Talk:Christianity/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 → Archive 40

Delisted from GA status

Because:

1. A section in the article is shamefully POV(no mention of *high* taxes imposed in Christian lands, aside from the persecution of some Christians under Christian rule). + the status of Christians under Muslim lands should be revised.

2. A lot of sources used are not reliable and should be replaced by good ones.

3. There has been an edit war over this article.

Aminz 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. What you're demanding is that the section include whatever you might find necessary to make the Muslims look better by comparison. Why would the internal fiscal policies of Christian kings be relevant to a brief mention of Muslim persecution, let alone so important that leaving it out is shameful?
2. Your definition of a "good source" has not been accepted, either here or by Wikipedia at large. All sections of the article use a variety of sources, not just the one you're worried about.
3. Caused by you.
A.J.A. 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
1. I am following it in the next section. If the Christian kings were not persecuting their citizens by imposing high taxes, then Muslims who imposed lower taxes on Christians didn't persecute them in the first place.
2. Common. I can justify any claim by attributing it to some website or book. WP:RS requires usage of peer-reviewed sources.
3. Because all other editors have a different POV. This doesn't mean I am wrong. --Aminz 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
1. We're still talking about persecution, not comparative tax rates.
2. It would help your case to read the policies you're citing:
"Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next."
3. However, the fact that you keep changing the subject to taxes or "waves of discontentment" and misrepresent policy very likely does mean you're wrong. A.J.A. 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never looked at this article before, so i'll give my 2 cents worth on this.

I agree that the article should be de-listed. The single reason being is that in the last month there have been around 600 edits on the article changing huge areas of it. This is not even close to being stable.-Localzuk(talk) 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I ask you to read the whole of my statement before you respond. Aminz, I am restricted, by rules and conscience, to be civil, but being direct does not mean not being civil, so I will be straightforward. Recently, you have been trying to introduce a change to make Muslims look more benevolent, but no one (including the secularists who don't identify with Christianity in this discussion) has agreed that your changes should be adopted in full. I don't know if they fail to teach the same thing Persian schools or not (I have no desire to rap on Iran, believe me; this is just an honest pondering), but no one seems to agree with your ascertions. We have tried to be civil and discuss changes, and I personally have even taken into account some of your statements, though some are patently false by history (i.e., Christians never saw perseuction under Islam). What it appears to me is that, because you haven't got what you wanted, you are trying to exact revenge and punish us somehow by getting this article delisted. So I will address each of your concerns:

  • A section in the article is shamefully POV
Individual concerns you brought up are addressed below.
  • no mention of *high* taxes imposed in Christian lands, aside from the persecution of some Christians under Christian rule
This has nothing to do with the persecution of Christians; no one else even thought it worth mentioning. The only reason you seemed to want to bring it up is that it was the one measure you could find which would make Muslim governments look more benevolent to Christians than other governments (though, as Str1977 pointed out, even this may not hold up). Higher taxes would be worth a mention, but they are not the sole criterion for persecution. But the fact that you haven't been willing to budge on any changes at all has not helped us come to a consensus on anything left out.
  • The status of Christians under Muslim lands should be revised.
Everyone has already made it clear that you are in the great minority on this one. Again, had you been willing to settle for anything other than "Muslims have never perseucted Christians", then a settlement might be possible.
  • A lot of sources used are not reliable and should be replaced by good ones.
Again, everyone has made it clear that the sources are quite reliable. If you have disagreed with a source, we've tried to bring in another. But as far as I can tell, if the source isn't Bernard Shaw Lewis, then you have rejected it as non-relibable.
  • There has been an edit war over this article.
Yes, perpetrated solely between you and everyone else. Basically, your argument seems to be "I have caused an edit war, so this article should be delisted." Also, other times where we have had disagreements, we've done a remarkable job of working them out (e.g., how to handle Mormonism) - without edit warring.
I have just finished writing this whole section, and now I see that AJ typed nearly exactly the same words above. Please understand, Aminz, no one holds anything against you, or Islam (I happen to think much higher of Islam than nearly any other philosophy on Earth), but we are not willing to change the history books, and the intransigence you seem to have on the issue is becoming quite frustrating. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am currently in a break from this article. I still think there are problems with this article and to my mind considering this article to be a good one is just lowering our standards. But that's me. If the policy says that most editors (and not all) should think the article is a good, then list it as a good article.

I gather my information for reliable books written by renowned scholars. I only change my mind when I gain more knowledge through that channel and only that channel. The personal opinion of my wikipedia peers on historical issues are of absolutely no value to me.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say:"Christians never saw perseuction under Islam." I said that before the french revolution, except rare instances, there were no waves of discontent among Christians living in Muslim lands. Persecution in terms of violence was rare and atypical. As Bernard Lewis points out the story "of subservience and persecution and ill treatment" of Dhimmis under Muslim rule is a myth as the story of "a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain" is a myth. Of course, Christians were not treated equally with Muslims and had social and legal disabilities. But classifying the behaviour of Muslims together with that of Early Romans, of Sassanids, and even of Christian in the same context, without any qualifications or further explanations is far unfair.

Also, I think if somebody wanted to punish others, it was you guys who were removing the sources I added from this article. It was all in the source section. Just five half lines wasn't bothering any of you guys and none of the readers would actually read this. It was clear that I had added those sources to use them improving the article.

