Talk:Christianity/Archive 3

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

Template:Christianity

Please see Template talk:Christianity User talk:Stevertigo User talk:Grenavitar

I think a Christianity template on this page would be worthwhile like the great work on for the Islam template, however we desperately need help creating it. I have been debating with User:Stevertigo over how it should be done and am advocating we discuss what should be on the template on the template's talk page and creating the layout (which could very well be similar to {{Islam}} around it. He has merely changed words and attempted for direct equivalence between Islam and Christianity and even equated Crusade to Jihad which shows a clear lack of understanding of the concepts. Therefore it is my plea that some of the main editors of this article pool together to create a working template based on the concepts of Christianity and not the translation of Islamic ideas into supposed Christian equivalents. We should of course what for bias, however, we cannot go the route of the template as it is now shown (plus, green is used for the Islam template for a reason...) Please comment, please help. gren 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

keep this article focused on the subject please

Someone has been inserting a bunch of subtle marketing plugs for Islam throughout the text which actually belong on the Islam page and some weird degrading emphasis on death by crucifiction in the intro which I corrected. I appreciate your attention to this Jayjg but I believe my points are valid. I cleaned this up .Thanks--Achtung 01:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The intro is too short, and the small sections comparing the religion to others are not "plugs". As well, your organization is wrong; for example, it is not a "belief" of Christians that the work Messiah has the Greek origin etc. Please propose your changes here first. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The intro should be short , a few important key facts is enough. The prior version was bloated and not easily digestible by the typical Wikipedia reader. The rest of the article should be properly organized in their relevant sections.--Achtung 03:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly what part of policy says the "intro should be short"? I've seen a number of Featured Article Candidates rejected because the intro wasn't long enough. The rest of the article seems fine, but you can propose any specific changes in Talk: if you want. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I propose the intro below which is simple and clear to replace the bloated , and hard to understand current version:

Christianity is an Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament. It is the world's largest religion.--Achtung 17:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try out that simple change first, and propose other changes in Talk:. You've attempted to change much more than that. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Achutng make good points. Simplicity and fact servs the readers much better.--Dverwer 18:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Achtung hasn't made any points, just edits and proposals. Please don't use sockpuppets to bolster your case, Achtung. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The points I made are:

Someone has been inserting a bunch of subtle marketing plugs for Islam throughout the text which actually belong on the Islam page and some weird degrading emphasis on death by crucifiction in the intro which I corrected. Jayjg, these points seem quite reasonable, if you read those sections , it is quite obvious, as to the covert intent behind those. Likewise, the Islam page would not be the place to insert Christianity marketing plugs. The readers are better served with clean and well presented articles as opposed to propaganda. That is why I made those edits.--Achtung 12:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly the weird emphasis on crucifixion is because that is a huge part of Christianity. For the vast majority of Christian denominations if Jesus had not died and risen from the dead there would be no religion. Also the references to Islam are not "plugs" in any sense of the word. It is first mentioned in contrast to Christianity being the number one religion in size in the world, which clearly make Christianity look better. Since the made the comparison for population they then made the comparison for growth which is also reasonable... if you would like to question the facts you can and look at Talk:Islam too where there is much debate about population statistics but the content itself is only to give the reader perspective in terms of other religious communities. I do agree with you on removing and in countries such as France, have also received an influx of followers of Islam. and often because the first is irrelevant and I believe 95+% believe that it follows Judaism because... Jesus said he had come to fulfill... so.... however, it is better to discuss these things before changing. gren 13:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Achtung, please propose changes here so they can be discussed, before entering them. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


OK here are the proposed changes:

1) Make the change gren mentions ie remove this statement:

"Some traditionally Catholic countries have largely become agnostic, and in countries such as France, have also received an influx of followers of Islam."

2) The following statement is not consistent with growth numbers quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia

"By contrast, Islam is growing at 1.76% per year. "

The islam page claims 1.4 % growth, which is it?? I propose that both pages reflect 1.4 % growth since that number is conspicuously documented in the various Wikipedia Islam related articles.

3) Islam is not a branch of Christianity nor an offshoot as the seriously non-NPOV and inacurate insertion in the following section claims :

The branches and boundaries of Christianity

"The doctrines and practices of Christianity have been subject to a great deal of debate since the founding of Christianity. Over the years, many groups have traced their lineage to Jesus and claimed to be "True Christianity," despite enormous differences in doctrine and practice with the surviving mainstream Christian group. Some of the first examples of this were Marcionism, Arianism and Pelagianism within the first few centuries after Christ. This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".

--Achtung 00:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1.4% makes sense. As for the Islam section, I don't see what it wrong with it. All of the movements listed have some relationship with Christianity, yet are not considered Christian by most modern Christians. Islam has clearly built on Christian belief, claims to be the successor to Christianity (or more accurately the original religion of Abraham, Jesus, etc.). In addition, it considers Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah. The section seems to make perfect sense. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You state Islam has clearly built on Christian belief, claims to be the successor to Christianity (or more accurately the original religion of Abraham, Jesus, etc.). In addition, it considers Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah. Firstly your statement would imply that Islam believes it is a branch of Christianity and secondly if you want to stand by the claim that islam believes itself to be the original religion of Abraham then feel free to insert this claim in the Islam article.

This following statement is simply Islamic marketing: This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church". Should we do the same in the Islam article , should we insert in the Islam article text that Christians believe that there is not path to God but through Jesus? --Achtung 02:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a section about the boundaries of Christianity. A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, is certainly at the boundary of Christianity. If you want to insert the 1.4% that is fine, but please get consensus for the rest. If you revert again you will be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule and will no doubt get blocked. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Did we not get consensus on point #1 see Gren 's comment above? I will change the 1.4 % for now , but what is your view on point # 1? No offense, but your comment about blocking me is uncalled for as I have made every reasonable effort to provide reasons for my changes as evidenced by the continuing discussion threads above, furthermore you are abusing your admin privileges by making such comments since you are a party to the reverts yourself.--Achtung 03:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You reverted all sections to your version, not just those two points; please do not make disingenuous arguments. I don't think the influx of Muslims is relevant, though the part about France becoming agnostic is. As for the comment, I did not state I would block you, but rather warned you about Wikipedia's blocking policy so that you were aware of it. Warning you of policy is not an "abuse" of "admin privileges". Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think, Achtung, you are quite off the mark when you think the sentence of Islam is "Islamic marketing". It simply summarises in one sentence the Islamic position towards Jesus. The matter was actually a while back discussed in detail. Refdoc 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence below should be removed

This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".

Not only does it does not fit within the context of the section The branches and boundaries of Christianity, it makes some rather arrogant allusions implying that Christianity is not "true God's religion" and is corrupt. The point has been made that some Muslims believe this, which they are entitled to do but if that is the case then it belongs in the Islam article, not here.

As Noam Chomsky so fondly keeps reminding us hypocrisy is the unwillingness to apply the same standard to oneself that one applies to others. Some of the people who have objected to my corrections oddly enough mirror my editorial position when its their own pet Wikipedia articles that are in question. You know who you are--Achtung 23:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Achtung, you really need to brush up your English. The sentence is absolutely clear in that this "true God's religion" is Muhammad's claim and not what Wikipedia "thinks". Incidentally it was me who has put the sentence there, I am an evangelical Christian and have little or no time for Muhammad's claims, though I find them curious enough to document them. And yes the sentence fits perfectly well in here as Islam does claim to be the true form of what the "Prophet Jesus" (and previous "prophets") brought, while current CHristianity is a corrupt form. This claim is not qualitative different to that of e.g. the J.W.s or the Mormons, in particular with regard to the corruptness of the main stream church and one's own utter and complete correctness. Just the same as those latter two Islam's claim is answered by being counted as "not one of us" among Christians. The interesting thing from this article's point of view is to establish a) that Christianity has doctrinal limits and boundaries, despite its often diffuse organisation (and doctrinal) form and b) these boundaries are often subjetc of intense debate. Islam has clearly crossed this boundary though Mohammad did try to establish himself as a prophet in the line of other Judeo-Christian prophets, while Mormons and JWs manage to keep still somewhat a foot in the door. Refdoc 23:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are saying, and this is obviously your belief on the matter but if you want to "document" Mohammad's claims then the perfect place is the Islam page where you will find many similar claims about Islam . The statement as it stands really does not fit in the context of the paragraph that it is in. This, it would seem to me, should be obvious to evangelical Christians of all people and to anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam and Christianity. --Achtung 05:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, it is in a section about the boundaries of Christianity. The article certainly doesn't document all of Muhammed/Islam's many beliefs, but it does document the small number that are highly relevant to this section of the article. A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, and which claims it is the true religion of Jesus and successor to Christianity (or as it would prefer, predecessor to Christianity, and Judaism, for that matter), is certainly at the boundary of Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jayig's and Refdoc's assessment. Further, I have heard a Christian bishop describe Islam as a modern form of Arianism, similar in that both give great honor to Jesus while also denying that Jesus is God. It is certainly at or near the boundaries. Wesley 04:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Persons / Bodies

Unless accompanioed by some discussion here I would think the change from divine persons to bodies is vandalism and not a valid edit. I am not aware of any Christian group/church/sect who believes in a three bodied God, but there is an ongoing "misunderstanding" by Islamic apologists who accuse Christians of polytheism Refdoc 16:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it. "Persons" is correct. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was going to revert to "persons" but I instead I chose "entities" because it less depicted God as human... despite the fact that part of the definition of person is one of the three God heads. I think it's important to not confuse the idea and make people think it's relating to humanity of all parts of the trinity (even if it is the reader's lack of knowledge that leads them to such a conclusion). Also, changing it to bodies I don't think was vandalism... just bad judgment. gren 16:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true form Christian theology POV - people are created in God's image. Our personhood is an image of God's. There is no reason to say the wrong thing only to make it "easier " to understand. Better add an explanation - which there is in the link to Trinity. And yes, while an "honest mistake" is a possibility wrt bodies, I doubt it. Refdoc 19:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Persons" is the term overwhelmingly used by Christians to describe the three 'parts' of the Trinity. 'Entities' certainly doesn't cut it, because an entity can be inanimate and non-sentient. Bodies is wrong (although understandable if 'body' was meant in the sense of corporate body rather than physical body). But body carries massively the wrong meaning. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It angers me very much when many people accuse Christians of worshipping three gods. I think there is a way to explain the Trinity a lot better to people who are not familiar with the Christian faith. I was watching a program for Hal Lindsey on TBN, he used an example of a human being to describe the Trinity. For example if anybody were to describe a person by saying; that is his arm, that is his leg, that is his head, those are his eyes and ears. This does'nt mean that this person and all of those body parts are different single organisms, they're a part of the same body. The same goes for the Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three spiritual elements of God combined into one.--Gramaic 22:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well, to believe in multiple omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent beings doesn't make too much sense... so therefore if you claim anything has those characteristics (which Christianity does) they must be one. gren 23:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is a common argument used by athiests in logical debate. The next step is that an omnipotent being should be able to create a "more omnipotent being" which would make the first being inferior and therefore paradoxial. I'm not going to go into counters to the Athiest's argument here, but could you please explain what laws could possibly govern an omnipotent, omniscient, et cetera being, and therefore why such a being would be under ANY controls, including forced singularity? Tom S.

I rolled back Stevertigo's change of "persons" to "personifications," which really doesn't make sense. "Persons" is the right word because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons; they relate to each other interpersonally, though that's not the best way to say it. "Person" is the English word that trinitarian Christianity has used consistently. Oh and gren, there is a single "Godhead," not three "God heads." Have the people proposing alternatives read the Trinity article recently? Wesley 04:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a bit silly when we try here on Wikipedia to outperform several ecumenical councils and hundreds of years of attempts to get the definition just right by eminent Christian theologians. One God in three Persons appears to be the universally accepted formulation and should really simply be accepted even if this is hard to grasp a concept. There are whole religions set up to thrive on paradoxons - e.g. Zen-Buddhism, so do please leave us our own mystery, will you? Refdoc 08:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree with Wesley and Refdoc. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense in this page

I don't get it , why are you perpetuating such obvious nonsense as Islam is branch of Christianity? The article is about Christianity , keep it on Christianity. If I wrote an article on Pizza I would not expect mini ads throughout the text about hamburgers, I would expect it to be about Pizza. --Astrogoth 03:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could'nt agree more! The topic should only be about Christianity, not about Islam or any other non-Christian belief. That small statement about Islam and Muhammad must be removed or at least relocated to an article that's about Islam. By the way, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants (who are the main branches of Christianity) don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe differently from the true Christian belief. So why do we have to include Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as Christian denominations?--Gramaic 04:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the "true christian belief?" But, as far as my edit, Mormonism with its 11-12 million adherents hardly constitutes a "major world religion", especially when compared with Islam, with over 1.3 billion. Cory 04:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The true Christian belief is believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he was tortured and crucified for our sins. The Mormons believe that their founder Joseph Smith was a prophet, which goes against Christian teacings, because the Holy Bible teaches us that the Lord Jesus Christ was the last to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament, and nobody comes after Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus, they deny the Trinity which is very important to the Christian faith, in addition they deny that after Jesus was crucified, Jesus was not risen from the dead, they say that Jesus just died a regular death.--Gramaic 05:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly Gramaic. Only at the same time those people call themselves the true Christians, just as many other cults/heresies/schisms etc before them and as Islam does to to some degree. This is th whole point of the section. I am really not sure how often this needs to be said. And to my mind there is is absolutely no endorsement of any of these. But the debate who is a true Christian, including doctrinary statements by churches to delineate the "border" are a long ongoing history and continues until today. So there is more then enough reason to mention the JWs, Islam and Marcionism in one paragraph, to show the continueity of heresy. Formulate things better if youmust, but do not delete information. Thanks! Refdoc 08:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That said, my point was the removal of the very opinionated staement that the Mormon church is a major world religion. Major world religons include Islam, Christianity, Judaism (for reasons other than size), Buddhism, etc. Might as throw up any Christian sect and call it a major religion if it has as many or more adherents than the Church of LDS, or for that matter, why stop at just Islam, break it up into major world religion sects... sunni, shite... that'd be comprable to Mormon. I have no problem with the paragraph, just the propagada that's included.

And, as far as Islam goes, it's no more a "Christian off-shoot" than it is an off-shoot of Judaism, Sabiism, Hanifism or Zoroastrianism.

