Talk:Christianity/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

RfC: Most Christians believe

Whether it is acceptable to use the phrase "Most Christians believe" based on knowledge of the theological position of churches, or whether this phrase should only be used when this is more direct evidence of Christians' beliefs

I've been looking around to see whether WP policy has anything to say on this question; WP:BURDEN is worth a read as it seems (to my eyes) to support the view that direct evidence of Christians' beliefs are required. I may be misreading it though - can I suggest other editors take a look and give a view here on whether it's relevant / which view it supports. SP-KP (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The following, from Wikipedia:Controversial articles, a guideline, not a policy, may also be helpful (thanks to User:Rrand for drawing our attention to this):

"When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be inadequate to force editors to provide a reliable source for every claim.

However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented."

SP-KP (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. WP policy of verifiability & NOR forbids any sort of interpretation of sources. Therefore statements that most Christians believe something must be based on RSs that say just that.
2. In other cases you might say all major churches believe, if that's what the source says.
3. If a source says most major churches, such statements should probably be excluded for lack of clarity. It means something totally different depending on whether the Roman Catholic Church is included.
4. You might use phrases like mainstream or traditional, but only with care to ensure they're not liable to be misinterpreted, & only if the sources use them.
5. WP:NPOV does allow tiny minorities to be ignored, but doesn't say how tiny.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:V does not call for restricting ourselves at merely quoting sources. It is us who write this article, us putting the information together.
• Sources, if otherwise reliable, should not be excluded. And I can't think of a case where it is not clear whether the source includes the RCC.
• This article is about Christianity in general. We explain Christian beliefs in general. Hence we cannot mention all minorities. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be so many possiblities out there that we need to go on a case by case basis, to a degree.

So on the "particular judgement" issue it would seem best (assuming that the sources support such statements) to say "X, Y, and Z churches hold this view" and "I, J, and K churches hold that view," with the implication being that other major churches do not teach any one set view (or such information is unknown, at least to Wikipedia). Some cases (or all cases) could be explained in a footnote(s).--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From the RfC to agree with all Carlaude has written. In this case, it poses no problem to say which churches or denominations believe what. nut "Most christian's believe..." would be fine if ALL major denominations had the same doctrine for a specific point. Within Churches that allow theological debate, this seems very rare, even within a denomination, so the former method is better.Yobmod (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"WP:V does not call for restricting ourselves at merely quoting sources. It is us who write this article, us putting the information together". Wrong. That's exactly what WP:V does say. "us putting the information together" is original research, which is banned.

The article should cover all important aspects of the subject, whether they're accepted by virtually the whole of mainstrean Christianity or only a large part of it. The degree of importance is just reduced a bit, that's all. Peter jackson (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not quite. Consider that the original poster of that quote may not have meant [publishing] unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Those are OR, but without those it still could have meant writing the article using the information from the sources but in a way which are not simply a copy of the sources themselves. This is accomplished by writing the article, and is successfully done all the time without encroaching on WP:SYNTH. So the poster's argument, unless clarified to explicitly contradict what I have just outlined, shuold be agreed to. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability requires citation to support the statement in the article. The footnote shouldn't be a long argument to prove the statement. It should be a single source that says what the article says. It's sometimes necessary to give secondary sources to clarify the meaning of terms used in the source, but I don't think you can go beyond that. Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

State religion

Just a clarification. Catholicism is the main religion of México, but it is not the state religion since 1859, when the "Leyes de reforma" separate the chuch from the state. From 1930 to 1986, more stringent laws were enforced: catholics priest were not allowed to vote, the use of religious clothing was forbiten outside the cult places, and Religious organizations were not allowed to have properties, and public education must no include religion. Today, while most of the populations consider themselves catholics, also a big segment of the population aproves measures like contraceptives, use of condom and abortion. Nanahuatzin (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise an interesting topic, which this article does not cover, but which is VITAL for the understanding of Christianity: The relation of Christianity to the state (Church and State) and its implications! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it shouldn't be there. The thing is, there is a discriminatory view against Mexicans from the south of the US by some parts of the population, and naturally they would be stupid enough to label it as a Catholic country. Tourskin (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the general historical influence of the State (emperors, kings,as defenders of the faith, head of the Church, revolutions etc) on the Churches (ecumenical councils, appointments of bishops and popes,Protestant State Churches in Germany and elsewhere, political domination of Catholic missionary activities by Spain and Portugal etc closeness of Orthodoxy with Zsarist Russia) Of the twenty-one ecumenical councils only the last one (Vatican II) was free of any interference by the State. Most others were either called or greatly influenced by State authorities. The historical shape of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) is partly the result of State interventions. we tend to see it too often exclusively as a history of theology. This article overlooks this aspect.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: Mexico isn't even mentioned in the article and neither should it be, as we cannot cover each and every country.