--Aminz 01:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth Sorry, I misunderstood your words.
But classifying the behaviour of Muslims together with that of Early Romans, of Sassanids, and even of Christian in the same context, without any qualifications or further explanations is far unfair. I wish I could sit down with you in person and discuss this. It would be interesting. But it looks like taking a break might be a better idea, for all sides involved. We both have good faith changes we wish.
it was you guys who were removing the sources I added from this article. I'm not familiar to what you're referring, so I can't respond. I certainly didn't remove anything. And I certainly have no desire to punish you; perhaps the other editors removed something, but I don't think anyone wanted to punish you.
Thanks for the feedback. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say: ... I have repeatedly stated that I don't believe that you actually are of the opinion that Muslims never persecuted Christians. However, some of your actions (e.g. the original tagging) or "soundbites" (e.g. "Muslims never did that" - emphasis mine) suggested that view.
I said that before the french revolution, except rare instances, there were no waves of discontent among Christians living in Muslim lands. But we are not talking about discontent. If Christians were resigned to their position and didn't feel any merit of crying out, that doesn't mean that there was no persecution.
Persecution in terms of violence was rare and atypical. These terms are relative. What is rare? And "atypical"? What is typical? That what happens a lot or what is according to the rule?
Mr Lewis, who is only one voice, points out two myths and I am not willing to yield to an approach of "of course, they were not treated equally" (and we are not merely talking about non-equality but about actual "disabilities" affecting their lives) - no one would acecpt that in regard to Christendom's Jews.
And all this doesn't change that even then there was persecution at times. In that regard Muslims behaviour can indeed be classified alongside Romans and Persians. And any concern that they could be equated is already solved as we know have an entire new sentence for the Muslim issue. Str1977 (smile back) 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of persecution

What is the exact definition of persecution? Of course violence is persecution. But what if there is no violence? Is persecution defined as getting "greatly offended"? Does high taxes for example include persecution?

If persecution is defined as getting "greatly offended", then there were no persecutions by Muslims since Lewis says:

For Christians and Muslims alike, tolerance is a new virtue, intolerance a new crime. For the greater part of the history of both communities, tolerance was not valued nor was intolerance condemned. Until comparatively modern times, Christian Europe neither prized nor practiced tolerance itself, and was not greatly offended by its absence in others. The charge that was always brought against Islam was not that its doctrines were imposed by force- something seen as normal and natural- but that its doctrines were false

--Aminz 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Persecution, it is

persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms.

Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a modern definition of persecution: "denial of civil rights and liberties" comes under the religious persecution. The liberties and civil rights are the concerns of modern man. I am interested in the ancient definition of persecution. But thanks Tom for those links. --Aminz 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is getting "greatly offended" a good definition? --Aminz 20:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Will try to find academic definitions of persecution in the old times. Of course, something that is seen as normal and natural shouldn't be persecution. --Aminz 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The page on Religious persecution says, "unwarranted arrest, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified execution, denial of benefits, and denial of civil rights and liberties. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate among other things." I do not think 'greatly offended' describes it well. Let me ask; the sentence is "Later, under Islam, Christians were second-class citizens and have at times suffered violent persecution." Leaving aside possible better wording for 'second-class citizen', are you saying this is not true? Are you now trying to find a definition of 'persecution' that will let you say Muslims did not persecute people? Tom Harrison Talk 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The first point I have in my mind is that our definition of tolerance has changed over time. Mark Cohen points out that the traditional understanding of tolerance was changed after John Locke. Lewis writes of "radical views of French revolution". Today, people have far higher expectations compared to that of old times. Who knows? A time may come that people think of today as a systematic *persecution* of foreigners in US under some regulations and behaviors, something we see today as normal and natural. I would like to see how Christians and Jews of Islam were viewing their situation. What was their general evaluation of their situation given that they knew they were the non-dominant in Muslim lands? I say, yes, Christians in Christian land had a better situation than Christian in Muslim land, but that doesn’t mean that Muslims were *persecuting* Christians. Second-class citizenship guaranteed personal safety of Christians. Their properties were also safe. They were free to practice their religion though under some restrictions. These are exactly what other regimes were doing to people. The persecutions of the early Roman Empire were 1. Not recognizing Christianity as a valid religion even in their pluralistic culture. 2. Violence 3. Confiscation of their property.
We see that Muslims did none of these. On the other hand, the distinctive clothing and many other discriminations was the practiced of both Muslims and Christians. And it was indeed justified and normal in their eyes. Going back to the early years of Roman Empire, we see Jews having a recognized status according to the Roman Law, but were not enjoying all the advantages of the Roman citizens. My sources don’t say Jews were persecuted but rather they were enjoying their status. On the other hand, it says Christians were persecuted.
Lewis’s main point is that the second-class citizenship was the result of natural behavior of dominant group towards a minority and that it was good at that time. There were definitely disadvantages to be part of the minority group.--Aminz 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that after French revolution, there were waves of discontent among Dhimmis. So, that discontent can be interpreted as Muslims persecuting Dhimmis. But nothing I've of such waves of discontent before that. So, please provided academic sources stating that before French revolution, Dhimmis were discontent and were thinking that they are persecuted. Unless a reliable source (not robert spencer) states that, we can not include Islamic persecution of Christians in that section as it is now. We can menion what sporadically happened in Muslim lands such as forced conversions in 12th century under Ahlemods + the results of French revolution. So, if no source was found, we should say something like this: Before the french revolution, the waves of discontent among Christians in Muslim lands occured only sporadically for example under the Alhemods in 12th century. --Aminz 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Offended" is certainly no good definition as our times when someone or the other is costantly offended. And your subjective "feeling persecuted" is not good either.
The three points you mentioned "that Muslims did none of these" is unfortunately something that Muslims have done, not all the time of course but it happened. And there is no need to cover it up by claiming it was only sporadic - Greece would be much bigger country if the Sporades were like that. Then we could also include that anti-Jewish violance in Christendom happened only "sporadic".
As far as your appeal to the French Revolution goes, it needlessly complicates matters. We do not not include a note in that place where we talk about persecution of Jews that this only happened after the First Crusade either. Also, your remark sounds very much like it is the fault of those Dhimmis misguided by the French Revolution by suddenly developing unrealistic expectations, which in turn forced the Muslim rulers to put them in their place. As I said, I am no Bat Yeor fan but that is exactly what she writes.
You should not confuse the second class citizen status that was the constant feature with the persecution that occured from time to time.
Your comparisons to Roman citizenship are a bit hunching: Roman citizens were those citizens of the city Rome and later this was extended to all Italics. Only in the 3rd century were all free inhabitants declared citizens. But the others were not second class citizens, as they were in one way or another citizens of some other body part of the Empire (vassal states, allied cities). The later Roman Empire, whose high taxes you so love to bring up, did not discriminate anyone with these taxes ... they all had to pay and religious adherence had nothing to do with this. Islamic government however, that otherwise so prized equality, singled out various groups for taxation and did that under humiliating circumstances.
"Second-class citizenship guaranteed personal safety of Christians. Their properties were also safe. They were free to practice their religion though under some restrictions."
I wonder from which threat Christians needed to have their safety guaranteed? Did they lack safety before benign Omar came along and put them into this place?
All in all, your aim is clearly visible. Str1977 (smile back) 07:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. For my claim about the Jews and Roman citizenship see:A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations cambridge university press, "Accordingly, Jews came to be recognized not so much as members of a national community, but as members of legal collegia or associations". It doesn't say they were second class citizens and that wasn't my point. 2. Yes, Muslim did none of these. Where are your sources? 3. Bat Ye'or is not comparable with Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen. I think I have made this clear. Bat Ye'or has no academic degrees in Islamic studies whatever. 4. You need to find sources mentioning that Christians considered themselves *persecuted*. If yes, when and how. Violence was rarely there. In terms of Social and Legal aspects they had disadvantages but did they consider this persecutions and were discontent before French revolution? We know Jews were gratitude. A source is needed for your claim (an academic one; your words is not enough since they are not peer reviewed) --Aminz 08:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How muslims treated Jews is irrelevant to the section in question. Lostcaesar 08:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Jews and Christians were treated the same under Islamic law as there was no anti-semitism in Muslim lands. --Aminz 08:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And what relevance is this? see belowLostcaesar 08:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians: Disputed