It's primarily an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity, and claims to be the "true" version of both. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mormonism is not a Christian sect. So how could we be throwing Mormons out of Christianity, when they're not even Christians to begin with. As I said in the paragraph above, Mormons refer to their founder Joseph Smith as a prophet, which goes against Christian teachings. They may repect and follow Jesus in their own way, but that does'nt make them Christian. It's just like saying that Muslims are Christians because they believe Jesus to be a great prophet. Mormons and JWs are not Christians, their beliefs and religious practices go against the teachings of the Holy Bible.--Gramaic 20:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They consider themselves to be Christian; so do many others. Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would agree changing the bit about major world religion Mormonism is not one, I think there is ample consensus. This doe snot alter though the fact that Mormonism is a big(ish) religion/cult/denomination which claims to be the "better" Christians, while most other Christians will think exactly the opposite - exactly the kind of example we are looking here for. Refdoc 20:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the major world religion as well. Mormonism is a fairly young sect which is highly concentrated in the United States. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone able to suggest a good way to fix the paragraph? I think deletion of the second sentence is the easiest, but the third sentence sort of relies on the second sentence to provide the "divisions" that are its subject. Maybe "Some of these new teachings (such as Marcionism) were quickly suppressed as heresies. Others grew into their own denominations. All of these divisions were accompanied by a great deal of debate, claims of heresy by both sides, and at times, violence. Opinions differ widely as to what defines Christianity, how much variation is permitted within Christianity, and thus, which groups qualify as "Christian." As a result, the boundaries of exactly what comprises "Christianity" remain a subject of great dispute today."Cory 02:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No I absolutely do not agree with this suggestion, Cory, the examples are there to put a context to it. No one knows what Marcionism is, but everyone knows Islam and Mormons. I am not sure why on earth this has to be deleted? Refdoc 08:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoever did the latest change, its a step in the right direction. Cory 18:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me just state this. Mormons, unlike muslims, Believe that Jesus was not only the Messiah but the Son of God and their Personal Savior. Rather or not they include other alleged prophets does not make them non-christian. It is not the place of any sectarian bigot to tell people who Accepts Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior that they are not a Christian. By the way take Mormonism out and suddenly Christianity gets a lot smaller, follow the logic used to take Mormonism out and you remove all kinds of denominations, making Christianity the third largest religion in the world, if that. LucaviX

Organizations

Since this article is about Christianity, I was thinking that maybe we could include Christian organizations in the article. For example, if we were to make a list of Christian organizations we would include something like the Christian Coalition and many others. What does everyone think?--Gramaic 08:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about the teachings and history of Christianity, but not about American protestant organisations. There is abundant space in other articles for the organisations you want to add. Alternatively you can establishg an article on Christian organisations, or even better- a category - Christian organisatins which tie them altogether. Refdoc 08:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crusades?

I noticed that the Crusades are not mentioned in the prosecution section, when it is one of the most notable instances of prosecution by Christians in history. It seems like a rather strange omission, but I'm not sure where to stick it in. Titanium Dragon 13:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason that the Crusades are not mentioned in this article, is because there is a separate article that talks about the historical events that took place during the Crusades.--Gramaic 18:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A point often overlooked is that the "Christian" crusaders were actually barbarians with a thin coat of Christianity painted over a foundation of paganism. Pollinator 05:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades are not in the persecution section because the Crusaders were not persecutors, they were religious and humble Christians who left their home in Europe to fight and reclaim the Holy Land from the invading Muslims. So, all these accusations that the Crusaders were persecutors, invaders and murderers are just false claims. The real persecutors were (and still are) the Muslims.--66.81.173.34 21:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The motives of the Crusaders were undoubtedly pure in many cases (even if the notion of "holy war" is a mystery to many of us), and certainly history has been filled with Muslims persecuting Christians, but that still does not excuse the many sins committed by the Church during that era, against Muslims, Jews, and even other Christians. It certainly bears mention in the article as part of Christendom's darker past, for which we must repent. KHM03 23:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Be very careful when you generalize anonymous poster. Indeed the Christians fought off invaders but there is undisputed evidence that they did just as many atrocities as the Muslims. Anyway, to close out the question, there should at least be a link to the Crusades article as it was an important part of Christian history--Will2k 01:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I added some references as per your request. The first is a general history by Justo Gonzales which, I believe, handles all Christian traditions fairly with a real attempt at balance. It is also very readable. The second reference I added was a trilogy of theology books which, again, attempts to honor the whole Christian tradition while not favoring any one piece of it (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.). My view is that on this page we ought to step carefully and be even more NPOV than usual, so as not to favor any tradition within the Tradition. Hope these work for you (and others). At any rate, it's a start. KHM03 11:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks. The more the better, but that's a great start. - Taxman 13:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

the big Christianity infobox

Truly, it is an unholy shade of grey. I'd like it white, but I'm sure that change would be reverted instantly. ✈ James C. 04:14, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

It was the attempt of one not very competent with html to mimic the Jesus box's color scheme. If you want to add more white or fix it or do lots of things do them... if your changes are disliked then someone will probably complain. Sorry that it's unholy though :( gren 08:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to support using white instead of the ugly gray in infoboxes please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Infoboxes as their are two wikipedians that are trying to force us all to use this gray and the "toccolors" class for all infoboxes and imageboxes. Thx - now back to our regularly scheduled program Trödel|talk 03:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The Number of Adherents

I was just curious as to how the number jumped to 2.2 billion, when on the Islam page you had links to both the CIA Factbook and US Dept of State showing Christianity (Catholocism and Protestantism) at 1.5 Billion and Islam at 1.48 Billion. If no one responds in a few days, I will change the numbers here and post the sources. MPA

I recall some edits being made a week or so ago and it was changed from 2.1 billion to 2.2 billion. I imagine these figures could be from www.adherents.com, in particular this section [1]. I have no idea what the accuracy of these figures are, so I'm just adding this as a comment. --Randolph 06:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted References to Birth Rate

I deleted the references to rationlizing that Islam is growing faster than Christianity, due to those countries having a higher birth rate. I do so because one 1) It is bigoted 2) There is no factual evidence to support it. 3) There is not enough evidence to determine what the conversion rate is and 4) In many of those countrys where Islam is supposed to have a higher birth rate, the acutal death rates are equal or even higher than the birth rates. --mpa

I believe the one who stresses that Islam having the reputation that it's the "fastest growing religion in the world" being false information, is the Evangelical minister of the Grace Community Church, Dr. John F. MacArthur. He says, the one who says that Islam is the "fastest growing religion in the world" is just giving false information.--Gramaic 19:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should altogether remove the comparison between population growth and the growth of the Christian population, or at least explain it better if we choose to include the information. Even if Christianity is in decline relative to the total population growth, the text implies that it is because people are converting away from Christianity. This may be so, but if it is, then it should indicate this by comparing the growth of Christianity with the birth and death rates of the Christian population, not the total world population. The reference to Islam is entirely superfluous, does not give enough information to make a meaningful comparison, and does not belong on this page. --(don't yet have user ID)

Can we archive this page now?

It's pretty cumbersome for my little modem to handle. :) --Randolph 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC) It is illogical to say that because you are born in a certain place your religion will be predictable. If you are born in a hospital that does not make you a doctor. Furthermore, even if your logic made any sense, you have failed to consider the entire latin population.

A whole paragraph on the Mormons!?!?

I removed the following paragraph:

"One of the major groups of these churches is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which preaches that the authority and truth that Jesus Christ established during his life were lost after many of his apostles were killed after his death and resurrection. Members of the Church believe that a Restoration of the truth and this authority was necessary and that such a Restoration began when Joseph Smith, Jr., who later founded the church in 1820, saw God and Jesus Christ in a vision. Smith reports that the heavenly beings called him by name and introduced themselves, telling him that he was to join none of the churches then in existance. He was later visited by other heavenly messengers, who gave him the Priesthood, believed not to be a person or group of people but the authority to act in the name of God. He also translated an ancient book of scripture written by religious leaders and followers of Jesus Christ who lived in the Ancient Americas, now known as The Book of Mormon. Members believe the book is a companion book of scripture to the Bible and that both testify of the life, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

LDS is not a MAJOR group within Christianity. A major group has hundreds of millions of followers. At 12 million, the qualify for "large" at most. Either way, if they get a paragraph this size, then we'd need the same or larger for the Catholics, the Orthodox/Eastern Christian, etc. according to the following.

Major Denominational Families of Christianity (This table does not include all Christians. These numbers are estimates, and are here primarily to assist in ranking branches by size, not to provide a definitive count of membership.) Branch Number of Adherents Catholic 1,050,000,000 Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000 African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000 Pentecostal 105,000,000 Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000 Anglican 73,000,000 Baptist 70,000,000 Methodist 70,000,000 Lutheran 64,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000 Adventist 12,000,000 Latter Day Saints 12,500,000

http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity

Is new 'excommunication' section accurate for all of Christianity?

My sense is that this description is not quite as universally acknowleded as it suggests. Does this term even merit a section on its own? BrandonYusufToropov 14:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BrandonYusufToropov. It seems to me that this section speaks only of Roman Catholicism (I'm guessing) and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy. It certainly doesn't speak for Protestantism. I'd be happy to remove it if there are no objections in the next few days. KHM03 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks perfectly correct for Protestant practice to me. It may not be common any longer but I suspect most denominations still have it. Rmhermen 19:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mine doesn't. KHM03 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed, just edited to specificy the degree to which applies for each of the major denominations. --Jleon 19:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But is excommunication so essential to Christianity that it bears mention in a relatively brief overview article? For sure, there should be a link to it, but it seems to me that it's a relatively minor point. Of course, I've never been excommunicated. KHM03 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a different word for the procedure - expelled, anathema, disfellowshiped, shunned but the concept is fairly central. Rmhermen 19:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The excommunication section looks good to me. Excommunication is not a Catholic act, not an Orthodox act and not even a Protestant act. Excommunication is a Christian act; that is practiced by all Christian branches.--Gramaic 22:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for not having the correct formats, etc - me noob. In my defense, please note I am only entering this in the 'talk' page. =P RE: "Excommunication is not a Catholic act, etc, etc." The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they are usually wrong. ;-) Excommunication is not practiced by all Christian faiths. Baptists, for example, do not practice excommunication. Baptists cannot be excommunicated because they were never "communicated" to begin with. Excommunication is the denial of the sacraments of the church, and therefore the denial of access to divine grace (see definition & citation, below). Baptists do not have sacraments, so it is impossible to withhold them. Some Baptist ministers will revoke church membership for individuals they feel are flagrantly offensive in their behavior (lewdness, public drunkenness, etc). However, this is only done in the most extreme of cases (hence the furor over a certain preacher in Waynesville, N.C. who was recently in the news), and it does not prohibit the individual from just going to another Baptist church down the block. Excommunication, however, implies the entire church organization rejects the supplicant from taking holy communion - for example, a Roman Catholic who is excommunicated at Saint Mary's can't just trot down the street to Saint Peter's and act like nothing's wrong. Being excommunicated is a serious and final step, it is never taken lightly, and the message is passed up and down the church hierarchy - he is *out* until he repents or dies (and goes straight to hell for being in the state of excommunication at death). DEFINITION AND CITATION: Excommunication (n) 1: the state of being excommunicated [syn: exclusion, censure] 2: the act of banishing a member of the Church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church; cutting a person off from a religious society [syn: excision] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University. -- Xaa

Why no mention of satan in the article?

A description of satan and the names Christ called him is important in understanding the Christian religion more completely. What is this thing satan that Jesus called the "prince of the world" ?

The Prince of Darkness is crafty; he has obviously kept the editors of this page from drawing attention to him and his reign on Earth. Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Christianity and Judaism came from Zoroastrianism...

Well, according to that article anyway. I have just removed:

Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Judaism does not appear to become strictly monotheistic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment is not unambiguously monotheistic. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" seems implictly to accept the existance of other gods.

