Talk:Christianity/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

POV tag

The article is lacking a neutral POV. Orthodox Christians feel that only their perspective should be honored. All other groups are castigated and denied the ability to identify as Christian simply because they are not orthodox.

The article in not balanced. It focuses almost exclusively on the mainstream POV and virtually ignores any conflicting ideas, concepts, or beliefs. Until such time as orthodox Christians come to understand that they do not own this article and all language that excludes or denies Christianity to all other groups, regardless of their belief in Christ, this article is under a cloud of dispute. Storm Rider (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it appropriate that a general top-level article on a religion should focus on the core or mainstream groups, and give substantially less space to groups whose position is debated or marginal. In most cases, the insistence on mentioning conflicting positions is promoted not by people who actually hold the minority views, but by others who simply wish to distract attention from the majority position or throw doubt on the claim of any belief or practice whatsoever to be mainstream. Many of these small groups have about as much revelance to Christianity in general as, say, 19th century Hawaiian nationalists to the article on the United States, or the constitution of the Isle of Man to the article on the European Union. Yes, minority positions should be acknowledged, but this should not require distortion of the article towards what is not NPOV but merely multiple and conflicting POVs. Nor should it require constant edit wars over minor points of wording and deliberate misinterpretations. Christianity is misrepresented by an article which focuses chiefly on conceptual, institutional, or doctrinal disagreement: most Christians pursue their religious life without any reference to these debates. Myopic Bookworm 11:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I seem to have anticipated this problem a while ago, and proposed a somewhat minor reformatting of the article to avoid this, where the article took a more descriptive stance, classifying the different Christian groups and expressing their positions based on confessional texts (when available), and noting the proper similarities and differences. Personally, if I had to label the article in one way or another, I would say that it is a fairly apt description of mainstream Christianity as experienced in the English-speaking world, hence there is more protestant influence than might be expected, a general lack of attention to precise information about Eastern Christianity, and an slant toward ecumenical compromise rather than doctrinal clarity (this last part I think is most significant). All that said, it’s a good article. Lostcaesar 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this about that one sentence you all are fighting about in the section above or something? Homestarmy 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Myopic, I have no problem having an article that is balanced; in fact, I strive for that objective. The current article is not balanced. Should the majority of the article be focused on mainstream thought and practice? YES! I have always supported that and my edits have always reflected that objective. Should the article be solely about orthodox Christianity? NO. The title of the article is Christianity; a much broader, diverse religious group than some orthodox are comfortable, but it is reality nonetheless.

Homestarmy, one little sentence? Yes and no. The sentence is representative of the article as awhole. This article is not balanced or representative of Christianity, but rather has become a showpiece for mainstream Christianity. I am tired of petty edit wars and I want it stopped. I want to come to agreement about what is appropriate and what is not. Let me try to put this in personal terms. Place yourself in my shoes, you know Jesus Christ, but everyone is telling you, you are not Christian. The problem is their definition of Christian is nonBiblical; it is made of whole cloth. It is a contrivance in order to be divisive and has been used throughout history to brand others as heretical or cultish. What do you do? I have chosen to bring this to a head now. Storm Rider (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you could be more specific about the article, because I just don't see the whole article as being nothing but mainstream, mainstream, mainstream. Also, I can certainly understand why you would be agitated about this article if it truly did de-legitimize the LDS even if I don't put myself in your shoes, but it would seem to me the best thing would do would be to first of all figure out why people object to your church, show how your church doesn't actually teach anything objectionable, and answer people's questions about it by, once again, demonstrating how your church's beliefs resolve people's questions. Yes, it would probably be a very off-track discussion from the actual article, but eh, these discussions don't have themselves. Homestarmy 17:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
to just to try and make a contribution, I think there are two ways to present the material: (1) to provide a technical framework where we can discuss all the groups that describe themselves as Chrisitan, similarities and differences, or (2) sketch out "mainstream Christianity" (which really just means first-three/four-ecumenical-councils-Christianity) and describe that. We have chosen to do (2), and what we are experiencing is a consequence of that. I attempted to address this, and use the section in question to establish a framework where we could either move to (1), or at least define "mainstream" more technically. To speak more clearly: Christianity is divided into groups with real agreements and real disagreements, any description of it the faith without clearly sketching out this fact will run into this sort of difficulty. That said, I don't see this as a problem that cannot be overcome. Lostcaesar 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove to your satisfaction that you're not a Christian. Nor is LostCaesar's personal opinion relevant here. The simple fact is, whether or not Mormonism, the JWs, etc. are Christian is highly disputed. Therefore stating as fact either that they are or aren't is not permitted by WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not here to help StormRider's self-esteem by assuring him that all those mean Christians are wrong and he does too belong to the club regardless of what all the members say.