The template, "totallydisputed-section" has been added to the "persecution of Christians" section. Would someone please point out the disputed sentence, so that we might discern whether the title is apt? I for one am confused by the above discussions because the have ventured into irrelevant areas. Please, we need a sentence, and the objection.Lostcaesar 08:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, you are an academic and I am sure you understand why I am stressing on using university press published books written by renowned scholars. I need a renowned academic scholar (not Spencer and Bat Ye'or of course) making statements about Islamic persecution of Christians. May I ask you a request. Can you please help us as a mediator between me and Str1977. There is a tone in his edits which makes me annoyed and bitter. I appreciate Christianity and believe there are many things Muslims need to learn from Christians. This is not the way most Muslims look at it. Unlike the significant majority of my Muslim friends, I also believe in cross and the redemption that came through that. I value the Bible as much as I value the Qur'an. So, contrary to what Str1977 thinks, I am not a Christian-hater. I find it hard to work with Str1977 but easy to work with you because I think we have more in common. so, please accept being a mediator. Thanks --Aminz 08:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, the spirit of wikipedia is such that editors need no qualifications to contribute other than a willingness to collaborate and a reasonable disposition. I have no basis or right to act in a moderator capacity: I am not an administrator here, and whatever the case I am merely a graduate student, and in early medieval history at that. However, as a fellow editor I would be happy to contribute my ideas and whatever other help I can in the spirit of collegiality. But this could only be as a co-editor of equal status as all others. As for this section, I of course understand that reputable sources are a necessity. Most of the sources in question, however, are unfamiliar to me. Is your objection to the section in question simply that it uses inadequate sources? Which sentence do you feel is inappropriately sourced? I will say simply that there is a main article on the subject, and perhaps the proper course would be to bulk up that article first, with many citations. Then, this section can summarize that article. Lostcaesar 09:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, let me classify my problems. I have some problems with that particular section and in general about the references. I need to go to sleep now, but let me write about the sources.

Please have a look at Islam and slavery article. I, together with some other editors worked hard on this article and in a few weeks we completely rewrote this article using reliable sources and turned it into a good article (the sudan section was added later by some editor and I haven't got to check the sources used there). Here are the sources we mostly used:

  • P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (ed.). "Abd". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • Al-Hibri, Azizah Y. (2003). "An Islamic Perspective on Domestic Violence". 27 Fordham International Law Journal 195.
  • Bloom, Jonathan; Blair, Sheila (2002). Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300094221.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Esposito, John (1998). Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195112334. - First Edition 1991; Expanded Edition : 1992.
  • Javed Ahmed Ghamidi (2001). Mizan. Lahore: Al-Mawrid. OCLC: 52901690.
  • Ed.: Holt, P. M ; Lambton, Ann; Lewis, Bernard (1977). The Cambridge History of Islam. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521291372.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Ingrams, W. H. (1967). Zanzibar. UK: Routledge. ISBN 0714611026.
  • Lewis, Bernard (1992). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195053265.
  • Lovejoy, Paul E. (2000). Transformations in Slavery. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521784301.
  • Manning, Patrick (1990). Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521348676.
  • Mendelsohn, Isaac (1949). Slavery in the Ancient Near East. New York: Oxford University Press. OCLC 67564625.
  • Pankhurst, Richard (1997). The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century. The Red Sea Press. ISBN 0932415199.
  • Schimmel, Annemarie (1992). Islam: An Introduction. US: SUNY Press. ISBN 0791413276.
  • Sikainga, Ahmad A. (1996). Slaves Into Workers: Emancipation and Labor in Colonial Sudan. University of Texas Press. ISBN 0292776942.
  • Tucker, Judith E.; Nashat, Guity (1999). Women in the Middle East and North Africa. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253212642.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