The things raised by Ambrosius are interesting but seem more relevant to the individual countries' history. However, general themes can be included in our history section here. But all must verifiable and NPOV. Terms like "separation of church and state" can be tricky (just look what was mentioned above - some acts were not separation but persecution/oppression). Str1977 ^(talk) 17:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a section mentioning countries where Catholicism is the state religion, which it seems it was removed completelly. I do not know if today is there still a country that declares Catholicism as the state religion (as it was in Mexico during the Colony and after the Independence). The relation between state and religion is tricky, in Mexico there was a war in 1926 - 1929 between the state and the catholic church. Nanahuatzin (talk)

Now I have found the passage you are referring to (sans Mexico). I think it is problematic, as the information is partly false. Hence I move it here:

"It is the state religion of at least fifteen countries."

"Christianity, in one form or another, is the sole state religion of the following nations: Argentina (Roman Catholic), Bolivia (Roman Catholic), Costa Rica (Roman Catholic),Russia (Orthodox), Cyprus (Orthodox), Denmark (Lutheran), El Salvador (Roman Catholic), England (Anglican), Finland (Lutheran & Orthodox), Greece (Greek Orthodox), Iceland (Lutheran), Liechtenstein (Roman Catholic), Malta (Roman Catholic), Monaco (Roman Catholic), Norway (Lutheran), Scotland (Presbyterian), Switzerland (Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, or Protestant - denomination varies per canton) and Vatican City (Roman Catholic)."

The problems are:

• "at least 15 countries" - is a fuzzy way of expressing things. We should state the precise figure - and 15 happens to be inaccurate, as below I gather 11.
• Argentina (Roman Catholic) - the WP article says that RC is not the state relgion, merely supported by the state.
• Bolivia (Roman Catholic) - seems correct
• Costa Rica (Roman Catholic) - seems correct
• Russia (Orthodox) - despites moves in that direction, there is no state religion in Russia
• Cyprus (Orthodox) - unsupported by the ref
• Denmark (Lutheran) - correct
• El Salvador (Roman Catholic) - contradicted by the ref
• England (Anglican) - correct
• Finland (Lutheran & Orthodox) - unsupported by the ref
• Greece (Greek Orthodox) - correct
• Iceland (Lutheran) - correct
• Liechtenstein (Roman Catholic) - correct
• Malta (Roman Catholic) - correct
• Monaco (Roman Catholic) - correct
• Norway (Lutheran) - correct
• Scotland (Presbyterian) - correct
• Switzerland (Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, or Protestant - denomination varies per canton) - the Swiss system is complicated and certainly detrimental to the freedom of all religions involved but I don't think that it can be described as making Christianity state religion.
• Vatican City (Roman Catholic) - inclusion is nonsensical

I also question the placement of this information under "figures". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Str, the reason this topic was added into the article was that there was a concern that in previous revisions, the article, and the lead in particular, didn't really give a good impression of why Christianity is notable. The current version of the lead only gives one direct piece of evidence of Christianity's notability - the proportion of the world's population who subscribe to it. There are surely lots more examples of Christianity's notability (I suggested a few in a previous talk page discussion). The fact that it's the state religion of at least 11 countries would be a good item to add, from this perspective, wouldn't it? The placement of the details in the figures section is as you suggest probably not ideal - it was placed there following a request for sources, and because it was felt to be too great a level of detail for the lead. If we can find a suitable location for the data, how about we include those 11 which are supported by the refs? SP-KP (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you include a section of the countries that still are christian, should also mention that originally it was the only religion allowed (tolerate?) in some countries, but most countries have moved in to the direction of the separation of religion and state. Even Bolivia, in which the constitution declares RC is the oficial religion, it also forbids to any relgious magistrates to become president or vicepresident. Nanahuatzin (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Originally" is too fuzzy a term to apply here. And what are "relgous magistrates"? I see what your posting implies and think we don't need such insinuations. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no - the fact that Christianity is the state religion in 11 countries (and not at least 11 find one if there are more or don't but don't artificially inflate the numbers) doesn't make Christianity any more notable than it already is. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's agree to differ on that specific point. Instead, can you tell me what you would like to see the lead give as Christianity's reasons for notability? SP-KP (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there already enough in there? Being the world's largest religion should do the trick IMVHO. :::That Christianity is the state religion in some states, most of which are either traditionally Protestant countries with a state church that however has little actual influence or traditionally Catholic ministates (Greece and Bolivia are the only ones standing out), does not seem to make it notable.

