Talk:Christianity/Archive 19

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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

evolution of a Biblical canon?

Under "Other books held sacred," is says:

"In history, the appearance of rival Gospels has contributed to the evolution of a "Biblical canon.

Is this correct? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Jim Ellis 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That depends on perspective. I don't particularly like the writing because it is not clear, but it would help if we knew exactly what the editor was trying to say. There were far more "books" around prior to cannon being fixed. Gregory and others came up with books they thought had the highest likelihood of being by the hand of the stated writer (i.e. Peter's epistle actually being written by Peter, etc.) and which they felt were the most correct doctrinally.

If what the editor is trying to say is that there were many books, some with doctrine not strongly supportive of the orthodoxy of the 4th and 5th century and their lack of supporting doctrine aided in their being dismissed from cannon; then these other books did aid in the evolution of cannon. Just a thought. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What you say makes sense, Stormrider. What's in the article (questioned by Tom) is not clear at all and unhelpful as it stands. Jim Ellis 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence and added a tag to see also Biblical canon. There may be other relevent articles as well. Now that I think of it, it might be better for consistency to begin the section by referring to the main article(s) on the subject. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly improve consistency with other Wikipedia articles to have the references to main articles for a section at the head of each section. Often in the form: Main article [[Link to main article]] as a line by itself. GRBerry 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus accuses Str1977 of Edit warring

There's a new edit war brewing, as Str1977 repeatedly reverts to unacceptable versions of the article. I'd liek Str1977 to explain themselves here, before making any further changes. Alienus 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have decided, while you were at it, to post here too. I have explained my edits (or rather the ones I wanted to make) above. I will do so again:

regarding the intro, "my" (actually I did not revert to it today before you came along) verson is bot NPOV and accurate - "your" version might be NPOV but not accurate. I have explained above. Also, Gio (who at least contributes to the discussion) has accepted it for now and preferred to tag the intro as "disputed". You, with no bone in this fight, came along and start to edit war (while accusing others)
the title of the link is unacceptable as it calls itself "rational", "secular" and "historical", which are all terms of praise not recognizable as such - using them in our WP title would be endorsing the link's self-characterisation and therefore POV.
removing another link, which had just been reinserted after its deletion for unclear reasons, is certainly not helpful.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know doubleblue will take this as further evidence of a DWEEC conspiracy. Why not submit an article RfC to reconcile any remaining disputes? I'm tempted to take a Wikibreak myself. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We cannot make our edits depending on whether this cyberstalker is watching or not. Like a good conspiracy theorist anything will be proving his point for himself. There's currently much noise about minute things (I haven't yet even addressed the suitability of the link contentwise) and I don't think an RfC will help in the matter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets blow the DWEEB conspiracy out of the water. The Bidstrup link does look suspect and while I think a link to an alternative history would be a very good thing I'm sure we can do better - Storm Rider is right when he says bad links make the whole thesis look shabby. As for the intro, again whilst it is not perfect, to state that Christanity as a whole is based on the NT is not factually correct. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The external link is indeed "rational", "secular" and "historical" and just what is needed as a link. I replaced the old one with this one which is better. Sure we can find a better one but until we do, lets not remove this one in favor of NOTHING-which seems to be what Str1977 wants, and that is not acceptable. I read the essay and it is what is says it is, ratinal, secular, adn historical. It is also rather balanced but makes it POV clear. I oppose removing it unless there is a better link that we agree makes the case better for a secular view. Giovanni33 22:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(Grigory withdraws, looking over his shoulder at the big double blue brother). Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's "DWEEC" not "DWEEB": "C" as in "Christian," unless there's another conspiracy theory site that I'm unaware of?

The only cabal is the one created by a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ironic thing is that when I nominated Jesus for the AID drive, someone suggested that this article would be a better nomination. I cannot in good conscience nominate this article while the double blue cloud is hanging over this article. Feel free to make the nomination if you disagree with me.