See, they (except one or two) are written by famous scholars and published by university presses. So, it is possible to use good sources. We are writing an encyclopedia here. We can not heavily use junk websites, and arbitrary books. A good article in wikipedia should be based on good sources. And we have shown that it is possible. --Aminz 09:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz I need you to give me the sentence that you contest (and the source used by the sentence if that is an issue). That this article refernces articles of perhaps poor quality is not its universally a problem in that the article might say: "Contrary to the claims made by X (ref X bad source), the actualy events are such-and-such (ref Y and Z good sources)". So, I need the sentence and the source. Lostcaesar 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence I contest is "Later, under Islam, Christians were second-class citizens and have at times suffered violent persecution." There was a discussion about usage of the second-class citizenship both on this talk page and on Dhimmi talk page. The result was that instead of that we should use legal and social disabilities. The sentence says:"have at times suffered violent persecution." while bernard lewis says: Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and acknowledging Muslim supremacy. cf Lewis (1984), pp. 10, 20 and that persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical cf Lewis (1984) p. 62. (There is a quote attributed to Muhammad that "One who kills a man under covenant will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise")

But aside these, I need sources from you showing that Muslims persecuted Christians (that is Christian subjects felt persecuted). here is a source writing about Muslim early conquests: My source is John Esposito, professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University and the editor-in-chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and Oxford’s The Islamic World: Past and Present.

In his book "Islam: the straight path" Oxford University Press, p.34 he states that the Islamic conquests was one that

"brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare. Local communities were free to continue to follow their own way of life in internal and domestic affairs. In many ways, local populations found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia, Religious communities were free to practice their faith-to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in areas such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them from military service. They were therefore called the "protected ones" (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy, rule by fellow Semites with closer linguistic and cultural ties than the hellenized, Greco-Roman elites of Byzantium, and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians."

Also, please see my quotes from Lewis. --Aminz 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to overhaul the main article, replacing generalities with specific and technical language. Then, because this section is a brief summary, a gloss would be written up here. On the main page, we could give various perspectives, properly referenced. For example, we could say: "Bat Ye'Or characterized the status of Christians under Islamic rule as that of 'second class citizens'; conversely, John Esposito argued that the status of most Christians was more prosperous under Islamic rule than it had been under the Empire" — or something like that. Similarly, instead of saying "Muslims at times suffered violent persecution" we could say "In year X under the reign of Y Christians living in Z suffered A, B, and C". This latter approach could even be incorporated here, in the gloss, as long as it is done within reason. Likewise, we could replace phrases like "second class citizens", which is anachronistic and a generalized view, with more technical terminology (listing perhaps what additional taxes Christians had to pay just for practicing their faith, what legal disadvantages they had, and so on). But what I advise against is simply replacing one generalized view with another, unless there is an obvious academic consensus. As for your request, I am not in a position to give a proper bibliography concerning Muslim persecution of Christians, though I could provide some fernetic examples of general hostility (I gave a couple above). Personally, I have no interest in comparing Christendom vs. Islamic tolerance of the infidel in their respective lands, nor do I see that as relevant. Lostcaesar 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Aminz' Lewis quotes his demand for sources for persecution (in general) is already satisfied: Lewis himself states that there was persecution. He downplays them but cannot avoid stating they existed. Our article text says nothing more. (And not, persecution is a objective fact, even if we cannot provide evidence for someone "feeling persecuted".)
The 2nd class citizens is problematic and can easily replaced but something else, as long as that other wording is not belittling and condescending ("some disablities, the worst being clothing" for instance).
Comparing persecution scores is not what an encyclopedic article should be about.
One more thing about Esposito: he highlights the initial approval by certain Christians and apparently is silent about the view of other Christians. Monophysites and Orthodox Christians disagreed a bit on that.
Str1977 (smile back) 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Aminz in general

Dear Aminz, I reply to what you wrote above in your reply to LC.