We of course can mention the few countries in the article, but better not in the figures section. I don't think it is needed in the lead. But if it is put there it would be for reasons of summarizing the article content, not because it gives Christianity notability. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Where I'm coming from here is that in WP:LEAD, there's some guidance which, in a nutshell, says "make sure that the lead mentions the main reasons why this is a notable subject"; being a state religion in one or more country clearly establishes notability for a subject in the absence of anything else - but I can see your point that, compared to the other reasons why Christianity is notable, its status as a state religion isn't a big enough deal to warrant mention in the lead (otherwise we'd have to mention a dozen-plus other reasons for notability). I'm not convinced, however, that this argument applies to all of Christianity's notability grounds except for the one relating to its subscriber-base - which is what you appear to be saying - have I understood you correctly? SP-KP (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning it somewhere, but not in lead or figures - that's OK - I'm fine with that - I'll try to find somewhere suitable and run it past you. SP-KP (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lead says that but as I said before I don't think that Christianity's notability today does not stem from being the state religion of a dozen countries, most of which are either ministates or states in which that status is still a meaningless relic. And yes, in comparison to other reasons, it pales into oblivion.

Good that we agree about the placement. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll start a new section on the topic of which grounds for notability should be mentioned in the lead, so that we can close this section off and archive it as resolved (once we've agreed where the state religion stuff should go). SP-KP (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest as a temporary solution to place it where it was, but as a separate section (but of course, minus the mistakes contained in the previous version). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What's a country? England & Scotland are parts of the UK, just as the Swiss cantons are parts of Switzerland. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

England and Scotland are separate countries. As noted above, the Swiss cantons do not really belong into the category of state religions. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In what sense separate countries, & what's the basis for using that sense rather than another? Peter jackson (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Grounds for notability

Str1977 and I have been discussing the question of what the lead should say regarding Christianity's grounds for notability; we agree that the Lead should mention some, as per WP:LEAD, that the one that's currently mentioned (Christianity's subscriber-base) is clearly a very important one, and that the fact that it's currently the state religion of N countries is somewhere a long way down the list and is probably best mentioned elsewhere in the article, rather than in the lead. I felt it would be useful to open this discussion up as other editors may not have noticed it. What other grounds for notability should be mentioned in the Lead - ideas please? SP-KP (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should focus on what's significant and, among those aspects of Christianity that are significant, what's least controversial (we don't the lead section to become a battle ground in the war over what is "real" Christianity). I'd include the fact that Christianity is the state religion of N countries; this is the sort of information I'd most likely want to know about a religion I need to learn about, and it shouldn't be especially controversial (provided we get the value of N right). I'd also put emphasis on the importance of Jesus' teachings to Christianity. SgtSchumann (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

state religion is a difficult term. Many countries have "registered churches". In this sense, Asatru is a "state religion" of Norway. The ways in which states handle the recognition of religious communities is too divergent for a statement "state religion in N countries" to be meaningful. Except for the Vatican, there are no Christian theocracies today. This isn't what makes Christianity notable. If anything, the point is that Medieval Christendom is at the core of Western civilization, even though there aren't any Christian theocracies left today. The transformation of Medieval Christendom to the modern western secular states that by 1850 dominated the world was a long and bloody process known as the Early Modern period. Christianity (especially the Reformation) was a big factor in this, but it is difficult to decide if Christianity did more to hinder or to further the European miracle. Very difficult. It appears that Christianity somehow managed to help usher in secular modernity in spite of itself. All that can be said with certainty is that Christendom was a barbarian backwater compared to the Golden age of Islam in AD 1100, and had become the beacon of civilization by AD 1700. Christianity must have been the catalyst in this, but it somehow was consumed in the process, and has only been a shadow of its former self for the last 200 years. The Muslim world has looked at this transformation in astonishment, at the same time despising the West for losing its religion, and envying it for trading its religion for Modernity and world domination. --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're conflating theocracies, state religions, and registered religions. Asatru may be a registered religion in Norway, but only Lutheran church is the state religion of the nation. This is why the Lutheran church in Norway is called the Church of Norway. Similarly, is it really controversial to say that Anglicanism is the state religion of England? If we had to choose between noting that Christianity had a profound influence on Western civilization and that many European nations currently have a Christian denomination as their state religions, I'd note the former. However, I don't see why we can't argue both, especially since the latter supports the former. What you say about Christianity in contrast to Islam is interesting, but I don't think it's appropriate for the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The lede once stated (ref tagged no-wiki'd for visibility):

The importance of Christianity is not only due to its large number of adherents, but also because of its had a strong influence on the development of Western culture and its a concomitant part in the shaping of history over the last two millennia.<ref>McGrath, Alister E. ''Christianity:An Introduction''. Pg xvi. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1405108991.</ref>

I think that the influence over Western culture cannot be overemphasized as a central part of Christianity's notability. Vassyana (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

true, but I dislike the "not only, but also" phrasing. It also sounds silly to talk of the "notability" of a topic of such overwhelming importance. Christianity (and also Islam, World history, the Earth, Homo sapiens, etc., I am not being Christo-centric here) is not "notable", it is an absolute core topic. This can be cast in synchronic terms, "the largest world religion today", or in diachronic terms, at the core of the history of Western civilization. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased. How's that? Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to remember that the purpose of the lead is not only to establish notability. Talking about the membership is clearly enough to do that. The lead should give an overview of the most significant points about Christainity, whether or not they are relevant to its 'notability'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the point about "strong influence on the development".