And no, we don't need to scrap the article and replace it with something poorly structured and unusable just to avoid edit wars from aggressive Mormons. A.J.A. 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AJ, do you just enjoy burning bridges? Did I do something to make you so antagonistic towards me? Lostcaesar 06:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm antagonistic to your notion of what the article should be, as you are of mine. You singled my edits out before I ever had anything to do with you. A.J.A. 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not include both POVs? Mormons and JWs are clearly "Christian" because they self-identify as Christian. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) it seems that, regardless if it is "wrong" to use female pronouns in reference to a biological male, wikipedia respects the identity of the individual. I believe the spirit of this guideline applies here. Even if it is "wrong" to call LDS and JW "Christian", because they self-identify as Christian, we need to respect that. But also, to keep things NPOV, we could add a sentence stating something like "Because of this, some mainstream Christians do not consider these groups to be true Christians". (as long as it is referenced). This way, wikipedia isn't taking a stance either way, but presenting both sides (the self-identity, vs. the outside POV).--Andrew c 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Because that's not including both POVs, that's stating one POV as fact. The effect of adding the note you suggest would simply be the statement, in almost so many words, that "some mainstream Christians" are wrong. Not acceptable.
"It" is offensive and the plural "they" might be confusing; excluding those two English grammar forces the use of a gendered pronoun. There is nothing here to force a statement either way. A.J.A. 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I did when I rewrote parts of this section was to give a percise lead sentence: "Today, there is diversity of doctrines and practices amongst various groups that label themselves as Christian... The point of this was to create a framework in which we would discuss groups that label themselves as Christian. This is in accord with the naming policy that Andrew mentioned. The section does not attempt to actually express a techinical definition of what qualifies as Christian, and that lead sentence is a move to avoid such conflict. Based on this lead sentence, I don't see a problem extending the term Christian to JW or LDS. Again, I think this is a question that must be dealt with in the particular, rather than the general, but I don't see a difficulty here. I see more of a difficulty with the nebulous term "mainstream Christianity", and I think perhaps either defining this percisely or choosing a different phrase would be good. As I see it, the article says mainstream Christianity when it means groups of Christians that accept the first few Ecumenical councils.Lostcaesar 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Accept the first few Ecumenical councils" is more ambiguous than mainstream because there are Trinitarian groups who pretty much ignore the ecumenical councils. In, or out? If in, you're going by whether the doctrines are mainstream, and the reference to the councils is irrelevant and confusing. If out, you're saying there are non-mainstream groups that are just like mainstream groups, which makes no sense. A.J.A. 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, adding the qualifier "that label themselves as" is helpful. As for those who disagree, I saw in another article the use of the phrase "Historic Christianity". It's tough situation, while it may be more accurate in trying to define who specifically holds these views, it may be better phrased simply using "some Christians". I think if we are going to call Catholics Christians, and if we are going to call Protestants Christians, then we already are taking a position on this. I have a Chick Track sitting around my room called "Are Roman Catholics Christians?", and I'm sure there are some Catholics out in Ireland (among other places) who believe Anglicans are not Christian. So why remove the word Christian from Mormons and JW's paragraph, but not in reference to these other groups that may or may not be True Christians? If they self-identify as Christian, say as much, and if some peopel disagree, say that as well. --Andrew c 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What a few Catholics in Ireland may or may not think is irrelevant. The Catholic Church accepts Anglican Baptisms (and more seriously, Presbyterian ones). If you're that worried about the Jack Chick POV, you can remove the reference to Catholics as Christian. A.J.A. 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Despite what AJA thinks, Christianity is much more diverse and much more conflicted than just little groups that should be ignored when they conflict with his narrow perspective (besides, it is troublesome to deal with things that conflict with personal viewpoints when one is certain only they are "right"). Historic Christianity is a term that has merit because it meets with the definition some of you are proposing regarding ecumenical councils. From an organizational viewpoint, those councils have nothing to do with Jesus Christ and the gospel he taught. They have everything to do with what we today term orthodoxy or mainstream Christianity. I do not speak for JW's or the African indigenous churches of which I am ignorant, but I can speak for the Latter-day Saints. They are restorationists, they claim to have no genesis in the Christianity of the 4th century and those groups that rebelled against it. The current paragraph reads "Other communities are difficult to group with the above classifications due to differences in basic doctrines and origins." It is not difficult, LDS claim to be the restoration of the original church set up by Christ. It is highly POV and prejudicial to present there are difficulties when there are none. We view the councils to be the sole product of man creating doctrines of men. They are not the words of Christ and they are not strictly biblical. This position is not held solely by LDS, but is rather common among Protestants also.