I am sure that anyone here who believes this should be free to incorporate such stunning conclusions into the relevant article on Judaism and Christianity (though this seems to be the driving force behind the Roots section in the History of Christianity article). Be aware that one contributor doesn't seem to think that this is POV. Anyone here should feel free to balance the text, as I'm positive that this is not what Jewish scholars would say. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


~~~~

You said: "Even the first commandment is not unambiguously monotheistic. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" seems implictly to accept the existance of other gods."

When gods is spelt with a lower-case g in The Bible it refers to gods that aren't real.

Deuteronomy 4:28 'There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.'

The first commandment God gave to the Israelites does NOT accept other 'Gods' but other 'gods' as in idols, anything really that is put in first position in a person's life can be considered to be their god, i.e. money, career, family, and even idols. The reason behind this first commandment is that God is to have first and only priority in a person's life, not that there are other celestial beings worthy of being worshipped.

Intro

I have made some tweaks on the intro. --Astrogoth 03:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've largely reverted the changes (and then slightly rewritten it), as Wikipedia:Lead section says "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I think that the previous version (and hopefully the current version) does this better, though it could probably still do with some work. I do agree with you that the link to the disambiguation page is probably unnecessary though. --G Rutter 21:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ the Lead section article specifically states :"Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. " You intro is cluttery and awkward and discourages the reader from actually reading it. Reverted.--Astrogoth 02:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem with your version is that it does not "stand on its own as a concise version of the article". As I said, the previous version still needs some work, but at least it attempt to do this! It disussed what Christians believed and the main branches of the faith. It probably got a bit too detailed, and didn't discuss some of the other sections in the main body of the article, but it was a start. Do you agree that the intro needs to be more detailed than it currently is? If so, perhaps we can work together to produce a decent version (which neither of the versions currently are in my opinion). --G Rutter 09:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually it does indeed stand on its own as a concise version of the article and furthermore it "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow".Concise does not mean a summary of details , it means expressing much in a few words which is what the simple intro does. No one would bother to get through the intro you suggest which is loaded with complexities and is confusing. The simple intro that I inserted is clear and encourages the reader to read on where they can get further information.--Astrogoth 12:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you appear to have misunderstood what the lead section of a Wikipedia article should be. Wikipedia:Lead section finishes with the statement "For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone." Obviously this does not apply to your version of the intro, but does apply to the old version (even with its faults). Also, if you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles you will see that they generally have introductions that are closer in size and style to the old version. Furthermore, one of the frequent objections on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is that the lead section is not long or detailed enough. --G Rutter 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia:Lead section is a user editable article , so its standard as a wikipolicy is questionable. Furthermore you and I are interpreting it differently. This last quote you present is a doozy, obviously written in a style which makes a case for not following its example.
Your version is not clear enough for an intro and it also too confusing because it tries to summarize too many things which would escape the layman's grasp. The intro should be simple and clear for the readers.--Astrogoth 04:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd welcome other people's comments on this... --G Rutter 07:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My comment: I believe this to be a style question, not a Wiki policy question. Lots of pages have long intros and I think they are just fine. That said, I think the article is pretty good as is. Keeping the beginning short and sweet looks pretty good and keeps it pretty clear.

--Noitall 12:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Focus of "External links"

Is seems to me that the list of external sites at the end of this article should be more focused. For instance, the subsection "Christian sites" includes links that more properly belong under apologetics. Since this article is about the history, origins, and basic beliefs of Christianity, it seems to me that that same focus should apply to the links. (Sure, there is overlap here with apologetics, but most of the links should apply directly to the subject at hand.) I would also like to see more variety in denominations (Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem to be under-represented). The Catholic Encyclopedia is an obvious addition that would fit within a more focused, more ecumenical scheme. What do you think? --Flex 13:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. KHM03 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed too Jgritz 29 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)
I pruned the links. Now it really needs better representation from protestantism, but how can we achieve that without adding a multiplicity of denominations and churches? --Flex June 29, 2005 14:32 (UTC)
Good pruning. Perhaps you could include only the largest denominations? Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
I lean away from including any specific Protestant denominations, lest the list get out of control. (We Protestants are at the disadvantage that there is no central hub like in Catholicism or even Mormonism.) Instead, I added some links that represent coalitions and groups of Christendom, including Protestantism, and broad resources like the CCEL and Schaff-Herzog Encyc. Perhaps a few links for more moderate and liberal groups would be apropos. --Flex June 30, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
I added links to the Nat'l Council of Churches and Churches Uniting in Christ, which are two generally more moderate-to-liberal mainline groups; that ought to satisfy that group (to which I officially belong). KHM03 30 June 2005 16:30 (UTC)

O really.

But neutral and secular scholars and historians ... The conceits to which agnosticism can raise itself, continually astonish me. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

I agree; the "early church" section (at least) needs some editing toward perfection (and NPOV status). The funny thing is that scholars - Christian and otherwise - do think that there were several voices or perspective in early Christianity; but to use language like "even more divided than present day Christianity" and (as Mkmcconn cited) "...neutral and secular scholars and historians have stated..." is not only somewhat inaccurate, it also make POV a section that doesn't have to be so! Funny, funny stuff! KHM03 5 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
Made the edits. KHM03 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Pointless, POV paragraph under "Early Church"

I have removed this twice:

Most present day Christians are Pauline Christians. They view the early Christian history an an undivided single Church. There are many Christian denominations in the world today with different views of Church history. For the Roman Catholic view see Roman Catholic Church. For Orthodox view see Eastern Orthodox Christianity. For the general protestant view see Protestantism. For a neutral and secular view of early Christian history, see early Christian history as seen by religious liberals & historians.

I don't think we need to point folks to the other denominational pages, since we do elsewhere in the article. I also question the accuracy of the second sentence (the anonymous user who keeps posting this paragraph hasn't cited any sources). It's simple POV stuff, and I have removed it twice. Anyone else have an opinion? KHM03 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Removed POV paragraph for a third (and, for me, final) time, and also sent a polite message to the anonymous user asking him/her to review POV policies. No response from user. I'll leave the matter in the hands of the community. KHM03 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

This "Pauline Christianity" idea seems to be gaining in popularity, even if not in credibility. It is certainly not a perspective shared by many Christians; it is not "neutral", but rather, as it says, a perspective promoted by "religious liberals", agnostics, and secularists. To claim that one of these is "neutral" - something that everyone would agree to as a merely fact-based account - is a cute joke (which regrettably, I don't think all people who say it consider a joke). I think that you are attempting to do the appropriate thing, according the editing guidelines of Wikipedia (IMHO). Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
I agree with this removal as well. The paragraph is POV, and unencyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Yes, it's POV. Sounds like the barrage of edits CheeseDreams managed to swamp the religion articles with a few months ago before being banned. Of course the atheist view isn't automatically the most "neutral." There are still related problems with the Pauline Christianity and related articles. Wesley 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

"The vast majority of Christian religions ..."

This paragraph just sort of strikes me as odd. Would there be objection to replacing this kind of idiosyncratic description of the beliefs of "the vast majority of Christians" with brief verbatim citations from one or more of the summations of Trinitarian faith - say, the Nicene Creed? Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph sounds a bit stilted. Feel free to try a rewrite. Referring to the Nicene Creed would be rather better than referring to the Council of Nicea. - DJ Clayworth
I agree with you both; go for it. KHM03 5 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
I'm having monster lag and timeouts; I'll try later if someone doesn't beat me to this task. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
That summary given was not that of the Nicene Creed but the form as agreed at the Council of Constantinople (381). It was therefore the latter text concerning the Second Person that I provided, accompanied by the appropriate qualification. The contributor who edited the mention of Constantinople 381 out may have done so because [s]he regards this as nit-picking after so many centuries; but then this claims to be an encyclopedia, and I have therefore restored its mention. Portress 9 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Questionable history

This entire paragraph seems to be full of problems bordering on slander. Here's the paragraph, followed by a partial list of clear problems.

While some contemporary Christians maintain that the early Christian community was a single entity, many scholars and historians have argued that this was probably not the case. The scholars and historians claim that within a generation after the Jesus' death, several notable versions of Christianity emerged. These are the Jewish Christians, the Pauline/Hellenistic Christians and Gnostic Christians. Jewish Christians were those Jews and Gentile converts who observed the Law of Moses (including circumcision, animal sacrifices, dietary restrictions and the concept of purity, sabbath, quartodecimanism) pejoratively called judaizing. Jesus also seem to have followed these jewish customs. Jewish Christians were centred in Jerusalem, and viewed Jesus not as a divine being, but as a prophet, and were strictly monotheistic, not trinitarians. They were first led by Simon Peter and later James, possibly brother of Jesus. Hellenistic Christians were those who were more influenced by the Greek-speaking world and believed that the central message of Christianity could be re-presented in ways more appropriate for Gentiles. They were led by Paul (who didn't see Jesus during his lifetime and persecuted early Christians, but later was converted and began to preach some original philosophies) and the group adhered to his teachings of atoning sacrifice, a God-man, original sin of man and its continuation, Jesus as the one and only universal saviour of man, the nullification of the mosaic laws, and the breaking of the mosaic covenant with the Jews and re-establishment of this covenant with the certain Christian sect led by Paul. In the epistles of Paul there are refutations to Jewish Christian beliefs. Though during his lifetime Peter was a Jewish Christian, some time after his death, he began to be claimed by the Pauline Christians for their own group. The New Testament was mainly the product of the works of early Pauline Christian writers and the books contained within them a wide spectrum of beliefs (see J. Dunn 1977 Unity and Diversity in the New Testament). There are also more than 900 apocryphal works, which were ommitted from the canonical scriptures on charges of lacking apostalic authorship. They relate many different versions of early Christian history from many different perspectives. The Jewish Christian movement ended when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem some time after Jesus' death. The Gnostic forms of Christianity survived until much later, but also disappeared after some time due to persecution. The Pauline branch of Christianity is the Christianity that survives till today. There are many modern writers who have written about early Christian history. Until recently the general church teaching that early Christianity was one church was accepted generally. Islam, at about AD 600, first stated that early Christianity had schism and the original message of Jesus did not survive. But present day authors, seem to accept this idea that early Jewish Christianity was in fact the original monotheistic Christianity that did not survive and was replaced by Pauline Christianity.
  • While some contemporary Christians maintain that the early Christian community was a single entity, many scholars and historians have argued that this was probably not the case. The scholars and historians claim that... On the contrary, most Christians still believe that there was one "early church" or "New Testament church" not just "some." And the remainder of the paragraph pretends that the vast majority of all scholars and historians alike believe the rest of the claims made, without one supporting citation.
  • The next sentence about Paul appears to accept some things from Acts but not others based on speculation; are there any reliable documents regarding the source or originality of Paul's ideas outside of the New Testament? Anything more specific than "900 apocryphal works"?
  • Paul's epistles do refute so-called "Jewish Christian" beliefs, but they also claim that he preached the same gospel that James and Peter preached. What other documents support the one side (refutation of Jewish Christian beliefs) but deny that Paul was fully reconciled with the "Jewish Christians" in Jerusalem? Or is this more choosing to believe some parts but not others?
  • Apostolic authorship was far from being the only test of canonicity. Some were omitted because they were more personal or more narrowly focused and not for the general building up of the church; some were widely read and approved but simply came too late; others were rejected because they truly were not apostolic, either literally or in the spirit of apostolic teaching. That sentence vastly oversimplifies the process of canonization.
  • The destruction of Jerusalem could in no way account for the disappearance of "Jewish Christianity", as both Jews and "Jewish Christians" had significant populations in a number of other major cities, including Antioch and Alexandria.
  • Why cite Mohammad's angelic visions as a trustworthy historical source over and above the many early Christian writings that have survived?

At the very least, this paragraph needs to be properly qualified or attributed as the one-sided perspective it is, if not deleted outright. Wesley 6 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

I think Jim Ellis and I were attacking the problem at the same time; at any rate, it's been edited and made more NPOV. KHM03 6 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks much improved, and appears to have a greater focus on historical events as they unfolded. Wesley 6 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Islam a branch of Christianity?

This is a very strange section to me. I have heard of no scholar who has claimed that Islam developed from Christianity or that it developed from a Christian sect. I am going to remove this reference but if someone has an argument for it then please post it here.Heraclius 7 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

I shortened the section to one-sentence saying that some claim that Islam developed from Christianity.Heraclius 7 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
I suggest that we get rid of the section. In Christianity, Jesus is the central figure. However in Islam, Jesus is not the central figure, it's Muhammad. Saying that Islam is a branch of Christianity is a false statement.--Gramaic 7 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
I agree, but I think the original writer of that paragraph was trying to say that Islam developed out of Christianity, although the way he phrased it he made it sound as if it was similar to the Great Schism (which it definitely was not). I think my shortening of the section is fine for now because it doesn't say that Islam is a branch of Christianity.Heraclius 7 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
Writing down such an assertion in Saudi Arabia and many other countries would be likely to result in severe punishment as being offensive and worse. --Noitall July 7, 2005 04:45 (UTC)

I say you just remove the section. It lacks veracity and scholarly support. KHM03 7 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

I did shorten the section. If you feel that it should be removed, then just do it yourself here.Heraclius 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

  • Muslims (myself included) emphatically reject this claim. It is a central point of Islamic theology that God selected a series of messengers (prophets), and that this sequence includes figures like Noah, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.
  • The notion that Christianity gave rise to Islam, and inspired it to come into existence, directly contradicts the Islamic belief that the faith extends back to Adam.
  • I'm not suggesting that everyone should accept this belief about the sequence of prophets, of course, but I am saying that contradicting it, on this page, is a little like saying, on Islam that "Christians believe in corrupted scriptures, but this is a contentious claim." Clearly POV in my view. BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

It has been removed. Jim Ellis July 7, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at exactly what was removed, isn't it well known that Islam grew out of, or is based on, Judaism and Christianity? At least some branches of Christianity trace their beginnings to Adam as well, but that doesn't mean Christianity developed independently of Judaism. Wesley 8 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
  • BrandonYusufToropov has it right. You can't say it "grew out of" or "is based on" just because some other religion came first. You also can't make that claim because of Islam's express -- in fact it was founded upon -- rejection of all Christian beliefs (as expressed in the Necene crede), rejection of the Bible's New Testament, embracing of Mohammed, creation some 600 years after beginning of Christianity, and adoption of an entirely new text (speaking from the historical perspective) in the Koran. --Noitall July 8, 2005 04:05 (UTC)


Thanks for the revision on the article page, Jim. If I may, re: Noitall's point above.... the point is not that we reject all "Christian beliefs", but rather that we believe events like the formulation of the Nicene creed to have been (technically speaking, and with all respect to present company) deviations from the path. We agree with many (most!) things attributed to the mouth of Jesus (see Christo-Islamic), but do not accept the surviving Christian scriptures as divine, because Qur'an holds that they are textually unsound. I believe that modern scholarship confirms this Qur'anic teaching, [[2]] but of course this is a controversial matter. My point is that, if Christians and Muslims examine the most important "Christian beliefs" (i.e., the stuff in red in the old-fashioned red-letter Bibles), we will find we agree on far more than we disagree on. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov
  • No one should take my disagreement on such a "belief" as disagreement here in Wikiland. Thank you for the explanation. --Noitall July 8, 2005 13:03 (UTC)

compromising previous work (July 7 revert)

Several changes were made early July 7 which I reverted. These changes "compromised the previous work." Some were relatively harmless but duplicated information and botched the formatting. Other changes replaced the word "persons" with "beings" in describing the Trinity -- which is plainly incorrect and needed reversion. Jim Ellis July 7, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

Excommunication, etc.

Again, I ask...is this section necessary? Can't we just edit it down to a sentence or two and a link? And is there a way we can combine the "doctrine" and "beliefs" sections? KHM03 7 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