As for state religion, not only is it hard to define (hence the many errors in the old version), it doesn't make Christianity notable. Furthermore, the area where Christianity is state religion is also not notable, as repeatedly explained above. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

yes. It is much more significant to talk about the area where Christianity is the predominant religion. This gives us Europe, Americas, Oceania plus much of Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Southeast Asia (notably the Philippines). Discussing "state religion" is a red herring. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RCC section

I have attempted to improve the section under "denominations" for the Roman Catholic Church using highly referenced material that many editors of various faiths have reached consensus on over at the Roman Catholic Church page. My efforts to improve the section may be viewed here [1]. During my efforts to improve the section, Carlaude eliminated many referenced facts, facts referenced to University presses and notable historians and scholars. He inserted wording not found in the references or eliminated the information. Please see these edits here [2] [3] [4] In order to finish my efforts to improve the section, I had to go back and reconstruct the section several times. I am not going to edit war anyone on this page. I have offered a decent and referenced section to improve the formerly non-referenced Roman Catholic Church section. I would like to have helped improve this page. NancyHeise ^talk 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, you are eliminating referenced facts from this page. Please explain to me why? They are university press and top scholarly works and you are providing no information to back up your edits. NancyHeise talk 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me which and I will repond.

All edits so far have been on merit, but soon I will cut for size, as this section on RCC is longer than it needs to be.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude keeps deleting referenced information, info refd to univ presses. If you want to trim or reword, please let me finish and come to talk page, stop edit warring me

I am not edit warring you, I making good correcting edits. -- If you object then tell me which ones and why. How do know you are not finished?

Carlaude, these are your edits eliminating highly referenced facts or inserting wording not in the references [5] [6] [7] Please do not continue to eliminate referenced facts, that is considered vandalism. You need to discuss why we need to eliminate and build consensus, not just eliminate before someone is even finished trying to improve a page and do so without any reason or reference to back up the changes. NancyHeise ^talk 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Eliminating referenced facts is not that is vandalism if they edits are done in good faith-- and in many cases eilinating things makes pages better-- which these edits do IMHO.

No, you need to build consensus if you want these thing in that you have bee adding. You may even get my adgreement without group consensus if you just talk to me instead just tell me I am just wrong.

Again, what edits are you talking about?--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, these are your edits that I am not OK with. [8] [9] [10] One of your edits here eliminates a reference considered by Wikipedia to be a top source and you replaced it with a fact tag. What I have done is to offer the Christianity page a section on the RCC that is referenced to replace the previously unreferenced and remarkably uninformative section it had before. How is any reader coming to the page going to know that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest and largest Christian Church - kind of an important fact - if you eliminate it? I am only trying to put useful referenced facts on the page to help an interested reader get an informative picture about the Christian religion. I don't think that previous RCC section did anything to inform the reader. NancyHeise ^talk 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The mention that the Catholic Church is the world's oldest and largest instituion, a sentence referenced to a University Press, was eliminated by Carlaude as well as other eliminations that I do not agree with. I have offered the editors of this page a referenced and factually accurate Roman Catholic Church section. I am not going to edit war Carlaude. I do not support his deletions of my referenced new content without any discussion on this or input from other editors who have not even seen my additions. Any of the regular editors of this page who want to view all of my additions may do so here [11] I fixed the broken references later on this edit [12] but I cant use that page because the info had already been altered by Carlaude by the time I added them to the bibliographyNancyHeise ^talk 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the new information (though we have to keep in mind that this article is about Christianity in general, not just the Catholic Church) but I do have a problem when a sensible order of presentation is repeatedly violated. It is sensible that we first define the Catholic Church before we give accidental information about her size and her age. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

oldest is not supportable

Since the passage is currently removed, I place it on top, so that everyone sees what we are talking about:

With a nearly two thousand year history, the Church is the world's oldest and largest institution. < ref >O'Collins, Gerald (2003). Catholicism: The Story of Catholic Christianity. Oxford University Press. 019925995X. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)< / ref >

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that the RCC section is more informative, but it has to be informative and not misinformative.

