Talk:Christianity/Archive 26

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

Christ template

Template:Christ is a new template I started for wikipedia. Hopefully, we might be able to put a whole lot of articles on just one template. 1. Feel free to contribute to it, I've just spent an hour copying and pasting existing templates in there. 2. Can it be added to this page? Once it's ready, of course.A J Hay 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it needs a lot of work but I think it's a neat idea and could prove useful. —Aiden 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a slight problem with the NOTOC if {{Christ}} is included in a page, so I'm trying to fix the problem. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a fix to the problem, and I've put the template on the page. Again, feel free to edit it.A J Hay 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason to club old-catholics with Roman Catholicism

Old-Catholic denomination is not in full-communion with Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Old-Catholic denomination as a heretical sect.

Kindly remove Old-catholic denomination from any association with the Roman Catholic Church

The Old-Catholic Church is correctly placed into the fold of Catholic Churches, i.e. Churches that derive their existence from the RCC. The OCC began in 1870, splitting from the RCC after Vatican I - that it since has turned itself into a Protestant bodies with Catholic forms is another matter. Maybe it would be time for a reconsidering of the branches as they are now reported in the article, but until that happens and is broadly accepted, we have to report things as they are. Str1977 (smile back) 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist in non-Catholic faiths!

In the section about Eucharist it is necessary to mention that the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself the true Eucharist.

The Roman Catholic church does not recognize any Eucharist done by Anglicans or Old-Catholics or Protestants or any other Heretical denominations

I am not sure if Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Eucharist of Orthodox churches and in what terms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.85.127.139 (talk • contribs) .

That would be an excellent thing to add at Eucharist (if you have sources for it) but not here. This article is too long already. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And things should be accurate - the RCC doesn't recognize the validity of the Eucharist in bodies that, in her view (and sometimes by their own admission), lack the priestly office or apostolic sucession. She doesn't dispute the validity in churches that have both, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Str1977 (smile back) 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It gets pretty crazy from that point on. Historically the Eastern Orthodox Church rose first in Byzantine. During the conflict, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church excommunicated the Roman Catholic Church. Then when the protestants broke off of the Roman Catholic Church, the RCC excommunicated them as well. Ever since Vatican II Ecumenical Council, however, we are only declared "separated brethren", even though they wouldn't consider our sacrament valid. Then again, the Orthodox Church doesn't consider theirs valid, even. Times like these, we need to read, I believe, Schmemann on Extra-Sacramental Grace. Any edits to this statement will be greatly appreciate as long as this edits are located directly bellow this post. As for Schmemann... maybe it was Schillerbek? Sorry, I don't know how to spell it correctly right now... it's late.--NWalterstorf 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to say here that the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself the true Eucharist. It also claims for itself the true priesthood, true Christian doctrine, and its own identity as the true church; but so does the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is a fact about these Churches' self-identity (somewhat offensive to non-Catholic Christians), and not really a fact about the eucharist itself suitable for an article on Christianity in general, which this is supposed to be.
The mutual excommunications of 1054 by the Papal Legate and the Patriarch of Constantinople were formally retracted in the late 20th century as a sign of increasing reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Myopic Bookworm 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

standard beliefs for all Christians

The Nicene Creed has been accepted by all orthodox Christians, so it should go without saying that any church that doesn't accept it is not Christian despite their protestations to the contrary. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept the deity of Christ, a central tenet of Christianity. So, why are they called a Christian denomination in the article? Is it because they call themselves Christians? There are teachings central to Christianity. Any group that fails to affirm all of them should not be labelled as part of this particular religion. It's highly disrespectful to Christians to use such loose standards to define who's in the faith when standards are already available.Jlujan69 06:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jlujan69, you might want to review the archives for the plethora of reasons, different points of view, and reasons why the position you stated above is not acceptable for a WIKI article. It is fine to state those opinions on a given church's own article page, but it is not acceptable to play judge about who is Christian and who is not. For a short response, the Nicene creed is a 4th century doctrine. I prefer to use the teachings of Christ to identify Christian: do they follow, do they love, do they forgive being some of the more important principles that reflect discipleship. Beliefs: do they accept Jesus as the Messiah, is He acknowledged as the way, the truth, and the light, do they acknowledge that his atoning sacrifice provides the only way to return to the Father. Finally, not one of us knows who Jesus and our Father have accepted and forgiven and that is the only real definition of who is Christian. Storm Rider (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't know about you Storm, but I would argue that it would be acceptable, since you could verify with enough argumentation that certain groups are not Christian, in that their teachings could not save anyone, not that you could call out individual members. Now the problem: Most of the verification is from "Biased" sources, and most people wouldn't accept them as authoritative for that reason x_x. So I guess we'll have to live with it for now, besides, by giving enough information about all Christian groups, then people should be able to figure out for themselves whether or not a group is Christian without Wikipedia telling them. Homestarmy 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: While it is not appropriate for us to judge who is "saved" and who isn't, it is certainly appropriate for us to judge what constitutes a Christian, or non-Christian, belief. Otherwise, we dilute, even obliterate, the meaning of the word (or any word for that matter). Christianity, unlike race, ethinicity, sex, etc., is a belief system, and thus there are criteria that can be used to judge whether a certain belief is Christian or not. Whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian is certainly debatable since most orthodox Christian churches would consider them not, and for that matter, JWs probably consider themselves as distinct, and "set aside," from "mainstream" Christianity. Perhaps somewhere in the archives it has been persuasively argued, but I still think it's a legitimate question. On a side note, you say that the Nicean Creed is a "4th century doctrine," as if to say, it is archaic and no longer "true," or that it wasn't deliberated upon, or that it's not based upon the teachings of Christ. If this is the case, then just what exactly is there in it that is not an essential component of Christian teaching? That Christ was not the Son of God? LotR 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands... Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth -- it stands and falls with faith in God."
-- Nietzsche
LotR 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider wrote: "I prefer to use the teachings of Christ to identify Christian: do they follow, do they love, do they forgive being some of the more important principles that reflect discipleship."
Storm, I agree with you whole-heartedly that these are verifiably the teachings of Christ according to the Gospel that all Churches use AFAIK. I would like to see at least some mention of these teachings be allowed in the article, otherwise there is a serious deficiency in the article, and one reading the article now could easily come away with seriously the WRONG idea (diametrically 100% opposite) about the actual teachings. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think the Book of James or something has this whole speal on identifying who among you is a brother or not :/. Homestarmy 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

LotR, I firmly believe the Bible teaches that Jesus was the Son of God. In many ways one could say I believe Trinitarian doctrine, but in just as many ways, I suspect, one would say I did not and that I am a heretic.

The article does an excellent job of identifying mainstream beliefs. It also does an excellent job of differentiating between those groups who follow mainstream doctrines and those who don't. What I refuse to accept is for anyone or any group to say, "A Christian must believe exactly like we do or they are not Christian". The reason we have over 36,000 different churches in the world is because man does not agree about what Jesus taught and we disagree strongly enough that we break away from each other to form our own group.

I know of no Christian group of significance that does not believe that their doctrines can be proven by the Bible. The problem is personal interpretation. One of the main reasons I reject the Council of Nicea is because it was a group of men that came to an argued conclusion about what they thought was true. Not one of them spoke as the prophets before them saying, "Thus sayeth the Lord". They were men who spoke as men. I believe they were good men, but just men. Christ was not as concerned about the specific doctrines one believed, but rather the condition of one's heart, one's humility, one's willingess to forgive others.

I do believe that the apostles taught us to be students of truth, to seek after truth, and to hold truth sacred. Although it is not clearly taught, I believe we are held accountable for rejecting truth when presented to us. We are encouraged to prove to doctrines of those who come to teach us. However, As soon as we label a group non-Christian then we deny the members of those groups the right to affiliate themselves with Christ. No act could be any further away from the teachings of Christ. Say rather that you disagree with their doctrine, their doctrine does not agree with mainstream Christian teachings and thought, but never place yourself in the position of saying who is Christian. That is beyond our ability and our right. Storm Rider (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm, on Nicea, many of the things they spoke as men were sort of important things that aren't really difficult to miss from the Bible, are you saying that if a person (or persons) present their own "personal interpretation", then you would just reject everything they say? And labelling groups non-Christian won't deny anyone a thing at all, who is the ultimate judge of the universe, popular opinion of men on who is a Christian, or is God the judge? Even if the entire world except for one person all pick up, say, Gnosticism, and say that the God of the Bible is basically some evil demigod, and the one person who is left is your basic Christian, is that person denied the right to "Affiliate themself with Christ"? Because Jesus knows what's in people's hearts, and doesn't deny people salvation if a popular, incorrect opinion is against the person, it's not a democracy, God is the judge :/. Labelling a group non-Christian isn't the same as saying "Every single person in this group is not a Christian", because each individual person is not the group, it's what the group as a matter of doctrine proclaims that we can and should be prepared to test to see whether or not the claims are true. Homestarmy 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::On the contrary, defining the single substance, but two beings of Jesus and God the Father is quite difficult to prove completely with the scripture.  Were it not so, there would have been no need for the Council of Nicea.  More importantly, Jesus was not perfectly clear on the matter and to attempt to classify it as fact is overly POV.
Put the shoe on the other foot; from this day on all other Christians will now label you and all other members of your church as non-Christian. Walk in those shoes for a while and tell me it will not affect you or any other member of your church. I personally find it offensive to deny the name Christian to any individual or group that claims to follow Christ. Also, if Jesus is willing to accept an individual with Christ, who are we to deny them that right? Thank you; God is the judge and not anyone else. So then why put yourself in the position of being a judge. Better to simply accept their claim at face value and move on. Jesus' perfect counsel was that we would know them by their fruit.
Homestar, you state that labeling a group as non-Christian does not deny that an individual in that group isn't Christian; how does good fruit come from a bad tree? Jesus would say that is impossible.
You and I would disagree on some things; I would define a Christian as someone who follows Christ and their life is reflective of His light. I also believe that churches create distinctions that are not Biblical, but are man made and are used to persecute others. Our Christian history of full of examples of this unfortunate quality.
The Holy Spirit is not absent in the world, but very real. We know when someone carries the Light of Christ within them. There are very few absolute truths in the world. As Disciples of Christ we seek truth and hold it sacred. There is true doctrine and false doctrine within Christianity; I know of no church that has all the answers. I believe that I have found a fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but not the complete gospel. Within the Church of Jesus Christ we are taught God is the Father of all truth and that all religions have a degree of truth; some far more than others. Storm Rider (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicean Creed