The question that is being evaded is what is a Christian? Could the 12 apostles meet the definition that is created? If we attempt to implement the definition of the 4th century and its councils than all those who went before would need to be denied memebership in Christianity. If we use a definition also previously much dicussed in this article such as: Do they believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; did he come to earth, was crucified, and rose the third day; through his sacrifice we are forgiven and are able to enter heaven, etc. These are elementary to the Christian faith. My wording my be imperfect, but this is a definition that is Biblical. To go outside the Bible for definition is to go to a definition of man. We are then entering the organization of the historic Christian chruches, but not a definition of Christianity. Storm Rider (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"Historic Christianity is a term that has merit because it meets with the definition some of you are proposing regarding ecumenical councils." - The problem is that all groups are historic inasmuch they have a history (well, maybe newcomers don't, but the controversial groups here have a history by now) and that mainstream Christianity does not only have a history but also a present.
"From an organizational viewpoint, those councils have nothing to do with Jesus Christ and the gospel he taught." - Storm, that might be your view but hardly the one of those adhering to the councils. The councils expounded on who Jesus was, which in turn reflects on what he said and did.
However, I find the councils a unsuitable rallying point of mainstream Christianity as large chunks especially of Protestantism do not actually care much about the councils. They accept them because they have no reason to reject them (though since Luther official acceptance has narrowed from 8 to 4 councils). And personally I wouldn't deny anyone the name of Christian because of the councils' doctrine. But my personal view has no bearing on the article, we must report (and only report) the reality that is out there.
"They are restorationists, they claim to have no genesis in the Christianity of the 4th century and those groups that rebelled against it. The current paragraph reads "Other communities are difficult to group with the above classifications due to differences in basic doctrines and origins." - How is that wording problematic? I changed your former version mainly because it was cryptic to the average reader.
"The question that is being evaded is what is a Christian? Could the 12 apostles meet the definition that is created?" - I am sure that every denomination would claim the Apostles for themselves. I certainly would. That doesn't mean that they have to understand all bits of later theology. They were fishermen after all. I don't want to discuss my problems with classifying one particular group as Christian, Storm, but I am pretty certain that the Apostles would have strictly opposed that group's doctrine on the contentious point I am not talking about, as it is not a matter of high theology. I can be more specific anytime on your talk page, Storm, but I don't want to needlessly cause trouble.
I agree very much with your "biblical definition" but to state that to "go outside the Bible for definition is to go to a definition of man" is POV. It is the 500 year old core of Protestantism. Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You start by saying Christianity is "more diverse" than my "narrow perspective" and end by asserting how much more Biblical and pro-Apostle your definition is than the one you (incorrectly) impute to me. But this is merely saying that your POV is right and the article should say so, and that's exactly what WP:NPOV exists to prevent. A.J.A. 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not highly POV or prejudicial to present difficulties when it is verifiable that almost all large Christian groups, in some way or another, have mentioned difficulties concerning smaller groups, it's just that, well, that's not very well represented in the article currently. However, I suspect that the reason that it isn't well represented is because some people might not want it represented at all whether it has been verified or not...But anyway, there are many doctrines in Christianity which clearly don't affect whether somebody could recieve salvation from Jesus or not, which really was the whole point of Jesus coming in the first place, to give people a chance to gain eternal salvation through faith in Him, and many of the doctrines developed in the 4th century wern't really so much related to making sure people knew how to get saved as much as it was clarifying concepts in the Bible, which although were already sufficiently described in the Bible, often were hard for some people to understand at first. Homestarmy 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the POV tag should be moved to the section entitled Christian Divisions; I don't contest the article. Homestar, I have already said above that if you think it necessary, go ahead and say "Mainstream Christianity rejects these churches as heretical or even as cults", so please explain. I think you are more than capable of providing referneces for such a statement for the three groups mentioned. What I find comical is that the reference for the membership of the LDS is found Adherents.com under the title, "Major Denominational Families of Christianity", an unbiased third party.

