article pages and not to talk pages. And it is a Catholic POV. However it does have its foundations in history. I also know that many Orthodox see it differently and see the difference as more important. What I wrote about Photius however is fact.
As for the article: my aim here is, as KHM as said, to keep it concise and accurate/non-misleading. And the statement about the Nicaean creed being not being issued by Nicaea or even by Ephesus is IMHO misleading. There is a time and a place to write about this in detail but it is not here. If I wanted to silence this, why do think did I include a concise version of this?
Str1977 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977; I used 447 as the date of the Synod of Toledo. I included the date as a kind of compromise with those who want more detail; I'm not committed to including any date, and looking again 447 may not be the best date to list anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, thanks for the clarification. I removed it, as giving one date suggests that the adoption the Fq occurred at one time for the entire West, when in fact it was a three-stage (at least) process. Including all dates however blows the confines of this section. Str1977 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: I have always been perplexed with the statement "fully God and fully human" when referring to Jesus. The logic of the statment is that 1 + 1 = 1. Although I understand what is attempted to be communciated, the statement is difficult and really does not make sense to me. This must be addressed by a theologian that specifically addresses the statment; can anyone refer me? I appreciate your help. Storm Rider 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Incarnation by Athanasius is probably the best piece from the early Church about the doctrine. You can read it online (PDF) [1]. Hope this helps...KHM03 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Incarnation is also available in html at [2]. This is a late 19th century translation; a better one is available here (which is the print version of Keith's PDF).
Theologically speaking, part of the problem is your method. If you take the statement "fully God and fully man" and apply the workings of mathematics and logic to it, you get nowhere. From a theological point of view, this is backwards; Christians believe that Christ is both fully God and fully man because they believe that is how he has revealed himself to humanity. Early Christian theologians did not formulate the statement "fully God and fully man" as the starting point of theology, but as one part of the explanation of how Christ, having revealed himself as savior, accomplishes this salvation.
To quote Fr Dimitru Staniloae,
God in himself is a mystery. Of his inner experience nothing can be said. But through creation, through providence and his work of salvation, God comes down to the level of man. He who has made us thinking and speaking beings has made himself accessible to our thought and our speech. Touching our spirit, he awakens in us thoughts and words which convey the experience of his encounter with us. But at the same time we realize that our thoughts and our words about him do not contain him completely as he is in himself. For us men, they are flowers grown up from the depths of his ineffable mystery. Our words and thoughts of God are both cataphatic and apophatic; that is, they say something and yet at the same time they suggest the ineffable. If we remain enclosed within our formulae, they become idols; if we reject any and every formula, we drown in the undefined chaos of that ocean. Our words and thoughts are a finite opening towards the infinite, transparencies for the infinite, so they are able to foster within us a spiritual life."
For an excellent reevaluation of early Christian theological method, see this book. JHCC (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it's also helpful to understand a phrase like 'fully God and fully man' by contrasting it with other formulations. This statement excludes the idea that Jesus may have been half god and half human, like Hercules (who had a god for his father and a human for his mother); or fully God with only the appearance of being human, somewhat like the angel Raphael in the book of Tobit who only appeared to look and eat like a human but in reality was a good spirit; or a human who somehow became godlike or extremely godly. The phrase also suggests that Jesus had the same nature as God, and then at a point in time "took on" or "assumed" the same nature as man. He did not have or switch to having a third nature that somehow combined or mixed the divine and human natures. Wesley 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point. To take it a step futher, such phrases as "fully God and fully man" should be contrasted with other formulations in use at the time they were formulated. Similarly, the Nicene "born of the Father before all ages" stands in direct contrast to the Arian "there was a time when he was not." JHCC (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And it is always good to mix in a bit of Negative Theology. What we say can only be stuttering in the light of the Greatness of the Lord. Str1977 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks people; I appreciate your comments and the links provided. To state fully God and fully human has always caused me problems (and I suspect others that have a mind that thinks in mathmatical terms); it is fraught with easy miscommunication. On the other hand, it may be an attempt to demonstrate the mystery of God. However, I would recommend that we delete that phrase and use some of the other phrases you have used. They are cleaner and do not carry potential "baggage" that this one phrase carries. My mind can easily wrap itself around "he was both god and man", but the "fully" destroys the symmetry that is Jesus. Most everything else you said was great. For instance, as a Latter-day Saint the statment above, "there was a time when he was not" is something in which we would not find agreement. Christ was always the First Born, he has always existed; there was never a time when he was not. Where we part is that we believe there are three distinct beings, God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but they are One in purpose, One Godhead. Thanks again to each of you. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Storm Rider 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'd prefer if we retain the phrase "fully God and fully human", as it is the common and official short hand for this. However, we might supplement it with a further explanation addressing your concerns. Str1977 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but with those unfamiliar with some of the doctrines of Christianity, we might not create a stumbling block for them when reading about it. Supplement would certainly be better. When things have the appearance of being illogical, rather than question or pursue answers they might just chock it up to being "those crazy, unthinking Christians". Storm Rider 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WARNING TROLLS OPERATING IN THIS AREA]]