Double Blue, AKA Big Brother, I hope you're paying attention. People are willing to work together here, both DWEECS and non-DWEECS, but your very existance creates a cloud of suspicion that makes cooperation difficult. Well, we see through your cloud. As per SOPHIA, as per Giovanni's concern for KHM03, we will blow you right out of the water. No more doublethink. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to make my possition clear, I'm not against DoubleBlue or his efforts to bring attention to a real problem. I think it can have a positive effect, as well, in terms of moderating the bias editing behavior of the "christian cabal." I don't think it's a conspiracy, its just some editors are very close to their POV and do push it to the exlusion of others. I've seen it over and over, so its a real problem but not an insurmountable one, nor one that is unique to this article or to Christians. Also, the solution is never to make any personal attacks. I don't think that was ever Doubleblue's intention, and and I don't believe he is related to the letter incidents. I do not want any of our editors, Chrisitans or otherwise, to be mistreated in anyway, or to be encouraged to leave least of all. I do want us all working together according to NPOV guidelines and I do think we need each other for the sake of the quality of the article. I support open discussion, including the real issue of systematic bias that double blueblue, I believe, correct about. However, that said, I also feel finger pointing about who is guilty of what, will probably be counter-productive to our goals, and just let it serve to remind us that forcing a POV, edit waring, not using the talk page, will backfire and make things worse. If we want to "blow doubleblue out of the water," the key is working together, and not edit warring. Doubleblue's concern are a symptom of a problem, not the cause.Giovanni33 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point, although I suspect part of the problem has been a lack of communication. Well, I only recently came to this page, in part due to Silence's comments on the AID page, but more directly due to the double blue page and the "no criticism allowed" comment posted above. People can criticize all they wish. IMHO it's better just to work together. Edit wars, POV battles, and lack of discussion—conflict in general— is certainly no fun, as I've learned from experience on the Jesus page. I've come to notice that in POV battles, the first casualty is often the truth. Each side accuses the other of pushing a POV. The other sides push back. As I keep saying, reasonable people can disagree.

Please do cooperate. It took awhile for things to calm down enough on the Jesus page for me to make the nomination for AID (although lately I've been wondering if that cooperation is starting to dissolve). I would like to see people work together here. An AID nomination will only help to bring more voices to this page, and I would hope that those new voices would help to establish NPOV.

On the link under discussion, I honestly have no opinion.

Can anybody translate the Japanese, Finnish or Vietnamese articles? I'd love to see what a featured Christianity article looks like! Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion of issues:

1) Should we have the Bidstrup link at all? Some people seem to think it's not scholarly enough. If so, perhaps they could offer something better.

We should have one linke that presents a secular, rational, and historical POV. They edit warred and removed the last link so I relented and found a better one. If this one is still not good enough, then this time lets find one that is before we remove the link again--otherwise it seems to me an excuse to have nothing. Giovanni33 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

2) Now that we have it, should we link by its real title or should we apply bias by shortening it? I think the way I asked the question reveals my answer.

We should use the real title, which is accurate and lets the reader know what its POV is all about. Readers know its the POV, and can assess it themselves.Giovanni33 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

3) Should the intro sentence speak of Jesus as real or stick to the fact that the religion is based on the stories written about Jesus, not Jesus himself, if he does exist? Ditto.

I think everyone knows my asnwer to this question. We should stick to reporting known facts and not insert a POV in assuming and interpreting the evidence to present it as a fact. That violates NPOV. Giovanni33 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

4) What's with this other link to a wikibook? No, really, what's with it? Alienus 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I agree with your comments, though I wish you wouldn't insert them in the middle like that. Since your response, Tim has gone on a rampage, removing all sorts of things that, coincidentally, some Christians might find embarassing. Bias is as bias does; I don't really care how he identifies himself, only what sort of harm he causes. This is getting ridiculous. Alienus 04:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, what I've removed has nothing to do with what anyone might find embarrassing. My reasons were well and honestly explained in my edit summaries. Feel free to tell me why you think my changes unsound, below.

I am growing weary of your continued personalization of this discussion. Please discuss the specifics of the article, and why you've reverted.Timothy Usher 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't help that Christian edit-warriors Timothy Usher and Homestarmy have jumped in to help Str1977, without even the pretense of dialogue. The Christian cabal strikes again. Alienus 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please cease personalizing this discussion. I am part of no cabal. Read the discussion above, where I characterize the notion of Jesus being God as absurd. That puts me far outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy. Nevertheless, Christians have every right to edit this page, and could equally describe you as being part of an anti-Christian cabal by the very same evidence.

My original interest in this article was in defending it against blatant puppet attack. The version you're fighting for is the puppet-preferred version, which admittedly somewhat discredits it in my eye. Perhaps this is unfair. However, I've discussed my reasoning on the intro above, as have many other editors, real and otherwise. I am neutral regarding the one link, while I find it overly skeptical and not very representative of a typical "secular view" - most secularists don't actually doubt the existence of Jesus, even if you claim they should - as well as questionably sourced, but nevertheless find it well-argued and interesting. I've not looked at the wikibook link, so can't comment.Timothy Usher 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the wikichristian link as irrelevant to the article.Timothy Usher 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I had already removed it, but you restored it as part of your effort to support Str1977's edit war. Alienus 22:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I ask you again to refrain from personalizing this discussion, as you do when you ascribe to me the motivation of "support[ing] Str1977's edit war."