AJA, I know this is difficult for you. My definition is inclusive, it is broad, and it is Biblical. What you are presenting is divisive, exclusionary, and self-serving. Please do not attribute words to me, when you are wrong I will tell you. You will not need to deduce my meaning. Neither of us agree much with the other, but let's forget about taking things personally or throwing verbal "darts" at one another. The focus is the article and making it better. If I have offended you, I apologize.

Again, please define what it takes to be a Christian. Further, does being a Christian allow what to belong to Christianity? Storm Rider (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You continue arguing that your POV should be included because it's better -- "inclusive", "Biblical". I could be drawn into an argument about that, because you are wrong, but it's irrelevant. It's a highly disputed POV; it therefore cannot be stated as fact.
Also, please refrain from making it personal with smarmy speculation about what I find difficult. I'm not the one demanding the content policy be set aside because I feel I've been "persecuted" because I desire recognition from people who I feel owe it to me yet who are unwilling to give it. A.J.A. 18:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Why should we have to settle for "Mainstream Christianity" when that implies that there isn't actually any real definition of Christianity, just whatever people merely feel is correct? That doesn't give readers a very helpful definition of Christianity. And actually, I really couldn't find sources for exactly that statement, because there is no www.mainstreamchristianchurch.com from which I can find the "Mainstream". It would be far more helpful for the article to explain (with references, of course) exactly why different churchs oppose these sort of groups, rather than merely leaving it with basically just "They are opposed because their doctrines are different". Homestarmy 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the NPOV tag from the article to the section; however, I used the same tag and I am certain there is an exact tag that says "section" rather than article. The title of the article is "Christianity" could you please answer the questions: What is a Christian? Is being a Christian automatically make you part of Christianity? This is the third time I have asked this type of question. Storm Rider (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
First, I found the section tag for you, and second, I can't speak for AJA, but I wrote my speal in the section above. Homestarmy 18:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly at Talk:Jews for Jesus a consensus was reached that organisations that consider themselves Jewish should not be labelled as Jewish if most of the other denominations of that religion consider them to be not part of it. This was argued very strongly and resulted in Wikipedia not being allowed to call JFJ Jewish because other Jews thought they weren't. DJ Clayworth 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus is a very special case, as there aren't actually very many people left on the talk page who think there might possiblly be merit in saying that JfJ may be Jewish, generally because those editors got banned or left because of the negative experience they had :/. Homestarmy 18:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't be a special case. If self-definition trumps everything else, that needs to apply everywhere; if it doesn't, it shouldn't be forced onto this article to satisfy one editor's POV. (Especially when it can be easily sidestepped and the only reason for even addressing it is precisely the fact that the editor feels he needs his POV advocated by Wikipedia to make up for the snubs he feels he's received.) A.J.A. 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The Jews for Jesus dispute is....unique in nature, because as the dispute went on, many editors of one side wouldn't stop violating Wiki rules (Mostly 3RR) and getting banned. However there probably are better articles to illustrate DJ's point, maybe Islam? Homestarmy 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User behavior is a separate issue from content standards. A.J.A. 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but with those users departing, nobody was left who really wanted to continue the discussion and argue that Jews for Jesus could be referred to as Jewish, and for consistancy it probably should be referred to as such, though I have to oppose that because of how annoyingly precise the responsa was in rejecting Christ. Homestarmy 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If the responsa even matters, you've already come out against making self-definition the standard. A.J.A. 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What, I don't like the self-definition thing, either here or in JfJ :/. I was just saying that JfJ isn't a very good example for the point that self-determination isn't necessarily a good thing to reflect in Wikipedia articles. Homestarmy 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not possible to manifest a working definition of what Christianity is that will satisfy every group that calls itself Christian. Instead, we can sketch out a descriptive account of the present and historical development of Christianity, including its divisions.
  • Mainstream Christianity is a problematic phrase because it lacks definitive descriptive qualities. The article at present equates mainstream Christianity with Christian belief as structured in the first few ecumenical councils; that is not an argument but a statement of fact about the article. That there are Trinitarian groups that reject the councils is irrelevant to this point; they concur with the councils on this point and for that reason remain in the mainstream about this belief.
  • The problem with classifying LDS as restorationist, though not an entirely inappropriate characterization, is that virtually all other restorationists consider the LDS to be antithetical to Christianity, hence such a categorization is problematic. Because they would be such strange bedfellows, LDS is difficult to classify with the other restorationists. That said, its not a totally silly thing to suggest.
  • It is not possible to devise a framework for describing the majority of Christians without including divine agency working through the councils for the simple reasons that the majority of Christians (Catholic and Othodox) do not consider the Bible alone to be a sufficient framework for the faith, nor do they see councils as mere acts of men. More specifically, any attempt to describe "mainstream" Christianity (which is really Catholocism+Orthodoxy + accommodations for traditional Protestant sensibilities) simply will be structured in part by conciliar degrees simply by the nature of those groups.
  • In sum, we cannot define what it means to be Christian here. We can describe what different groups think it means to be Christian. The section on divisions is an attempt at providing a framework in which we can do that. Attempts to be overly ecumenical and broadly define what it means to be Christian or what Christianity is are, in this context, as equally flawed as exclusively defining Christianity.

Lostcaesar 19:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see, LC, why it is difficult to classify the LDS as "restorationist"? That term means that they claim to be a restoration of original true Christianity. That everyone else disputes that claim is another matter. Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost, you get to my end points in many respects. This is an encyclopedic article and not an opinion piece for zealots (much to AJA's personal dismay; smarmy enough? Also, please take it personally; it was intended to be so! I am still surprised AJA you have not even begun to answer the blunt question asked at least 3 times; when we can't answer the question, baffle with BS?). From a strict, historical perspective LDS, JW's, African indigenous churches, etc., all fall within Christianity. That is a statement of fact and not opinion. It is also a statement of fact that there are denominations/churches that declare other denominations/churches heretical, or perjoratively, cults, etc. LDS definitively fall into this category. To state that JW's, LDS, etc are outside of Christianity is POV. To state they are a cult is also POV, but can be supported with references.

It is not suprising to me to find so much difficulty defining the beliefs of a Christian or what is Christianity. When using the Bible it is very difficult to be very divisive between Christians; it is virtually impossible. I enjoy hearing defnitions a la "The Bible Answer Man", Hank Hanegraaff about what is Christian because you have to go through such amazing backflips of logic; one must go outside of the scriptures and appeal to philosophies of 4th century Christianity and their interpretations of scripture. That also is not opinion, that is fact. HOWEVER, these are issues that are beside the topic. The topic is Christianty and writing this article from a historical perspective without agendas and from a neutral viewpoint, which is lacking.