The "beliefs" section is getting out of hand...no reason for a Protestant vs. Catholic fight. I'd like to edit it and reduce it for clarity and brevity, any ideas, input, or objections? KHM03 9 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

P0lyglut's Bad Edits

Admittedly, not all of our edits are perfect (and we should admit it when someone improves upon our editing). But P0lyglut's are particularly bad, and he/she is unwilling to listen to reason and provide any justification for his/her edits contrary to Wiki policy. Also, P0lyglut has been reported for a 3RR violation, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Here are a few of the reasons these edits are bad:

1. Christians generally do not consider themselves part of an Abrahamic religion as was extensively discussed on related talk pages.
2. The part, "as prophesied in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible)" is more complex than can be put in this summary and is not the core of Christianity. It is inappropriate for the summary.
3. There is no "although" in "Although Christians are monotheistic". It fundamentally misunderstands Christianity.
4. The trinity discussion is inappropriate for this summary section, in reality, the whole Nicene Crede is the belief boiled to its essence, not just this.
5. Bunch of junk writing using "thousands" and "numerous", which is just poor editing.
6. Switching the relatively new Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy and deleting info - just more bad edits.

Please, someone revert P0lyglut's edits. Thank you.

--Noitall July 8, 2005 07:33 (UTC)

branches of Christianity

I can live with categorizing Anglican as "protestant," but it should be noted that Anglicanism, as a whole, considers itself a "middle way" between Protestantism as such and and Roman Catholicism, and many Anglicans would reject the label of "Protestant" entirely. This should be noted (and will be). However, the Assyrian Church of the East is completely distinct, being neither Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.--Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Having been baptized Episcopalian, and in that communion until I was a teen, I understand your perspective and appreciate it. You might try explaining the special case of Anglicanism under "The emergence of national churches" (just a recommendation, take it or leave it)? Mkmcconn (Talk)
As for the Assyrian church, they are not alone by any means at all, in being gathered under an unfriendly banner this way. All of "Oriental Orthodoxy" is put in the same boat with Chalcedonian Christianity. There are 'schismatic' Catholics, too. Restorationists don't view themselves as Protestants, and similarly some Baptists, Methodists and Quakers do not see themselves as being defined by a protest against anything; they reject the name. However, a glance at List of Christian denominations will give you just a hint of the problem involved in trying to break out all of the exceptions. It cannot be done conveniently; and by attempting to do so, while you win precision, you lose comprehension. The chart of historical relationships also suffers from this defect, but a little more tolerably so because it recognizes that there are at least 2 major divisions, and one important sub-division, that the three branch overview ignores. Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

I can live with the following. Hope y'all can too:

A more comprehensive overview would categorize Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East as branches distinct from the Chalecedonian Christianity of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and Restorationism as a tradition separate from Protestantism, with which it is often placed. Additionally, Anglicanism overall regards itself as being at least as much akin to Roman Catholicism and the two branches of Orthodoxy as to Protestantism. --Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Sounds swell. :-) Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

"He was condemned for blasphemy and crucified by the Romans around the year 30".

At best this statement is an incompetent conflation of the events related in the Gospel accounts. I previously corrected it; but another contributor took objection and changed it back. I have now restored my previous correction; and unless someone has a more accurate way of expressing the situation as represented in the Gospel accounts, I expect my version to stay. May I remind the learned contributors to this article of the rivers of blood that have been spilled of millions of people personally uninvolved in the events - including by my parents' generation, hence in living memory - owing to the misinterpretation of the accounts of the trial of Jesus. Portress 9 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Christiany is based on life and death of Jesus Christ

After Jesus' death and resurrection (as described in the Bible) Jesus kept teaching and asked his disciples to spread his word. Christianity is based on his death as well since communion represents the partaking of his sacrifice (death in the cross). Belief on him as the Messiah is justified by his death (as prophesied by Isaiah resurrection (not human nature but divine). JC's death startes the spread of the Church. --Vizcarra 10:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: portrayals of definite articles

There is no need to highlight some particular point of the New Testament's portrayal/account as being more doubtful than others. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: portrayals of definite articles

There is no need to highlight some particular point of the New Testament's portrayal/account as being more doubtful than others. To say "account of ... resurrection" is not any less NPOV than "portrayal of a resurrection". Accounts can be false - as some think this one is. Portrayals of (a) crucifixion can be doubted (as some do). It adds clutter to the article to try to make particular doubts stand out, as more important than others. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • There's quite a difference even between "account of the ... resurrection" and account of ... a resurrection". Article should not take POV that resurrection was an accepted event in history. I think the solution might lie in taking crucifixion & resurrection out of that sentence & putting it in one of its own. --JimWae 18:14, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, Jim. The difference is that, you want to highlight how especially doubtful you or some other people are, that the resurrection ever took place. This is unnecessary - the sentence does not assert that the event took place. It asserts that the New Testament portrays it as having taken place. You are focusing on the resurrection, but the other elements of the account are equally subject to doubt. There is no reason to highlight a favorite item as being more doubtable than the others. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I am far more content with "portrayal" than "account" - that's why I made that change. Other events are also doubtful - but NOT equally as doubtful. The sentence is far too cumbersome though.
  • Would a play portray "the assassination of Hitler" or "an assassination of Hitler"? The sentence needs to be broken up. --JimWae 19:16, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
JimWae, to say that the resurrection is more doubtful than the circumstances of his birth, the specific features of his teaching, the manner of his trial and crucifixion, or even his mere existance, is nothing more than your opinion and POV. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
I have broken up the opening sentence, to make it less cumbersome; and carefully worded it to escape the standard disagreement between Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The revert by Vizcarra sits well with me. Hopefully it's satisfactory to others. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed 'alleged' from this sentence (regarding the New Testament) "on the basis of this alleged testimony". I did this because it's wrong; the New Testament is a testimony (i.e. an account) of Jesus. It may be a true or a false tesimony, but it is still a testimony. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The alleged belongs; the New Testament is alleged to be the testimony of the disciples. Your current version asserts that the New Testament is their testimony. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it says it's a testimony. It's like when someone stands up in court and says "that guy did it". That's his testimony. You may not believe him, but its still his testimony. We have the New Testament and that's what it says. It would be reasonable if the sentence read "on the alleged testimony of the apostles.

In fact it would be better to ignore the clause completely and start the sentence with "Christians believe...". DJ Clayworth 20:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC) I also discover that the introduction makes no mention that Christians believe Jesus to be God. We had this conversation only a month or so ago, and it absolutely deserves to be there. Was there a reason it was taken out? DJ Clayworth 20:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayjg; not because I agree with that perspective, mind you. The NT documents a testimony. There is disagreement over whether the document is authentic. It is an alleged testimony. Even if it is believed that it is a testimony of the disciples, that testimony may be disbelieved - but what is in question first of all, is whether the New Testament really is their testimony. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we're taking the wrong perspective. The testimony is the testimony of the book, which says that this is what happened. To say this is an alleged testimony is to be holding a book, read a passage from it and then say "This is what this book allegedly says". It seems to be a frequent practice to try to stick 'allegedy' into any sentence with which someone disagrees. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead Section

What does

and the earliest preserved teachings of the Christian church supposed to have been founded by his disciples

add to this section? Are there other preserved teachings than those found in the NT that Xty is based on?--JimWae 21:21, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Its function is to leave room for several unbelieving perspectives:
  1. that the Orthodox/Catholic church is NOT the same entity as that church founded by the disciples of Jesus Christ.
  2. that the Orthodox/Catholic church is the LATE originator of such doctrines as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and even the allegation that the New Testament is an original account (not an invention of late writers, passing themselves off as the disciples).
  3. that the earliest teachings of the church are LOST, and all that we have left is what the Orthodox/Catholic church has preserved (not destroyed), not really the earliest that existed at one time.
If it's agreed that these perspectives have no credibility, and don't belong in an encyclopedia, then I most heartily approve of the deletion of that part of the sentence which makes room for them. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Because of lag and timeouts I can't tell whether edits are successful or not, even by checking the history. So, multiple identical edits sometimes show up. I am sorry about that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, this sentence has raised objections from you, with which I can sympathize:
Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and also the Christ, the Messiah anticipated by the Hebrew Scriptures.
The purpose of this sentence is to explain why Christianity is called "christianity", not to boil down the beliefs of Christians to a single doctrine. If you can think of a better, brief way to say this, I would support that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Christianity is a monotheistic religion developed from Judaism by the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth, based upon their beliefs about Jesus' life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection as presented in the New Testament. Notable in shaping Christian beliefs were Paul of Tarsus, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, Augustine of Hippo, ... --JimWae 22:23, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

This does not seem to me to be an improvement, at all. It is a narrow interpretation, and promotes a particular conclusion. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Which part of the first sentence is narrowing or particular?--JimWae 23:31, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

"developed from Judaism" is misleading by almost anyone's account. Jesus is a Jew, and the apostles are Jews, and the religion they taught is rooted in the Jewish Scriptures - that's a statement of fact - but it is not "developed from Judaism". It is not a version of Judaism, or an independent development of Judaism. It is either the fulfillment of Judaism (the Scriptures fulfilled) or it is a rejection of Judaism: neither interpretation supports "developed from Judaism". There are some, som Messianic Jews especially, who believe that Christianity should be returned to Judaistic forms of religion. That is a narrow perspective. The Jewish Scriptures are not equivalent to Judaism.
The early followers did not "develop" Christianity, according to Christianity. It is a delivered religion, a revelation and a testimony to that revelation. Some may not believe this, and account for the existence of Christianity in terms of a natural development, an evolution of ideas - but, this is a particular POV.
The following sentence also suffers from similar defects. It doesn't represent agreed upon facts; it represents an interpretation of history. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Christianity is a monotheistic religion that originated with Jesus of Nazareth and his early followers, based upon their beliefs about Jesus' life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection as presented in the New Testament. With roots in Judaism, it branched off (mostly under the direction of Paul of Tarsus) and later expanded throughout the Roman Empire.--JimWae 04:15, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

No again, JimWae. The idea that Christianity departs from its original trajectory under the direction of Paul of Tarsus is obnoxious. Why not under the direction of the Spirit of the resurrected Christ? Does it seem out of place to assert belief? It is also out of place to assert unbelief. The opening paragraph as it's written is better than you seem to want it to be. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

So, the first sentence is more acceptable than it was, no? Christianity is a monotheistic religion that originated with Jesus of Nazareth and his early followers, based upon their beliefs about Jesus' life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection as presented in the New Testament. With roots in Judaism, it branched off and later expanded throughout the Roman Empire. --JimWae 06:15, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jim; I don't understand what you are trying to do. The present paragraph is much closer to how Christianity should be described, than what you have (three times now) suggested. Your opening paragraph is not an improvement, if writing toward NPOV is the goal.
The opening paragraph should not theorize (Judaism is a specific tradition, in which the Scriptures have a role, but they are not equivalent to the tradition called "Judaism". Christianity is not rooted in that tradition. Jesus taught that Judaism contradicted its own Scriptures, and for that reason was incapable of recognizing him. He does not represent his teaching as a development of their teaching.) There is no need to hint at things that are prejudicial to the Christian point of view. Mkmcconn (Talk) 07:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

SO the first sentence is no longer drawing objection. When one says something is rooted in something else, there is no implication that there was no major transformation later. If Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, if Jesus is the Messiah promised to the Jews in their scriptures, if the founders were all Jewish, then I think somewhere along the way (& maybe not in the lead, true, but maybe so) it is mentionable. But my main concern is the first sentence anyway. --JimWae 07:24, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

I really don't understand how you got that out of what I said. The opening paragraph as it already stands is more comprehensive, and better than your suggestion if writing to NPOV is the goal. I do object to your first sentence. It does not say as comprehensively what the paragraph says already. In my opinion your version doesn't help to solve any of the problems that an opening paragraph is supposed to solve. The present paragraph shouldn't be replaced with your suggested sentences, because:
  • Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not teach that Christianity is limited to what the Scriptures teach. It is essential to their perspective that Christianity is identical to the Church, and the Church is Christianity - period. That perspective should not be written out of the article.
  • The article can't be written to represent that perspective alone, to the exclusion of other Christian perspectives - the opening paragraph does enfold both the Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant perspectives. Yours does not.
Your paragraph is not as comprehensive. I can't understand (and you haven't explained) why you think that what you are offering is an improvement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 07:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree fundamentally with the idea that 'The purpose of this sentence is to explain why Christianity is called "christianity"'. More people are likely to come to this article asking "what is Christianity" rather than "why is Christianity called that". No other articles on religious devote their opening paragraph to etymology. We should give a very brief description of what Christianity is in the opening para - and I think the idea that Jesus is considered to be God is important. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

ABRAHAMIC RELIGION

I don't know how many times the same subject can be rehashed on talk pages, all (as far as I can tell) with non-Christians. Previously, it was with all Muslim editors. Look, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I could not imagine going on other religious pages and questioning the general BELIEFS and interpretations of their religion. This is the CHRISTIAN PAGE. There are many problems with this term, the most important of which is that we are a CHRISTIAN religion, not an ABRAHAMIC religion. To the extent that Christians believe in Christ, which seems to be a valid generality, they do not consider themselves an Abrahamic religion. There is nothing whatsoever in the Nicene creed that even mentions Abraham or any way of thinking about Abraham. That is why my preferrence is to address the topic below, not in the summary. But if it is in the summary, then it must be addressed accurately. --Noitall 23:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea who uses the term or why. Unless you can find some plausible source for your contention that it is non-Christians who use it etc., please stick to the facts we actually know, that the term is sometimes used. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Excuse me User:Jayjg, if you try to understand a religion that you obviously know nothing about, and read and think about the arguments stated on this talk page, then you will realize that a 1700 year old source (the Nicene Crede) is a pretty good generalization of Christianity. Some believe somewhat differently, others believe nothing, but this is a pretty good source. In fact, in Wiki, it does not get much more valid than that. --Noitall 23:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
On the latest absurdity, it is entirely relevant what Christians generally believe, especially on the Christian page. The arguments are getting pretty ridiculous now. --Noitall 23:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


Christianity falls within the Abrahamic tradition. To contend that Christianity is a "Christian" religion is redundant in the extreme. You may as well write that it is a "religious" religion. Wikipedia is not just for Christians. Lapsed Pacifist 01:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct as to such an absurd redundancy. That is why I did not make such an edit. But it is also not an Abrahamic religion. You are now making an entirely different argument on "Abrahamic tradition." I have no idea what that means, but it sure is not Christian, see Nicean Crede. As for the explanation, it is properly located in the article in the section on Christianity's relationship with other faiths, which already previously addressed this issue. Look, you have the argument and one of the best sources on Wiki, anything else is purposely causing trouble or attempting to insert a POV. --Noitall 01:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I guess we will just let the vandals play for awhile. When people want to do a serious and accurate article, without purposely trying to cause trouble, I'll be back. --Noitall 06:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, for those who have little knowledge about what they are editing (this won't change those who are intentionally causing trouble), here are Christian beliefs (in all these words, note how many times Abraham is mentioned):

The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen. --Noitall 13:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's the beef, Noitall? The "Abrahamic religion" statement was moved from the forefront of the introduction and qualified by the phrase "Christianity is sometimes referred to as", which is fact. I agree that Christianity does not refer to itself as an "Abrahamic religion" and that this term may be primarily used by secular scholars or Islam-ists in a way that tends to marginalize the Christian faith. Nevertheless a casual internet search will show it is quite common. This is not a "Christian page", it is supposed to be an encyclopedic description of Christianity from a neutral point of view. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