  • I am an academic too and I understand that you want to use proper source. I agree but I think your standard of only using "university press published books written by renowned scholars" both too narrow, as it will lead to stagnation and too endless debates about how renowned renowned is, and also not accepted by Wiki-custom. You might prefer it to be otherwise but this is not how things are. You cannot just unilaterally decide otherwise.
  • I don't think mediation is needed. I am sorry if a tone in my edits is not to your liking but I am afraid that I can say the same about yours. I guess we have both met each other "on the wrong foot". Let me state that I never took you for a Christian-hater and since I have seen your userpage I know what you think about a couple of things (whether these views can be squared with Islam I cannot answer, being not a Muslim). And I appreciate your "unlike the majority" approach.
  • Having said that, what I detect in your edits is not hate for Christians but love for Islam. That wouldn't be bad but in this case IMHO it leads to an overzealous attitude and denial of any possible wrong-doing by Muslims or the need to counter this by the proof that Christians are/were much worse. That is understandable and unfortunately supported by stereotypes and cliches about Christian history, especially the Middle Ages. As I wrote somewhere, all too many writers, even scholars, compare Islamic principles with Christian practice ... and since Christians are sinful human beings too, the practice can only come out the loser. Islam (and other "exotic cultures" like Persia or China) have been used as bats to hit Christianity with, especially in the Enlightenment. Don't fall for that.
  • Also, many things that you added are either questionable opinions (like the one comparing before and and after the Edict of Milan ... I might also ask how long after the Edict?) or details that do not belong here in this article: This article is the head article for all of Christianity, with the History and the persecution sections only a small part (and not the most important I should say). Also, other things are completely irrelevant to the issue: the extent of Roman taxation is not relevant for the situation of Christians under Islam.
  • I cannot see how the text as it currently stands can be controversial. Though you write as if you denied that there ever was any persecution of Christians under Islam ("Muslims never did that") I actually think that you don't believe that. It is also contradicted by your much cherished Mr Lewis. I am open about my critical approach to what he says but my problem is mainly when he draws comparisons to topics outside his field, especially Christendom in the Middle Ages. If I followed his rout I could first write that persecution of Jews (whose legal state certainly is comparable in some ways to that of Dhimmis under Islam) was rare or sporadic. And in the next step I could erradicate these sad events alltogether. But the ugly truth is that both Christians and Muslims violated the legal state of their respective minorities at times. And that is all the text states.
  • In the end, I can absolutely repeat everything LC wrote about collegiality and helping each other. But you to help us in that regard by the same approach.

Regards, Str1977 (smile back) 13:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Str1977, Thanks for your comment. I am on a short wiki-break from this article but will be back soon and explain more about my thoughts. Regards, --Aminz 12:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I have not read any of Bat Ye'or's books, but aren't they published by Fairleigh Dickinson University Press? Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the catalogues of a few university presses, I think being published by a university press is not in itself a good indicator of merit. It looks like they accept manuscripts for publication on about the same basis as other publishers, except some are willing to publish books that would not be profitable for a commercial publisher. Maybe someone who knows more can correct me. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So include it. She's reputable. Arrow740 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a discussion on Bat Ye'or's scholarship [1] --Aminz 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That was a pretty boring discussion. But it seems that if we're including that plant Esposito we should include her. Arrow740 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
She is notable and deserves a place in a larger treatment of these issues. However, this is merely the overview article and the issue merely one setence in a section. Str1977 (smile back) 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

References

This section has recently been observed to need cleanup. I attempted to cleanup the bibliography by using the standardized "cite X" template list. However, I found these templates inadequate. Some examples as to why:

  1. To list an editor, the only option was "coauthors", however if no author was given, then coauthors would not show.
  2. If no publisher were given, then "location" would not show
  3. Some works with titles and subtitles could only have the proper identification if listed as an encyclopedia, since only that gave options for subtitles.

These are just some of the problems I encountered. My conclusion is that there is nothing which the cite X templates offer that cannot simply be entered in otherwise.

What I would like to do is to first reformat the bibliography without the "cite X" templates. Then, I would like to go through the article, through every "ref" tag, and standardize them. The standard method is for each footnote to give the author's name (first – last) and then an abbreviated title. Then, in the Bibliography, the full title and book information is given. What this will allow us to do is to save space with the footnotes, to save multiple access dates for websites, and to follow a standard practice. I would like input from various other contributors, however, before this goes forward. There may be unseen disadvantages to this (for example, if a reader is not familiar with this format, the footnotes might not provide enough information alone). I understand that this is a more boring part of the process, but I think it is important nonetheless. I am willing to do this in time mostly myself (and one editor is probably preferred in such processes of standardization), but I do not want to act unilaterally, in that there needs to be more input. Lostcaesar 09:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the templates are good. They make the refs easier to maintain, and give us a consistent format, and the numbered footnotes are unobtrusive. But, if they won't easily let you do what you need to, that is a problem. We might take an existing template and edit it, customizing it to give us a template that does exactly what we want. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be very good. Personally, I like the templates, and would prefer to use them if they were properly working. I see no reason why there should be different templates at all really. What we need is a master template that can show everything that needs to be shown, and will show what is entered regardless of the other elements. This would be a significant improvement for all articles, really. (I have no desire to change the unobtrusive numbering system, btw.) Lostcaesar 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
PS, do you have info on how to make a custom template? Lostcaesar 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am no guru, but what I have done is start with something that is close to what I want (maybe Template:Cite book, or something else) and copy it to a sub-page of my user page. Edit, and debug by transcluding it as {{User:Tom harrison/cite christianity}}. After it is working well enough, move it to template space. Then the wiki process takes over, and people who know more make improvements. The idea of a master citation template is beyond my skill level. I think what we have is more a collection of building blocks - specialized templates that are combined into what is wanted. I am happy to help, to the extent that I can. Here are a few links:
Tom Harrison Talk 19:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thx Tom, I'll see what I can do, though I am a total novice. Lostcaesar 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I found something that might work after all...Lostcaesar 07:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian spirituality merge?