The current paragraph reads:

Other communities are difficult to group with the above classifications due to differences in basic doctrines and origins.

Who finds it difficult? LDS are quite clear, even adament, they do not descend from Catholicism. They claim to be a restoration of the church instituted by Christ. That is their claim, the facts. It is not difficult. The way it is written now is from a orthodox viewpoint. If I am not mistaken JW's also claim to be part of the restoration movement, but their's was a restoration of thought and understanding of scripture rather than organization. As I have stated before, I do not know enough about the African churches to contribute or explain their position. The paragraph in question should not be written from an orthodox perception, but from a historical perspective. Are these groups part of Christianity? Of course. Do other Christians have problems with them? Of course. Do these groups have problems with other Christians doctrinally? Of course. IT is not difficult and it certainly is not complex. Storm Rider (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one going out of his way to insist that the article must state his POV as fact. I'm the one trying to sidestep any biased statement. If I were going for an opinion piece I would want it to read "pseudo-Christian". Instead, I want it to make no statement either way, which is precisely not an opinion piece. You're demanding an opinion piece on the grounds that your opinion is so very right and you personally have been so put upon. That is exactly your argument in so many words. I'm sorry you feel that shouting "fanatic" at me will set aside WP:NPOV, but it won't. A.J.A. 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit of difference between having disputes doctrinally with other Church's, and having disputes which often concern how one recieves eternal salvation. For instance, is there a verse which commands that we have a proper understanding of, say, transubstation, and that if we choose the wrong side, we'll all be cast into Hell? I sure hope not, cus I think that kind of verse would sort of stick out, and I sure haven't seen it.... Homestarmy 00:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to add my own thoughts on this matter, I must say I'm sympathetic to Storm Rider's position. Without intending to offend any version of the Christian faiths, we all have to acknowledge that however much some Church's feel they are the one and true correct representative of the word of God/Jesus, etc, and may therefore want to exclude other Christians as not "real Christians"---this should be taken as just part of their respective belief system, which can be stated but not accepted fact to be adopted by our editing practices on a general article that must respect all of Christendom, or at least everything except the extreme fringes. Acknowledge it, state it, but reject it as an appropriate stance to take in this article as a definition, which must transcend any particular group or dominant groups, such as the mainstream. The diversity of Christianity should be respected, and we do this by keeping to a historical secular, perspectives in the treatment of the religion(s) that fall under this larger category. That is, explain each by their own terms and all of them to each other in no one groups own terms, which are part of its articles of faith and POV afterall.
The fact is that nature of the term Christianity is very diverse and encompasses many different but related trends. This is not just a POV, its the consensus among scholars within academia. Thus the definition must be sufficiently general and encompassing to allow it to fit all the major Christian faiths. Good intentional definitions contain the crucial elements of both necessary and sufficient conditions to these ends. I reject the argument A.J.A seems to be making, by stating that because one Church or the dominant mainstream churches dispute another large version of Christian teaching as not being "real" Christians, we must bow down to this stance, and not adopt a broad definition that is inclusive, which would mean we are saying they are wrong. I disagree this argument. We can so this, and we should do this. Note that we are not saying it is wrong to have this belief. That is part of what may define them and should be stated according to how they define themselves. But they do not get to speak for others; we must respect other major Christian versions, and therefore not notwithstanding their particular stances against each other, adopt a general umbrella definition that doesn't exclude, and then state their disagreements if necessary which would exclude others if one adopts their POV. But we can't adopt a general definition that is in any way narrow so as to exclude major branches of the faith. Sure, we can exclude fringes groups. There are legitimate limits and exclusions, esp. for a general article. Also, we should have a focus on the mainstream. Myopic BookWorm is correct in this regard. Storm however is not opposed to this. However, it must not be to the exclusion of other major Christian churches, just because they are outside the mainstream. We must not fall into the trap giving credence to the No true Scotsman Fallacy. If Storm would give some specific suggestions on texts to address what he is objecting to, we should consider it per the above principles. Giovanni33 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I will come up with a proposal, but I am very busy this morning. I will post a proposal this evening. Storm Rider (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Gio, "this should be taken as just part of their respective belief system, which can be stated but not accepted fact to be adopted by our editing practices on a general article that must respect all of Christendom" - that is exactly what we are trying to do here and IMHO exactly what the article is currently doing.
Storm, the question of what it takes to be Christian is one that cannot be properly answered here. Essentially, Christianity means the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah/Christ of God. And everything else hinges and derives from that central tenet, from what he said and did and from what all this means. But people disagree about that and many believe that some disagreements lie beyond the boundaries of Christianity (which doesn't mean that the differences and issues within these boundaries are unimportant or trivial). Self-idenitification is a method to narrow it down (otherwise we would have to address Islam, which can and does subscribe to the above tenet) but whether it is the only thing is debatable.
Storm, could you please point out what other difficulties there are beside the word "Christian" in the "other ... groups" passage? Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a proposed rewording of part of the section text:

The above groupings are not without exceptions. Some Protestants do not identify themselves as belonging to a specific denomination, but rather self-identify simply as Christians, or born-again Christians; they typically distance themselves from the confessionalism of many Protestant communities that emerged during the Reformation. They further classify themselves as "non-denominational" — often founded by individual pastors and have little affiliation with historic denominations (Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, etc.). Others, particularly among Anglicans and in Neo-Lutheranism, identify themselves as being "both Catholic and Protestant". Lastly, a few small communities employ a name similar to the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Old-Catholics, but are not in communion with the See of Rome. Internationally, there are other churches that had their genesis in Anglicanism and Pentecostalism include African indigenous churches.
Restorationists, which are historically connected to the Protestant Reformation, but do not describe themselves as "reforming" a continuously existing Christian Church, but as restoring a Church that was lost at some point in the past. Restorationist denominations include Churches of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists.

I am confused by some of the language. The section reads that Protestantism is the second major branch, but the section reads as if Eastern Christianity is really the second branch. Which is which?

After studying the African churches it appears that their genesis lies within the Anglican and Pentecostal movements; with a strong leaning on gifts of the Spirit today. I believe they are appropriately labeled Protestants and don't see a reason as to discount this affiliation. It is a diverse group with a broad range of beliefs not easily grouped as they currently are as just African indigenous churches.

Restorationists are presented with their major concept that binds them together; however, it also is a diverse group with a broad range of individual beliefs.

I don't see a need to identify them with the number of members belonging to groups. In saying that, I also think the number of Catholics and Eastern Chrisitans is irrelevant to this article and should be deleted. This is my initial draft; thoughts and comments? Storm Rider (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would the numbers be irrelevant? Lostcaesar 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
We state that there are 2.1 million Christians in the world in the introduction, but in this section it is sort of hit an miss. My only concern is either have numbers for all of them or have numbers for none of them. It is more a question of balance than quality of information. Does that make sense?
I beleive that adherents.com has numbers for the majority, if not all, of them so providing membership numbers is possible. I am not sure we have specifically mentioned every Protestant church in the world, but we can make sure that we cite the largest ones (if we already haven't) and then group the balance. It is really what people think is best: with membership numbers or without. Storm Rider (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The numbers seem like useful infomation to me; Lostcaesar 09:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts made to equally mention all Christian denomination and their beliefs. POV of other religions have been some what neglected. I believe a chapter about the relations of Christianity and other religions should be added. The chapter about controversies and criticism needs to be expanded. Many paragraphs appear to be coming from a Christian point of view. I will point out several areas where the text is not suitable for an encyclopedia at its current form.

The section about Jesus details the events leading to his execution according the New Testament. Although the phrase “According to the Gospels” appear in the text, it needs to be reiterated and emphasized. Description of “The Passion of Christ” is extremely controversial and highly sensitive (many may remember the turmoil surrounding Mel Gibsons’ movie).

Persecution: A. “Christians have frequently suffered from persecution”, since Christianity became the religion of Rome most Christians were not persecuted by any body but other Christians. For the sake of clarity, it seems the first and second sentences need to be joined and the paragraph restructured. B. Persecution of the Jews by Christians existed since Christianity became an organized religion and is prevalent throughout Christian history till this day. Please see the article titled Anti Semitism for reference. Events such as crusades, expulsion of Jews from Spain and many European nations, Spanish inquisitions’ forced conversion of Jews, pogroms in Russia and the Holocaust should be mentioned. Wikiwacko 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning all the crimes that are done in the name of a religion is difficult, and probably not necessarily wise because reasons were often political, and had nothing to do with religion (e.g., Nazi Germany was by no means a Christian nation). However, a short note would be worthy if for the blantantly Christian persecutions (e.g., spanish inquisition), if there is a note saying that most modern Christians disavow such behavior. All this, as long as there are similar notes under the Jewish article, noting persecution of Christians in the first and second centuries (it was fierce) and Pagan religions as well (even fiercer). Perhaps a similar note for Moslem persecution, or even atheist persectuions (e.g., Commie nations disallowing religion). -Patstuart 23:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The statement that Christians have not been persecuted since the Edict of Toleration is manifestly false. It shows an ignorance to Eastern history, which contains persecutions by both Persians and Muslims. It ignores the French Revolution, Spanish Civil War, and Russian Revolution. On and on. Lostcaesar 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, this article already has a balanced coverage of these events, as far as Christians (on either side) are concerned. If we add more details we should be careful to remain factual. For instance, the Spanish Inquisition, did not force-convert anybody - it was rather the result of earlier forced conversions. Finally, Christians that were persecuted by other Christians (e.g. opponents of Arianism in the 4th century) are nonetheless persecuted Christians. Str1977 (smile back) 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Posted in edit conflict with Lost Caesar whose posting I wholeheartedly endorse.)