The church in 4th to 11th century is whole Church orthodox and catholic not Roman Catholic Church

The statement of the Roman Catholic Church being largest is already made in the 1st paragraph.

The statement of the Roman Catholic Church being the oldest is not supportable. You can claim that Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Othodox are the same age, or that the Eastern Othodox is older, but you cannot claim the that Roman Catholic Church is the oldest.

It is also not 2000 years old,it is nearly 2000.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the Catholic Church is the oldest is a fact. But you have a point: we would have to write the same for the Eastern Orthodox Church, at least the Greek one.

A sentence like "You can claim that Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Othodox are the same age, or that the Eastern Othodox is older, but you cannot claim the that Roman Catholic Church is the oldest." is nonsense and portrays a serious case of mistaking bias for fact. You can just as easily say the RCC is the oldest as you can say the Eastern Orthodox Church (which however is not a single, united body9 is oldest, as both are of the same age. To disallow the former but allow the second is ridiculous. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, since you are not providing any references to back up your positions here, I will just show you my references to back up my information - that you have deleted without providing reference - please see the following analysis of what you have deleted:

"With a two thousand year history, the Church is the world's oldest and largest institution." This sentence is referenced to Gerald O'Collins and Mario Farrugia's book "The Story of Catholic Christianity" published by Oxford University Press (2003) - here's the link to actual quote [13]

" From at least the 4th century, it has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." This sentence is referenced to scholarly work Jose Orlandis (1993). A Short History of the Catholic Church. Scepter Publishers. ISBN 1851821252.

"In the 11th century, the Eastern, Orthodox Church and the Western, Catholic Church split, largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy." This is referenced to Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (1997), Yale University Press p. 91

You have eliminated these without providing any reference to back up your deletions and without providing for any other editor to comment on my additions. If you have a reference that says the Eastern Orthodox Church is older then please provide it here. My University press source supports the content I added. BTW the Roman Catholic Church consideres the Eastern Orthodox to be a true church of apostolic origins like itself and has been trying to reunite for centuries. I am not adding information to put anyone else down, I am adding information that is referenced to top sources. Perhaps Eastern Orthodox considers themselves to be something that is not supported by historians. NancyHeise ^talk 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this and trying not to butt in, cuz it seems a bit complicated, maybe if we took one point at a time, it would be easier for others to get in the crossfire...But from this last post, Nancy's contributions seem reasonable and I fail to see why they have been removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is my reference: any book on church history in the world that is not writen from a RCC POV. You yourself give the quote, "In the 11th century, the Eastern, Orthodox Church and the Western, Catholic Church split" They were the same church until then.

By the way-- if you thing that the exact quotes are important and are therefore using exact quotes, you need to use quotaion marks around them in the artical itself, so that others see that this is not your own wording--Carlaude ^(talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Any book" is not a reference. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If any church has a claim of being "the oldest", it would probably be the Armenian Church (established AD 301). Of course, the Christian pov is that there is "the Church", established by JC himself. dab (𒁳) 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dab, you're mixing up the oldest established christian country with Church. The Assyrian Church of the East was established long before the Armenian Church - only makes sense considering the geographic proximity and the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic. But, before I give you an opportunity to attack my "nationalistic" claims, I shall just restate that the Armenian Church was not established in 301 AD, it was accepted as the official Religion in 301 AD! Moving on, this is not about "The Church". This is about which Christian organization is the oldest.

We can use references to cite who founded what - or logic. Ultimately at the beginning all Churches were one, and claimed to be "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church". Since all Christians looked to Peter as the head of the single existing Christian Church at the time, then all were nominally Roman Catholic. Therefore, by logical induction, the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest organization. Let me present my logic to you all:

• At the beginning, all were one single Christian organization. Much like how Dab called it "The Church". There were no splits in 1st century AD.
• All looked to the disciples as the highest authority in Christianity.
• Of all the disciples, Peter was the most prominent, the de facto leader - "Thou art a Rock..." and therefore acknowledged, at least nominally, that Peter was the highest authority in the Church at the time.
• Therefore all Christians were Catholics (by looking to Rome for spiritual authority)
• Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the first in existence, because the first established Christians were Catholics.

Overtime, the Eastern Orthodox Church separated itself from the Roman Church, a separation that was exasperated by the Eastern Roman Emperor's desire to control the Church for political reasons at the cost of the Latin's Church's power. I refute the Eastern Orthodox Claim because by showing disobedience to the successors of Peter, they are distancing themselves from Peter more so than the Roman Catholic Church. That is why I am able to confidently label early Christians as Catholics rather than as Orthodox, even though all were one at the time. Tourskin (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You have several faults in your logic here, mostly by assuming the RCC POV you are trying to show-- most of all that that Peter, the de facto leader, was in some way Pope as it taught today e.g. "has final authority.." (contra Acts 15) and that this carried on even after Peter died and others of the 12 were alive-- like John in Asia minor.