I took a look at the other article, and it doesn't look good. In fact, it looks like almost compleatly taken from the one non-biblegateway.com site listed at the bottom, which may have disputable reliability. Homestarmy 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the merge, because I ran across it on New Article Patrol and wasn't sure what to do with it, since I'm not an expert on the subject. Should it perhaps be simply blanked and set up as a redirect? --Elonka 19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
We do have what appears to be a short mention of spirituality in the life section, (and it seems to be referenced), a redirect might be fine. Homestarmy 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opionion, but maybe redirect to Christian worship? Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should defiantly not be merged here. All this page could do would be to provide a gloss of the article, giving the latter as a mainpage. At present the article is too poor a quality to warrant a gloss here, but if this is so then how much more so should it not be merged. Lostcaesar 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made it a redirect. A.J.A. 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity in Basic English

Could I ask for some help in shaping the 'Christianity' article on the Simple English Wikipedia? So far that site consists of a list of (so-called) common Christian beliefs that are ill defined and so still in contention - and a potted history of denominational divisions. Based on the experience here I think there are some authors who could greatly improve it. - (Just nigel 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

God's "Omnipotence"?

"Christianity continued from Judaism a belief in the existence of a single omnipotent God who created and sustains the universe." Before making changes to this statement can we discuss the unqualified use of the word 'omnipotent'... I thought God's omnipotence was at least ambiguos or even openly disputed within both Judaism and Christianity. The Biblical wisdom/writings tradition and subsequnet Christian and Jewish theology of theodicy explore this abiguity. For example: Psalm 1 says evil people are blown away like straw and kept away from God's people. Psalm 2 says evil people are kings who rule over God's chosen. Any thoughts? - (Just nigel 03:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

I think it's extremely rare to meet a Christian who doesn't think God is omnipotent. One thing I've learned in Sociology of Religion class is that just about any rule can be broken, and when there are only a few examples of people who disagree with something, it's not worth changing the definition. Otherwise, we will end up with no definition at all, because there really are very few, if any, axioms that a religion holds that at least a few who call themselves adherents won't dissent on. So perhaps the wording could be changed to rather say, "it's almost universal" rather than "universal."
Also, though this isn't the place to hold a theological discussion, I always got the impression that God allows evil to happen (Mat 5:45) not because he's powerless to stop it, but because he's allowed it for the time being. That's what the end-days are for, to put an end to it, when God shows how powerful he is (I could come up with some references in the Bible, as there are many, but I'm short on time tonight). G'night. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are more familiar with the English "Almighty" than the Latin derivative; it must be the most common adj. used to describe God. Lostcaesar 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nigel, I would also agree with Pat and Lost statements. I am unaware of a dispute among the larger Christian community regarding God's omnipotence. There has been much discussion regarding the purpose or need for evil in the world. I would say that opposition (or evil) is used to fulfil God's purposes. From a Latter-day Saint perspective opposition is a required force in this world[2] to accomplish God's will for us. Storm Rider (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree: some Christians may dispute the actual or theoretical extent of God's power, but that he is "omnipotent" (whatever you may take that to mean) is a part of traditional Christian belief. Myopic Bookworm 09:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
God's omnipotent, but He rarely uses this; He is capable of vast shifts of reality, or sudden, flashy displays of power, but He prefers to act in subtler, more indirect ways. --Luigifan 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And, replying to Storm Rider; see Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow. I personally believe that it's poppycrock that a "dark lord" is needed for God to be absolute good, but maybe you should decide for yourself. --Luigifan 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The value of the game is lost on me; I am sorry but the proposed analogy doesn't make sense. God does not need Lucifer to be; however, the fact is that Lucifer does exist. It is our choice to serve; God or mammon. The simple fact that there is a choice presents struggle and trials and produces strength. The fall of Adam put us in a world where progress is made by the sweat of our brow; the rose grew thorns for a purpose. The issue is not whether God is absolute good, the issue is who we will serve. Storm Rider (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If man ought to be able to act out of his free will and to love (the latter depends on the former) evil is necessary at least as possibility. It is our actions that have turned the possibility into a reality, at least as far as human beings are concerned. Lucifer is no Dark Lord, just the creature that first sinned. Str1977 (smile back) 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Storm, that God doesn't need Satan to be omnipotent. God put Satan in his place, and He was just as omnipotent before doing so as He is now. And I agree wtih Str, in that Satan is no Dark Lord. In a game like Castlevania, a Dark Lord has much more power than Satan ever could. The only reason Satan has any power at all is because we've given him that power through our own sin. --Christknight 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
... well, and because he is an angel which are quite powerful beings. Str1977 (smile back) 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's true, too. :) Christknight 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Christknight. Oh, and I should mention that Satan is a former angel. Satan's main power, though, is that he's skilled at decieving and tempting us into turning away from God. Still, God is omnipotent, and he's promised that one day, Satan and his followers will be subjected to torment for all of eternity, and there will be no more evil in the world. --Luigifan 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just an off-topic comment - that'll be a good day. I can't wait for that day to come. --Christknight 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Me, neither. --Luigifan 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see other Christians on Wikipedia. SparrowsWing 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, any theories as to what God is waiting for? Is there some particular reason why He chooses to leave evil in the world, but promises to get rid of it some time in the future? Just wondering... Leeborkman 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that He admires patience. --Luigifan 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Could be that, plus He could be waiting for the Anti-Christ to step up. --Christknight 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, the Anti-Christ has already come... He is none other than... the Pharmacuetical industry. This powerful orginization has taken control of the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress, and it is destroying our freedoms, our health, and our lives, all for the sake of profit. However, let's not forget that there is hope; God has always been in control of human history, and has frequently used people to advance his goals (i. e. the salvation of mankind.) And, now, He's doing it again. God is working through Kevin Trudeau to fight back against this dastardly alliance, and to bring ethics and morals back to the world. That's why I feel that we have to back up Kevin Trudeau as he fights to destroy the villainy running rampant in this country, and ensure true liberty and justice for all!!!! --Luigifan 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess there are a few things higher up on His to-do list. See Time Management for Deities. Leeborkman 00:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I really need to point this out (I thought it was quite apparent), but the Bible says that Satan will come to earth in the form of a man in the end times. It is indeed true that there are alredy many evil things in this world, but that doesn't make them the Anti-Christ (i.e. Hitler). --Christknight 04:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Strom Rider says he is "unaware of a dispute among the larger Christian community regarding God's omnipotence." yet I quoted the Biblical wisdom traditon for him. One pslamist says (to paraphrase) "wonderful - God makes sure everything is in its proper place and the righteous are blessed - the world is a just place" the next says "why do the nations rage and kings rebell and curse God's righteous people? - where is the justice in that?" The book of Job would be another example of a drama exploring a complicated area in a very neaunced way.