And I find it rich that you accuse others of "edit-warring", when they are doing nothing more than what you've been doing.

My approach to links is generally to look at them before removing them.Timothy Usher 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit clashed 3 times!) People have POV's which they honestly believe in and so will revert to what they see as accurate. It's herd instinct not a cabal. I'll take a look at the new link which hopefully will do the alternative view justice with credibility. As for the intro it really isn't accurate to put the NT as the sole source. Christianity is based on Jesus - that is a fact. There isn't room to cover the minority nonexistence view in the intro without giving it undue weight. The intro doesn't "over egg the pudding" by making any claims about Jesus so as long as there are balancing links lower down then the subject has been fairly covered.

BTW Archie it was a joke - "Devout Western Educated Ecumenical Bible-thumper". A lot less scary sounding than DWEEC so should end this silly conspiracy theory. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted for Str's sake compleatly once, his wording choices seemed superior. After that, it was just putting the wikichristian link back in for me since nobody seemed to be mentioning it in any edit summaries and I didn't see why it was being removed. Honestly, it does seem like a somewhat incompleate wiki.... Homestarmy 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus: 1) I have no opinion 2) I have no opinion 3) If you want to know if Jesus exists, ask him. I don't understand why people are so hung up on the word "stories." Like the hymn says, "I love to tell the story, because I know 'tis true." You may disagree. That's fine. 4) I don't know.

SOPHIA: Okay, I didn't get the B. For a moment, I was wondering if you were talking about Buddhists ;) "Herd instinct." I like that. I just hope we're not a herd of rams. Those that butt heads are named for that action. People, however, should be able to talk things out rationally.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Another idea: since part of the charge is about Western Bias, why not bring in a few Eastern Christians (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, &c) to comment? That will take care of the "W," although obviously not the "C."Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 04:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To weigh in on Ali's questions:

1) I'll postpone my answer until I have read this rather lengthy text completely. Right it looks like just one guy's opinion. Even Gio said that Bidstrup is not notable, so I am not sure why he merits inclusion. And if we don't have a good link for something that's no reason to include a bad link. PS. Right now I am not arguing for its deletion until I have read it through.

2) We can use its real title but not the subtitle as it is violating NPOV.

Now, Gio said it is accurate - let's have a look:

"rational" - it is rational, yes, but so is any other link that's not pure gobbledygook.
"secular" - is the wrong word, Gio (and Bidstrup) wanted to say "secularist", though, as others have pointed out, this is not the secularist view but merely that of one secularist. And why, do we have to include the view of an ideology inimical to the subject at hand? Do we have a creationist view link on evolution or a Nazi link on Jews?
"historical" - if that is supposed to mean based on historical scholarship and its consensus, it is not accurate. The last link did claim things about histopriography that weren't accurate and from what I read this one does it as well.

In any case, the current content of the article is "rational and historical" (and secular is meaningless in this), but the inclusion of these words in a link title endorse the link and suggest that the contradicting account (the one that actually is historical) is not rational or historical.

So to sum up, we should (if it is included) use the title "The Bible And Christianity - an essay by ..." It is not an unusual thing to do at WP.

3) Ali, your third question is already suggestive: the intro should accurately state what Christianity is and introduce a POV or inaccuracy, as your preferred version does. "My" version does not suggest Jesus as real (though I and the vast, vast majority of scholars think he is) and less so did my former version that only got changed because of objections to it (centred on life and teaching of Jesus ..., as recounted in the NT")

4) I never had a view on the wikibook - but I oppose deleting it without discussion.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