Your logic also fails here: All these things would apply just as much Antioch, since Peter is considered the first Bishop of Antioch -- exept that Antioch was befor Rome! This would mean, by your logic, all Christians were Orthodox and therefore, the Eastern Orthodox is the first in existence, because the first established Christians were Orthodox, and that overtime, the Roman Church separated itself from the Eastern Orthodox Church. --Carlaude ^(talk) 00:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter's mission was to be Bishop of Rome. He may have been the first Bishop of Antioch, but he is known and remembered and identified as Bishop of Rome. It is not unreasonable to say that Peter had great authority in the Christian world. I said that nominally he had the highest authority. This is undeniable - all Christians understand that Peter the Apostle was made Jesus' Christ's successor to spread the message. Whether or not that means Peter is the Pope is my weakest point. So let me defend it then. Now then, what is the first Church you say? Antioch? Whatever it does not matter.

• Peter established the first Church (doesn't matter were)
• Peter is to be identified more with Rome than any other Church.
• Therefore, Rome established the first Church.

By Rome I mean the entity that would become the Catholic Church. My "Catholic POV" is based on the fact that Peter is more identified with the Roman Church than the Eastern Churches, who have Andrew as the patriarch for Constantinople and hence the Orthodox Church. The fact is that Peter's calling was to Rome, so he was a Roman Catholic and therefore any Churches he founded where founded in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. Tourskin (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter is identified more with Rome-- if you grew up in Western culture-- but not if you grew up in the east, say in Antioch.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me where in Acts 15 it I am contradicted. If the Bible contradicts me, I shall change my views. Else I shall show you the true interpretation. Tourskin (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, these discussions go nowhere. The whereabouts of Peter are simply not an issue but if you want to know: Peter died in Rome and because of that the bishops of Rome ever have been the successors of Peter (Christ, BTW, has no successor). The bishop of Antioch never had that status (and, Carlaude, the bishop of Antioch doesn't equal the Greek Orthodox Church). Furthermore, Andrew never was "Patriarch" or even bishop of Constantinople or Byzantium. His relics were later transferred in direct imitation to the Roman church. (And it is both nonsense to say Peter established the church or Rome established the church.) But these discussion add nothing to the original question, is it accurate to call the (Roman) Catholic Church the oldest institution. What you are totally missing is that this is not a "first Christian group" competition (that honour certainly goes to Jerusalem that was however destroyed in the year 135) but about the oldest institution among those existing now. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree will basically everything Str1977 says here just above.

My point was not that Antioch, Ephesus, or Constantinople was the real first church instead of the one that Tourskin proposes-- only that his logic is faulty to make the Rome the true or first church.

The real oldest "organization" will depend on what is considered an "organization."

1. If each see/bishopdom is it’s own organization, then the oldest one would be (IMHO) some unknown and unrecorded church in the east-- in Syria or maybe Egypt I would expect. It would also depend on how you handle a bishop/see moving to a new city when that happens, etc.

2. If, however, the sees and bishops early on were all part of one big "organization" (as I would think myself) then the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are equally old. If any other branches are also as old-- I do not know. (I am sure we can word the text to not say either way on this 2nd question, if need be.)--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You say only want to expose "faulty" logic, but then you go and again use an even more faulty logic:

1. If each bishopric is meant, this will not result in something in Syria or Egypt. Rome was among the earliest churches and in contrast to others has survived (while the unknown see in Syria or Egypt is probably long gone) - and if you are looking for those sees that have not survived, take Jerusalem - it is the oldest among them.)

2. is correct only if you are talking about a loosely-knit communion. If institution means an actual organisation, the Eastern Orthodox is not one at all. Even with the Greek Orthodox Church it is a bit difficult, whether it is a one organisation. Str1977 ^(talk)

1. Rome was founded sometime after 61 AD (Acts 28) if you consider it to be based on Peter, and many many churches in the East exsisted by then, most of which would or could exsist until today. (If a given church in Syria or Egypt ended, then it is not the oldest and is not the subject of our consideration.) We just do know know which is oldest (as far as I know.) I expect both Antioch & Ephesus would be one of them, but another could be older still. Even if we say that Rome is the oldest bishopric that can name all its bishops, this would not make it the oldest bishopric, just the one with the best records.

2. Your compliant that Eastern Orthodox Church is not one institution is a bit silly. It is like saying there is no forest, but only a bunch of individual trees.