Re earlier interchange on the Nicence Creed and the prevelence of Trolls on this page. I'm not sure how many editors are genuinely striving to be neutral around here, but I have the very strong impression that a small group of Trolls effectively own this page and have been exceptionally successful in presenting a view that at best fudges any facts that devout Christians prefer not to hear, and at worst presents a pro-Christian PoV (Just a few examples: playing up persecutions of Christians and playing down persecutions by Christians, denying the Orphic elements in early Cristianity, and glossing over the fact that the term Nicene Creed can denote three different texts, none of which was known to early Christians). The same few Trolls - all of whom are very clearly extremely devout believers - have induced a long series of serious knowledgeable and NPOV editors to give up and go away. They are also behind the unresolved arguments resulting in all the Warning stickers on this page. Since their Troll behaviour is so persistent and clearly deliberate, I think something needs to be done - perhaps a Troll Warning banner to save genuine editors the frustration of tangling with them, perhaps getting them banned, perhaps some sort of arbitration. Of course if all other contributors agree with them and think I'm biased then I'll happily go away and stop bothering everyone. So, as a first step I think it is time to name the Trolls and see how many people agree or disagree with my assessment. Reviewing the past few weeks the worst trolls appear to be KHM03 (the most subtle), Str1977 (the most knowledgeable), Storm Rider, and AnnH, all of whom have been repeatedly informed of their obvious bias by other editors over an extended period.
168.224.1.14 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Trollspotter
168.224.1.14 -- Aside from the truth that you are factually incorrect, please review WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. I, for one, welcome your constructive involvement in improving this article, but not at the expense of allowing you to lie and/or misbehave. Thanks...KHM03 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be entirely in agreement with the keeping the section on the Nicene Creed brief. If (as I understand) the only difference between the creed adopted at Nicea and what we now call the Nicene Creed is a word or two then discussion of it should be left to the article on the creed itself. This is already a very large article and we can't go into every theological point in detail. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just on the limited point re the Nicene Creed. Please see the external link I added to give the Orthodox view, which is completely missing in the earlier pro-Western test of this page. Of course the trolls will want to cover up all the key information here - that there are earlier creeds than Nicea, That there are three different versions of the Nicene Creed, that the Orthodox Church regards the RC as heretical on this matter, that this is a principal (if not the principal) point of theological dispute between east and west, and so on. Off course ecumenical Christians prefer to conceal these facts. 168.224.1.14 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Trollspotter