another link

I liked this essay on the different political strains, or "flavors" of Christianity. I propose also including this link as informative in understanding the differences fundamentalist, mainstream and liberal Christianity. http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Flavours.shtml The website also has many other essays and subjects that are relevant and they are all well argued, for instance this "Skeptic Theology 101, that is educational for understanding the Bible: http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/SkepticTheology101.shtml I found the "hate mail" and the responses partciularly entertaining and well reasoned, although it tended to be more on the topic of creationism vs. evolution. Giovanni33 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Im taking a look at them now, analysis coming..... Homestarmy 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this analysis might get a bit complicated and/or ranty, details upcoming.... Homestarmy 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what, im just going to choose a bit of the more juicy looking things I found, a real analysis would take way too long -___- Homestarmy 01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, I notice right off the bat without even really examining the content that its pretty slanted. With just the intro, we can see that the article is not necessarily about describing the different flavors this author sees with Christianity, but rather trying to make a point to fundamentalists mostly. All the quotes around words such as "true", "Secular values", and "pagan blasphmey" also seem to betray quite a deal of slant I daresay, in addition to being generalizations. (Perhaps hasty ones? logical fallacy that is...) Next paragraph, the article seems to be under the mistaken impression that every time a branch of supposed Christianity in Africa goes to shamans and whatnot that all fundamentalists will label the sin as blasphemy, when many times it would probably be more correctly labelled along the lines of idolatry or just plain old apostasy, meaning the generalization seems to fail a good bit there. (Believe it or don't, unlike what you may see in the movies, Blasphemy is not a catch-all sin category.) Next, i've heard about the Billy Graham thing, and I don't know what's up with the people who think he should go to hell for wanting some support from Catholics or otherwise, but if I recall correctly, these may be the same people who say that "THE POPE WILL DEFINENTLY ABSOLUTLY CERTAINLY GO TO HELL!!!" which is quite contradictory to Matthew 7:1 to proclaim in the first place, (And as the article points out, if it disagrees with the Bible, its not fundamentalism) and the case for Graham failing the "unequally yoked" clause in my experience never really gets determined in the end.

I think this might be one of the best gems I can find against this article however: At its heart, fundamentalism is nothing more than institutionalized religious narrow-mindedness Ahem, excuse me, not all of us even go to church, sometimes its really hard these days to find one you can trust. So thats a pretty bad generalization right there since some of us aren't "institutionalized". Next little gem does a horribly mean generalization of "hardcore" (I assume he means fundamentalist) Christians, as people who don't go "proselytizing door to door, bombing family planning clinics, distributing hate literature about gays and lesbians", in effect equating all Bible belt country people with abortion clinic bombers. If that many people bombed abortion clinics, they would all either of destroyed every clinic or the national guard would hopefuly be called in. (Either that or some actual fundamentalist ministers who can tell these people about the "love your enemy" thing).

Nextly, I don't think i've ever heard any Christian friends of mine have extensive knowladge on the "Ridiculous notion of expecting the Bible to be accurate", in fact, I don't know if many of them really care that strongly about it. I also don't see how the Romans could of destroyed the several thousand very early copies (I think like the earliest are 120 AD) of the NT, I mean many of the Christians of the day had already started writing them in Greek, so the Romans probably wouldn't of found them all in Israel during those rebellions. This area of the article also reads in between the lines of a comment George Bush made, all the while betraying the political slant of the author in a supposedly trustworthy work, (Im pretty sure that's a big no-no) by claiming that when bush said "people with no religion", that only includes atheists. This also indirectly accuses all Agnostics of being religious since they are not atheist, which im pretty sure is quite wrong and may be rather offensive to some agnostics i've seen.

The Liberal Christianity section apparently doesn't have much reaserch, the people the author is talking about are called Universalists or Unitarian Universalists since their churches fused, their about the only supposedly Christian group I know which denies the existance of Hell, and are a very small population, so the author is probably right about there not being very man that he's met. That "scary stuff" that the author refers to as not accepted by this group probably includes people other than universalists, since many people I know who claim to be Christian openly seem to have problems with Job or other things and are not universalits at all to my knowladge, so the author's criterion for this category is pretty much done for.

The fundamentalist section is, in a word, downright hostile. Accusing all fundamentalists of being crazy anti-science the-wheel-should-never-of-been-invented meanies is not a very good way of gaining a good rapport with the audience. The section talking about Fundamentalists believing that all problems in society can be solved by religion is also somewhat mislabelled, simply having "religion" wont solve much, as the article so unkindly points out, most fundamentalists believe all other religions to be false. Nextly, numbers 1 and 4 in the generalization of fundamentalists category is a contradiction, both marriage and homosexuality are mentioned in the NT, and the NT openly and literally states to avoid falling under the "curse of the law" as I mentioned earlier. I'd also like to note this little sentence section here: In essence, their belief in Biblical literalism is the source of all their intolerance... so basically, this author just took to task every single Christian who thinks the Bible should be read literally and accuses them of "intolerance", whatever that means these days. Hasty generalizations do not make for good supporting arguments when used in absolute contexts like this. Then more author POV comes in with The Bible contains too many atrocities, absurdities, and inaccuracies to be used in such a literal way (or worse yet, used as a guideline for legislation). which is a highly contentious thing to assert, as I believe this talk page has proved quite nicely several times over.