I will also point out the the issue would not be the unity of the Eastern Orthodox bishoprics but the unity of the Great Church bishoprics, the bishopric before the Latin and Greek church split-- no matter when you think that is.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you still beating that dead horse?

1. The church of Rome existed even before Paul wrote to them (Letter to the Romans, mid-fifties - quoting Acts 28 is nonsense). Peter is linked to Rome because he died there, not because he founded the church of Rome. And anyway, we are not talking about the Roman church but about the Catholic Church or about the Papacy. I agree that the passage is not very clear.

2. Thanks that you think me "compliant". But in reality, a Eastern Orthodox Church does not exist. There exists a Greek Orthodox Church, a Bulgarian Orthodox Church, a Serbian Orthodox Church etc. etc.

The Latin-Greek split was a synchron split (east - west), not a diachron (before - after) split. But many churches do have gaps in their history. Jerusalem, without a doubt the first church, was destroyed 135 and for almost 200 there was no Jerusalem. Antioch was evacuated several times. Constantinople was founded in the 4th century and has absolutely no apostolicity in a historical sense. And Alexandria had trouble in the 1st/2nd century and since the 5th century is disputed between Copts and Greeks. Now, when you look at Rome you do not have those problems.

However, I agree with the removal of the passage for completely different reasons, not because my sensibilities cannot stomach the age of Rome. The passage is unclear whether it refers to the Roman church, the (Roman) Catholic Church) or the Papacy. And I don't think that this age issue is really essential to what the section in question is trying to achieve, to give a quick introduction into the different denominations. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Church in the 4th to 11th century

"From at least the 4th century, it has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." This sentence is referenced to scholarly work Jose Orlandis (1993). A Short History of the Catholic Church. Scepter Publishers. ISBN 1851821252.

I agree with Jose Orlandis here as quoted-- the issues is what we call the "it" in the 4th to 11th century. Roman Catholic dogma is that they are the one church and others left it-- "Roman Catholic Church" may even be that may even be what Jose Orlandis means here in a book called a "A Short History of the Catholic Church" (a POV titel) but it is not what is qouted and you are being wp:pointy it you are pretending that the this is something other than the whole church orthodox and catholic.

The church in 4th to 11th century is whole Church orthodox and catholic not Roman Catholic Church--Carlaude ^(talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The church in question IS the (then united) Catholic Church in east and west, so the statement is true. It is also true for the Greek Orthodox Church. However, it is most relevant in regard to Christianity as a whole and above we have already discussed something in that vein. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The myth of 1054 continues to plague us. Carl, you should know that the Eastern and Western Church's had very different cultures and doctrines whilst maintaining a similar core. The Roman Catholic Church in the West was Latin, used filoque, exercised political power and was far more wide reaching than the Eastern Orthodox Church. 1054 was not a tear in the relations between Rome and Constantinople but another event in a long continuing process in which the two churches were already slowly drifting apart. The Churches between the 4th and 11th centuries were different. Therefore, they have different names. Even though nominally they were still one. Tourskin (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. 1054 wasn't actually a schism at all as a Patriarch was excommunicated in the name of a dead pope (and dead popes have no such authority) and in turn excommunicated the pope (again, dead popes ...) The estrangement was a long process and 1054 had no real impact. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 1054 was more like a final straw or just one point in a long process... but the point still stands that "it" was one church (and most Christians lived in the east by the way) and over time it became two. You cannot call "it" the "Catholic Church" (to be taken to mean Roman Catholic Church) from the "4th century on." It is still one church that split in doctine and pracite and name much much later. User:Carlaude

Actually, 1054 was no straw at all and certainly not a final straw. Consider the contacts preceding the 1st crusade, the interactions during the crusades until that fateful one of 1204. If anything was the final straw, it was this.

"but the point still stands that "it" was one church" - that was never the point.

"(and most Christians lived in the east by the way)" - that depends on the time.

"You cannot call "it" the "Catholic Church"" - and what should we call it then? It is a fact that the (R)CC is that old and entity. The Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old but it is not really a united entity. In any case, the statement about the RCC's age was accurate.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In this context I think a simple "the Church" will be fine, but there are many cases in which a variant on the Great Church is used, as was talked about very recently here. --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1054 was definitely not the final straw. The mutual excommunications was lifted by the Emperor Alexius I and Pope Urban II. The reason why Historians stupidly obsess themselves over 1054 is that its the first excommunication. Again they are wrong in this manner in that it was the Photian schism of the 9th century that first split the church's. Like Str1977 said, there was plenty of exchange between teh two Churches. Finally most Christians did not live in the East for certain, since it is difficult to get such numbers under Islamic rule - somewhere along the line between the 12th and 13th centuries Christianity ceased to be the main religion in the region, perhaps even before. Those in the East were not loyal to Constantinople either. Tourskin (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was specifically one historian (I forgot the name) that obsessed about 1054. He lived around the middle of the 20th century and somehow got the ear of high circles in the Catholic Church, including Pope Paul VI. Because of this historian's views, Paul and the Patriarch of Constantinople made a big thing out of lifting the excommunications of 1054.