Stormrider and others who would agree with him, I've yet to hear or read about an orthodox Christian church that rejects the contents of the Nicean or Apostle's Creed. The reason being that these creeds sum up the central teachings of Christianity. The central teachings are what distinguish it from other faiths and upon which the whole religion stands or falls. Take, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul teaches in the Bible that if Christ hasn't been raised from the dead, then "we above all are to be pitied for our faith is in vain". Jesus clearly described Himself as God and subsequent writers of the books of the Bible have said as much. To deny this is to deny a central underpinning of the faith. To state that the central focus of Christianity is love for everybody instead of from Whom that love derives is to take away from the goal of Christiaity: the reconciliation of a sinful humanity with a holy God. Man loving each other without first loving God won't amount to a hill of beans on the Day of Judgment. Christianity is all about God, not man. God showed His love for a sinful humanity by sending His Son to die to atone for our sins. Without this ultimate act of love by God, there would be no point to Christianity. Life would be meaningless since we'd all share the same fate after death. If we love God, then we'll believe what God said in His word (the Bible). The fact that Wikipedia would allow for any old standard to be used for defining the core beliefs of Christianity shows an extreme bias on its part. When it comes to religions of the world, it's a must to consult those whose beliefs are considered orthodox to the particular faith or else I could claim to be a Muslim and believe that he was possessed by Satan and not God's Prophet, yet insist that nobody has the right to question my "Muslim-ness". Somehow, however, I seriously doubt Muslims would see it my way. The same principle applies to Christianity!!Jlujan69 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree! The problem is people like to interpret "Verifiability" many times to mean "Anyone who has a bias on the subject isn't an ultimate authority and says something equally as valid as anybody else on the subject", which is downright annoying, but you gotta work with what you got, you know? Homestarmy 23:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Also, trying to be totally neutral on a less than neutral topic like religion is impossible. By their very natures, religions themselves are biased and so are their adherents. In that case, you have to check within the religion itself to get the best information possible on it. That would mean checking the historically accepted doctrines and teachings of a religion and then using that as a basis to try to determine if a particular sect or division would fit into it. But as you said, you gotta work with what you got. I don't own Wikipedia, so I can't make the rules.Jlujan69 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a way, it's not impossible in a certain sense to be neutral, you just have to basically stick to the facts and then the only thing that can be non-neutral after that is people's interpretations of the facts, which isn't Wikipedia's responability. Of course, now you get into the issue of "What facts are really facts or are they just opinions with no real authority", which is really where the problems tend to start. Homestarmy 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Jlujan, don't be so cavilier about your interpretation about what Christ said. You have scritpures that you interpret to mean one thing, but there are a many other scriptures that oppose what you say and indicate that the Son and the Father are separate beings. In this situation I reject the creeds and will rely on the Bible. If you want to say that 4th century Christianity has defined what 4th century Christianity is, fine. But that is not 1st Christianity and you will not present it as such. There is no correlation between the two.
I am somewhat alarmed that you would complain about an article that already is crystal clear about mainstream Christainity. Your complaint is that groups that you feel are not Christian are identified as Christian. An unacceptable propsition for a ...cultist?! If you go down this path, I promise you that you will invite a very contentious period. It can be done, but I suspect it will not be an easy time of it. The article will need to be balanced. I and many others will ensure that the article is balanced. This type of contention sickens me and I reject it.
By their fruits you shall know them. Tell me, from where does the spirit of contention come? JW's are Christian becuase they say they are! Calling them non-Christian is not within your right. It is a slur to deny their Christianity. How many times have you heard that terrible slur against the Roman Catholic church, "that great whore of Babylon". These eptithets disgust me. I reject them regardless from where they come and for whichever group they are intended. Those who use them are wolves in sheeps clothing within the body of Christ!
I would ask you to show all of us where Jesus is recorded as defining a disciple, a follower, or what we might call a Christian today. Once you have found that, please compare that definition to the definition that you are presenting. Once we have that, we will be very far in bringing this conversation to a close. If the term Christian is owned by anyone, it is owned by Christ. It does not belong to 4th century churches or any other church. That church(es) may be the historical Christian church, but it is not the Christian church. Storm Rider (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Storm, just because some people are wrong to call one group non-Christian doesn't mean EVERYONE is wrong whenever they call a group non-Christian, and that they all must use slurs to do it. Observe: "I think that the Watchtower is a non-Christian organization". Did I mention the whore of Babylon anywhere in that sentence? I guess when Paul was warning against "destructive heresies", he should of been more tolerant and loving of his poor brothers with opinions that couldn't of saved anybody from the judgement of God, and respected their right to believe whatever they wanted? Homestarmy 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, what I learned fairly early on in my Christian walk is that certain truth claims must be wholeheartedly rejected if they violate any part of the basic tenets of the faith. I realize you could probably quote to me volumes of scholarly works that would support your contentions about who Jesus is and isn't and what you believe Christianity is and isn't. Therefore, I'll give you a simple example of what I'm saying. If someone came to me claiming that only Caucasians were the true human beings on planet Earth and all other races were not even human, guess what?? I'd categorically reject what he said no matter what scholarly works he had to bolster his claim because what he said is simply not true. Statistics don't lie nor do Bible verses, but they sure can get taken out of context to create an entirely different point of view. I'm not shocked that Christians are facing this type of opposition from the world because End Times prophecies have made it clear this would happen. However, I will continue to fight for the truth of God's Word when it gets perverted or otherwise misrepresented. If that's mistaken for hatred, well, that's not the intent. I just won't compromise the truth in the name of ecumenicalism or political correctness and I certainly will not call someone a Christian who disbelieves in the deity of Jesus Christ just because that person may have sincere beliefs. By doing so, I'd be calling God a liar and that simply won't do.Jlujan69 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we all need to calm down here. The important thing for the purposes of this article is What Is Verifiable. As such, calling beliefs "unorthodox" without citation is unjustified, and should thus be removed. Slac speak up! 06:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WIKI is not a soapbox and it is not for the zelots to proclaim what they believe is true. You have misunderstood the purpose of an encyclopedia. This is the Christianity article; not the Orthodox Christianity. I acknowledge your right to believe what is "true". I demand the same respect for everyone else on WIKI. If you want to argue personal beliefs, take it to individual pages or off WIKI entirely. I will call a spade a spade regardless of who is playing the card. By their actions you will know them; if you want to argue with someone take it up with Lord when you get on your knees this evening for prayer. I suspect that you and I might disagree on a few points, but I also know that we will agree on a vast number of points. However, it is not about what you and I think is the "truth". It simply doesn't matter. We are writing an article, not a evangelical pamplet. Take a breath and realize this article is not the place for this position. Wesley, Str, Archola, Codex, Aiden, Ann, and all the other editors that have worked so hard on this article, I would like to hear from you. Storm Rider (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I make the very same recommendations to you. Wikipedia is very careless in just including anyone who wants to be included into Christianity. They would not do the same thing to Islam or other religions.Jlujan69 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the recent changes are good. The beliefs section is about the Christian mainstream, which necessarily leads to statements about "many" and "most" and not about "all" (of that is implied by the dropping of "most" - if not there's no difference and no need for back-and-forth reverting.
This behaviour anyway is unacceptable - discuss changes here!
Sometimes the older version is already strong, as in "the vast majority of Christians" instead of simply "Christians", which can be taken either way as "some Christians" or "Christians in general".
The term "unorthodox" is unacceptable in itself, as it is a colloquial and, maybe contrary to Jlujan's intentions, positive term. The correct term would be heterodox or heretical.:I don't know what "some of their major beliefs claim around" is supposed to mean.
In the sentences re the afterlife, the addition of Christian is an improvement, as only Christian (and Jewish and Islamic) views on the afterlife generally involve heaven and hell. This would also mirror the structure of the other beliefs that are introduced by "Christians", "Most Christians", "Many Christians"
Though I have my disagreements with Storm (I won't reopen them) I think he is right in terms of Wiki-policy and NPOV. I believe the line's gotta be drawn somewhere but that is my view and it is not for WP to decide that but to maintain a NPOV.
Str1977 (smile back) 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify my point: I also agree with much of what Jlujan wrote in his very first post but I don't think that WP is the proper forum to decide this. Str1977 (smile back) 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, a couple of quick comments:
1. You keep dismissing the "4th century doctrine" of the council of Nicea as to discredit it as being archaic. Just what exactly do you consider archaic about it? What would your typical "Bible-believing" Christian find archaic about it?
2. It is good that you trust the Bible to be authoritative -- that it is the Word of God. However, do keep in mind that the canon of the New Testament was hashed out during the same era (the first few centuries AD). Does that make the New Testament "4th century" Christianity?
3. The "but I interpret the Bible this way" argument only goes so far. There are certain realities about God that can be derived from it when considered as a whole. One cannot (objectively) arrive at any conclusion that one likes. That's the whole point: That God's will (and word ) is unequivocally "other" from self.
4. Jlujan69 does have a point -- "Christianity" should have a specific enough meaning as to be able to define what constitutes a Christian belief and what does not. A devout Muslim would not subsribe to Christian beliefs. So somewhere along the line, you have to draw the line. So it is a legitimate question to ask. JWs have quite a bit different beliefs from the rest of Christianity.
5. But, all this said, you are correct in what you said up above (to me) in that the article does acknowledge a distinction between Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant and JWs/Mormons/etc., so I am not about to push for a change.
LotR 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
LotR, if I have led you to think that the Nicene Creed is archaic, then I have miscommunicated. Archaic to me connotes old, first, prior to. I would disagree with that position; it is post 1st century Christianity. However, my personal beliefs are beside the point and are insignificant to the topic at hand. I believe the article does and should give priority to mainstream Christian thought. However, it should not do so at the exclusion of all other Christian thought.
2) The New Testament canon is not uniform throughout Christiandom. There are some major differences. You and most of us here are familiar with the evolution of canon; suffice it to say that no historian can say we have the original documents. What we can say is that we have the best we can have today and that translations continue to come forth; some better than others. I am not an advocate of sola scritura, but I believe the Bible to be the word of God. Further, as Jesus said to Peter (Matt 16:15-17) "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." It is personal revelation that is paramount is knowing the truthfulness of the word of God.
3) Context is always important. Having a good translation is important. Attempting to think that men, of themselves, can arrive at the "truth" is folly. Truth is the revealed by the Spirit of truth. The Bible is unfortunately a debatable document. If it were not we would not have confusion about faith and works, the manner of baptism, the importance of baptism, faith, forgiveness, the role of Mary, priesthood, and so many other subjects. We have only to look at the vast number of churches and all of them raise the same bible up and yet conflict with each other.
Jlujan does have a point; I just happen to think the article already focuses on mainstream Christian thought. Focus is not enough for Jlujan; he desires absolute, complete focus on his POV. That position would be great for an article entitled "Orthodox Christianity", "Historical Christianity", "Mainstream Christianity", etc. However, the title of this article is "Christianity" and it does an excellent job of covering the subject.
I am not a JW, but I respect the fact that they call themselves Christian. I believe they should be recognized as part of the body of Christ. I am a Latter-day Saint. I am a restorationist. However, no one should ever think that I don't value and hold sacred the teachings of orthodoxy. There are unnumbered truths and deep wells of wisdom taught during their entire history. Though we disagree on some points, we agree on those things that bring salvation.
In closing, I relish a good conversation with those who seek to be disciples of Christ. I enjoy discussing different interpretations of scripture. However, when it comes to WIKI, I am adamant that none of us is capable of saying "this is the only definition of Christianity". Christianity is much greater than any of us. I believe that th Spirit of Truth is greater than any of us and we do not know all the workings of our Father. Allow the possibility that He is the fount of all truth throughout all religions, we should sift them and find the truths they offer, teach the truths we know, and always have the humility to recognize we don't know everything about the "truth". It was not the doctors of the law, pharisees and sadducees, that were recognized by Christ for knowing truth, but rather the insignificant and poor that gave all they had.
I have still yet to see the definition taught by Christ of a disciple and how that definition differs from the one proposed by Jlujan. I would like to see it. Storm Rider (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, Storm rider, some of the things you mention church's having disputes over easily fall under categories of things that won't make one church become false and another true, like how to baptize people and things Christ didn't literally command us on how to do properly, but just because some things won't cause us to be in serious trouble if we get them wrong doesn't mean that all differences in things can't cause us to be in serious trouble. How to baptize someone properly is one thing, but something like who is Jesus is quite another, one man may consider Jesus to be the son of God, another just a mere man and not very special at all, other's still someone who didn't exist. Since Jesus commanded us to believe in Him specifically, something like this would be very important, and getting it wrong would have very bad consequences that choosing a particular method of baptism simply wouldn't have. Homestarmy 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
StormRider: OK, I better understand your position on the Nicean Creed (especially given that you are LDS)! I also agree that the article treats the topic of Christianity quite well. The only reason I commented is that it should be clear that there ARE lines to be drawn in defining a Christian belief versus non-Christian belief. If this is not adhered to, then anyone can claim him/herself a Christian (e.g., the modernist-atheist who believes that "all you need is love" may claim "I follow Jesus' teaching, thus I'm Christian"). Hopefully you get my point here. LotR 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nasrani people