I tried to make it more an overview than a point-by-point analysis, but it still took awhile :/. I haven't looked at the second link yet, but probably won't have time for it tonight :(. However, I do acknowladge that the objective of trying to categorize various groups of Christians and their belief styles might be somewhat beneficial, I do feel that a somewhat lax generalization of beliefs of Christians might be a good article to see. After all, it is true that up in the hills you'll get more fundamentalists, in the cities you'll probably find more people who are more lax about Christianity, and in the more secular areas you might find some people trying to fuse Christianity with Buddhism or something. But such a strict and often incorrect attempt to generalize all varieties of Christians really does not seem like a good article to cite in the external links section here.

I probably won't have time to examine the second article tonight however :/. Homestarmy 01:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Creationtheory's analysis (I can't find the author's name) may be off, but it is certainly a valid approach to compare the fundamentalist, conservative, mainstream and liberal "flavours" of Christianity across denominations (this would also apply to other religions, such as Islam). I consider myself mainstream. Not all liberal Christians are Universalists or Unitarians. I'm currently reading a book by a liberal Christian. The title will no doubt upset Homestarmy: Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity," Bruce Bawer, Random House 1997. ISBN 0517706822.

For the sake of balance, I've also been looking over the website for Homestarmy's beloved Way of the Master program.

The difference between the two is quite striking. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

One of these days, people gotta figure out that bombing an abortion clinic automatically makes one not a fundamentalist, that "be innocent about evil" thing wasn't optional. Homestarmy 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How not to vandalize

Recently, Timothy Usher has made repeated attempts to unilaterally remove content without consensus. I've reverted these and will continue to do so, within the limits of 3RR. If Tim wants to make major changes, such as these mass deletions, he's going to need to get a consensus here first. If he does, I will honor it. Alienus 07:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, but merely removal of awkward, redundant and off-topic passages, just as I've improved many other articles. Will you kindly tell me to which of my minor edits you object? That way I can restore only those and we can discuss the others.

In the meantime, please stop accusing me of vandalism, cabalhood, nefarious motives and the like. Thanks,Timothy Usher 07:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think both of you are making too much of this, to be honest. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd no contact with or opinion of him whatsoever until he came out and accused me of various things. At this point it seems to me that he's reverting my topical and stylistic edits due to his assumption that I am part of some Christian cabal. I'd be happy to be disabused of this unfortunate first impression.Timothy Usher 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Since he has refused to justify his deletions and obtain consensus approval, I'll be reverting at will. Sorry if other people's changes get wiped out in the process, but this sort of collateral damage is typical when people like Tim decide to edit war to support their vandalism. Alienus 07:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained immediately above, and you failed to respond to, my reversion is based on content and consensus, not cabalhood. You are removing large blocks of text on your whim. This is unacceptable. Obtain consensus approval BEFORE making the changes, or I will revert them repeatedly, just as I would any other vandalism. This is not a content dispute because you've made no comments about the content. Alienus 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus wrote: "...you've made no comments about the content"

Incorrect. I wrote in my edit summaries:

“disambiguated Filioque sentence” [1]

“rm off-topic (for this section) Protestants clause, pointless content clause” [2]

“rm some unneeded language - weasel words abound in this section - clean-up desperately needed - rm unspecified Sermon on the Mount controversy” [3]

and as I told you on your user talk page, I'm happy to discuss any of it. I asked you which edit(s) you found objectionable, and you've offered no answer.

I also asked you to cease personalizing this discussion, but you write "...people like Tim..." - and this is like what? And you continue to accuse me of "vandalism" for what are clearly good-faith (and in my judgement *good*) edits. I'm interested to hear what other editors think of my changes. Perhaps they're not so good, but they are not by any means "vandalism", as I'm sure you know. You accused me of being part of a cabal first, and you've thusfar given no reason to think this personalization isn't the basis of your reverts.

In the meantime, you're in flagrant violation of WP:3RR as shown below.

Please try to depersonalize discussions and follow the rules in the future. Thanks.Timothy Usher 08:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus also wrote: "Sorry if other people's changes get wiped out in the process, but this sort of collateral damage is typical..."

This attitude you display here towards editors who've nothing to do with your arbitrary and unilaterally-declared personal conflicts is unjust and irresponsible. Your edits are your responsibility, and no one else's.Timothy Usher 09:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Alienus, you have reverted the following text four times in less than twelve hours:

"*The Bible And Christianity - "The Historical Origins: A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture", Scott Bidstrup."