No-one said Christians worship Abraham. Mormons don't call themselves Mormons, but that does'nt stop anyone else. Lapsed Pacifist 14:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a Christian and have no problem with Christianity being referred to as "Abrahamic". It's not a term we normally use, but we do claim spiritual descent from Abraham. I don't understand what the fuss is all about, to be honest. KHM03 16:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me address a few of the issues now raised:

  • "I agree that Christianity does not refer to itself as an "Abrahamic religion" and that this term may be primarily used by secular scholars or Islam-ists in a way that tends to marginalize the Christian faith." -- 100% accurate, debate should end.
  • On not distingishing Christian beliefs from others' beliefs -- Let's look at the different pages. On the Abraham page, it is relevant to address what the 3 religions think. On the Islam page, it is relevant to address what Muslims think. And on the Christian page, it is relevant and appropriate to address what Christians think. It sort of seems simple to me.
  • This is not a "Christian page" -- I think that is rather incorrect. This is the Christian page. NPOV would state what Christians generally believe.
  • "No-one said Christians worship Abraham" -- OK, then there should not be a statement stating or implying that Christians believe it to be an Abrahamic religion.
  • Mormon statement -- have no idea what that means.
  • "I am a Christian and have no problem with Christianity being referred to as "Abrahamic". -- You are fully entitled to your beliefs. But your personal POV should be irrelevant in this article.

--Noitall 01:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, Noitall, you have strong feelings on the topic of whether Christianity is an Abrahamic religion. But lets not blow this out of proportion. While it's clear that some people such as yourself are offended by calling Christianity an Abrahamic religion, there is a good basis for other people, including Christians, to use the term Abrahamic religion in certain contexts (like in a Wikipedia article, but maybe not in church). I think that Wikipedia readers are sufficiently sophisticated to understand that calling Christianity an Abrahamic religion doesn't mean that Christians worship Abraham. Moreover, there is no evidence that the majority of Christians are offended by the phrase Abrahamic religion. But even if they are offended, the phrase still should be discussed. There is more to Christianity than the Nicene Creed. For example, there's this thing called the Bible, which refers to Abraham as the father of Judaism, from which Christianity sprang. Of course, nobody worships Abraham, but he's the only central figure that links Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. COGDEN 18:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It does not really matter whether I am offended or not by the subject of a particular passage. It also does not matter whether others on Wiki are offended. It is also irrelevant whether regular Christians are offended. Many Christians would not be offended by anything at all as long as they can uphold their own beliefs. They could care less what Wiki states. What offends me is a misleading and inaccurate characterization of Christian thought on Wiki, mostly to support a few people's POV. That is the only thing that matters. It is that simple.

You are right that there is more to Christianity than the Nicene crede. But the Nicene Crede is a good generalization of Christian thought for several reasons:

1. The Nicene Crede is a 1700 year old source that is the foundation of Christian beliefs,

2. The Nicene Crede is the essence of Christianity, as it was constructed by the founders of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and, later, Protestantism was founded because they believe such older religions did not sufficiently focus on this aspect of Christianity,

3. Abraham is only one part of the bible as a whole, and there is no reason to single out one section of Genesis for POV reasons unrelated to Christianity (in fact, if editors were to continue such a focus, it is far more accurate to call it a "Davidian religion") and

4. the Bible as a whole, particularly the Old Testiment, creates many avenues of belief with Christianity, specifically because they are not related to the essence of Christianity.

--Noitall 22:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, this is all becoming a bit tedious; the problem here is evidently a matter of knowledge. The reason that some people call Christianity an Abrahamic religion is obvious. Why you have such a problem with it is not so obvious, and none of your repetitive railing on the subject has helped to shed any light on that mystery. Furthermore, no tradition that adopts the Nicene creed calls it the foundation of Christian beliefs. It is the symbol of faith, not the foundation of faith. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Your suggestion of "Davidic religion" isn't bad - maybe someone will pick it up someday; but I've never heard anyone use this, whereas it is frequent to speak of Christianity as an Abrahamic religion. The promise to Abraham, that he would be blessed, and that he would be made a blessing to all the families of the earth, is a central idea in Christianity according to the New Testament. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Please stop worrying over this insignificant issue. You are wrong. Focus instead on where the sentence ought to be placed, not whether it ought to appear; only when you do so will you be working toward consensus, instead of against it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose things get "tedious" when I have made extensive rational and sourced arguments and the opponents have no arguments and no sources other than erronious Wiki "consensus." Your statement about it being "insignificant" is disproved with your own actions and statements and the others here. If it were "insignificant," then they would let well argued and sourced edits stand. --Noitall 22:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, no one is arguing against your sources, only your irrational use of them as applied to the issue of whether Christianity is sometimes called an Abrahamic religion. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

-->Let's see . . . I am the one with the sources and you failed to address any of my arguments, and you think I am the irrational one? --Noitall 01:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is one question we have to ask: Is Christianity sometimes called an Abrahamic religion? The answer is yes! That's not a POV, that's a fact that even Noitall does not dispute. Therefore, it belongs in the Wikipedia. As to the question of where it belongs, the most basic contextual and background information—such as, how is it frequently classified with other similar religions?—generally belongs in the introduction. COGDEN 00:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
As usual, it is far easier to ignore every argument and misstate others' opinions than address facts. I never stated that Christianity was not referred to as an Abrahamic religion. I stated that 'Christians' do not refer to it as such and that the opinions and beliefs of Christians ought to be acknowedged on the Christian page. To do otherwise is misleading and inaccurate. --Noitall 00:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


Christians' opinions and beliefs will be acknowledged in the article on Christianity (as there is no "Christian page" on Wikipedia). It is not necessary that this exclude other opinions of Christianity, or that those of Christians should automatically take precedence.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to favor accuracy and truth, but I suppose I will continue to be opposed by some who disagree with this. On your point, just in this section, I made the same statement approximately 4 times: the opinions and beliefs of Christians ought to be acknowedged on the Christian page. To do otherwise is misleading and inaccurate. --Noitall 02:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC) And, BTW, on your smart statement (used to avoid addressing the issue here), I know it is too much to assume that other editors on this page know that the Christianity page is a page about the religion of Christians, but I guess it needs to be stated nevertheless. --Noitall 02:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The opinions and beliefs of Christians are acknowledged here (of course). But opinions and beliefs of unorthodox Christians, and anti-Christians are also represented: because Christianity is more than just what its adherents think it to be. It is also something to those outside of the faith. They also have a perspective on what Christianity is. You are wrong to think that this page should (or even can) definitively express what Christians believe, untainted by the views of outsiders. This is part of a freely editable encyclopedia open to anyone on the internet, not a catechetical manual. And besides, you're just flat wrong about this issue. Let's try some Google tests to see just how wrong you are. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Click here for a basic Google test: which results in 6,760 hits for Christianity "Abrahamic religion" -wikipedia -encyclopedia.
Compare that to zero for Davidic religion, BTW.
Shall the pope speak for at least a few Christians? "John Paul" "Abrahamic religion" results in 136 hits - a number of these suppose that the pope accepted Islam as a "Abrahamic religion" - the idea of Christianity being one, is not controversial, compared to thinking of Islam as "Abrahamic". - think about that.
Now, this establishes nothing except that people call Christianity an Abrahamic faith. I do not like the motives involved in doing so, all the time. I do not agree with some assumptions of what this means. That doesn't change the factuality of saying "some call Christianity an Abrahamic faith". If you still insist on arguing about that, I will assume with good reason that you are nothing but a troll, and the joke has been on me for trying to reason with you. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I can only make the same arguments so many times and then a lack of understanding becomes intentional ignorance. As to your (somewhat) new points: 1. The page speaks to general Christian beliefs already (in the 3 primary branches), and I made my valid sourced point as to what generally this constitutes, thus it is relevant and important what the general Christian beliefs are regarding this term, 2. if they had google 1700 years ago, maybe things would have turned out different, but as it is, I accurately cited the general Christian beliefs, 3. google does not distinguish what Christian thought is (only that many people have said it). I know that google is the the source of the lazy and unthinking, but let's try to open our minds here, if possible. --Noitall 05:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, you can learn much more with this google search [3]
One of the problems is, I think that you, Noitall, are wrong about what "general Christian beliefs" are in this case. There is absolutely no evidence that any substantial number of Christians oppose calling Christianity an Abrahamic religion. Certainly, 95% of Christians have probably never heard of the phrase. But as Mkmcconn described, it's very commonly used by Christian scholars, and even the Pope used the phrase. So it appears that the only true statements we can make here are that (1) Christianity is very commonly classified as an Abrahamic religion in academia, both by Christians and non-Christians, and (2) at least some Christians have heard of the terms and are offended by the term, or have a positive belief that Christianity is not an Abrahamic religion. But you have provided no evidence that there is even a sizeable anti-"Abrahamic religion" faction within Christianity, let alone a majority. COGDEN 19:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • COGDEN is certainly not short for "cogent." You come up with some crazy arguments: to acknowledge what everyone knows, that Christians do not generally believe their religion to be an "Abrahamic religion", an editor has to prove that there is there is "a sizeable anti-"Abrahamic religion" faction within Christianity"? That's equivalent to saying that Christianity is a "UFOian religion" because there is no sizeable anti-UFOian faction within Christianity. Abraham is not mentioned in the Nicene Crede and neither are UFO or other outer-space deities. The Nicene Crede states the essence of Christian belief -- anything else is outside of Christianity (or at least the common aspects of Christianity). --Noitall 21:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's too bad I can't make a crack about your user name, Noitall! ;) The differences are (1) UFOs aren't mentioned in the Bible, and (2) nobody claims that Christianity is a "UFOian religion" (that I know of). On the other hand, on the issue of "Abrahamic religion", We've got the Pope and innumerable scholars on our side. That's enough justification, surely, to prevent anybody from censoring or burying the use of the phrase Abrahamic religion as a common superclassification of Christianity, especially since you still haven't cited a single reference in which the Nicene Creed is interpreted to forbid use of the term Abrahamic religion. COGDEN 19:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this point, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to include this statement in its present form, namely "it is sometimes called...". Unless those who express themselves in this way are mentioned here by name, it will remain forever a source of misunderstanding, hence a bone of contention. Note also that a link to "Abrahamic religion" has been made, which presumably therefore was intended by the original contributor of this assertion to act as his/her authority. See furthermore the entry "People of the Book". So I am unlikely to be the only one that draws the conclusion from these two Wikipedia articles that there are Muslims who are taking this view. If there are no Muslims who take this view, it is unfair on Muslims to make the link to "Abrahamic religion", and unfair on Christians to let them think this of Muslims. For my part, I have no problem with (a) Christians being numbered among the People of the Book, i.e. the Bible, because even today a large number of us still believe in the truth of the Holy Bible, and (b) Abraham being our father in the faith, which is an important issue in the Gospel. Portress 07:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • For some time, since we (I) began this discussion, I have considered the current edit: "It shares with Judaism most of the books of the Old Testament (also known as the Hebrew Bible), and for this reason is sometimes called an Abrahamic religion." After much thought, I believe this satisfies many of my concerns, at least as applies to the summary section. --Noitall 17:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's probably a good compromise. COGDEN 19:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion - Take 2

Noitall added this text: "Although the essential beliefs of Christians are generally described in the Nicene Creed, and thus they generally do not view themselves as a part of an 'Abrahamic religion', (sic) they incorporate the texts of the Old testament in their lessons." S/he seems to feel that it is unjust that we removed it, but it is possible that s/he is simply using the term "Abrahamic Religion" in a technical way unique to Muslims rather than the generic way found in the article Abrahamic religion. While nearly all major Christian denominations adhere to the Nicene Creed, it is not a complete summary of their teaching. Just because Abraham is not mentioned in the creed doesn't mean that they do not view him as their spiritual forebear.

All Christians (and I speak as one of them) consider themselves spiritual children of Abraham because that is what the New Testament calls them (see Galatians 3, especially vv. 7,14,29). In Romans 11:13-24, Paul uses the analogy of a an olive tree. Each branch represents a descendent of Abraham and an heir to his promise, and the Gentiles are grafted into this tree among the natural (i.e. Israelite) branches -- in other words, Paul views the Gentiles as being part of the same faith as Abraham. Many Christians do not view the Old Testament merely as lessons, and moreover, they view Abraham as part of the Christian Church before the coming of Christ. (Christians who hold to Covenant theology have an even greater affinity with Abraham than dispensationalists who disconnect the physical people of Israel from the spiritual Christian church.) In that sense, I maintain that Noitall's sentence above is inaccurate. --Flex 21:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that the Nicene Creed is not the complete summary of all Christianity. But it is the basis and common belief. It is the only true statement of belief that you can state that generally describes Christians. The entire reason for the Council of Nicea was establishing for this fundamental purpose. From there, beliefs diverge considerably. A very large number of Christians (maybe a majority, but it would be impossible to quantify) believe that Genesis and many parts of the Old Testament are meant to be used metaphorically and as parables, not literally. Further, Christians do not believe in the infallibility of man and the largest denomination, Methodists, believes that the Bible was a work of infallible man under the inspiratation of God. Such demoninations believe in a figurative and spiritual lineage to other Old Testament figures, not a literal lineage. In fact, Jesus (God to Christians) can by definition have no lineage (strictly speaking, he had no parents). So references to other prophets are not meant in the literal sense, but in the spriritual. Thus it is misleading to imply some literal lineage or that some other figure is a co-figure worthy of worship. --Noitall 21:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
You represent no one but yourself, and perhaps some unnamed minority, in these views. Your paragraph has so many points to answer, I will number my answers for your convenience.
  1. Your POV may be represented, if it is properly sourced - this is necessary because it is not a POV representative of Christianity as a whole, but may be the view of some group (you and who else?).
  2. Roman Catholicism, for the purposes of this article, is a Christian "denomination" many times larger than all the branches Methodism put together.
  3. Methodism does not teach anything distinctively different about the inspiration of Scripture, compared to Baptists, Lutheran or Reformed.
  4. Nobody that I know of believes that the Bible is the work of "infallible men".
  5. Figurative and spiritual interpretation of Abrahamic descendency of Jesus (if that's what you mean), as opposed to historical, is not the official stance of any Christian denomination - although there may be some writer who holds this view - cite the source.
  6. It is not a Christian view that Jesus had no parents, even loosely speaking.
  7. Nobody at any time in this discussion has suggested that Abraham is "worthy of worship" or a "co-figure" alongside Jesus.
  8. Neither does the phrase "Abrahamic religion" imply this.
Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Mkmcconn (Talk) you continue to demonstrate that you continue to edit in an area you know very little about. Needless to say, most of what you state is incorrect, even the characterization of the points I made. But it does not matter. Your point #7 satisfies me and so I bolded it. --Noitall 22:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Please do not edit my remarks. Cite sources for support of perspectives not commonly recognizable. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, I used to be a Free Methodist at one time, and a United Methodist at another time. I once counted over 40 different denominations that considered themselves to be "Methodist." They are nowhere near being the largest denomination, separately or combined together, unless you start excluding Roman Catholics and others because you don't think they're Christian at all, or because they don't like to talk about themselves as a "denomination."
Of course Jesus had parents. He called God his "Father" and he called Mary his "mother", and Mary certainly gave birth to him, as all Christians will agree. Matthew and Luke both provide lineages of Jesus.
Finally, to say that Christians "incorporate the texts of the Old testament in their lessons" greatly understates the case. Christians incorporate all kinds of texts into their lessons, anything from other ancient writings, to recent books from the local Christian bookstore, to stuff written by the teacher himself (or herself). Christians include the Old Testament in their Bible and treat it as God's word, something they don't do for every book or curriculum they decide to incorporate into their lessons.
However, I am glad that we agree that nobody, Jew or Christian, thinks Abraham is "worthy of worship." (And don't be fooled by icons of Abraham. ;-) Wesley 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't give the entire history of comparative religion and list all the numbers. Yes. Yes. Methodism is only the largest of the Protestant, and Protestant is slightly more than half the Roman Catholics. Ok. Happy?
See Mary, the mother of Jesus. You all want to cite Catholics, well, conceived by the Holy Spirit and a virgin mother means no "lineage" in the literal sense, which is how we got on this subject.
"lessons" - fine, I am not above anyone modifying a particular word to improve it. Modify away. I am not a reactionary reverter.

--Noitall 05:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

The New Testament is part of the Bible?