168, thanks for the flowers up there. As for the link, no one here denies that there is a specific Eastern Orthodox view to this and I certainly wouldn't want to exclude it. My posts here included my POV, as I said, but that is not the aim of my edits on the article page. The current version, which you repeatedly revert to another, contains the dispute with a link. That is enough, as we also have to keep it concise and also avoid misleading statements. One more technical point: as far as I understand the POV-tag, you are not allowed to revert to your version and at the same time post the POV-tag, as the one tagging a section declares that he considers it POV - but you hardly consider your own POV POV, do you? You may however, flag the version you disagree with. Str1977 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a page on the Nicene creed (and on Early Christianity, and on the History of Christianity, and probably more that I'm not aware of.) We summarize, and link to the article for more detail. If anything I think the coverage here of the Nicene creed is too detailed already, especially in the last paragraph about the heresies. The anonymous editor's uncivil remarks on the shortcomings of other editors does nothing to recommend his own viewpoint, and only makes the discussion more difficult. Tom Harrison Talk 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course we should never feed a troll, but this is rich. If Anon 168 actually understood the differences in beliefs between Str1977, AnnH, KHM03, and me he/she would certainly see how choice this moment is. As for my part, I am honored to be mentioned in the same group. Though we have fundamental disagreements between us, these people are wonderful to work with. Granted we each actually strive to be disciples of Jesus; in this sense I gladly recognize them as brothers and sister in Christ. Anon, you do understand that I am a Latter-day Saint? My efforts attempt to include a broader definition of Christianity in this article rather than the strictly historical Christian perspective. IMHO, this article focuses for the most part on the Orthodox, historical Christian perspective almost to a fault, but given that it is the majority view it should have the majority focus. I sense you may be shooting from the hip and not knowledgeable about the edit history of this article to realize that. Spend more time reading archives and we all look forward to your edits. New voices are appreciated. Storm Rider 07:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Troll spotter - I think you're almost exactly spot on in your observations. I ssuspect the point is being lost in this discussion on creeds,so if it's Ok with you I'll start it up as a new topic. I think you're up against more of a confederation than a formal group, but they certainly need watching, and innocent editors need warning about them.
By the way, they have something of an obsession with anonymous editors (they love pretending that they are all the same person) so you might want to sign up.
Also, a troll warning will soon get lost. How about a Troll Watching page that you and others can refer to. We could pretty soon build up a good coherent case against the worst offending trolls John1838 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)John1838

Jewish religion

This may be nitpicking but I have changed the first appearance (in the history section) to Judaism to "the Jewish religion", as Judaism is more strictly the religion as defined by Rabbis and Talmud which was still in flux during Jesus' time. Str1977 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but shouldn't we have a link somewhere on the article to Judaism? KHM03 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a link right next to it (Rabbinical Judaism, when we are talking about the "parting of ways". And possibly elsewehere in the article as well. Str1977 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Judaism has been the main Jewish religion since Moses, although it has changed somewhat. But Jewish religions include Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Egalitarianism, Atheism, Baal Worship, Astorah God-Wife, Noble Savage Belief, Ethical Relativism, Secular Humanism, Marxism-Liberalism, Kabbalah. So is the Jewish religion precise enough? rossnixon 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the actually Jewish religion, so that excluded anything that wasn't around at that time and anything non-Jewish, e.g. Asherah.

The issue is that Judaism can be understood as the Jewish religion in general (as you seem to see it and as certainly the previous editors have put it in here - I must know, I am one of these editors). In this way you are right about Moses.

However, Judaism can also refer to the Jewish religion as it constituted and consolidated after 70 AD, under the Rabbis and the Talmud - Christianity didn't evolve out of rabbinical Judaism. Rather both Christianity as well as Rabbinical Judaism (in this day mostly represented by the Pharisees) were two currents within this one Jewish religion (two that were quite close, while others were further off) - the two currents that survived, two currents both claiming to be "the real deal". I want to avoid this confusion of two different meanings of Judaism.

That's not to say that Rabbinical Judaism didn't go back to Moses as a root - it is rather a question of how to continue the branch where the division comes. Str1977 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other how we word it; I defer to community consensus. KHM03 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with graphic

I have already written on the discussion page of the graphic asking for it to be changed to reflect historical accuracy, but this has not been done, and I do not know how to edit the graphic myself. First, the pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches are labeled "monophysite," yet most of these Churches are not monophysites, the are miaphysites. Secondly, the Anglican Church should have a dotted line that connects to the pre-Chalcedonia Churches, sicne the primitive Celtic Church in Britain was a mission of St. Philip. Nrgdocadams 01:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Isn't the Celtic Church different from the Anglican Church? KHM03 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nrgdocadams,