If there is a consensus, can we mention about Nasrani people on the main page. They are important as they are one of the oldest denomiantions of christianity. (Christianity reached in India before it reached Europe).--nids 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tree chart

The tree chart does not express that some Nestorian and Oriental Churches have unified with Catholicism and or Greek Orthodoxy in recent years; it should. Lostcaesar 09:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New format

I think the article lacks coherence and is less informative than it should be, and this is because it has no clear structure. Anytime one step is taken in a direction it is necessary to qualify that step in the opposite direction. This is because the article attempts to express the entire belief system of Christianity, whilst at the same time defining Christianity as vaguely as possible, as merely a collection of diverse and contradictory beliefs. The solution is already in the article, in the intro and denominations section. There are, according to it, 1 billion Roman Catholics, 600 million Protestants, and 300 Orthodox. Hence we could trace the core of Christian beliefs on the similarities between Catholic and Orthodox, then give similarities and differences within Protestantism, producing a central core of common beliefs accentuated by contrasts. Then other smaller groups with more divergent beliefs could be introduced. This format Catholic-Orthodox-Reformed-Other could be the structural basis of every section, giving true coherence. Also, it roughly follows the historical development of Christianity. An article needs to avoid a point of view, but it must eventually stand somewhere in order to have a view at all – this way we can give a general survey of the religion in a uniform way. Otherwise, we end up expressing the point of view that Christianity basically doesn’t mean anything, since it means everything, and the chaos ensues, meanwhile people constantly come a edit the page tossing anathemas all around. Lostcaesar 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, you've made a great point about how Christianity is portrayed in this article-with few boundaries and several contradictory beliefs (deity vs. non-deity of Christ; literal Hell vs. non-literal Hell; salvation by works vs. salvation by grace, etc). Clearly, both sets of teachings can't be correct. After all, how can Christ both be deity and not deity? How can Hell literally exist and not literally exist? I advocate one POV and Storm another. We can't both be correct, though we both can be wrong. Like you, I was under the impression that the beliefs section of the article reflected traditional mainstream Christianity. That's why I felt compelled to state that all Christians believe in those things mentioned simply because I've never heard of a mainstream church rejecting them. By saying that only "most" believe them begs the question, 'what do the others believe'? Well, evidently, they believe the opposite, so once again, we have contradictory beliefs being presented. In order to avoid a long and fruitless scenario of "editing wars", I suggest that either "my" views or "Storm's" views be presented throughout the article--not both.Jlujan69 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think we should use User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Beliefs as a start. —Aiden 22:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Divisions