07:46, 24 April 2006[4]

20:40, 23 April2006[5]

20:21, 23 April 2006[6]

19:57, 23 April 2006[7]

Timothy Usher 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"The only texts"

The sentence "The New Testament and related but non-canonical texts to date are the only texts verifying such a person existed" is virtually meaningless: all it says is: "The (extant contemporary) texts referring to Jesus are the only texts verifying such a person existed"). What little meaning is conveyed here comes from the word "only". Why is the word "only" used? I think it would only be (marginally) admissible if attributed to those who "believe that Jesus of Nazareth may not have ever existed".
The section voices a common criticism of Christianity. Why are the common Christian defenses not included? (Such as mentioning the number of canonical and non-canonical texts (notably those by Flavius Josephus [taken as genuine by many Christians]) written by Jesus' (near-)contemporaries and uncontested by large numbers of eye witnesses, and contrasting the number of extant texts with the available information on other historical figures)? One defense is, admittedly, included, but in addition to sounding quite non-notable, it must be quite unintelligible to most readers ("However, critics of this theory point out that, even if the stories aren't true, there is no need to make up a character when a real person could be glorified"). Or am I the only one who doesn't quite understand what this means and has no idea who these "critics of this theory" are? AvB ÷ talk 09:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AvB, I'd fixed the problem you referred to in your first point, but Alienus reverted it without explanation, as seen in the discussion above. Please go through the edit history and restore my last version if you like. It doesn't do all you'd like it to do - I didn't bother to include a counterargument, for example - but at least it's clear and not redundant.Timothy Usher 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(Now reviewing edit history) AvB ÷ talk 09:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you still might not feel this adequate. One could just as easily say "the life of Jesus is attested in the New Testament and related non-Canonical texts." Feel free to improve upon it. I only tried to get rid of repetitive junk, and things that went nowhere like the "Sermon on the Mount" controversy (what controversy? - it was never specified), plus a lot of extraneous text in the article. However, I've been tagged as a member of a "Christian cabal", such that all my edits, however harmless, are being reverted.Timothy Usher 09:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this passage to reflect what proponents of that view actually say and what scholars have to say to that. That doesn't change my objection to the entire "controversies" section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added some verification of Jesus, and we should rewrite this until it makes sense and can be considered NPOV.

KV 16:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I came back to do some work here only to find the job and several others pretty much wrapped up already. <wow>

Regarding recent edits - while I understand why certain edits by Alienus are being disputed, his edits often indicate a real problem with the text. May I suggest that all sides to these disputes would probably find that trying to reach a consensus (via discussion or by improving each other's edits) can be a better approach than reverting them in toto? Just my two cents of course. AvB ÷ talk 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Copts and Osiris

Well tom, it's not a book, so how do we cite it on Wiki? I'm lost without {{ref}}> tags where I can just do MLA style citations. But anyways, it's just after 30 minutes in....... about 30m:50s into the documentary. "Today's Coptic Church views such parallels as a larger divine plan." Then a Coptic priest or whatever the title I'm looking for explains that the Pharoahs were inspired by God to come up with these tales that parallel the Christian life. KV 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two parts:

the <ref></ref> tag pair goes in the text where you want the note to appear, and <references/> goes down in the references section. Whatever you put between the tag pair appears after the <references/> tag.
Between the tag pair, I put a template, usually {{cite book}}, in this case {{cite video}}.

I like this system okay, and it seems to be one of the new standards, but I have some concerns about maintainability. When possible I try to keep the notes to the end of the paragraphs. If someone is ambtious, {{cite video}} could be modified to include a time index, like {{cite book}} can include page numbers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've only used cite book in the resources section before....... used it a lot, but never as a footnote.KV 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks

I have made three tweaks:

It is Sueton who talks about "Chrestus", while Tacitus writes "Christus", see here: [8]
IMHO the perception of the ancient public is a bit speculative (especially in regard to Sueton) and also not really relevant. What is more relevant is that modern historians accept Tacitus and Sueton and Josephus (with a caveat on one of the latter's passages on Christ).
I changed "Ancient Egyptian Ressurection", which seemed an awkward wording, to the "Ancient Egyptian view on the after life". This is also more accurate, as naming the Egyptian thing Resurrection is the result of this writers identification and not its precondition.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to change that back, because it IS the Ressurection, not a view of the afterlife, but rather, as with Christianity, that the dead would rise up again. If you want to debate this, then at least read the book it's taken from.

KV 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sermon on the Mount

Under Controversies',

Interpretation of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and in particular the Expounding of the Law continues to be controversial.