  • Miaphysitism is IMHO merely a variant (though a substantially orthodox variant) of Monophysitism.
  • The Anglican Church's only connections are to the RCC and to Protestantism, it has no connection to anything that might be termed Celtic Church (in fact, it was Henry VIII who stamped out the last remnants of the Celtic Church when he dissolved the monasteries).
  • Furthermore the mission of St. Philip to Britain is more legend than historical fact.
  • The Celtic Church, in regard to the graph and in fact, was part of the Catholic Church and not a denomination that actually separated itself from the main body. It was separated by geography, but the same could be said about other far-off Churches, and distinct in organisation and feasts, but the same could be said about the Church of Milan. Str1977 15:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
* The important distinction between monophysitism and miaphysitism for purposes of wikipedia is that the latter term is the one actually used and claimed by the Oriental Orthodox churches. If in fact they are substantially the same, as the chalcedonian churches have generally believed, then I see no harm in using the term they prefer. It's probably preferable.
* There are I think several different Christian groups in various parts of Great Britain that claim some form of connection to the primitive Celtic Church in Britain, though most of these I think believe they are reviving or restoring it, not continuing it unbroken. historically, the Anglican Church appears to be a pretty straightforward offshoot from Roman Catholicism, as Str1977 says. Wesley 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why doesn't this article have a criticisms section? Many of the other religion-focused articles I've seen have such a section detailing the common complainst and/or criticisms of the particular religion. Christianity is certainly not exempt from such criticisms and yet there is no such section. Is this simply another symptom of the prevelant NPOV editing throughout this article? - Hayter 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because there already exists an article devoted entirely to such criticism.And there exists here a section on persecution. Str1977 15:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that article, thank you for mentioning it, if neglecting to provide a link. There should still be a small section regarding it here though, as is done with other such situations, indeed it is done on this very article. And I thought about mentioning the Persecution section earlier. Christianity being outlawed by the Romans is not the same as modern scientists saying it's unlikely there was a Garden of Eden. One, I think most would agree is clearly persecution, the latter is a base for criticism. Such criticism as a subject cannot be covered under a heading of persecution without POV editing. - Hayter 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The link is there, under see also. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'm not sure how useful a summary it is to say, "restoring more accurate and NPOV version," (although who would not be grateful to the editor who did that?) It does have the advantage of universality; anyone can use it anytime to describe any edit. But that same strength is its weakness. So many people can and do use it to describe their edits that it tells me nothing; it does not in fact usefully summarize the edit. Tom Harrison Talk 19:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, it typically means the editor is striking what they think is a blow for truth and justice in the midst of an edit war. I agree it's generally unhelpful. Wesley 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TROLL WARNING

Warning. A number of Trolls are suspected of working on this page.

These trolls are editors who persistently revert contributions that do not conform to their own common PoV. A review of the history of this page will reveal a number of them, some much more subtle than others.

Does anyone have the time to accumulate some hard facts, examples, methods, clues as to how to spot one, underlying agendas, ways of dealing with them, etc?