Just as we have seen in the posts above, people have often reflected on the apparent mismatch bewteen what we expect as fair and the reality of how people have expereinced God's justice. Such debate is called the theology of theodicy and it is a major area of theological thought in both Christianity and Judaism. Just because Storm Rider may not be aware of it, doesn't make it not so.

BUT I agree that this is not a message board for abstract theological discussion, so if I can address my comments to the article...There are several different adjectives or titles we could place in the sentence opening several unrealted neuances or areas of debate: "Christianity continued from Judaism a belief in the existence of a single all powerful, all knowing, ever present, all loving, judgemental, all wise and fluffy God who created and sustains the universe." OK I was joking about the fluffy thing, but my point is this sentence doesn't need an adjective. It is about God's uniqueness, not God's power. So I have cut it. If someone needs to list 'All mighty' as a common form of address for God under a section on Christian devotion and prayer go for it. (Just nigel 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

References

I like what LostCaesar's doing with the references. There's one thing that I think needs clarification, though. The References section is divided into three parts (keeping with the Caesar theme), Primary sources, Secondary sources, and Popular media, which is good because it helps readability. The problem is I'm not sure it follows any real standard for which source goes where. The primary sources appear to be Church Fathers, ancient historians and Reformation-era Protestant confessions. But the article uses a lot of other things as primary sources (as defined in the reliable sources policy), including Boettner (which is why I had moved him up for a while), the Chicago Statement, a Jehovah's Witness tract, and, you know, the Bible.

I'm not sure what the distinction between secondary and popular is. As a very general rule it seems that the secondary is more scholarly, but there are enough exceptions that if we make that an explicit standard for inclusion (which we probably should) there's going to need to be some cutting and pasting. A.J.A. 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AJ you are exactly right to point this out. The distinction between the three is alway fuzzy. Some sources I was not sure where to place, but I did not want that to stop the cleanup process. There will be a need for cutting and pasting. I am really just trying to make a framework than anything certain. I just saw that there was an advisory posted that the section needed cleanup so I tried to move it forward. I really think we should source even ref in the bibliography. BTW, access date now accepts numerical values in the order ####-##-## year-month-date. Lostcaesar 17:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If I won't be stepping on your toes, I'll reorganize it a little. A.J.A. 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Np, though you may wish to wait until I run through the article, but if you want to start now that is fine.Lostcaesar 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup complete, tags removed. Lostcaesar 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

Throughout the article, Christianity is called a religion, but it's really not. Has anyone ever heard a pastor say that Christianity isn't a religion becuase religion means "to bind to"? It's really not that big a deal, since the whole world calls it a religion anyway, but does anyone have any thoughts? --Christknight 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1 Timothy 5:4, James 1:26. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The etymology of religion (latin religio) is somewhat disputed, but re + ligare is probable, which does mean to re-bind-to. That said, why wouldn't this be apt for describing Christianity? The Latin Christians had no problem calling it a religio. Lostcaesar 22:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
James 1:26-27 in the KJV is an even stronger statement taken jointly. These types of word games are often fruitless and mere curiosities. Our religion is Christ Jesus who died for our sins and rose again that we might live and be forgiven of our sins. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just brought it up because I've been told in the past that Christianity is the relationship we have with Jesus Christ, rather than a religion. --Christknight 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Every once in a while, someone comes along and drops his share of Karl Barth on this article, stating that Christianity is not a religion. The thing about the relationship is not wrong, though the wording is rather modern, but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a religion. And Barth actually had something else in mind, as he distinguished between religion - not only in other religions but also in Christianity - and faith, with the latter being the essential thing. Str1977 (smile back) 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Dropping Barth" would be a good band name. A.J.A. 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have we kept a bit of "Barth" in the article? Just as it has been important to point out people's rejection of the "denominations" name tags we could have two sentences saying something like - "Some Christians focussing on perscriptive or institutional characteristics of "relligion", prefer to describe Christianity in terms of a spirituality or relationship with God through Jesus. An example of this is 20th Century Protestant theologian is Karl Barth who said "quote" ref" (Just nigel 06:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

No, since this would be undue weight to a very questionable categorisation that is based on a misreading of Barth in the first place. Str1977 (smile back) 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Resurection as an event beyond History