WP:AID votes

Christianity (43 votes, stays until October 14)

Nominated July 29, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by October 14, 2006
Support
  1. Chrisrivers 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Punkedmonkey 19:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Concavelenz 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Un sogno modesto 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. MrCEO 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. jwandersTalk 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. C-squared 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Homestarmy 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Dave 07:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Nikkimaria 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Casey14 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. TransNique 03:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Wiki-newbie 17:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. JColgan 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Atb129 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. RexNL 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. rossnixon 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. ...Andy120... 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Irpen 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Andrew c 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Ehjort 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Save SG-1! 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. GRBerry 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Speedystickd 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. CG 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Lumaga 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. --Tachikoma 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Jeffklib 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. CAN 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  33. Daniel's page ☎ 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  34. Fneep 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  35. -Gphoto 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  36. Cory Liu 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  37. G Rutter 10:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  38. Hannah 17:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  39. Cheetoian 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  40. Ixistant 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  41. Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Lostcaesar 06:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. RequinB4 02:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Article seems unrefined for such an important religion, should (like all the world religions) be a featured article. Is going to need a group effort to get back to FA status. Chrisrivers 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Those who signed here may also wish to sign the Restorationism nom below. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is such a large knowledge base out there on this subject it seems a shame not to give it the respect and in-depth work it deserves. RequinB4 02:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be moderated by an atheist?

If this article is written exclusively by Christians, there will be a tendency for bias. Also, only the good points about Christianity will be mentioned. The many factual and philosophical flaws with the religion will be ignored. Would it, therefore, be a good idea to have someone with a rational point of view keep an eye on the article to make sure it is not too one-sided.

Would it not also be a good idea to state what different groups' opinions are of Christianity?

No. A.J.A. 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The mere fact that an atheist considers himself to have "a rational point of view" as opposed to Christians shows him too biased to be a good moderator. Goldfritha 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know it was written exclusively by Christians. I'm not, and I just edited the article, as I have also edited Sunni Islam, Buddhism and many others. Art LaPella 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced quote marks

Someone with access to a Catholic Catechism should tell us how much of the second paragraph of Christianity#Interpretation is a quote. The paragraph has 7 quote marks, so there's no way to pair them up. Art LaPella 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They should pair up now, let me know if they do not. Lostcaesar 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Resolved

Art LaPella 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

Unless I missed something, the chapters of the Institutes LostCaesar cited in "Interpretation" discuss the authority of Scripture, not its interpretation.

Even if it had discussed interpretation, what he added is an obvious malicious misstatement.

Also, the references he added require a huge amount of cleanup, which I think reflects what's wrong with, well, everything he's doing. He has no concern for the reader. A.J.A. 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

AJ, first let me say that I am not trying to misrepresent Calvin. I will list the passage you omited below, and I would like you to show me how I am misrepresenting his position. Now, that aside, currently this article is under revision because it lacks citations. I am attempting to improve that section of the article. Could you be specific with what I am doing that bothers you (and no one else). Now, here is the Calvin passage:
The role of both tradition and the Church in interpreting scripture was questioned during the Protestant Reformation and largely rejected by most reformers. John Calvin argued that the Holy Spirit would direct the individual, rather than the Church, to correct interpretation, and that reason alone could discern the credibility of scripture.(ref)John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, chapter 6-8, available online [1](/ref)
Now, for a final point, the additions to interpretation were merely a clarification of the senses of scripture in different traditions, and the "stand alone" vs "in traditonal context" way of interpreting scripture. If you think it goes to authority, then you could move it to the correct place, though I do not see this myself.