What controversy are we refering to here? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Seventh Day Adventists for one would apparently disagree that the expounding of the law meant that we should no longer be under subjugation to the laws of the OT. (Quite odd though how you never see them sacrificing anything according to levitical law, hmm....) Homestarmy 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's more of a doctrinal difference than a controversy a la "did Jesus exist".Timothy Usher 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it from this section, as it's not "a controvers[y] surrounding Christianity as to its influences and history" in the way the other listed items are. If someone wishes to restore it, be my guest, but I think we can find a better place in the article for this.Timothy Usher 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've known a seventh day adventist, and he specifically stated that before Jesus, people had to sacrifice animals because they had a Christ to look forward to, whereas Jesus was the sacrifice that they can look back on.

KV 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose it doesn't matter now anyway if they don't count as controversies. Homestarmy 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed clean-up

I've tidied up a bit here. These are the edits which were said to somehow serve "the interests of the Crusaders" - I've no idea how, but maybe someone else will see some unintended POV here that I'm missing. Any feedback?Timothy Usher 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim, I have just reread the article and I get the impression that it mostly discusses orthodoxy. For example, the Nicene Creed was not used to clarify 1st and 2nd century beliefs, but rather it is a 4th century agreement that defines then prevalent thought. LDS would say that ruling by committee is a prime example men creating doctrines of men. The way the paragraph reads now is that everything that does not agree with the Nicene Creed is heretical. I think the article has crept to the point of being santizied for orthodoxy. I think it may be time to reintroduce a lot of language that was lost over time that allowed at least a little light to shine on the diversity within those who follow Christ. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I personally think this creed man-made, as you say, and inherently unreasonable. All I did is merge the "Protestant viewpoint" passages into one, and moved it out of the intro [9]. I felt it should be moved down because this particular dispute (at least in its Protestant incarnation) happens a millineum later.

More relevant, I think, is the propagandistic function of the Nicene creed vs. purportedly heretical doctrines. I’d agree that its political context ought to be highlighted. However, the original version wasn’t any better in this regard.

Broadly, the question is, is this article "What Most Christians Believe" or, "History of Christianity" - I suppose it must be both, and would agree that it leans towards the first. I didn't create this problem; I only got rid of pointless hedges. Criticism ought be more specific and arguably more strident than "some disagree."

Please do improve, remembering that there is also the Nicene Creed article, where we can go into greater detail.Timothy Usher 06:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you might be talking about, in this diff [10]. I changed:

“The words of the Nicene Creed frequently target certain opposing beliefs...” to “The Nicene Creed directly addresses beliefs...”

“Frequently” is kind of strange here, and unneeded, so I tossed that, while “opposing” is redundant, as the sentence ends with, “...which the council regarded as heretical”, so I tossed that. I imagine you’d agree with these calls, or at least accept them as non-POV in nature.

(The other changes are just paragraph breaks)

However, “directly addresses” is too positive. I see that. Meanwhile, “targets” may be a little too narrow, as no one is saying, it’s only an indictment (or was it?).

If you agree with me tossing “frequently” and “opposing” - these are what I most strongly felt had to go - the question is, should it read “targets”, “directly addresses”, or some other word/phrase?Timothy Usher 06:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would concurr with your changes. Please don't understand that in addressing you that I was making you the scapegoat, rather you had made the comment. My comment was more generally address to all editors. I believe the majority of the article should focus on the majority belief, but there is a balance that can be achieved by mentioning more of the broad range of beliefs and to limit historical heresy from beliefs of today (to a degree). I am most comfortable with the term historical Christianity rather than orthodoxy. LDS would argue that 4th century Christianity was the fruit of the apostacy. However, Christian history is centered on...history. I walk a fine line here because I have a deep admiration and respect for Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox churches. I am uplifted when I study the saints. However, my feet are firmly planted in my beliefs in the restored Gospel. I advocate that we strive for balance without giving the impression that "the truth" is found in any church or group of churches in this article. Does that help? Know that I appreciate your efforts and your edits. Thanks! Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm Rider. I guess I'm a little over-sensitive after the recent dust-up with another editor. I'll change "directly addresses" to "confronts", which is more ambiguous on the positive/ negative axis. Maybe it won't look right later, but it sound like a good idea now. Tell me what you think.Timothy Usher 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher: Please keep in mind what section heading the "Nicene Creed" falls under (Differences in beliefs). Your edits have taken all of the differences out. We might as well just move this whole section up to the Beliefs section. I think it is important to state that some christians may accept the ideas behind the creed, but reject a formal creed because it is not biblica. I think it is also important to point out that there are Christian denominations that outright reject the creed. --Andrew c 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps changing the title, and moving the Nicene Creed into the "Beliefs" section is the correct solution. None of the churches involved on the other side of the Nicene disputes are still extant. It just seems like the wrong place to discuss the differences which have arisen since then. I was only focussed on making a clean easily-comprehensible section. Maybe a "Differences in beliefs" section ought to follow. I havn't thought much about the overall organization of the article, other than to note that it desperately needs one. Hack away.