John1838 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)John1838

This is a great idea. Many thanks. Also thought your talk page was good. Haven't really got time now, but would like to do a case study of one of the worst offenders. Will get a log on as soon as I get round to it. Can I use your page in the meanwhile ?
Any one else have any thoughts on this? Belinda & Giovani you sound like the sort of people who might feel they've suffered at the hands of the cabal. Is anyone in touch with earlier victims ?
168.224.1.14 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)TrollSpotter
Is this appropriate? WP:CIV, WP:AGF and all that. KHM03 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Utterly inappropriate, and probably best ignored. Grandad 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about a cabel but I suppose one could come to this view, although to me it just seems a coalesing of editors who share a common ideological point of view. The same could be said with other schools of though who want in see that their POV is included. I don't see any evidence for trolls, here, except for the occasional vandalism. As for my own POV, what I do is I seek is for a historical context be given for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's also in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I will want the various influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence. Specifically, a Jewish context, ofcourse (its various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context most marked by syncretism, but also those also with clearly distinct threads, prominent being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. To have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of early Christianity. Giovanni33 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside questions of viewpoint, I think that level of detail belongs in History of Christianity or Early Christianity. Incidently, is History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism a subpage? Tom Harrison Talk 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gio. Don't see trolls here, and while I do feel I was picked on by the "cabal" I think that is normal for any article where there are editors agressively defending their turf (their POV) and its a battle to get it changed to be more inclusive. Overall, I think, though, that they have allowed the other POV and now its just a matter of wording, clarify, and some other POV language that is in dispute. Im sure in time there will be a further synthesis and compromise.BelindaGong 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's odd that John1838's first and only contribution outside of his own user page is this "TROLL WARNING." Grandad seems to have the right idea. Wesley 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Five quick points: A] why is this innappropriate? What's the problem with inviting potential contributors to take a look at past edits before deciding whether its worth their while to contribute to the Christianity article (I did and I won't be contributing as a result) B] Two of the contributors above seem to confirm that there is "a coalesing of editors who share a common ideological point of view" who are "agressively defending their turf (their POV)". Is this not exactly the substance of the claim about trolls on this page (you do not need to call them trolls for the accusation of them being consciously and systematically non NPOV to be substantially correct). Does anyone have a better name ? C] Obvious though the point is, I think it is worth saying that trolls are going to say that there are no trolls operating here, and are likely to try to throw in some red herrings. D] well done BelindaGong and Giovanni33 for your generosity of spirit. E] If there are no trolls on this page, could someone offer a suggestion as to why the behaviour of those accused has changed so noticeably since this section on the discussion page was created ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.224.1.14 (talk • contribs) .

Certainly there is "a coalesing of editors who share a common ideological point of view," since according to checkuser, "User:Giovanni33 is also User:BelindaGong." Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's ok to point about poor editorial behaviour, but criticizing editors simply because of their religious affiliation violates Wikipedia's policies regarding civil behaviour. Also, while it's not proof, any time I see a brand new user citing policies and generally showing a lot of familiarity with wikipedia, it gives me the impression that they may have used wikipedia before, under a different username. Wesley 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I also point out that troll does not mean a person who holds strong opinions, or even a person who is "agressively defending their turf". It means someone who is disrupting normal discussion by making deliberately inflammatory posts. Even if you think there are people pushing their own point of view, can we at least use the correct terminology. DJ Clayworth 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

It's not clear to me how your repeatedly reverting the article is going to lead to synthesis and compromise. Three reverts in twenty minutes seems inappropriate. The three-revert rule is not 'everyone gets three reverts a day.' Tom Harrison Talk 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Gio's version. I think he has made his case and so others who object should state their arguments here instead of reverting. He has signifiant support among many editors who want to see these elements included so rv alone will only result in rv back within a few mintues. MikaM 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, Gio's version is contested by several users. Let's talk about it here; we've made progress in the past. Make your case here for the changes before just adding them in...consensus can work! KHM03 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I rolled back Giovanni33's latest "revert" not so much because it re-introduced his version of some paragraphs, but because it also carelessly re-introduced some typos in other sections (and possibly in the sectin he meant), and deleted a subsection. It seemed as if he re-pasted the entire article from a version that he liked; even if his version of the main paragraphs he changed is better, it had too many obviously unintended side effects. Wesley 03:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reported Giovanni/BelindaGong for 3RR violation, supported by results from Checkuser[3]. Tom Harrison Talk 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Miracles section

I know I have done this before on another issue on another page, but so be it. I move the following section over from the article, as it is argumentive and POV and inaccurate and Original Research:

There are two leading beliefs in the world first is Christianity, and then there is, of course, the uprising belief of evolution and the big bang and all other sorts of great ways to explain the creation of the universe without having to elude to someone greater than humankind. There is, however, one very unexplainable factor that the many groups of these secular scientific groups cannot just simply push to the side, dismissing it as a childhood fairy tale. That factor is miracles. "Should it surprise a true believer in God that God is working miracles today? According to the Bible, "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). If Jesus was ever a miracle worker, He is today. Did He ever tell you He had stopped doing miracles? To deny miracles is to mock prayer today, since even the slightest true answer to prayer involves a measure of divine intervention. God can do whatever He wants at any time. He has not gone on an extended vacation. While there is order in the Universe, there is also plenty of scope for the direct involvement of God's Spirit.
Many people are merely religious. They have never contacted or known the living God. They are satisfied with a religion which gives them rules to obey, or ethical principles to follow. The religion tells them that if they are faithful to keep the rules then they are right. But no one has ever kept the rules of any religion 100% of the time. So religious people hope their good deeds outweigh the bad. But they don't know if they do in their case. Deep within they suspect that something is seriously wrong. And it is. Because only when you trust the sacrifice and work of Jesus Christ can you be on the right track. "He who has the Son of God has life" (1 John 5:12).
Miracles confirm the true message of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:15-20). If no one is getting changed in your church or religious group, you are involved in dead religion. You need to meet the Lord. The changes God produces are not confined to inward, spiritual changes. They also include physical changes. Miraculous healings are occurring more and more these days, especially in places where many people pray as the Bible teaches us to pray. The Bible teaches there is such a thing as the gift of miracles. Read 1 Corinthians 12:8-10.
What follows are some links on this subject. I simply do not have time right now to research and catalogue all that God is doing or has done to confirm the message of Jesus with signs and wonders following. I have witnessed many things myself, of course, but there are others who have witnessed far more than me. All glory and praise to God for the things He has done.
[4] - a book full of interesting stories including many miracles by a personal friend of ours who we fellowship with in Sydney.
Miracle Stories (link unavailable, sorry) - a web site devoted to testimonies on the subject.
As time goes on you will find on this site more and more material to document and report the miracles I can find out about. I'm planning to put some videos onto the internet of actual miracles where I've been involved."

Str1977 23:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I believe miracles are merely wishful thinking bound to coincidence. There is no way to determine whether or not something is a "miracle" or not do to the lack of ability to constitute divine intervention. If ever man was able to determine the presence of a god-like presence at any point in time would make us in ourselves gods. But good luck on your indever, you may be able to prove to some that "miracles" are more than just luck or coincidence. --Jackalodeath 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Theodosius paragraph

The editor who calls himself Kecik has reverted one of my edits with the summary rv Restoring sections removed by STR1977 that was here for a long time in which were removed w/o re to talk page. THAT was the controversial change.

He is right in so far I didn't explain on the talk page (I am doing that now) and that it was there for a long time. It was there for some time which is deplorable since it's quite worse than the rest of Gio & Co.'s POV pushing. It must have slipped through some editor's fingers.

I explained in my summary restore proper theodos section (no POV pushing, legends inclusive, please). I meant three things:

  • This paragraph was about events in the 4th century, namely C's legalization by Constantine, C's becoming state religion through Theodosius, doctrinal issues (Arianism) leading to Councils. All valid parts of a history of C. But some people don't care about that stuff and remove it from the article by replacing it ...
  • ...by a section almost completely devoted to persecution of pagans and heretics by Christians, going into many details that have no place in such an overview. As we didn't have a whole section further down on persecution. My earlier attempts to bring these sections closer to each other were adamantly opposed by Gio & co.
  • To make matters worse, the hijacked version of the paragraph was even inaccurate and spinning legends, most notoriously "programs were enacted to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians" - could the editors posting this please provide the slightest evidence for such programmes? Who drew up these programmes? When? How did they look like?

Hence, it was completely justified to bring back the relevant paragraph substituted for this nonsense. If it happened only after it was there for some time, than it was even more important to get rid of it now.