The section on beliefs says "Most Christians consider the death and resurrection of Jesus the most important events in history." While not doubting how important most Christians think Jesus' resurrection is, many would not consider it an event of "history". Sure some Evangelical-Protestant Chrsitians emphasis the historicity of the resurection and try to prove it in historic terms (eg Josh McDowell). Others consider it an event of "escatology" or beyond history. They say its uniquness as an event without historical parallel and its role as something that is eternal puts it beyond the category of "history". They may go on to argue that is is best known - not through historical eveidence - but through an experience of perceiveing Jesus to be alive. (eg Marianne Sawicki) The Anglican Bishop Peter Carnley has written a book The Structure of Resurection Belief that outlines several different ways Christians frame the resurection including as "historical event", "eschatological event", "nonevent", "presence" and "memory". (Just nigel 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Nigel, I think you are hitting on the narrow views of liberal Christians. The belief in the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ is believed by far more Christians than just Evangelicals. The Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox, most Protestants, even those groups that are viewed as heretical such as the Latter-day Saints stand firm in teh belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose bodily the third day. This belief is held by the vast majority and not a major dispute to which you allude.
If you think that we have not allowed for a presence of this minority view, propose some language or be bold and edit the article. Storm Rider (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The resurrection is the very center of Christiainity. See my comments above about not taking in very minority views because nothing would be left to the religion -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is beleiving in what the Bible says, and it says He resurrected on the third day after His death; the Bible is the ultimate history book. Also, sometime in Jesus's life (I don't know when for sure) was when our history went from B.C. to A.D., meaning it really happened about 2000 years ago. It seems very historical to me. --Christknight 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's important to note that the Gospels weren't written as history: they were written essentially to make a point about Jesus' life and teachings. I think there's more common ground here than what people realise. It's true that there are Christians - particularly scholars - who see the event of the resurrection as beyond history, but this in itself doesn't mean that they're necessarily asserting it didn't happen as a historical event. It rather means that it can't be properly and fully detailed from a solely historical perspective, because history is about making comparisons between different events and the resurrection, almost by definition, is a unique event that defies scholarly evaluation. I would also note that overwhelmingly over the history of Christianity the clearly dominant view has been that the resurrection was a historical event, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in particular have always taught this (NPOV is time-sensitive as well). Slac speak up! 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

On the third day?

The section on beliefs says "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion". This is disputed even among the Gospels. See this quote from the Jesus page:

The exact date of Jesus' death is also unclear. Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.[8] Further, the Jews followed a lunisolar calendar with phases of the moon as dates, complicating calculations of any exact date in a solar calendar. According to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, allowing for the time of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate and the dates of the Passover in those years, his death can be placed most probably on April 7, 30 AD/CE or April 3, 33 AD/CE.[9]

What is clear is the gospels use the phrase "third day" - but what they meant by it may not be so clear. It had precedents in the Hebrew Scriptures of refering to a day of Rising/Salvation/Vindication (eg Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days). Instead of being a phrase refering to a 'day' in the sense of a chornologically, it could be refering to a 'day' in the sense of the rightness and significance of that day. (Just nigel 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

I guess I am at a loss; what are you proposing for the article? I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Many, if not most, of the editors of this article are studied Christians. They are not ignorant of theological debate or the diverse opinions that exist within Christianty. I may be more obtuse than my fellow editors, but please more clear about your objective. Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have long thought that too many articles here play up this supposed difference as if no reasonable reconciliation has been put forward. Seeing a contradiction here is based on a certain kind of interpretation - a secular exegesis if you will. Lostcaesar 07:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The date of the resurrection in relation to the crucifixion is undisputed and unanimously given by the Gospels. Crucifixion on Friday, Resurrection on Sunday (using our terms), or, in other words, on the third day, since the starting day is included in counts in antiquity. The only arguable uncertainty is the relation of the day of crucifixion to the feast of Passover. Maybe the "third day after his crucifixion" is problematic and simply "third day" or "third day since his crucifixion" would be better. Str1977 (smile back) 09:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Does a day start at sunset or midnight? (Just nigel 05:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

According to Jewish reckoning a day starts at sunset, according to others at sunrise. Nothing ever starts at midnight. Str1977 (smile back) 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Before the invention of reliable mechanical clocks, that is. Myopic Bookworm 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmh, Bookworm, I meant what I said: nothing ever happens at midnight. This is why this time was chosen to mark the switch from one date to another. No one will notice. It is modern folly to invest this with any significance, whether it be army units assemble at night to switch a flag, people counting down on New Year's Eve or opening book stores to sell the newest Harry Potter. Just my personal opinion. Str1977 (smile back) 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the quote I posted from the Jesus page I think it has an error within it I will change there. It should say: ..."The Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Thursday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan..." Does that make it clearer for people? Matthew and Luke's narratives kill Jesus on Friday. John's kills Jesus on Thursdays which traditionally was the day the Passover Lamb was slaughtered. Meanwhile the resurrection is never depicted within the Gospels. They only ever describe people's reactions after the event! (Just nigel 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

News since Oct 10

Ever since this edit on October 10 wikipedia has again claimed as fact that Jesus rose from the dead. An event like going to Jerusalem for the Passover gets prefaced by "according to the Gospels" but disputed events like a resurrection & trial by the Sanhedrin are stated as bald fact --JimWae 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, if you feel that additional reminders that Jesus and his spiritual history are issues of faith should be made to readers, please edit the article to include further statements. When I read articles that are based on issues of faith, I actually don't enjoy repeated statements that the topic is only as believed by adherents. My purpose in reading such articles is to understand the topic from the position of who believes it. I want to understand what they believe. Maybe I have too high of expectation that readers really are capable of remembering that the topic is one of faith. However, I also undertand that sometimes editors are highly committed to repeated warnings. I think the best standard is not to measure a single sentence against NPOV, but rather measure the article as a whole against NPOV standards. We both want the same thing, but I recommend evaluating the article and not a individual sentences. Storm Rider (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article review

As per the Good Article review on this page, this article has been relisted as a GA, primarily due to lack of confidence in the motivations of the delister. Dispute archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7 Homestarmy 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_33&oldid=952159447"