Addressing all editors, I think what we should avoid is a suffocating death by committee, where the solution to every perceived shortcoming is to add something to the most high-profile section, rather than, say, creating another section. For example, the recently-added Controversies section has kept disputes seperate from one another, and removed incentives for all-out version wars, while offering a much clearer presentation than would be achieved by fighting it out in the intro or the like.Timothy Usher 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Nicene_creed#Modern_usage and Nicene_creed#Controversy_of_Christian_definition. By saying that there is no disputes over the Nicene creed seems to be completely ignoring "[s]ome religious denominations such as Oneness Pentecostals, Arianism, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses". I also felt the way you reworded While some Protestant churches, such as Baptists and the Churches of Christ reject the need for formal creeds, most would nevertheless accept the doctrines put forth in the Nicene creed. to Most Protestant churches follow the Roman Catholic church in accepting Nicene doctrine. completely changed the meaning. I think you are obscuring the POV held by strong sola scriptura types. My proposed solution would be to revert back to the older wording, and add a sentence about the Christian denominations that outright reject the creed. Thereby leaving the Nicene Creed section in its current "differences in beliefs" section. I'll dig through the archives and see if there was previous debate over where to place this section.--Andrew c 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There's still an Arian church?

The reason I thought the Protestant caveat misleading is because most do accept Nicene doctrine as a matter of inherited understanding, whatever they say about creed. Jesus is both God and man, etc. Perhaps those who challenge the substance of the doctrine do deserve mention, but this is a different issue from generic rejection of creeds.

Also, the sentence was very awkward.

Anyhow, have at it. I'm not going to prejudge it.Timothy Usher 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Denominations caveat removed

I have removed the following paragraph from the "Denominations section":

"These broad divisions do not themselves encompass unanimity. On the contrary, some branches contain vast internal disagreements, while in other cases the divisions overlook strong sympathies between and among the groups. Nevertheless, this tends to be the standard overview of distinctions, especially as viewed in the Western world."

As it was never stated otherwise, and one learns nothing in particular here, I've removed it. Even if some of it is needed - and I doubt it - it's needlessly complex. Though I'm sure someone had a great time writing it. And what can be the purpose of the link to the Western World? Any feedback?Timothy Usher 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Heresies

Other early sects deemed heretical included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism, Gnosticism and Montanism. Again, while some churches take exception to some of these articles, to the extent that they do so, this usually represents a conscious departure from the Christian mainstream.

Could someone explain whether the text in bold is needed and what it actually means as it's pretty inscrutable. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I killed it.Timothy Usher 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what it was trying to say was that while some churches might disagree with some of the listed beliefs, they're generally self-aware that their disagreement places them outside the Christian mainstream. I think it's helpful to keep that general sense in the article, but perhaps there's a clearer way to say it? Wesley 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it: "While these churches generally affirm that they represent a true version of Christianity, most of their members exibit (or exibited) conscious acknowladgement of their large differences with the orthodoxy". Homestarmy 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved them to the history section as they fit better there. Then rejection or acceptance of creeds becomes irrelevant. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit (as were all of yours I saw the other night). Thank you.Timothy Usher 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian Ressurection

Str, it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop using the term "view of the afterlife" in replacement for "Ressurection". It is accepted by Egyptologists as being the Ressurection, not a view of the afterlife. It is specifically the rising of the Dead at some ungiven date in the future, not a view of Heaven or Hell, and Budge has written a book on it alone that I unfortunately have not yet purchased. When you make that change, you put in an inaccuracy in an attempt to prevent anyone from seeing them as the same. The stagnant POV pushing has to stop.

Btw, what ever happened to that text I added to show some defense of Jesus' existence....... it wasn't even shortened down, just outright removed.

KV 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean this edit. AvB ÷ talk 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if both parties would stop this edit warr, and look for alternative wordings that would satisfy all. It is nice to see that a third editor has at least attempted a solution. GRBerry 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive anyone?

I mean I could do it myself if need be but it might take a bit because I haven't done it very much, but really, this talk page is getting huge, and if I archive myself im a bit worried I might mess it up :/. Homestarmy 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. If you are looking for recent conversations no longer on this page, please look here: /Archive_28.--Andrew c 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)