Str1977 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I am a new user but I have taken the time to read through the whole talk page, and archived version. Needless to say, I found it very interesting. I will disclose my POV as a secular humanist. I also note that your POV is that of a conservative Christian. I think all POV's should be included and that this article should be accurate. I think its important that we acknowlege our own bias. What I find interesting is that you do not see that the answer to your questions about the evidence has already been given many times, including recently above by Giovanni, and others. These is not legend, as you put it. It also fits in here and not in the persecution sections (although it is persecution) because of its context in describing the particularly intolerant nature of the resulting orthodox Christianity that emerged in the 4th century. I'll include the text above down here for you to see. Also, I am interested to see the original Prof. White passage that was objected to. That might be a better version.
"The original Prof. White passage, which I generously agreed to replace with another source that expressing the same idea, per KH03's suggestion. Still, I supported my claim that the White passage is widely accepted thusly:
Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. To support my source as one that is widely accepted I provided a further source: "historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14."
But, this is now moot since it was replaced by another quote that states the same idea. This source was suggested by Mika. She said:
"What do people think of this book as a reference, A World History of Christianity
by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [5] Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[6] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."
I agreed, so I used this quote instead. I note that no one disputed this source or this information from Hastings as presented by Mika.
Str1977 about a week later, along with other sections and he revereted to a very old version that had been objected to as POV. Specifically the language about heresies. But his objection was that one quote did not have attribution and the point about intolerance was already made in the Perecustoins section. I responded with an argument why its not the same thing, and I provided the attribution for the other quote..." that describes the programs. To clarify these programs were state decress issued under Theodosius I. As the passage states, "The state issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions."
"Joseph McCabe, "A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science," Gryphon Books (1971). Excerpts appear at: http://www.christianism.com/articles/18.html"
So you see why I find your wondering where this comes from intersting. It's all laid out, more than once. I don't see any arguments that you've made against the inclusion of these well supported statments either, only that you reverts after letting it sit a while (followed MusicalLinguist who always supports your POV). I also note her being a conservative Christian. I think we need to respect all points of view and be honest about reading a version that is inclusive and accurate.Freethinker99 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr 99 (for the moment I will assume that you are indeed a new user),
If you define the "programs" as "decrees" you have already conceded that emptiness of using the word programmes. Also, "suppress all rival religions" is inaccurate, first because it forgets about Judaism and secondly because it equates persecution of pagans with the closing of the temples.
But the accuracy of the passage (which I still dispute, as being completely un-ancient) was only one of the problem with the revert. More important still is the fact that valid information gets substituted for an over-blown repetition of things that have already been said.
So, it is not your/Giovanni's version that is accurate and comprehensive but the one I resinserted.
And note, I am not a "conservative Christian". I am only conservative regarding secondary issues, e.g. traffic regulations. I consider myself an "Orthodox Catholic Christian" - in fact I am one with Chesterton on conservatism.
Str1977 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, and I prefer reasonable arguments and rational discourse to books based on an ideology.
Thanks for your generosity in assuming that what I say about myself are not lies. Thanks! I'll extend you the same curtesy. I only thought you were conservative based on your talk page where you state your dislikes of Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their epigones, and your likes of Dante, for example. Most liberals like Voltaire, Rousseau, while most conservatives dislike them.
The decress are the best concrete example of the programs. I don't think its innaccurate to say all rival religions were suppressed. It doesnt forget about Judaism. Infact it specifically states that the "after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues." The closing down of other religions temples, I'd say, is persecution. Do you disagree that governments like China are not persecuting Christians by closing down any of their places of worship? The sources are not "ideological" they are representative of both POV's in a scholarly fashion. TheA World History of Christianity by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [7] is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history. Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[8]
Also can you point out what the "valid information that gets substituted" is? I agree valid information is getting substituted,which is why I restored it.
Freethinker99 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You see, Mr 99, I am no liberal (in any current sense of the word) either. Though I love France, I dislike this bunch of "intellectual arsonists" - Voltaire for his commenting on things he was ignorant about, and Rousseau for being the father of totalitarianism.
To say "all" is inaccurate, as Judaism wasn't surpressed by the decrees. Yes, the closing down of temples etc. is a form of persecution (and that is already included in the article), but it's not "imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions". Apart from the fact that the wording includes quite many details, intended to inflame, while the persecution of Christians is state in factual and neutral language (as it should in an encyclopedia).
If a book bears the name of an ideology in its title, I presume it is also based on that ideology. I wouldn't mind if you called the Catholic encyclopedia a religious book. I don't think that a Rationalist Encyclopaedia is different. Not that we can't use it, but we have to keep this in mind.
The information constantly substituted is the part of the paragraph that does not constantly reiterate the supression of paganism. Let me just state again: Doctrinal disputes, Arianism, Christology, Councils, definition of dogma.
Also to say that "Christianity existed as a mixture of both Christian and Pagan notions" is self-refuting. If Christianity had been such a mixture, the mixture would by definition be 100% Christian. The other wording ("pagan remnants") is better and actually more in line with what scholars say.
However, that doesn't change the fact that Gio's "persecution extra" passage is inaccurate, POV and overblown. Str1977 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed warning label