According to the the previous version of the article, a basic "Christian belief is that the NT is part of the Bible". This is not a belief, since the Bible was put together by scholars. It is a point of view, rather. --Vizcarra 01:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Response: This article is a mess, and I'm staying out of it for the time being; however, from a Jewish perspective, it is indeed a Christian BELIEF that the New Testament is part of the Bible, regardless of who put it together; for Judaism, the NT is not part of the Bible.--Midnite Critic 02:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Midnite Critic is correct, this article is expressly about beliefs. Address the history in the appropriate section. --Noitall 03:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

How should a lead description summarize everything that is believed by Christians?

DJ Clayworth, you wrote: We should give a very brief description of what Christianity is in the opening para - and I think the idea that Jesus is considered to be God is important.

The opening paragraph does do that (very briefly and generally) and one of the ideas that is implied is, that Jesus is believed to be God - although this, and other specific beliefs are not expanded on, there. Do you really think that they should be expanded here? Doesn't that become messy?

I don't disagree with you that the belief that Jesus is God is important. I'm only wondering where this ought to be explained. In my opinion, it's better under Beliefs - and what we should find in that section is an expansion of what's said in the opening paragraph (which right now suggests that it will deal with the "life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the New Testament writings of his early followers."). Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

On another issue that you mentioned, above, if you'll look at Islam and Vedas, you'll find that an explanation of the name is prominent in their opening paragraphs. Judaism, Jew and Buddhism move this kind of etymological discussion down in the article. I'm not insisting on either approach; I'm only saying that it's not unusual to think that people might want to know where the name, "Christianity" comes from. It helps to explain what the religion is about. I won't lobby for including a sentence about etymology. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go into much explanation about what "Jesus is God" means in the opening para. The simple statement (even though it is capable of many interpretations) will do for an intro. More details of the doctrine belong in the beliefs section. I wouldn't go into any more doctrines - none are really as important as that one. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
In my view, Christianity stands on two central doctrines...the Incarnation and the Resurrection. That's not to say that other doctrines (Trinity, Original sin, Prevenient grace, etc.) aren't very important, but it seems to me that everything depends upon those two central ideas. Just one guy's opinion. KHM03 19:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Since we're comparing theological notes. I would say in characteristically Calvinist fashion, that there is a three-fold typical theme that is recapitulated in the Scriptures: Creation, Fall(Promise/Curse), and Redemption. Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are the antitypes, the explanations and historical fulfillments that correspond to that three-fold theme. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
All of which is to say that, it is hard to pick out one theological item, and say "this represents Christianity". No one thing quite embraces everything, for everyone, except "Jesus" (his identity, life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection). Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
OR we could simply say "For a fine summary of essential Christian beliefs, see Methodism". Just a thought. KHM03 19:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Heh. Sure. or how about: REDIRECT#[[TBA]] Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Muslims' use of Books of the OT.

Dear Jayig, thank you for correcting me on this point. I had made the edit on the strength of what Muslims are telling me and failed to realise that this may not be true without qualification. My apologies. In the circumstances, is there not also a problem with the Wikipedia articles People of the Book and Abrahamic religion in this respect? Portress 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed People of the Book. Abrahamic religion seems accurate: "Thus, both the Torah and New Testament are accepted as valid in principle, but Muslims believe them to have been intentionally corrupted.". Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

real wrong, again

I hesitate to ask, as these debates seem to go nowhere, and focus on minutiae: User:Noitall, why should it not be mentioned that Christianity is sometimes called an Abrahamic religion because of the belief that Jesus fulfills the prophecy given to Abraham? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Short answer (see talk pages for longer ones) - Christians do not generally call their religion an "Abrahamic religion", others call it that. It was based on the fundamental nature of common Christian belief, represented in the Nicene Creed. I did not object to the edit about the books of the Old Testament because it was not too misleading as to Christian thought. But adding in anything else brings up the differences in denominations and beliefs and the historicity of the Old Testament and starts to mislead that Christians do not think of themselves as an Abrahamic religion. I greatly appreciate your asking. --Noitall 22:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
One more point, if the argument is to prophesy, then as I mentioned before, it is more accurately called a Davidic religion (something it is not at the current time). --Noitall 22:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
User:Noitall, the discussion that has taken place does not support your POV. "Christians generally" do call their religion an "Abrahamic religion". This is not controversial in the slightest (it is controversial however, for Christians or Jews to speak of Islam as an "Abrahamic religion", and it is controversial for Orthodox Jews to include Christians under that rubric.
It is fundamental to Christian belief, to trace the lineage of Christian faith back to Abraham - "Abraham saw my day, and rejoiced". Please follow the consensus on this issue. Leave this issue alone. You are speaking for yourself alone, and whatever handful of people who are huddled with you in your corner of distinctive belief. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears the last edit by Noitall, left the "Abrahamic religion" clause in place. It looks fine to me as is. Regards, Jim Ellis 23:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall reverted an additional cited reason that Christianity is called an "Abrahamic religion". It is arguable whether it is appropriate to expand this explanation in the lead; however, the reason cited was accurate, and should not have been reverted on the supposition that it was controversial. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
As Jim Ellis stated, I left the original agreed consensus decision in this matter (which I believe I significantly compromised on). If we want to start this issue all over again, please let me know and we will address the entire issue all over again. As I have stated before, Mkmcconn's statement is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian belief, use of texts, references to the Old Testament, etc. But no need to go into it all if it is returned to the consensus choice. --Noitall 05:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, I do not know what you mean by consensus, since I have not observed anyone agreeing with you. But, since I can't seem to get you to provide any support for your view that Christianity is not an Abrahamic religion, I guess that the only way to proceed is to go ahead and make the changes as I see fit.
-->it is the "consensus" position because I conceded to the statement that you or another drafted, not because it was correct. I did it in the spirit of compromise. I hope you have just a tiny bit of that spirit of compromise. --Noitall 21:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I will remove your sentence, which says, 'Christians generally do not view themselves as part of an "Abrahamic religion"' The sentence seems to imply that someone envisions "Abrahamic religion" as something of which Christianity is a member. That is not the way that the terminology is used. There is a difference between saying "Christianity is an Abrahamic religion", and "Christianity is part of an Abrahamic religion" - does anyone say the latter? Also, the section seems to narrowly discuss the relationship between Christianity and Islam (as "abrahamic religions"), with a subsection for discussion of Christianity and Judaism. I'm changing the header to fit the contents. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not the Mkmcconn page, it is the Christianity page. I have extensively conceded positions, complimented you, and compromised my own edits. Yet this is not enough for you. Please show some respect and do not be a reactionary reverter if you don't want others to do the same. --Noitall 20:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
User:Noitall, there is no need for an edit war. Simply justify your statements by citing relevant sources in a neutral fashion. Please work cooperatively. The issue is the article, not ego. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanking Jim Ellis for explanation, etc. ; Seeking 3rd opinion

(Former title: "Re: "Doctrine" edits by Jim Ellis & ProtractedSilence + Catholic v Protestant")

Dear Jim,

I see that you removed material in the doctrine section in response to the additions by ProtractedSilence.

However, you also removed a small, but important addition edit by myself. Please review my edits history here, before you make a decision to remove my material.

  1. 1 - My edit clarifies the faith v works issue.
  1. 2 - My edit (of 06:17, 23 July 2005) was accepted by the other editors who passed it by, implying some level of consensus.

(Because of 1 & 2, above, I replaced that portion of my edit that was missing.) I also see that you have training in Bibilcal matters; I too have similar training, but informally: I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

In addition, a similar issue came up on a related page, in which User:JimWae made some adjustments to my edit, shortening it a little bit. However, here is something you might find interesting: In the Wikipedia article, Jesus, on a similar topic, here at [this diff at 18:07, 23 July 2005, we see not only JimWae's edit, but also a section differentiating the Catholic beliefs from Protestant ones. Since I don't know everything about Catholic beliefs, I did not add that to this article, but here is the full comment with the edit, in case you want to look into this and/or consider adding something about the Catholic beliefs about works vs faith. (Since you are a specialist in religion, I hope you can be helpful here. Thanks.) OK, here's the diff, but with footnote links omitted for brevity - see article for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=19454192&oldid=19452122

Christianity - paragraph about faith & good works & which is necessary - not about miracles, nor is performing miracles necessary for salvation

Protestant Christians generally believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to receive salvation and to enter into heaven, and that salvation is a gift given by the grace of God. Although most members of the various Christian denominations believe that faith in Jesus is necessary (based upon John 3:16) passage, good works are certainly expected <!--by whom? & does God need evidence of "what is in our hearts"?-->. Jesus says (John 13:15) that his life was given as an example or role model for followers. In contrast, Roman Catholics believe that even non-Christians can receive the grace needed for salvation if they live a just life.1 2 The Lutheran position on justification is nearly identical3

--GordonWattsDotCom 04:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation in your edit summary, Jim, (e.g., "Doctrine - this is unnecessary and not in keeping with the rest of the article") and also, thank you for leaving in and not deleting some of my contributions; however, I wish to ask for more feedback all the same.

My post here relates to the Christianity#Doctrine section of the article. Below, I wish to comment on these two diffs: my recent edit here, "Revision as of 04:23, 27 July 2005" and Jim's more recent edit here, "Revision as of 11:53, 27 July 2005".

Crucial beliefs in Christian teaching are Jesus' [[incarnation]], [[atonement]], [[crucifixion]], and [[Resurrection of Jesus|resurrection]] from the dead to redeem humankind from sin and death; and the belief that the [[New Testament]] is a part of the [[Bible]]. Many Christians today (and traditionally even more) also hold to [[supersessionism]], the belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism.

The emphasis on God the Father giving his son, or the Son (who is God) becoming incarnate for the sake of humanity, is an essential difference between Christianity and most other religions, where the emphasis is instead placed solely on humans working for [[salvation]]. While faith in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection is sufficient for salvation within the Christian doctrine, good works are certainly expected as evidence of the convert's salvation. (E.g., [[James]] 2:18, in which the writer says that he will show his faith ''by'' his works; [[Revelations]] 3:2, which asks the reader to "strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die," implying that bad works might lead to a loss of salvation; and, most importantly, words from [[Jesus]], Himself, in [[John]] 13:15, which claim that His life is an example or role model for followers, and the very strong claim in John 14:12, in which Jesus states that followers who believe in Him can do the works that Jesus does and even "greater works," in fact, a scripture that has provoked much debate on the role of miracles and healing in current times.)

The most uniform and broadly accepted tradition of doctrine, with the longest continuous representation, repeatedly reaffirmed by official Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant definitions (although not without dissent, as noted below) asserts that specific beliefs are essential to Christianity, including but not limited to:
  • Factual basis: The text in black in unchanged text. The bold-faced text in greed was added by me in one edit, and left in place, that is, not deleted, by Mr. Ellis' recent edit. The bold-faced text in red was deleted by Jim, and he justified this by stating that it was "this is unnecessary and not in keeping with the rest of the article."
  • The argument put forth: First, the material he deleted is necessary to offer as a source, to verify the statements or claims preceding it. Secondly, it is in keeping with the article, both in length (my additions were not too long), and in style (the article often-times uses scripture to verify or source a statement or claim).
  • Unrelated but similar issue: I noted in my previous post above that the Catholics may possibly (??) have a slightly different view, but I am not so certain of that, and do not wish to offer an opinion on Catholic beliefs; My statement above is meant to bring attention to this, in case it needs work.
  • My analysis and Conclusions: I seek a third opinion as such to vote on or opine on my assertions and request that the materials be added back to clarify the positions held by that Christian faith. If you are reading this, I ask for your tie-breaking, third opinion input. Thank you,--GordonWattsDotCom 06:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're asking for a third opinion and here it is. The red text above is too verbose for this article. I agree it provides source, but it just reads too long. It would be appropriate in an article on Faith and Works in Christianity, but not here. DJ Clayworth 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Watts. I appreciate your seeking a third opinion on the Red text above -- you got that :-). But now that I look at the green text. I question its addition as well. The original statement (in Black) is emphasizing the Christian belief in deity incarnate, which itself is the pointed "big difference." To add the Green words extending this to a question of the role of works and faith in salvation is not in keeping with the original point or consistent with the nature of the overall section, e.g. what follows is a listing of basic tenets such as the Trinity, virgin birth, etc. which should not be preceded by your little pet project on the role of "works." Not only that, your discussion raises more questions than it answers, and would be more appropriately addressed elsewhere as Mr. Clayworth noted. So I seek a supporting opinion to delete the Green text as well. Jim Ellis 14:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Another opinion: I agree with DJ Clayworth's and Mr. Ellis' posts here, but (contra Mr. Ellis) I think only part of the green should be deleted because the article should succinctly specify in what way Christianity differs from other religions. Hence, I would make it read: The emphasis on God the Father giving his son, or the Son (who is God) becoming incarnate for the sake of humanity, is an essential difference between Christianity and most other religions, where the emphasis is instead placed solely on humans themselves working for salvation. The bits about faith and works might fit at Justification (theology) or, as DJ Clayworth suggests, in an article on good works (such an article should also discuss the Roman Catholic doctrines of merit and so forth). --Flex 16:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is such a colorful discussion :-) My feeling is that it is hard to pick out a single issue as being uniformly held to be more important, or different from all other religions. It's for that purpose that the creeds were developed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The ecumenical creeds serve mostly to define what is believed by the church in comparison to specific heretics and their followers (Nestorius, Eutyches, Arius, Pelagius, etc.) not so much in comparison to other extant religions. In any case, the doctrine of the incarnation's implications for salvation are immense and worthy of note in such an overview, IMHO. --Flex 18:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I accept Mr. Flex's proposal and consider this to settle the matter. Jim Ellis 19:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree that the creeds have such a strictly controversialist role. They seem to me to be efforts at gaining precision especially concerning chief elements of Christian profession, and they are learned in a definitional way in many traditions. Regardless, I agree with Flex's proposal. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I do feel that there is some value in the "Doctrine" of "faith vs works," within the various religions, "Christianity" included, and so I wonder at the loss of some of my suggested material: Thus, I would not feel bad about respectfully dissenting; however, I respect the efforts and suggestions of the others, and yield to the vote of the majority. Also, I would like to thank the various suggestions, particularly the one by Flex, because you suggest an article that already exists. I hope to check it out. If, in the future, you wish to "re-vote" or reconsider the matter, I would strongly cast my vote for the inclusion of ALL of the green text, and would weakly support the addition of ALL the red text, but I understand the space limitations and have no preferences as to where it would be -only that it be available to the reader. Thank you; I consider the matter settled as much as it can be.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Heads up: Minor edit was performed - A little more on Faith without works, being dead...

I am satisfied that the prior discussion immediately above improved the quality of the article, and I am satisfied for the teamwork that was offered here.

However, I am still left with a feeling that the article still has glaring omissions of "main points" of the faith.

For example, it is inarguably true that salvation by faith is the most important point of "Christianity." However, we recall that the beliefs of that faith also mandate that "Faith without works is dead." (Paraphrase of James 2:17) Therefore, the article, while correct in mentioning how other religions rely on works alone is good, omits any mention of the fruit of works, so to speak.

In fact, I did a "Key word search" of the page (Edit --> "Find on this page"), and the word "works" only appears once in the entire page! (In the Christianity#General_on-line_sources section, we find this: "The Christian Classics Ethereal Library, containing the works of a wide spectrum of authors in doctrine, history, devotion, and Bible commentary")

Therefore, it is safe to say that this major Christian doctrine is underrepresented. (The article is about the Christian faith, not about other faiths, so mention of their beliefs in "works alone" to contrast is good, but "treatment of other faiths' beliefs" should not be more preeminent than "treatment of Christianity's beliefs" in how the article addresses this doctrine in Christianity: If faith is dead without works, then it surely is a "main" doctrine, not a "pet project," as Jim said earlier and thus must be mentioned somewhere in the main article.)

That leads me to address some of the points made earlier that I somehow overlooked in the haste to address the points on which we all agreed:

1 - First, Jim said this earlier: ...what follows is a listing of basic tenets such as the Trinity, virgin birth, etc. which should not be preceded by your little pet project on the role of "works." My comments: As far as calling it a "pet project" versus a "main doctrine," I addressed that earlier. However, I would take issue with the logic that Jim uses here: He says that my edit addition was not good because the other "main points" of the doctrine were preceded by your little pet project on the role of "works." This is bad logic because is implies that anything that precedes the basic tenets is not acceptable if it is not a part of these basic tenets; however, we know this to be flawed because a large section of the article, not specifically describing the basic tenets precedes this section, yet I don't see him objecting to those additions. (He did not raise objection until I specifically pointed out that the green additions were mine, making me wonder if he was merely suspicious of the additions because they came from a new editor, but I will not accuse him of this, because he did offer an explanation, and I am not equipped to read minds: I will give the benefit of the doubt.)

1(a) - Above, I addressed why Jim's logic was bad, but here in 1(a), I will assume that he meant immediately preceding, and that his logic was good. In that case, one solution to adding comments about "good works," would be to place them below, that is after, not before, the "basic tenets," which would place the new text right after the "Christian Love" section.

2 - DJ Clayworth suggests that my initial additions in red were "too verbose for this article [and that] it just reads too long." I will assume he is right, because on my 2nd reading, it did look a bit long. Therefore, any suggestion I make will surely be brief & to the point.

3 -He also suggests that "It would be appropriate in an article on Faith and Works in Christianity" Comment: It would be unreasonable to make an entire article on one single main tenet of any particular faith.

4 - Flex suggests that "The bits about faith and works might fit at Justification (theology)," but I looked at this section: Justification has to do with salvation, not works, and I wouldn't feel right about trying to squeeze it into there.

5 - Just to show you that I was thinking and making an effort, I did look at an article about Sanctification, and article looked promising, but upon closer inspection, it had less to do with works, and more about being "set apart for special use or purpose" (like good works). Ouch! I tried, really...

6 - Flex suggests this: in an article on good works (such an article should also discuss the Roman Catholic doctrines of merit and so forth). Good idea. I will take a stab at addressing it.

7 - Mkmcconn makes this observation: "This is such a colorful discussion :-) My feeling is that it is hard to pick out a single issue as being uniformly held to be more important, or different from all other religions." Thank you: I agree that is hard to show any single issue as being more important in the tenets or beliefs, if that is what you meant. Thus, I am sure that my suggestions, no matter what they are, will receive mixed reactions. (This is a segue to my two proposed solutions.)

-- My proposed solutions --

My first proposed solution would be to place the proposed addition right after the paragraph on "Christian Love" within the Christianity#Doctrine subsection. This makes sense, because "Christian Love" is in the motivating force for "Good works," or, conversely, "Good works" is evidence of "Christian Love."

My second solution might not be easily accepted by Mr. Ellis (who thought of this main tenet as a "pet project"), because I will suggest that my addition be placed directly within the basic tenets section, because, as we have been reminded: This faith describes "Faith without works" as being dead. It doesn't get any worse than this, so "works" must be an important element of the doctrine of Christianity, the main title of this article space. Thus, the idea that this is merely a "pet project" must either be proved or rejected to address my proposal to identify this as another (probably the 2nd most important) main belief or tenet of Christianity. Jim, I am trying to explain my reasoning, and have tried to have open ears, so I am asking that you do the same; Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

-- My notes and final comments on my proposed edit --

I am going to try to be brief with my actual edit and/or proposal, but below I shall leave a larger section from with to draw ideas and information:

Protestant Christians generally believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to receive salvation and to enter into heaven, and that salvation is a gift given by the grace of God. Although most members of the various Christian denominations believe that faith in Jesus is necessary (based upon John 3:16), good works are certainly expected. Jesus says (John 13:15) that his life was given as an example or role model for followers. In contrast, Roman Catholics believe that even non-Christians can receive the grace needed for salvation if they live a just life. [2] The Lutheran position on justification is nearly identical. [3] While faith in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection is sufficient for salvation within the Christian doctrine, -and as explained by Jesus, Himself in the famous passage, John 3:16, good works are certainly expected as evidence of the convert's salvation. (E.g., James 2:17, which is the basis for the Christian claim that "faith without works is dead"; James 2:18, the following verse, in which the writer says that he will show his faith by his works; Revelations 3:2, which asks the reader to "strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die," implying that bad works might lead to a loss of salvation; and, most importantly, words from Jesus, Himself, in John 13:15, which claim that His life is an example or role model for followers, and the very strong claim in John 14:12, in which Jesus states that followers who believe in Him can do the works that Jesus does and even "greater works," in fact, a scripture that has provoked much debate on the role of miracles and healing in current times.)

[Note: 2] Catechism entry on grace and justification catechism. Nostra Aetate, declaration of Vatican II

[Note: 3] Joint declaration ELCA Vatican

What I may do is add a proposed text in the article, and refer the other editors to talk, because waiting for feedback is very slow; If I mess up, you can delete my addition and discuss what I did; Trust me: I'm not going to start a Holy War or be disrespectful to the faith of Christianity: I've read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and myself am a believer of this faith, so I hope to present factual information for the reader, without forcing any one POV. The "source material" above can't all fit in the article, in all likelihood, so rest assured that my edit will be only part of this.

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just spoke with my father, and he thinks that "works" is a central theme of Christianity, and that this article should include it. My father, Robert Watts, who runs the Bobby Watts Engine Parts, here in Lakeland, Florida, and who has both read the Bible from cover-to-cover, like myself, -and who is a personal friend of Drag Racing great, "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, also from the Tampa Bay area of Florida -said that "faith without works is dead," after I had already made the minor edit, suggesting that we had independently thought that this was a central theme of Christianity; I think it's the 2nd most important theme, 2nd only to Salvation. (My father made these comments, not Don Garlits; just to clarify.)

Regarding the additions that suggest the Catholic and Lutheran faiths think that living a just life alone is sufficient, I did not include them, because I don't personally believe that they don't believe this, but others have suggested or allowed this to be claimed. Therefore, I left in that section in my "proposal" above so those more familiar with Catholic or Lutheran can determine what needs to be added there.

Therefore, I made a minor edit, however, excluding claims about the Catholic & Lutheran beliefs that I believed are incorrect.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the placement of this issue and the conciseness of your comment now better than ever before - but it really should be its own bullet point. The thing that is especially Christian is that faith in Christ alone saves - this issue should not be clouded with confusing qualifiers. Also - in your proposed edit you include the phrase "implying that bad works might lead to a loss of salvation" - this is not universal thinking among Christians, in fact I would argue this view is held by only a small number of Christians. Similarly, the view that a lack of works demonstrates no salvation was ever obtained is also not a universal view. If you do include a larger article on faith and works I think you should add back the addition I originally made for the scriptural support for why salvation is once and for all - then at least both main views are expressed.--ProtractedSilence 19:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
"I like the placement of this issue and the conciseness of your comment..." You're welcome. I had hoped to keep other editors informed. "...but it really should be its own bullet point." I did in fact make it "it's own bullet point," and JimWae, another talented editor, has suggested in the "hidden comments" that it should be split up into two separate points: One apparently for salvation by faith, and another apparently for the evidence of works; I have not looked at the actual page this morning, so I don't know where it stands currently. "Also - in your proposed edit..." Yes, I proposed a few things, but I wasn't sure of certain of them, and didn't put those in the final cut. Yes, a larger article (which I don't plan to write) would be very appropriate for these scriptures -and a few more.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I think GordonWattsDotCom's assessment of Lutheranism's view is inaccurate. He may have well characterized the ELCA, but they represent the more liberal branch of Lutheranism only. The more conservative branches (e.g., the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) wouldn't sign the JDoJ. Compare this section from the Book of Concord on good works, which is the official view of conservative, confessional Lutherans.
"I think GordonWattsDotCom's assessment of Lutheranism's view is inaccurate." I agree with you; I was merely "borrowing" ideas. Since I (in fact myself) thought it was wrong, please note that I did not put it in the final edit, but I left it here, because others might think it was useful; In fact, anther editor may end up making these claims. When I read the "joint statement," I could not find language to support these claims of Lutheran or Catholic views on salvation by works, so I simply left it out.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
As for ProtractedSilence's claim that bad works might lead to condemnation being a minority view: Roman Catholicism believes that the commission of mortal sins kills salvation. Numerically speaking, they are the largest denomination in Christendom, and so I'd say that view is hardly a minority report. On the other hand, since many Christians don't believe it is possible to fall away if one is truly saved (see Perseverance of the saints), it seems POV to me to say, as the proposal does, that loss of salvation is implied by Rev. 3:2.
"As for ProtractedSilence's claim..." Well, I don't know chose claim is correct here, but I do know that the scripture I cited is a good one to support the views of those who think you can lose your salvation; This is too close to call, so I withhold an opinion. I think simple research with numerical statistics and links to support quotes might answer this issue.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Certainly salvation is a central theme and should be represented in the doctrine section. But because salvation and good works is such a controversial topic within Christendom (hence the Protestant Reformation) and because this is an article about the common beliefs of Christendom, I think we need to work on more neutral or qualified language than what GordonWattsDotCom has inserted or suggests above. It should be only summary in nature; the details, Bible quotes, etc. should go in linked articles on salvation, justification (theology), and/or good works. The article on justification is appropriate for this topic because of the JDoJ and because justification by faith alone (but not by a faith that is alone, as the saying goes) was the material cause of the Reformation. --Flex 20:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
See the edit history for what really was added to the article, and how things have progressed. The way I do that is simply scroll through the edit history, diff-by-diff and click "next" to see each and every change -if, and when I have time, that is. I would ask other editors to do the same if there's a question about who added what, and when. Thanks.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment on current issue: Regarding Jim Ellis' very recent edit of the section on which Jim Wae and I have edited, I wanted to give feedback: After I pulled out the magnifying glass and looked closely at it, I think Mr. Ellis did a good job; Thank you.

He appears to have separated the previously conflated (intertwined) duel issues of faith and works well, to satisfy Jim Wae's concern, and I am satisfied that the main points are there.

I am Gordon Watts, and I approve this message.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have tightened up the salvation entry. I removed the biblical citations since the other points don't have them, and I made the sentence structure parallel the others. Still, I think the point on salvation is very evangelical sounding (especially the term "personal faith"). Catholic and Orthodox (and perhaps even Lutheran) folk would have something about sacraments in there. --Flex 18:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
"I have tightened up the salvation entry." You did a good job, and I answered that point below, and made very minor adjustments. (You don't have to double indent with two ::'s - I see the changes in the history.) I know that my father doesn't edit online (he works like 12-hours a day, something I need to start doing -instead of editing pro bono, lol! However, I did discuss my fathers views -could his opinion at least count for "half a vote?" Thx. See e.g., above & below.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Salvation

Sorry to disrupt the Faith vs Works controversy, but "Salvation from the wrath of God" is by no means a universal Christian belief. Many Christians would hold that what we are saved from is SIN or DAMNATION or CORRUPTION, rather than God's wrath. To quote the Orthodox writer Kallistos Ware, "While the wrath of God is certainly a biblical concept, it seems to me that it is nothing more than the love of God; those who do not accept God's love feel it as wrath. The gates of Hell, as C. S. Lewis put it, are locked on the inside." JHCC (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you, JHCC: That tweak makes it flow better, and I incorperated it into the finished product so far.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree that "from condemnation" (or the like) might be more appropriate. But I have another related concern. Looking again at the article as a whole and this section as it it flows, I think this entry should be moved from this particulay "list" and perhaps inserted further down, with appropriate caveats. Here's my reasoning: This list originally had in view highlights of the doctrine contained in the early ecumenical creeds. In fact, the next paragraph makes that explicit. Therefore this subject entry on salvation/faith/works is not really appropriate here. Jim Ellis 18:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I see your point about wrath. Protestants consider damnation to be the consequence of our sin and corruption, and condemnation of the sinner (to hell) is simply God acting on his wrath. So, in that understanding, they're all tied up together. Similar to your quote, Jonathan Edwards said that in hell, people are not separated from God; rather, they are always in his very presence, which is the very thing they want to escape.
To do Jim one better, I think the doctrinal point that says, "Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God." sufficiently covers salvation in an ecumenical fashion. I wouldn't mind deleting the offending point altogether — GordonWattsDotCom's objections not withstanding. --Flex 19:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to follow all the points, and it seems your tightening up of the entry was about as optimal as you can get, excepet that I would replace "wrath of God" with sin."--GordonWattsDotCom 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Additional Comments: (I couldn't finish my thought above because the library -with a good printer -closed on me, but, to address Flex's point...) Let me point out that JimWae, another editor with experience in this genre, reviewed my most recent edit, and so did you: While it could use tweaking, you two and others felt OK with it, and I do too, so I would ask you to read my commentary above, and compare it to the edit log, and see if you can make sure these major tenets and doctrines are represented in some form. ~ I do apologize for being verbose and talkative above, but I wanted to make my points clear. (I may tweak the final product based on most recent comments. Keep an eye on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&action=history -the edit history; "Keep your eyes on your fries ..uh, I mean eyes on the prize.)--GordonWattsDotCom 22:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A "Good Samaritan" Anon comments on his/her "incarnate" edit

I deleted the words "(Latin for "God become flesh") " following the mention of the belief that Jesus was "God incarnate" because both words are English.

Hello, 66.177.33.232, AKA a Comcast Cable user, possinly from Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
(You forgot to sign: Here, let me do it for you - 66.177.33.232 posted comment above in this diff on 01:42, 7 August 2005. You can click the "signature" icon, second from the right, to sign your name. It initially looks like this: --~~~~, but then turns into a signature.)
OK, I tweaked your edit, retaining the definition of "incarnate" but leaving out a claim it was from Latin. PS: I see here that you appeared to have caused trouble -or at least joked around a bit too much, but thank you for your edit. It may get reverted, but it was offered in good faith, and that's good enough for me.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A few basic points on neutrality

Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. People interested in an article are generally those supportive of it, and therefore may not have a neutral point of view, as the user below makes clear in his post "Lack of neutrality"

I'm finding it a bit tedious that this page is being continually vandalised by fundamentalist Christians who want to pretend that there are no criticisms of Christianity by burying everything away in the "Links" section.

If you can have a huge section about persecution of Christians (and how often are Christians persecuted in contemporary society?), then you also need a section on Criticism of Christianity. To remove this section is an act of intellectual vandalism.

It only goes to prove what some of the critics of Christianity say that it is trying to actively suppress truth by ignoring and suppressing the reality of criticism.

You can argue against criticism but you can't pretend it is not an important part of an article on this subject.

I reproduce the moderated section below - NB and this is one that was watered down by Christians anyway, all references made to homosexuality, to the pope's role in the AIDs crisis, to the church's role in the Rwandan genocide were removed.

Criticisms of Christianity

Critics of Christianity have included philosophers, journalists, scientists and other people from all walks of life. Some have argued that Christianity can be an intolerant religion. Bertrand Russell argued that "the puritanism of Christianity has played havoc with the moderation that an enlightened and tolerant critical spirit would have produced." Voltaire said that "of all religions, Christianity is without a doubt the one that should inspire tolerance most, although, up to now, the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men"

Some critics, such as Richard Dawkins argue that Christianity has sought to suppress rational enquiry and hence the quest for truth. He cites the story of Doubting Thomas from the Bible and argues that the Bible actively discourages believers from making rational enquiries about their faith. Dawkins has said that he is against religion "because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

Some critics have argued that the Bible's insistence on absolute right and wrong have led misguided people to fight wars on the basis of that religion, such as the Crusades. Linguist and political radical Noam Chomsky, for example, has argued that the Bible "is one of the most genocidal books in history." George Monbiot has also argued that Christian fundamentalists are driving the United States's current foreign policy, to the detriment of all concerned.[4]

Lack of neutrality

This section doesn't seem to be as neutral as the wikipedia articles I'm used to. It looks to me as if there is so much effort being put into satisfying the Christian editors that there's a sense of taboo in mentioning information contradictory or offensive to Christians. Almost all of the historical information is presented as fact, and it feels like a zealous Christian is telling me about his religion whilst trying as hard as he can to restrain his bias. Here are some suggestions for editing:

Most communist states were governed by avowed atheists, though only Albania was officially atheist.

China is officially athiest and currently holds the largest population of athiests in the world.

31.7 million belonging to other groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Mormons, etc.).

LDS and Mormons are the exact same thing. Why are they portrayed as seperate groups??

I think somebody brought this up before, but the statistic of the global population of Christians seems a bit exaggerated.

This is reflected in their use of the term "Christ" to describe Jesus, which is derived from the Greek translation for "Messiah". The word Christian means "belonging to Christ" or "of Christ".