I would like a division between Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism as opposed to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and Protestantism. Why? The middle term in the latter list is a geographical term, unlike the other two which represent a historical event. We should use the parallel historical event of the schism to distinguish between Eastern Orthodoxy / Roman Catholicism. To use a geographical term "Eastern Christianity" is inaccurate and contradicts the list. Why? Because there are many Eastern Christian groups that are part of the Roman Catholic Church, as the very list attests. Furthermore, there are many protestant groups in the East. In other words, a geographical distinction is non-sense in the given context, and besides it is inconsistent with the grouping method given above. Eastern Orthodoxy is a group that is basically as well defined as the other two, and exhibits a basic historical and doctrinal unity, whereas Eastern Christianity is totally ambiguous. This is more important considering the above goals of using the section to help format the later article. Lostcaesar 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You probably should not be writing the "Divisions" Section at all if you don't understand the divisions any better than that. You CANNOT make Oriental Orthodoxy a subordinate branch to Eastern Orthodoxy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to make Oriental Orthodoxy a subordinate branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, nor do I see how that is relevant. Please see my revision as per your input. I merely wish to better organize the section. Lostcaesar 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Caesar, the only sensible alternative to the current three categories would be four categories, splitting Eastern Orthodox from Old-oriental (who are here called Oriental Orthodox). Still, this would leave Nestorians in the lurch, so I think the current classification is the best we can do.
It is not a mere geographical term but a historical one: the Eastern Churches are those in the East, the Roman Catholic Church that in the west. Protestantism later split from the RCC and expanded into the East as well. The RCC has made unions with some churches in the East as well. But, still the RCC is Rome-based, while Protestantism is a Western phenomenon.
What troubles me more is still the term "Oriental Orthodox" - if this is really the most common term used in the English-speaking world I certainly have to yield, but personally I deem Old-oriental better. Note that Eastern Orthodox actually means the same as Oriental Orthodox. Str1977 (smile back) 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. You can say Eastern means the same as Oriental. But Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are two different things, and have been since 451. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that these are used differently. My question was whether the one is the most common term in English. If it is it will stand, though the parallel is a bit ironic to me. Str1977 (smile back) 13:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Oriental Churches call themselves "Tewahido". This is a Geez word that it translates "Monophysite" because it refers to the firm belief that Christ did NOT have a split personality, but that his humanity and divinity are thoroughly and utterly and indivisibly unified and merged in one nature, in order for the Divine to save humanity. According to Tewahido clergy, if the Divine had been separated from the human in any way, this would not have occured, hence they were fully merged to accomplish this salvation, the divine entered into creation fully, not part-way. If these churches were to accept the "split personality" doctrines that were forced on the other churches by the bishop of Rome at Chalcedon, they would no longer be "Tewahido". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Codex, could you bring yourself to such an approach that would allow you respectfully disagree with those Christians adhering to the Forth Ecumenical Council and desist from claims about us believing Jesus had a "split personality" ... it's tantamount to someone stating that "Monophysites" claim Jesus to be a "simpleton". You don't and neither do we believe in a split personality.
If you could be so kind I would not venture further, despite your inclusion of historical errors like that the churches were "forced ... by the bishop of Rome". When I read force in this context, there are two names that spring to mind: Dioscorus of Alexandria and Eutyches. But maybe that would be too much to ask for. Str1977 (smile back) 13:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but I thought 'Separate natures' and 'split personality' were synonyms... separate = split; nature = personality. Our clergy say that 'separate natures' is exactly tantamount to calling him 'split personality', because the same words are used to translate both in many languages. And there is still the memory of being EXCOMMUNICATED from Rome (aw, man!) for refusing to agree to the split natures thing, not to mention the persecutions on this acount. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
All right, if you honestly couldn't see the problematics behind your wording, I will explain it to you:
"Split personality" is a concept of modern psychology. Look into the Hitchcock movie "Psycho" and you'll see Norman Bates having a split personality, being either himself or "his mother". You will admit that this is something different from our belief about Christ. Your equations are wrong (though I understand that this misunderstatement, already present in the 4th century, is the actual heart of the schism) "nature" does not equal "personality" - that is what we accused Nestorius of - and thoug your right that "separate" and "split" are quite close, you may note that the Council of Chalcedon did not define something like that but said "that there are two natures in Christ unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly united in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour." It is expressly this what Dioscuros refused to subscribe to.
As for your laying everything on the doorstep of "Rome" - it is true that the Council followed the doctrine expounded by Pope Leo the Great in his Tomus, it is true that Leo's steadfastness had much to do with the overturning of the injustices (yes, injustices) committed at that terrible event called the Robber Synod. And yes, he confirmed the definitions and canons of the council (save one). But what are you talking about?
"Excommunication"? Leo did excommunicate the obstinate Dioscorus but so did all the bishops of the world save the Egyptians. And certainly not for anything about "split personalities" (see above)
"Persecution"? Are you saying that the Pope persecuted the Monophysites? Or is the "Rome" you are talking about the Empire? In this case you are right, but at the same time what about persecutions committed by Monophysites against the adherents of the Council. What about the deeds of Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter Mongus - how come that Syria, once a mainstay of Dyophysitism became largely Monophysitic? So you see, persecution happened on either side.
Back to the wording issue: All the Councils were about putting the faith into words that could combat heresies. The problem with Chalcedon was, that one group (at first the Egyptians) rejected the wording agreed upon by the entire Church, even though they agreed on the condemnation of Eutyches and his heresy. That was the unfortunate thing!
Str1977 (smile back) 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because if they acknowledged that his humanity and divinity are combined and "unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly united", Chalcedon was contradicting itself to state that there are "two natures", if something is "unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly united", the total is one, not two. Then insisting on penalty of excommunication and death that there were "two natures"...? There was good reason not to trust this grievous departure from the spirit, those who persecuted Christians were doing the same devils work, whether they admit they are pagans, or whether, failing that, they infiltrate the Church and make up silly doctrines masquerading as truth, just for an excuse to persecute them some more. It won't make any difference for the persecutors "in the long run" whether they were openly pagan, or pretend-Christians who replaced them and sat themselves in Moses' seat. Persecution is persecution. But then I guess once they threw the teachings that mercy and love are requirements out the window, some people then feel they can turn their back on the teachings and do the opposite, but simultaneously demand a "free handout" from God and proclaim themselves "automatically saved, no matter what sin they do".
I do not even recognize the religion described in this wikipedia article as my own. The editors here won't even suffer the words "mercy" or "love" to even be mentioned anywhere, perhaps because these words sting their conscience too much. As if the Gospels do not say anything at all on the subject! So what they get for themselves is a religion where mercy and love are "optional", but you can still be mean and hateful if you like, and the words Christ spoke just don't apply and cannot even be mentioned. That's your religion, not mine buddy. In my religion, mercy and love are not optional, they are everything. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an important discussion because I am attempting to reach a terminological clarity that will be useful further on in the article. As I see it, we can either list the Oriental Orthodox Churches as a subgroup that doesn’t fit into the above categories, as one of my edits has done, or group them with the Eastern Orthodox into a larger category and give this a name. I think the former is justified if the number of Oriental Orthodox is significantly smaller than the Eastern Orthodox. If we choose the latter, and I have no problem with doing so, then we should avoid the name “Eastern Christianity”. My problem is not in the grouping so much as the term “Eastern Christianity” and its lack of clarity. For this same reason, Str, I agree with you that Oriental Orthodox Churches is inferior to Old Orthodox Churches, since in English oriental and eastern are synonyms, and whatever the case such a distinction, confusing in English, is completely impossible in most other languages. To sum, “Eastern Christianity” wont work – I want a solution to that difficulty, the grouping debate is secondary to that in my view. Only forty years ago English distinguished Greek Catholic from Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodoxy included Greek Catholic and Old Oriental – but this has shifted (of course, we use to say “Mohammedans” also). Lostcaesar 13:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, wrong, forty years ago Eastern Orthodoxy did NOT include Oriental orthodox (the only correct term). This is only your own bad mis-nomenclature that has changed, nothing in the actual situation has changed whatsoever. The English language does not decide who is grouped with whom. Please try to see past your own nose. And "Old Oriental", besides being insulting, is not widely used and should not be used here; it's worse than "Mohammedan". You seem to think it is wikipedias job to push whatever terminology you think is best, instead of reflect what is actually used. What is actually used is "Oriental Orthodox", whether you can accept it or not. Again, this topic should be left to those who understand it, and should not be left in the hands of any insistent, know-it-all cadre of editors that really does not understand what they are pontificating about, but is putting the wrong information. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Caesar,
you cannot classify the Oriental Orthodox (to use that term) under Eastern Orthodox, as these two are two distinct, mutually exclusive bodies. The only term embracing both is indeed "Eastern".
Greek Catholic also is not subsumed under Eastern Orthodox, as the Greek Catholics are indeed Catholics, albeit not of the Latin Rite.
Codex,
I don't understand why "Old Oriental" is insulting (after all, it is the position of Copts, Jacobites, Armenian to content themselves with the old faith prior to Chalcedon. Was it not a principle of Cyril of Alexandria, his nephew and even the Henoticon trying to appease Monophystites that only the old faith of Nicaea and Constantinople should count - glossing over Chalcedon), but the main point is if it is not used widely (and I have to trust native speakers on this) I don't push this term further. I only want clarity in this matter.
Str1977 (smile back) 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Caesar, "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" is a geographical designator, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that.
Another question - do the Copts, Jacobites, Armenians etc. really describe themselves as monophysite? I was under the understanding that "monophysite" was a Western description of their belief, but that they preferrred miaphysite. Slac speak up! 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
These groups are the post-Eutyches Monophysites of the 5th century and later. Monophysite is the more traditionally used term, while Miaphysite may be more accurate. Above, I used Monophysite as a shorthand for them.
The Roman in Roman Catholic of course is a term that (Roman) Catholics reject as a name for themselves, strictly speaking. Str1977 (smile back) 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Old Oriental" until seeing it on this talk page. I'd never heard of "Oriental Orthodox" until seeing it on wikipedia. I'd normally heard of these churches described as a group as either "Monophysite" (traditional, but apparently offensive) or "Non-Chalcedonian" (although that might include the Assyrians, as well, who are strangely never called "Non-Ephesian." john k 13:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Old Oriental" is the term common in German, this is why I asked. Str1977 (smile back) 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian divisions section

To the person who edited the last paragraph of that section, I commend (for whatever my commendation's worth). At least it's not stating categorically one way or the other the accuracy of those churchs' doctrines in relation to mainstream Christianity. That's much better than the way it was presented before.Jlujan69 13:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity / Orthodox Christianity

I see now that there is an article Orthodox Christianity in addition to the article Eastern Christianity. If editors here feel "Eastern" is too geographic, the other term is equally inclusive and acceptable. (They can all be Eastern, and they can all be Orthodox, just whatever you do, don't lump them all under "Eastern Orthodox"! Yes, I know it's confusing and may seem silly, but that's really the way it is! ;o)