Lostcaesar 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, AJ one problem with the cite quote style you used is that it does not give the section, article, or chapter - is there a way to include that? If not then we should use a different citation method. Lostcaesar 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded engaging you in dialogue is worthwhile. It's not up to me to prove to your satisfaction you missrepresented Calvin, since you're the one who commited the offense and therefore hardly in any position to judge. A.J.A. 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, it's not a problem. Go look at the table of contents of the Catholic Catechism. Is anything listed by section number? No. Therefore listing that number helps the reader not at all. I imagine it pleases you to simultaneously be very specific about exactly which paragraph you mean and leave the reader utterly mystified. But you're the guy who put in some references to another section that cite the section by Roman numerals. A.J.A. 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't demand collegiality while you're reverting someone. A.J.A. 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not reverting your work, I am restoring my work that you are deleting by reverts, so your characterization of me, and reason for dismissing collegiality, are in error. To give examples of my collegiality, I did not yet reintroduce the passage on Calvin. When you had a problem with it, I took it to talk. I may well be wrong, and would like your input, I was merely characterizing chapters 6-8, and I think by the titles alone you can see where I was comming from, but I may well be in error and need your help with this. Also, I did not change you citations (though you said I did, strangely). Instead, I came here and gave my concern about them. You have not really responded to my concerns. A specific section number is better than a chapter head, especially when the chapter head does not express the internal contents well. If you do not like Roman numerals, change them to Arabic numerals and move on – it is not a reason to revert. Let me be clear about what I will do here. I will await specific reasons for you changes. If you do not provide them, or if they are completely erroneous (as they have been thus far), then I will restore my contributions. Let me say that I would prefer to engage in a dialogue and improve the article through collegiality, but the choice is yours. I do not hold that my changes are always perfect, or correct, and the article needs contributions of others, such as yourself. But I do hold that my contributions are in good faith, and are an attempt to make the article more informative. Your knee jerk reaction to my changes, and previous comments, lead me to believe that you think I have some conspiracy or agenda to push, but you have never supported that with specifics. Please, understand my changes in the correct light, and work with me. Otherwise we will do nothing but revert.Lostcaesar 09:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are your edits so consistently perverse? When you started with the refs you were at least doing something constructive, but now you're going out of your way to add roadblocks in the way of a reader trying to look the refs up. I feel insulted by the idea I should even consider your rationalizations here. A number is more informative than a title? Is that even meant to be taken seriously? And again: the ToC doesn't list section numbers! And now the link to it isn't even near the references -- so the reader is obliged to figure out that the link is elsewhere, and then having no guidance from the ref provided in the article must guess at where the section might be based on precisely those chapter heads you just called uninformative. And this isn't just a poorly-executed first sweep at adding refs like it was the first time you did it, you're actively removing the direct links that would make these steps unnecessary. Can you at least consider the end user?
But none of this will matter. No matter how specific I am, Lost will pretend bafflement at my lack of specificity. He's still pretending puzzlement at my objection to his mischaracterization of Calvin, even though I already stated very plainly that the chapters he cited aren't even talking about the interpretation of Scripture. A.J.A. 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You mistook the passage about numbers. What you had was CCC, chapter title. What I had was CCC section number. The sections in the CCC are the same as page numbers. The index cites section numbers. The reason why page numbers are not used is because the CCC is in many languages, and each language has the same material on different pages, because different languages take more or less room to say the same text. However, the section numbers are consistent. Thus removing section numbers in favour of chapter titles is like removing page numbers. As for the procedure of brief quote and bibliography, lets discuss that below. It is standard in books, and it is used in some wikipeia articles with many references. As for Calvin, you know more about this than I. I think my use of the word "alone" was an error, but if that were removed then I think the passage is fine. I would like for you to work with it and make it better. My point of including Calvin was to add more information and another view. I was not trying to maliciously bend Calvin's words. Please don't take my edits the wrong way. Lostcaesar 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, yes, I know I'm using chapters instead of sections. That's because the Vatican web site organizes the online table of contents by chapter rather than section number. So citing by chapter lets us link directly to the citation, as well as making it (much) easier to find the citation through the table of contents, if you happen to be looking that way. Other languages are irrelevant; this is the English Wikipedia citing the English version of the Catechism. A.J.A. 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle east growth

The source, Niall Ferguson (2005). Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin Books. pp. p. 22. ISBN 0-14-101700-7. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) specifically says that the missionaries have almost doubled in 20 years. It says nothing about the actual population statistics of religious practitioners in the middle east. Therefore, I think it is misleading to say that the source supports the previous wording in the article so I have removed it. (a side note, the source also says that the evangelical Christian population has gone up 20% in Latin America, but it doesn't say that there were more Christians than before, I guess Catholics could be converting, etc). --Andrew c 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a real difficuty in quoting growth. Adherants.com cites many comments why it does not give that statistic. Basiccally, everyone wants to be growing, and it is possible to bend the numbers too easily. So I say leave it out. Lostcaesar 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

References

AJ brought up an interesting point concerning references. I think this is a sign of a greater problem. We could use to have a standardized references system with this article. What many articles have been working towards is to have a full bibliography of all sources used at the bottom, with specific references being notes with brief information that can be easily linked to the main bibliography, in imitation of the standard system used in published books. Considering the recent attention the article has been given, especially its references, I think this would be a good goal of standardization.Lostcaesar 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East

Currently, the line reads:

"Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and others with a combined membership of more than 300 million baptized members."

I have a source here which gives the membership of this Church at 100,000. First, is that large enough to be mentioned here? If we mentioned every protestant group with 100,000 plus members it would go on forever. Second, the 300 million members seems to be 99% GO and OO, but this is not obvious from the passage. If we want to keep the Church listen then that is ok with me, but we will have to add it in the numbers to it specifically, I think, which I can do. Also, would there be an objection to putting "Nestorian" in parentheses next to it, if we leave it in. I know that I was really confused by Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East when I first read the article, and if it had just said Monophysite and Nestorian I would have known exactly when they were, as that is what history books use to name them. I have been told that Monophysite is insulting to OO, but is Nestorian a problem for Assyrian Church of the East? So, anyway, the questions are: (1)leave this group in or not, and (2) if yes to 1, add membership numbers or not, and (3) if yes to 1, add "Nestorians" as parenthetical information, or not. Lostcaesar 07:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Adherents was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_30&oldid=1143859512"