Who wrote this? Christ is not "derived" but is the literal Greek word "χριστος" (Christos) which means "anointed". This sentence is completely inaccurate.

In addition to the belief in "one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth ..." and in "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father ...", the latter Creed confesses the belief in "one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten" (literally "generated," so also "born" as in the Latin version) "from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge living and dead, of Whose kingdom there will be no end".

This is what I'm talking about. This sounds like a zealous Christian having an orgasm while preaching what he perceives as the divine knowledge that will hopefully end up saving some "lost-soul" who happens to be reading. There are way too many quotes from the bible here. The reader just wants information on what Christians believe. If he wanted information like this, he'd be reading the bible. A simple description of what they believe will suffice. For example: "In addition to "one true god" and "the holy ghost", Christians also believe in such mythological creatures as angels, devils, demons, and the evil quasi-god "Satan". If this kind of information is offensive to Christians, add a note explaining that the mention of certain aspects of the religion is taboo. In summary, more information, less bible excerpts!

The usage of the word "god" on this page also bothers me. In several places, it is used with the assumption that it is the only god and that it is the same god as that of the reader. It should be replaced with "their god" or even by its name, like "Yahweh", "Jehovah", or "Jah". It should also be mentioned that the infallible name of the Jewish (and therefore, Christian) god is not widely known by Christians.

There should also be a whole section devoted to criticism. There is simply not enough of it, and the criticism that does exist is extremely mild.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope it improves an already great website.--67.177.36.200 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to illustrate your concern. I personally think you have made some good comments which should be taken to heart in the article. Regards, Jim Ellis 19:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your post. I think that you are reading too much into errors and inaccuracies, however - they are not made in order to appease anyone. (You're mistaken, for example, to suppose that Mormons and LDS are identical- but there's no sense listing them both in that sentence). Summaries or excerpts are a stylistic issue. I favor excerpts generally. You objected to someone quoting the Apostles' Creed, for example. But, this is the Christian faith. Why should it not be quoted? You ridiculed this, saying that it sounds like a Christian having an orgasm. That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that Christians don't have orgasms. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I wasn't really trying to ridicule the article, even though I realise it definitely came out that way. I'm just saying that the overall impression left is less than unbiased. It wasn't the quoting that I was objecting to, but the overuse of quoting. A descriptive sentence quoting relevant clauses and such should be enough, but a whole paragraph of religious redundancy seems a bit too much.

"...from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man..."

Compare to:

Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a metaphysical event in which "the Virgin Mary" was impregnated by Yahweh (or Jehovah) through "the Holy Spirit" (or the holy ghost).

Which sounds easier to understand? I hope my point is taken into consideration. And about the Mormons, how are they different from LDS? I live in Salt Lake City, so that sounds somewhat ludicrous to me. "LDS" and "Mormon" are basically interchangeable as adjectives, even by Mormons themselves. You might mean that The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is different from Mormons as a whole because many polygamous Mormons don't follow the Church, but they are by no means seperate groups.--67.177.36.200 13:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you register (so we have a screen-name for you) and stay around for a while. It seems you have some needed skills that could benefit the Wikipedia community. Jim Ellis 14:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I favor quoting rather than paraphrasing the Apostles' Creed (but perhaps in shorter spurts) because the creeds contain the language that has been agreed upon for centuries, and in some cases, the exact wording matters. The term "metaphysical event", for instance, may not garner the same support as the wording of the creed. --Flex 17:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

67 dot 177, I realize that Mormon and LDS are ordinarily treated as being identical. However, there are numerous groups which came out of the Latter-day Saint movement, which have no affiliation with the Utah Mormons at all. The consensus adopted by LDS and other religious editors on Wikipedia has been to refer to these other groups as LDS, unless they reject identification with the movement. See List of Christian denominations#Mormonism/Latter Day Saints for an example of how this approach works out. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That is true. Many of the groups that came out of the LDS movement are not affiliated at all with mainstream mormons, and in fact some of the groups (such as the "Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints Church of Christ") have been denounced as cults. user:lucavix

Who wrote this? Christ is not "derived" but is the literal Greek word "χριστος" (Christos) which means "anointed". This sentence is completely inaccurate.

A note on this friend, though my parents were Catholic, I was partly raised Jewish, and I can assure you that the Aramaic word for "Anointed One" and the words for "Anointed by God" are where the word Messiah comes from. So if Christ is derived from a word that means anointed, that word would be interchangable with Messiah. Of course I agree with your initial point, this article does seem written with... Well lets say a Christian slant. Initially the Persecution section, for example, only portrayed Christians as the victims of persecution and completely omitted things like the Crusades, of course then someone swung too far in the other direction. Actually there's an exchange going on right now about rather or not the clear and obvious bias by some christian denominations against homosexuals and atheist should be noted. I say it should because said persecution occurs in the United States largly on an individual (but religiously motivated) basis, but some seek to deny that persecution by christians can occur. --User:LucaviX 15:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Once Saved Always Saved" A Dilemma With the Catholic Church.

I had not been a christian for some 20 years, but I gave little thought to it. I had never called myself an atheist, though by a purely semantic sense I was one, but I had always called myself a secularist and an agnostic. My parents were once catholic, members of a church that regularly baptized newborns, but my father had passed away and my mother had been a self proclaimed deist for some time. We had a small discussion regarding the statistics presented by the catholic church one afternoon, spurred into such a discussion by the passing of Pope John Paul the Second, and she said "Somehow I doubt the numbers are quite accurate." As we watched Chris Matthew my mother had the idea to check in with the old church, to see if we were still counted as members. A few days later, the phone rang, and my mother informed me that her and I both were still listed on the roster, along with my departed father. It took quite a bit of doing to get our names removed, and so I wonder, how many dead people are still being counted as members of the catholic church? How many members listed on the roster are now of other religions? How many, like myself, are of no religion at all? user:lucavix

Lucavix, your point is a provocative one with quite a bit of truth behind it. However, I was interested if there was more you were trying to express regarding the "Once Saved Always Saved" issue, as I (and perhaps others) am not clear about the link between that issue and the issue you present in your comment above. Are you saying that on such church registers, people are being counted as "saved", i.e. baptized, while in fact they have no longer adhere to that church--is that the connection you're making? Thanks ~ Dpr 01:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to anonymous user in Australia

Two additions were made to the article by user:203.160.1.70. This user started three sections, with headings - Criticism of Christianity, Christianity and Homosexuality, and Christianity and HIV AIDS. He/she started work on the first two sections, but left the third heading as a heading with no text to follow. I found the edits problematic for several reasons. The Criticism of Christianity was a misnomer, because it was actually Christians that were being criticized. The criticism was given in a people-think-Christians-are-like-this way, with no reference, no source, nothing to identify the people who criticize Christians thus. The next section seemed to confuse traditional Christian teaching on homosexual inclination with traditional Christian teaching on homosexual actions, stating that Christian practice regards homosexuality as "fundamentally wrong". It continued by referring to the "critics" who believe that Christians are not tolerant because they persecute homosexuals. There were no examples given of this "persecution"; nor were the "critics" identified in any way. No reference, no quotation, nothing. It seemed to be simply the unsourced opinion of the user in Australia. The third section, on AIDS, was not added, so we were left with a heading for a section, but no section. After twenty minutes, I reverted. User:203.160.1.69 reinserted it over four hours later. Actually, he/she reinserted part of of it in two different places. I also received a message on my talk page from user:203.210.203.204, saying that to delete that section was "little short of vandalism".

I am assuming (after checking here) that the three IP addresses are from the same user. I am replying here as it is obviously not a static address, and that user may have a different address by now. I am sorry if I have stepped on anyone's toes. I would just like to make it clear that I do not object to a section on criticism, but, in order to follow Wikipedia policy, such a section would have to give sources for the criticism, and, if possible, give some responses from Christian churches. It can't be just critics think that Christians are intolerant and narrow minded and that they are responsible for the spread of AIDS, etc.

So, Anon, if you want a section on criticism, perhaps you could discuss it on the talk page first. (I admit I reverted without discussion, but I was bringing the article back to what it had been, and I did explain in the edit summary, particularly the second time.) Can you give sources and references for these unnamed critics? I have no doubt at all that these critics exist, but phrases such as "critics say" are best avoided on Wikipedia. Regarding the HIV section, I don't think it's a good idea to insert a heading for a new section into an article unless you are going to insert the actual text for the section within the next few minutes. People sometimes do that on talk pages, so that they won't "lose" anything if the computer misbehaves, but it's better not to do it in an article. Thanks. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for there to be a slant either way when dealing with christianity. Since reaching this article I have found some parts containing a bias in favor of christianity (initially the Persecution segment only portrayed christianity as a victim of persecution and whitewashed modern persecution by many christians for example) while other parts of the article seemed intent on demonizing it or blanketly associating unpopular actions or doctrines of individual groups with all christians. It's one thing to note a criticism, but quite another thing to press a point of view. Everyone has a point of view that they want to spread it seems, and sometimes the facts get tossed out in favor of someone's bias one way or the other. I think it would be good to add in criticisms so long as they aren't personal and try to maintain a standard of objectivity. Leaving out a POV is hard to do sometimes. I know it's vexing when you see your amendments taken out, or in some cases butchered, especially when trying to remove bias, add alternatives to bad science, or regulate a point of view. I would contend that it's best to be stoic, and deny passion when trying to be objective, which is something I pretty much learned the hard way when I got passionate about an issue. --Lucavix 13:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


I notice that "User Ann" uses the following text: critics think that Christians are intolerant and narrow minded and that they are responsible for the spread of AIDS"". Where exactly did she get this text from? It certainly wasn't in the original text that shje deleted.
Perhaps she would do better by refuting what people have actually written, rather than producing a straw man argument and then knocking it down. Who said that Christians are narrow minded? Those are her words, not the words of Critics.
And if you want to try and find critics, it is not as if there isn't a rich source. There is a huge controversey over the church's teachings on Condom use. Peter tatchell for example has written that the opposition to condoms to fight Aids "condemned millions to die an agonising, needless death".
Or also why not take this view, from Anne Quesney, director of London-based campaign group Abortion Rights; The pope: "was opposed to any form of contraception including condoms and this, especially at a time when Aids is destroying hundreds of thousands of lives." She said the Pope's views showed he had "little regard" for women's lives. [[5]]
Thanks, Ann, and I hope we can continue this discussion in a cordial manner, regards Dave. Davebenson32 13:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Another point was brought up about Christians supposedly persecuting homosexuals. I apologise for not including a reference to the original text. You state :"There were no examples given of this "persecution"; nor were the "critics" identified in any way. No reference, no quotation, nothing. It seemed to be simply the unsourced opinion of the user in Australia."
Perhaps I should elaborate. Take for example the Westboro Baptist Church who argue that churches that support homosexuality and other sin are the most evil institutions on earth". The "God Hates Fags" website goes on at length about how homosexuals (referred to as "Fags" - not a hint of persecution there) will burn in a pit of hellfire.
Or take this:"As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God." - Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, July 1992
So according to some Christians homosexuality is a moral disorder. Homosexuals should be dispraged as Fags, and should accept they will burn in hell.
Perhaps such views could be regarded as persecution. Would Christians like to be disparaged in that way?Davebenson32 13:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism is not Christianity

I have noticed that there is a lot of information in here that relates only to Catholicism. While that religion is very close to Christianity, it should not be labeled as such and does not fit with this article. Now I know this article is probably just referring to the very well-known religions that are close to what true Christianity is, but close is not on target. If it's right to say that Christians believe the Bible, than I would say that this article should be changed to be in line with what the Bible has to say, because that's where Christians get their belief system from right? And if one wants to follow the Bible because that's where the Christian beliefs come from, than one must remember this verse...

Revelation 22:18,19 (www.biblegateway.com; NIV) "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

Anyways, do you think anyone would mind if I did a little changing around? I'm not trying to get anyone to convert to Christianity, but I don't want people to get confused as to what Christianity is from a historical standpoint. Let me know what you think! - unsigned

You seem to be confusing Christianity with Bibliolatry <g> - Nunh-huh 06:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I betcha that you've irritated a goodly number of people that consider themselves Christians. Since you are obviously a newbie, you might want to run your proposed changes on this talk page first. What is added and what is taken away (in this article)? Also, if you are serious about editing, it would be a good idea to sign up for a screen name, then sign your posts on the talk page with four tildes. That will automatically sign and date your remarks to help people follow the train of thought. Pollinator 05:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
More to the point, Catholicism is indeed Christianity...at least a part of the Christian family. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, which means that we cannot judge who is in and who is out (franlky, I have a problem with that as a rule anyway). Be clear that the changes talked are ill-advised. KHM03 11:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Catholicism is indeed a branch of Christianity. Even most non-Catholic Christians would agree on that. Please don't make any changes that deny this. DJ Clayworth 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Catholicism predates most existing denominations in the first place so this claim is most amusing. Catholics believe that Jesus is and was the Messiah, and they worship him as the Abrahamic God in carnet. If Catholics are indeed not Christians then why on earth to they always get counted as such in order to allow for the observation that Christianity is the largest faith on Earth? Maybe people with such sectarian bias should start saying that Christianity is the second largest religion on earth since if you stop counting Catholics suddenly Islam becomes the largest religion in the world. user:LucaviX
Furthermore, the sectarian individual who deemed Catholics non-christian not only quoted the Bible as if it had legitimacy regarding a worldly definition, description, history, and observation of Christianity, but he also chose a verse which can be used against all denominations. What denomination doesn't have a non-Aramaic translation of the Bible that has a few words added in or taken out. I contend that since some words, such as the word homosexual (which has began to replace the word sodomite, or even stand beside it in some versions), didn't even exist a few centuries ago that all do. user:LucaviX
The Bible (though not necessarily the bible alone, that's merely the protestant POV) has legitimacy on the question whether someone (or some group) is Christian, but I'd like to ask "the sectarian individual who deemed Catholics non-christian", where he got his bible from? I know this is a questions some Protestants don't like to consider.
The definition of Christianity, if not based on Church authoriy but seen as a "wordly definition", becomes difficult on the fringes (e.g. Mormons - no offense please), but to take the largest and oldest, hence central, denomination out of the field, is absurd.
The bible verse quoted above unfortunately (for him) refers only to the book of revelation. It was the Church that put the Bible together. It's true there are some verse that are commonly seen as later glosses (1 John 5,7a, Mark 16, 9-20) no one can know for sure so it's better to suspend a definite decision on that. (Lucavix, I don't think he was referring to translation issues.) Str1977 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
From a technical perspective, however, the anonymous poster does raise a point worth considering: many people who identify themselves as Christian do indeed feel that there is a real distinction between Christianity and Catholicism (i.e. Catholic Christianity), such that Catholic adherents, in their view ought to be viewed as the same as Christians. Many or most, including myself, would judge this view to be flawed, as noted by several posters above. Yet this position asserting a distinct separation between Christians and Catholics (Catholic Christians), has many supporters. Such a view is easily understood, considering the existence of two distinct terms--particularly since evangelical and other movements have caused a decline in people positively identifying themselves as Protestant--and even more so some languages other than English, e.g. Chinese (see Christianity in China). --Dpr 01:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
While not all Christians are Catholics, the claim that Catholics are not Christians is just plain absurd (Or did Christianity start with Luther?). Someone might hold that POV, but in order to be included it should so very heavily qualified that it doesn't make sense anymore. And I'm not sure why it should be included in here, the entry on Christianity on the whole.Str1977 19:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's view held among a large number of Evangelical Protestants (though still a minority view). I don't think we should shy away from mentioning this point of view, but we should draw the line at what the original poster seemed to imply, that we should remove information about Catholicism from the Christianity article. That would be both unacceptable and confusing to our readers. DJ Clayworth 14:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, if the article is biased by having "lot of information in here that relates only to Catholicism", the solution is not to remove it; it is to balance the article by adding an equal amount of relevant information about other Christian traditions. JHCC (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I see very little that is relevant only to Catholicism. Since this is now very old, I suggest we don't take any further action. DJ Clayworth 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)