Right now it looks like Orthodox Christianity is scheduled for a merger with Orthodox Church. Probably all three of these articles could be merged, since they all include the same branches... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I read you correctly, but I think I disagree: Eastern Orthodox cannot serve as an umbrella for all these groups. That each groups considers itself orthodox is a truism but Eastern Orthodox (which is an umbrella for Greek O., Bulgarian O., Serbian O., Russian O. etc. -sorry if I missed out some) is theologically opposed to Oriental Orthodox. Str1977 (smile back) 10:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Str, I think Codex agrees with you - he said that you can call all these churches "Eastern" and that you can call all of them "Orthodox," but that you can't call all of them "Eastern Orthodox." Personally, I'd prefer "Eatern Christiniaty" as the term. The idea or "Oriental Orthodoxy" is a relatively new, and rather incoherent one, based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that westerners decided that "Orthodox" meant any eastern church, even the, er, heterodox ones. Beyond that, the Assyrian Church of the East is an eastern Church which is not called Orthodox at all, and there are Eastern rite Catholic churches which would probably be included in "Eastern Christianity" but not in "Orthodox Christianity." I'm not sure what the value is of a term that includes Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, but not Eastern Catholic and ACOE. What do Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have in common that the others do not, besides use of the word "Orthodox"? john k 13:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, John, I thougt so. I guess that Eastern Christianity was defined this way: Christians of the Eastern rites minus those affiliated with the RCC. As for "orthodox" - every church would call itself orthodox. Maybe, should add a certain note to the Eastern Christianity section about the unified Eastern rites churches. Str1977 (smile back) 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Every church may say that its beliefs are orthodox. Not every church calls itself "Orthodox." john k 19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Str was saying the same thing I had said, and the same thing John just said, about they are all Eastern, and all Orthodox, but not all Eastern-Orthodox...!
Of course "Orthodox" ('Ortodoks) is part of the official title of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, so this was not determined from westerners. When you say "even the, er, heterodox ones" I'm sure you know that each of these three mutually exclusive groups would consider the other two heterodox, so that is a subjective.
Subjective, indeed. But the opinion that the Oriental Orthodox are heterodox has always been the majority opinion in the Christian world. john k 19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's right - because they say that Christ had only one nature after it was unified. That, and maybe little things like because they don't name their months and days of the week after the Caesars and their gods... (Just kidding!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do have things in common, similar outlooks on many theological issues, there is a great deal of mutual respect even if there is no formally established communion. About the only thing that does separate them is the number of natures that Kristos has, which may or may not be such a major thing. As for what do they have in common that Assyrians don't have, I guess the answer would be everything from 438 to 451...!  :o) As for what do they have in common that Eastern Catholics don't have, I guess it is a little more than that. The Orthodox groups tend to interpret the Greek the same, that Jesus was admonishing Peter that he had better not allow anything on Earth that isn't allowed in Heaven -- rather than turn this on its head, and incredibly forcing it to mean that he was actually giving this human being supreme authority to make all the rules in Heaven...! (Read it in Greek instead of Latin, the meaning is fairly obvious...) In Eastern theology, it is only Kristos who will be the King in Heaven making the rules there, not Peter or any one else...~ ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Surely in many ways the Coptic Orthodox are going to be closer to the Coptic Catholics than they are to the Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria? The centuries of common history that they have with the Coptic Catholics, and the centuries of antagonism that they have with the Eastern Orthodox, surely mean something? The Oriental Orthodox spent centuries with the Eastern Orthodox church as their principal opponent. The Catholic Church was something else entirely. That Oriental Orthodox agree with Eastern Orthodox that the Pope is not the head of christendom hardly distinguishes them - they share that trait with the Assyrians, and with every Reformation-derived church. Every similarity shared between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy is also shared with other groups that don't call themselves "Orthodox" with a capital "O". "everything from 438 to 451" is also shared with Catholicism. The distaste for Rome is shared with Protestants and with the Assyrians. Besides calling themselves "Orthodox," there is no unique commonalty between these two churches. john k 19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
John, you have a point that they were indeed principal opponents for much of the time, but I think that began to change by the 1950s... (sorry I don't know anything specific to mention at this time) also, parts of the canon that are accepted by only those two might qualify a 'unique commonality'... The O.O. use a lot of Greek-derived forms and nomenclature from the Septuagint, so there is generally a Greek flavour or influence that runs in common between these two... Liturgies... Icons instead of statues in a Church... Newer theological questions that have been posed from the west, like "Original Sin", "Rapture", etc. they tend to take similar stands on... Things like this are what make them "Orthodox"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic Church rejects the Rapture, as well. And the Eastern Catholic liturgies and rules are definitely closer to those of whatever Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church they split from than any eastern orthodox church is to any oriental orthodox church. There are certain issue where Eastern (and western, for that matter) Catholics are closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than either is to Oriental Orthodoxy - notably the two natures of Christ. The idea that there is a distinct flavor of "Orthodox Christianity" that includes eastern and oriental orthodoxy and excludes eastern catholics and assyrians seems weird and artificial to me. There is "eastern Christianity" based on rites and rituals, but that clearly includes the Assyrians and the Eastern Catholics. There might be some specific issues, like original sin, where Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox agree against the Catholics, but that doesn't seem sufficient to me to posit that they are in a distinct subgroup. john k 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I have just listed what all the similarities are; I'm sorry you have decided they are insufficient. May I ask what your level of expertise is? Not too long ago in an edit summary on another article, you scoffed at the idea that there was ever any such thing as a "Christian historian", may I ask do you still feel these two terms are mutually exclusive? Haile Selassie I, the Defender of the Faith in his country, speaks at length in his Autobiography and elsewhere about how the Greek Orthodox are fellow Orthodox and the only minute thing separating them doctrine-wise was the 'number of natures' thing. He recognised the kinship and when he visited Jerusalem in 1924 he met with the Greek Patriarch Damianos he agreed to an exchange of a small room in Jerusalem for land near Addis Ababa for a Greek monastery, "on the condition that it never pass to a non-Orthodox group or Church". (My Life and Ethiopia's Progress, Chapter 15). A lot has happened since the days centuries ago when Oriental and Eastern Orthodox were bitter rivals, that maybe you don't know too much about. But you say "that doesn't seem sufficient to me to posit", so perhaps you are the expert. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, time for citations then. Can you find any references that refer to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches as a distinct group, excluding both eastern rite Catholics and Assyrians? If not, you're attempting a new synthesis or new analysis, which is forbidden under WP:NOR. Thanks. john k 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Codex, why do you have to be insulting to those of other branches of Christianity? I don't think you will have trouble finding out what I am talking about. Str1977 (smile back) 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What was the insult in the above? I only gave the Orthodox interpretation of an issue, sorry if that insults you but that's what it is. I did not point the finger at any other group, that might or might not have a different interpretation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The insult was "rather than turn this on its head, and incredibly forcing it to mean that he was actually giving this human being supreme authority to make all the rules in Heaven...!".
The Catholic interpretation of these verse are not that different from yours. It certainly is not making up rules in heaven. But authority he did give (and the EO and OO churches agree with this, otherwise their episcopacy would be moot)
Of course you are free to mispresent and insult, as WP:AGF doesn't apply here. Still, I would expect otherwise from brethren in Christ. Str1977 (smile back) 18:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it on the Catholic interpretation of it, I'm no expert there. Like I said, I didn't point any fingers or name any names. I was attacking a theoretical position, not necessarily any real one, sort of like "if the shoe fits", and funny that you would cry out that the shoe was too tight...! Please forgive me if you still feel insulted by the rejection of a hypothetical position. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't forget that Saint Peter was not only Bishop of Rome, but Bishop of Antioch. Currently, there are three rival claimants to Patriarch of the see of Antioch. Nothing in my words singled out anyone or any one office. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The catholic interpretation is that, yes, the apostles do have authority to bind and loose, but of course they are not to misuse it but to apply it properly.
It wasn't clear from what you wrote that it is a "theoretical position" .. rather your juxtaposition of EO/OO positions to another one (which you now declare theoretical) makes me wonder. And you didn't talk about any other apostle than about Peter ... and we know who claims successorship to Peter. Antioch is of no consequence here, as Peter moved on to Rome, where he anchored his boat through his martyrdom.
But of course, even if I am not completely convinced about it really being "theoretical", I forgive the insult, as I was taught by HIM. Str1977 (smile back) 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In the O.O. canons, it's not optional - they state that if any Bishop misuses his authority or teach something unorthodox, he is no longer a true Bishop, and must be replaced. From the O.O. pov, this would include things like insisting that Christ had two natures, for example, or blessing a monster like Mussolini to commit genocide on an innocent people, for example. If any bishop were to commit a serious violation of trust like that (hypothetically speaking), he is to be forgiven of course, but he can no longer be a bishop -- those are two different things. Trust is very important. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are different ways in which a bishop can misuse his authority and of course they are subject to correction and even deposition by his superiors. After all that is why Dioscorus was deposed in 451 ... well his misdeeds and his failure to repent of them in word and deed. Catholic ecclesiology is no different on this, with the exception of the Pope. Though all provisions apply for the Pope as well the thing is that he has no superior, and hence cannot be judged except by his own authority (the precedence for such a self-condemnation however have been found out to be non-historical). The only exception is that of heresy - if the Pope fell into heresy (and yes, it has happened) he can be brought before an Ecumenical Council (this is because heresy is so grave a charge that it overrides the need for an authority with supreme jurisdiction) - before you ask: no Pope has ever been brought before a Council (though Philip of France argued this way in his propaganda against Boniface VIII) and it is difficult to tell what would happenen and how the proceedings would look like. According to your statement above I take your examples here as theoretical too, with no need for comment. Str1977 (smile back) 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Str, no offense intended, but are you really doing the "I forgive you, because I am a true Christian" thing? That's incredibly obnoxious, and, if you will permit a non-believer the liberty, seems to be the kind of thing that Jesus used to criticize the Pharisees for. I can see how Codex's oblique insults to other forms of Christianity would get under the skin, but there's no need to revert to self-righteousness. john k 12:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
John, you are verging on personal attacks now. These comments are judgemental, and not in the least constructive. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
John, no, I am doing the "as a Christian I am doing my best to act according to our Lord's teaching and so I forgive" ... there's no bragging at all included. I stated two things above: firstly that I have my doubts about the "only theoretical" nature of Codex's statement and secondly that I'll forgive anyway. I don't boast myself about this ... I only do what I have to do. Here applies what Codex so forcefully, though maybe overzealously, uttered about the imortance of mercy. Str1977 (smile back) 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I hope you understand that no personal attack was meant, and that I was mostly just surprised to see you make a comment like that, which I see I've somewhat misinterpreted. john k 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not very constructive, but neither is "I forgive you, because I am a true Christian" which I think should generally be avoided as being rather rude and obnoxious. I've worked harmoniously with Str on a lot of articles, and I hope he won't construe my comment as a personal attack on him, which was certainly not intended. john k 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Str didn't say anything wrong or Pharisaical. By forgiving one another other, we are following the way of Christ. Yes, we know doing this is "obnoxious" to the way of the world. But we have made our choice as to which master we are following, since we cannot follow both. Jesu said to let our light shine on the hill, and he made only three exceptions - Alms, fasting and prayer - which are to be done as discretely as possible. (Or four: Not wearing a wide amulet). Str didn't say "because I am a good Christian" to call attention to himself, he said "As I was taught by HIM", to give the glory to HIM. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Codex, for understanding.
John, no bad feelings after your last post above.
Cheers both, Str1977 (smile back) 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So, back to the point. I would like to change Eastern Christianity to Eastern Orthodoxy. Then, I would like to move Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians of the East to the section that begins "the above groupings are not without exceptions…" or the section "other denominations and churches are difficult to classify in the above groupings at all…" What are the thoughts on this move? If Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are unrelated other than geographic location, then perhaps they ought not to be classified together at all. If there is some overarching classification, besides geography, then let us employ that term. Lastly, I am in favour of changing Oriental Orthodox to Old Orthodox, though that should be a separate topic. P.S., the claim that "Roman" is a geographical term in RCC, like "Eastern" is in Eastern Christianity, is absurd – its doesn't mean "Catholics in Rome"; there are Roman Catholics in Japan; it would be equivalent to saying Constantinopolitan Orthodoxy, not [Near] Eastern Christianity. Lostcaesar 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I would object to that for the reasons given above. If you want to, split the category.
  • "Roman" in RCC is not geographical in the sense it is used commonly. However, in the strict sense it refers only to the Roman local church (which happens to have global primacy).
  • "Eastern" is not merely geographical either - EO and OO do have similiarities in rite and theology (notwithstanding the dispute in dogmatics). Also, there are adherents to Eastern Churches in the West as well, in Europe as well as in America. The heritage is Eastern, not the location.