I'm starting a new section since the earlier one got sidetracked. What still needs to be addressed before we remove the NPOV warning from the Nicene Creed section of this article? Wesley 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley. Good idea to revisit this. There are a number of problems outstanding. These are listed in the earlier section and most have not yet been addressed. I will not repeat them, but would like to clarify one point which appears to have been misunderstood. This is the statement that the Nicene Creed is subscribed to by the overwhelming majority of Christians. No one disputes that the majority of modern christians claim to subscribe to the Nicene Creed - which incidentally is slightly different thing anyway. But even this formulation fudges several important issues. The first is that the overwhelming majority think (wrongly, on two counts, I supose you will agree) that they are subscribing to the earliest formal Christian creed which was confirmed at the Council of Nicea. The second is that the Eastern and Western Churches are actually refering to two different texts (this is a separate point from the fact that neither was even considered at Nicea). I suppose it's just a question of definitions - to take an analogy, it's rather like saying that "most religions accept the scriptures" instead of saying that "most relions accept their own scriptures".

On a second question I have to own up to a degree of confusion. One of the points made earlier was that the Orthodox view on the filioque was being repeatedly airbrushed out of the article. This airbrushing (ie repeated reversions) was not disputed but justified by Str1977 on the grounds that the filioque was a matter of trivial importance. A citation and a link was then supplied which showed that on the contrary the Orthodox Church regarded and still regards it as a matter of very great importance. Str1977 then said "As for what I wrote about the Filioque: Yes, that was my opinion, my POV, if you will." Now no-one disputes anyone's right to voice an opinion on these discussion pages, but I wonder if I'm missing something if contributions can be reverted on the grounds of what are explicitly admitted to be personal opinions. Can anyone help me on this one? Am I missing a logical step somewhere?

To understand how much this contributor's opinions differ from those of the Orthodox Church all anyone needs to do is take a look at the Orthodox Wiki site. A link was provided to this site but that link was immediately removed without explanation. The first Paragraph of the page to which the link referred gives a flavour of the Orthodox view:

Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son."
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople, and most in the Orthodox Church consider this inclusion to be a heresy.
The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

Now let me emphasise that this is not necessarily my opinion. My point is that the views of four out of the five Patriarchies are being airbrushed off this page on the basis of what is admitted to be a POV and no-one else seems to find this at all odd. Could someone help me here. Many thanks. Trollwatcher 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not brushed out the Eastern view on the Filoque. Yes, I made some references to my view on the importance of the controversy (regarding the Fq's substance). Maybe I shouldn't have done this, as it has no bearing on the article. All issues regarding the Fq controversy belong into the Fq article and not into this brief overview. In the light of the topic of the article and of the section, the controversy is well covered.

Still, apart from the Fq, Eastern Orthodox, Old Oriental (whether Monophysite or Nestorian), the RCC and those Protestants doing creeds adhere to the Nicene creed (and whether they believe it to be the oldest creed is speculation and purely beside the point), while quite a lot of Protestants also subscribe to the substance/content of the creed without doing creeds themselves. Str1977 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it appears that the treatment of the Nicene Creed and the filioque is the sticking point. For starters, would it be helpful or more confusing to say the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" instead of "Nicene Creed." Advantages are that it specifies which of at least three different versions might be meant, and gives a brief nod to the filioque issue without wallowing in it, while the disadvantage seems to be that it's considerably more syllables -- three times as many. The RCC does not condemn the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version, and I think even allows its Eastern Rite churches to use it regularly, while most Protestants likely don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, unless it's that all creeds are divisive and should therefore be done away with. Trollwatcher, while I'm quite aware of the problems caused by adding the filioque clause to the creed, allow me to suggest that this particular paragraph of this particular article may not be the best place to highlight those problems. At whatever point the article does discuss the East-West division, perhaps this issue could be brieflyhighlighted there with links to the Nicene Creed and Filioque articles. Wesley 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)