Str1977 (smile back) 10:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement in the sense that we both would be comfortable splitting the category. I wish to split the category, but to move the OO and others to the below paragraphs, whereas you want to split the category but leave them in the major groupings, creating a fourth major grouping. My question to you is, are there enough Old Orthodox to justify their inclusion as a fourth group? We list the African Churches, Mormons, and Restorationists in the below paragraph mainly because they are small. Here I am talking about adherents mostly, though also to a lesser extent current cultural impact. This is not a rhetorical question, btw. Can we justify Old Orthodox as a fourth group comparable to the other three based on the assumed criteria? What is the disadvantage to grouping them in the below paragraphs (is this seen as a slight or disrespect?)? At present I cannot see any justification for including the Eastern Orthodox and OO together as "Eastern Christianity". Remember, my interest is terminological clarity. I want "Eastern Christianity" to mean something other than "people who live east of Europe who call themselves Christian" – I want this because I want to structure the article better as a whole, and I see this ambiguity as a problem. (Obviously, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy for that matter [and of course Old Orthodox], means more than just "people who call themselves Christian in Rome / in the East). Maybe we could include the OO and EO under a group defined as "those who accept the first three ecumenical councils". I don't know, but I do want the terms we use to mean something other than just geography. Lostcaesar 11:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do not want to split the category. I just consider it preferable to your suggestions.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough above, but there are similarities justifying lumping EO, OO (Oriental Orthodox, as per Codex) and Nestorians together - liturgical, theological (despite the Christological disputes) and cultural, as all these have for a long time lived under non-Christian (Islamic in particular) domination. So you see I doesn't just mean "Christians east in/from Europe - and as I wrote above, these denominations are present in Western countries as well.
With the "3 council solution" we wouldn't be able to include Nestorians - and EO might object as a "Henoticon revived".
I would suggest that Wesley and Codex should comment on this, to have an EO and OO voice in the matter. Str1977 (smile back) 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who disputes that there is such a thing as Orthodox Christianity is not very well read. Try deleting the article Orthodox Christianity and see how far you get. This term includes both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox for very good reason. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the solitary difference between the two groups is whether Christ has one united nature, or two united natures. I see certain people here who think there is something to gain by trying to drive a deeper wedge between these two groups, but this is artificial and relies on faulty logic, which is bringing in other groups beside these two and arguing "Well, they have this in common with group C, and this in common with group D" which is called a Red Herring to distract from the point that there is only one minute difference between the two. Whoever said the liturgies are dissimilar is mistaken. The Bible canons are similar, the Apostolic canons, all the doctrines except for one; the Greek pronunciations; the presence of icons and the absence of carved statues within a Church; the name "Orthodox Christian" is mutually recognized between the two and not a coincidence as I have demonstrated by citing Haile Selassie, a reknowned expert on the Orthodox faith; and those who would cleave the two brother Churches apart have simply turned a blind eye to all of these facts I mentioned in their usual style, without even bothering to respond to them, and have drily replied "So, there is no similarity between the two" just as if I had said nothing at all. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "Eastern Christianity." In terms of rites and ritual and so forth, the three groups which this name covers (4 if you include eastern Catholics, which you probably shouldn't if you are discussing Catholics as a whole separately) are quite similar, and they are generally treated as a group. They are all churches with full apostolic succession of bishops which derive directly from the ancient world, and which derived from the eastern parts of the old Roman Empire. "Orthodox Christianity" needlessly forces us to have some awkward separate mention of the rather small Assyrian Church. Beyond that, pretending that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox form some kind of single community, while perhaps reasonably true at present (I will give Codex the benefit of the doubt on that) is highly misleading historically. The only reason the Oriental Orthodox exist as a group is because of their unwillingness to accept the results of the Council of Chalcedon, and they were heavily persecuted by the forebears of the Eastern Orthodox church for many years - in the Antioch area, at least, down to the arrival of the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century, and in most of the rest of the Near East until the coming of Islam in the 7th century. Any reconciliation between these groups is recent, and should no more make us consider them to be a single group than recent discussions between the Church of England and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches should make us view these churches as a single coherent group. History matters, and the history of Eastern Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian churches as being at odds with each other is too significant for us to refer to them as "Orthodox Churches". They are, along with the Assyrians, "eastern churches." Why isn't that good enough? john k 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

John, I agree with the gist of your post.
"Orthodox Christianity" would not force us to eliminate the Assyrian Church even though the latter does not bear the word in her name. However, the term is confusing as it at the same glosses over a mutual dispute between EO and OO, in which one's orthodoxy is the other's heresy, terming both as orthodox, while at the same excluding the other (western) churches from that term. A strange case of self-contradicting POV wording (not pushing, as no one here intends this).
As for your remark about persecution, let us not forget that the persecution went both ways, depending on the sympathies of the respective Emperors: Marcian and Leo and Justin decidedly pro-Chalcedon, Zenon and Justinian wavering, Basiliscus and Athanasius decidedly anti-Chalcedon. Not to mention the events leading up to the council or the non-Imperial persecutions instigated by local clerics. Not that this matters much in regard to our issue, but I didn't want to let this go unnoted. Don't forget but forgive. Str1977 (smile back) 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had momentarily forgotten about Anastasius's Monophysitism. Beyond that, I don't see how one could approve a definition of "Orthodox Christianity" which includes the Assyrians and excludes Catholicism. That seems absurd. "Eastern Christianity" is clear, NPOV, and uncontroversial. I have no idea what unmodified "Orthodox Christianity" means. I would say that, if anything, it implies Eastern Orthodoxy, which of course the Oriental Orthodox Churches are distinctly not. john k 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me thank everyone for their contributions to this matter. Also, let me ask for some ideas. What I wish to do, rather than to stir up a centuries old debate, or “drive a wedge” anywhere, is as follows. In the beliefs section, I would like to better reference and organize things. I would like to say, basically, Catholics believe X (quote CCC), Orthodox believe X (quote Ecumenical Council), Lutherans believe X (quote small catechism / a confession), Anglicans believe X (quote Anglican articles of faith) Reformed believe X (quote Heidelberg catechism, or a confession).” I think this consistent Catholic –Orthodox – Lutheran – Anglican – Reformed pattern, with proper references, would be a great help to the article (rather than, some believe this, others believe the opposite, still more believe something irrelevant, …) Grouping protestants together is a bit of a difficulty, but I think the basic divisions of Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed are still constitutive today to be applicable in the article. Official Catholic belief is nicely monolithic for the most part. Orthodoxy is the category that I am having trouble with. I want a doctrinal categorization. I am getting two conflicting messages about doctrinally considering Orthodoxy (EO and OO). Personally, I don’t see the problem with putting Nestorians or Assyrians in their own group, like Mormons, though if someone is offended by this then we should discuss it (so far, no one has admitted that being bumped out of a major category actually offends them, though it sounds like it from all the resistance). Anyway, I want a doctrinal, not geographic term, and I think the term ought to be obviously doctrinal (Eastern Christianity is not obviously doctrinal). Is Orthodoxy ok? Anyway, I would like ideas and input here. Lostcaesar 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Allright, Caesar, though that's now another issue.
Hitherto the beliefs section intended to present the common ground of Christianity, i.e. what the vast majority of Christians and Christian denominations agree upon, with a proper mentioning of lines of conflict. It was not about presenting the controversy or about presenting the beliefs of the various branches. We have articles on them for that purpose.
However, we can always change the outline of the entire section, if there is consensus to do that.
John, I agree with your last post entirely.
Str1977 (smile back) 09:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me add a little more info. I am looking for article consistency of organization. Another example here is that the chart for Christian groups lists Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox as separate groups, while the “divisions” sections groups them together. Later, in the section on the Eucharist, the passage talks of Catholic and Orthodox beliefs (why not Roman Catholic and "Eastern Chrsitianity"!) We cannot use terms like this without some consistancy of definition. I am not arguing one way or another, just consistency. Now to the point here, my main objection to presenting the common ground of most Christians is that the article doesn’t presently do that. Why? Well, attempting to hash out a main orthodoxy is rather difficult and immediately causes problems. We could, of course, give what Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and (perhaps) Reformed agree on; but I think we at least need to give proper terminology about those words before then proceeding to common territory – you see. If they all accept the Nicene Creed, for example, then such may be articulated easily. Still there are many problems with this, mainly, the article is suppose to describe what Christianity is. However, what Christianity is itself is differently defined by different groups. If we only select the commonalities, then we add our own definition (Christianity is the commonality of said groups), which itself is a point of view at odds with the vision of those various groups (it is a kind of ecumenical straight-jacket). Also, it alienates just as much as any other categorization. Many will object to this as a stamp of “orthodoxy” on Nicene traditional Christianity (something I am quote comfortable with, but which will entail much consternation I am sure). I am attempting to sketch a way that can present less of an overarching pov on what Christianity means by shifting to a descriptive style. I think this will help the article, but to describe Christianity – even just in its commonalities – then we need precise terminology. In other words, we need to get the terminology right before any further movements. (P.S., I am willing to go with "Eastern Christianity" as long as we can imbue this with some doctinral meaning - but I cannot yet extract something workable; and I doubt if it can be done without excluding one group or another from the greater category - and what's wrong with that? No one really has explained what is so wrong with considering EO as its own category and moving the other, smaller groups out.) Lostcaesar 10:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no inconsistency in that. OO and Nestorians are two distinct groups as they are diametrically opposed to one another in the Christological field. There origin is placed at different times and hence they are two in the chart. However, these two distinct groups fall into the same category of Eastern Christianity in the "divisions" section. Mind you, EO has a separate line in the chart too.
As for the second point, we do not right now claim that the commonalities are Christianity. We say that these are the commonalities and these are the differences. This is the only way to describe what Christianity is - your proposal, I am afraid, would only lead to describing not one Christianity but many Christianities. And then we are pretty close to "pushing a relativist POV". If the terminology is inaccurate please say where the problem lie from your view.
Re the Eastern Christiantiy issue - you are needlessly narrowing the issue down - why do we need to have a "doctrinal meaning" - there is more to Christianity than doctrine and the ECs are one category defined by liturgy, culture and ... yes ... theology (though not by Christology).
What's wrong with excluding a group from that category? We currently have 3 categories encompassing the vast vast majority of Christians, while the fourth is somewhat miscellaneous and in some cases even doubtful. Now, OO or Assyrians are too small on their own to form a fourth category, but placing them into the miscellaneous would be right in light of their history.
Str1977 (smile back) 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. You are quite right to point out that doctrine is too limiting a notion. I will focus on inconsistency in terminology and presentation, and move beyond this matter. I will also focus on properly referencing claims, something I think the article needs. I will see how well this can be done without returning to the matter here. I will say, I think we should be clear in this section, when grouping these communities as “Eastern Christianity”, that we in some (brief) way mark their particularities. My only other comment on this section is that I think our treatment of African Christianity here is weak, maybe that can be improved. Perhaps later we can address the naming of the Oriental Orthodox / Old Orthodox / Monophysites here on wikipedia. Lostcaesar 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

semiautomatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[1]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[2]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[3]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 10:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a curiosity. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 10:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Monasticism in the History and origins section

The following two paragraphs from the Encyclopedia of Christianity perhaps could be used as a source for the monasticism material in the History and origins section.

The transition to asceticism outside the congregation took place in the second half of the third century AD. It did not simply derive from earlier forms but may be explained by the changed situation in the church. The tightening organization of the congregations under bishops left increasingly less room for lifestyles that were not oriented to the functioning of the whole and could not be integrated into the common order, while the greater numerical and organizational strength of the churches now permitted individuals and groups to separate. The trend toward a mass church, which became visible in the third century, meant that the church was no longer in opposition to the world, as it had been since the beginning. Now in fact the church increasingly seemed to be part of the world, from which one had to withdraw if one was really to follow Christ.
We also must not undervalue the pessimistic attitude to society and its orders that was widespread in many social, religious, and philosophical forms in late antiquity, which could make common cause with the Christian urge to flee the world. Whether monastic organizations in non-Christian religions (e.g., the Therapeutae or the Qumran community) and Greek philosophy had any direct influence is questionable, though there can be no doubt as to the importance of philosophical theories for the theology of monasticism. Of decisive significance finally was the person of the father of monasticism, Anthony (see 3.2.1), along with his biography, the Vita Antonii of Athanasius (ca. 297–373; see 3.2.3) [Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003), 3:625]. —Wayward Talk 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs Section

Would anyone object to implimenting the revision at User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Beliefs? A.J.A. 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the "is often referred to as "mere christianity"" part seems a stretch, as the term as far as I know is normally only used concerning the title of his book rather than anything referring to how Christian's in general consider basic beliefs. Homestarmy 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted the following paragraph:

The literal meaning of the word "Catholic" is "inclusive". The literal meaning of the word "Protestant" is "protesting", ie, protesting the claimed supremacy of the Pope. The literal meaning of the word "Orthodox" is "straight teaching". The official name of a number of denominations, and not just Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, is "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" (qv) because that was the name of the original undivided Church (ie before any schisms) taken from the Nicene Creed.

Reasons are as follows: the word catholic means universal, or perhaps general, “inclusive” in English means something quite different from this, especially in a religious context. Protestant is inappropriately limited to the description protesting papal primacy – protestants protest much more than this. Indeed, Protestants originally used the term evangelical, with “protestant” first being limited to certain German groups. Orthodox is defined differently later in the article. The business about other churches being “officially named” after the four Nicene marks sounds odd, where else in the article is this articulated? There were schisms before the Nicene Creed. The whole paragraph is bad. Lostcaesar 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Organizational issues within the article

This is meant in an amendment to the peer-review above, to further address problematic issues within the article that; quotes indented and discussed below.

Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, mainstream Christian theology considers certain core doctrines esential to orthodoxy. Mainstream Christians often consider followers of Jesus who disagree with these doctrines to be heterodox, heretical, or outside Christianity altogether.
  • We do not define mainstream Christian theology – what is that? Christianity accepting the first three / four ecumenical councils perhaps? Perhaps the Nicene Creed would be a good framework in that case. Also, this would be a good place to define the article’s use of the word orthodoxy. Lastly, essential is misspelled.
  • In the following section on Jesus, we continue to use “most Christians” as our guidepost. I thought we were using the undefined “mainstream” Christians. This is a poor one in my view. After all, one could rewrite the entire article from a Roman Catholic position and still be consistent with what “most Christians” believe (2 billion Christians, 1.1 billion Roman Catholics = most). We need a better guidepost. When we say “Most Christians believe Jesus is true God and true man” we should perhaps say “X (mainstream / most / orthodox / Nicene) Christians follow the doctrine expressed in X council that Jesus is …” This gives clarity, a reference, and well defined room for non X Christians (so they are less likely to come re-edit this).
  • The section on Jesus mentions both doctrinal judgements about his nature and a bio of his life according to the Gospels, with various mentionings about the resurrection mixed throughout. There is no real connection to Christianity here, odd as that sounds. “Mainstream” or “Majority” Christianity connects to Jesus through apostolic succession, sacramental institution, and the giving of the Spirit – none of this is mentioned. How did Jesus found a religion? After reading it, I am left wondering what Christianity has to do with Jesus.
Most Christians believe that salvation from "sin and death" is available through faith in Jesus as savior because of his atoning sacrifice on the cross which paid for sins. Reception of salvation is called justification, which is usually understood as Divine grace, not something that can be earned.
  • Again, we say “most” Christians, yet do not link anything. Justification’s page defines it as “God’s act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God”; that seems distinct (at least to some extent) from “reception of salvation.” What does it mean “usually understood”, and by whom? Very next line abandons the “usually” amendment for a more ambiguous phrase: “The operation and effects of grace are understood differently by different traditions.”
Reformed theology goes furthest in teaching complete dependence on grace, by teaching that humanity is completely helpless (Total depravity) and that those who are given this grace invariably put their faith in Christ and are saved (See Five points of Calvinism.) Catholicism, while still teaching dependence on grace, puts more emphasis on free will and the need to cooperate with grace.
  • Why do we lead with reformed theology, when the gatepost so far has been majority / mainstream Christianity? Is Reformed theology mainstream? I don’t know because we didn’t define mainstream. We say “Catholicism”, earlier we used “Roman Catholicism”, is the article treating them as synonymous – we should say that concretely then.
Ancient Gnostic Christians stood out for believing that salvation came from divine knowledge, or gnosis, which Jesus had revealed to selected adepts.
  • Are Gnostics Christians? We didn’t mention them before; they are not in any of the groupings above, they don’t appear on the line chart. Should we mention Manicheans and Arians also?
  • The section on the Trinity references various scholars, and that is good, but shouldn’t we reference some Councils, Creeds, or confessions, especially when quoting them?
Christians believe the Scriptures were written by the inspiration of the Spirit
  • Now we abandon the qualifiers of “mainstream” or “most” and just say Christian, however, the word inspiration is not explained, and the parallel article on Biblical Inspiration is not so uniform in its presentation. Perhaps that is ok.
In Catholic, Orthodox, and some Anglican theology, this indwelling in recieved through the sacrament called Confirmation or, in the East, Chrismation…
  • We use Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican – is this Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Next, we say “in the East”, is that by all Christians in the East, by the groups labelled as “Eastern Christianity” above, or both?
Most Protestants believe that the Spirit indwells a new believer at the time of salvation

Now we say “most protestants” – what is that? Is it Lutherans, Reformed, Lutheran and Reformed…? We could use a reference here to different protestant confessions saying this. Also, what does “at the time of salvation” mean; the section on salvation didn’t discuss this moment.

Christianity adopted the practice of drawing up concise statements of belief
  • Did the Gnostics ever draw up Creeds? We called them Christian earlier. I certainly think the above statement is true, but if so, then mustn’t we exclude any group that avoids precise and concise statements of dogma from being Christian? If not, then we cannot employ the above sentence.
Most Protestants accept the Creeds. Some Protestant traditions believe Trinitarian doctrine without making use of the Creeds themselves
  • What are most protestants, which groups accept what Creeds? This is a great opportunity to be specific about Christian beliefs and to provide clarity, no need to be ambiguous now. Also, the comment about the trinity seems oddly placed. We have a section on the Trinity, and later on Non-trinitarianism, broken up by the Creeds – this could be better organized.
Virtually all Christian churches accept the authority of the Bible
  • We have used mainstream Christianity, most Christians, Christians, and now “virtually all Christian Churches” – though not a contradiction, I think this represents yet another attempt at fixing a guidepost, when we should choose one horse and ride it to the finish.
  • Again we say “Catholic and Orthodox” when talking about the canon – is this Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, or is it Roman Catholic and Eastern Christianity, or should we be saying Eastern “Churches” based on the lead sentence…?
The Gnostics had numerous books outside of the orthodox canon
  • Now we use “orthodox” in an entirely different way than “Orthodox”, yet again adding another guidepost along side those mentioned before.
Traditional Catholic interpretation…
  • What is the adjective “traditional” expressing here? Traditional Catholicism as opposed to what?
Traditional Christian theology teaches
  • What is “traditional Christian” – is this Christianity accepting the first so many odd ecumenical councils?
Virtually all Christian traditions affirm that…

Is this the same as “virtually all Christian Churches”

I will have to stop here, at Christian practices, but I hope the above is some help here concerning the differing terminology that we use, undefined, and the fluid structure of the article. Central to this problem is our lack of a solid a guidepost; we use: mainstream Christianity, most Christians, Christians, orthodox Christians (as distinct from Orthodoxy), the vast majority of Christian Churches, Traditional Christian, virtually all Christian traditions – furthermore, our subgroups are named differently: we call Roman Catholics both Catholics and Traditional Catholics; we use Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity somewhat interchangeably, all in overlapping (and confusing, if not contradictory) ways. - hope that is of some help Lostcaesar 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


No, we do not "use Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity somewhat interchangeably". You still do not get it. We use Eastern Orthodoxy to mean a specific subset of Orthodoxy / Eastern Christianity. So Eastern Orthodoxy is NOT interchangeable with the other two terms, although the other two may be more fairly said to be more or less interchangeable. Maybe the only fair division will be along lines of what groups are in full Communion with one another, ie EO and OO are two different organizations, albeit with a lot in common. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can't find nits, invent them. A.J.A. 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A Sad Observation

I have my Edit History set to view 50 edits (which I think is the default). On the current screen of fifty edits, there is one new link (itself of dubious value: why "WeSpreadtheWord" but not the Vatican?) and one spelling fix. Everything else is bad edits and reversions. A.J.A. 14:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Scholor edits

Scholor and his puppet have repeatedly added some text about "pagan parallels". Thoug it is probably in vain and has been tried before, I will explain why these edits are unacceptable:

  • "It's suggested by scholars that various ideas presented in Christianity can be found in many other earlier pagan religions ..."
is an utterly weasely introduction (suggest that they can ...) without any reference. (smile back)
No problem, I will give you tons of references if you like. Tom Harpur is one of them. --Scholor 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Only that the reference was not the only problem, as I stated above. (smile back)
  • "the following lists those relevant concepts and their origins"
implies that an origin in these pagan religions
implies the earliest known date, you may improve by giving another even earlier date. --Scholor 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No, your wording takes a stand that there are pagan origins. (smile back)
  • "Creator of universe, found in Atenism before 1962 BCE"
  • "Omnipotent god, found in Atenism before 1962 BCE.
wrong date + transferring of Jewish-Christian ideas to another religion (smile back)
The Aten first appears in texts dating to the 12th dynasty, in The Story of Sinuhe. Amenemhat of 12th dynasty was from 1991 BC to 1962 BC, I picked 1962 BC here, what's wrong? YOU TELL ME! --Scholor 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Old Egyptian but I know the meaning of the word "Aton" - it means "sun". It also had been for quite some time, maybe since the 12th dynasty, a minor deity, but this has nothing to do with your claims or "Atonism", which is the religion of Echnation. Before him Aton was nowehre near to creator or omnipotent. (smile back)
to give a date here is absurd, as Hinduism is a very large field with a very long development; also such an equation suggest a deep misunderstanding of the Christian idea of trinity: Hinduism has groupings of three deities yes, but not a trinity in which the eternal God subsists as three hypostases. Also, Christians had no contact with Hinduism, so their ideas can hardly be influenced by it.
I don't think. Please give source for your claims.--Scholor 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
How about you source yours. As explained by Homes below, the concepts are fundamentally different. Hinduism doesn't deal with a transcendent personal God that is the creator of all that is, but only with emmanations of some impersonal ultimate cause. (smile back)
again nonsense date and misunderstanding of the Christian concept: neither Egpytian nor Indian religion dealt with a supreme, transcendent, personal, omnipotent God ... and hence neither could reflect on that God becoming man. Also the Christian idea of incarnation is real, singular and permanent and not just appearance.
HELLO, I'm talking about incarnation here. This idea is certainly mentioned in New Testament, and the original idea was certainly not from New Testament or Old Testament at all.
So your reasoning is that there must be another source but the Bible? And then you just pick randomly the what comes along? Brilliant! (smile back)
  • And finally "7 days in a week, found in old Babylon before 1900 BCE"
Again the date is bogus as the 7-day-week is much older. I left this for the end, as this point is special: yes, Jews and Christians found the week in older cultures. However, this is hardly suprising and really nothing new. No one ever claimed that the week was a Jewish innovation (though the Sabbath is), which makes the listing of the one factual point in this list even more hilarious.
As you said, no one ever claimed that the week was a Jewish innovation. So this item clarifies the idea of 7 days a week was not from the Bible originally. --Scholor 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Only that this item is completely bogus, as it proves nothing. There's no point in stating this. (smile back)

So please, Scholor, stop adding this, no matter under which name. Str1977 (smile back) 09:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please give proof, but not guess. --Scholor 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please think through your posts and give proof not guess. Str1977 (smile back) 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Str1977: Nice job researching these sensational (and nonsensical) claims. LotR 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Str1977 (smile back) 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambig for Acts

This page links directly to Acts. While that used to automatically redirect to Acts_of_the_Apostles, it doesn't any longer and these links must be updated. Considering the current state of protection, I'm incapable of doing so myself. Can someone take care of this? Thank you. 70.92.174.251 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I logged in and did it myself. Ironiridis 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)