One more thing, even after the formal schism the "two churches" regarded each other as one. Eastern bishops were invited to every Ecumenical Council in the west up until the Council of Trent in the 16th century (of course, no one came). Only later did both sides consider such things impossible and regarded each other as "outside the church". Str1977 ^(talk) 07:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Church and the Western, Catholic Church split

"In the 11th century, the Eastern, Orthodox Church and the Western, Catholic Church split, largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy." This is referenced to Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (1997), Yale University Press p. 91

As you know if you read the comment, this was cut for size. the history is covered else where in the article.--Carlaude ^(talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carlaude on this, apart from the problematic content also included by this. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

historians

Do any references support that claim that Peter is "considered by Roman Catholics and many historians to be the first pope"?

Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome

Hitchcock seems only to be talking about views of church historians. "Reflecting" a POV reference is not good-- it is providing only an unbalanced POV.

Norman, The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History (2007), pp. 11, 14,

quote1: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime."

quote2: "The apostolate was established in Rome, the world's capital when the church was inaugurated; it was there that the universality of the Christian teaching most obviously took its central directive–it was the bishops of Rome who very early on began to receive requests for adjudication on disputed points from other bishops."

While Norman is a "notable professor of history at Cambridge" the "The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History" would not be a textbook at any university. It is a book for the lay reader-- namely the Roman Catholic reader.

Quote1 is one all Christians might agree with and seems to be used here only to infulence how we think about quote2.

What does Quote2 really mean? Is it saying that Jesus went to Rome in his earthly lifetime? Is it saying that Peter was in Rome during Jesus' earthly lifetime? Is it saying that Jesus' established someting in Rome from afar by telling Peter to go to Rome during Jesus' earthly lifetime? If so, why doesn't the "notable professor of history at Cambridge" say this is his view clearly instead of asking us to inferr it from these two quotes that are not one after the other. Is it because all his readers already assume that Peter is the first pope, but he does what to confirm this view clearly? If this is Norman real view and Peter still isn't in Rome by Acts 28, dispite the Lord's Jesus command to go there, then is Norman a NPOV source? --Carlaude ^(talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Many Christians quote the passage from the Gospel of Mathew that says "Thou art Peter, and thou art the rock upon which I shall build my church" as evidence that Jesus intended Peter to be the first individual to function in the role that the Pope functions in today, though the position might not have carried the name and connotations that it does today. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is that "many Christians" are Roman Catholics and quote the passage from the Gospel of Mathew that as evidence. This is the Roman Catholics view stated as if it was agreed fact-- and it is not.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitchcock seems only to be talking about views of church historians. "Reflecting" a POV reference is not good-- it is providing only an unbalanced POV.

You have not demonstrated that Hitchcock is POV apart from the fact that all sources are POV. A POV is best dealt with by adding different perspective.

And since when is "church historian" a byword. Historians on the Great Depression are hardly interested in this issue.

>>While Norman is a "notable professor of history at Cambridge" the "The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History" would not be a textbook at any university. It is a book for the lay reader-- namely the Roman Catholic reader.<<

So what? We are not required to use only "textbooks" used at universities. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot claim that Peter is "considered by Roman Catholics and many historians to be the first pope" unless there are many non-Roman Catholic historians that hold this view.

Church historian in the middle ages articulated this view. This does not make them a good souces of evedence. And by the way, many non-RCC historians care about this issue sand consider, for example Leo the first Pope.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not making much sense, changing the meaning of words. You should consider more carefully which words to use so that other can understand you.

"Church historians" are historians working on the history of the church. The field did not exist in the middle ages.

Your claim that only medieval people considered Peter the first Pope is certainly false. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "so what" is that it is not NPOV and not a good soure (except when we are presenting differenct views together, which we lack the space or need for here, IMHO.)--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. No WP policy does restrict us to use only what you chose to label textbooks. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Protestants don't believe in the authority of the Pope, so they don't really have much to say, but most accept Peter has the founder of the Church. However, Catholics think of Peter as the first Pope. As the Pope is a Catholic leader, it should stand to reason that Catholics can decide who is or is not their leader without needing Protestant support. We should at least say, "Roman Catholics think of Peter as the first Pope." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The question my friend is not whether Catholics see Peter as their leader but whether Peter can be assigned to the Catholic Church more than the Orthodox one. However, Protestants (except for Restorationists), I imagine, do not believe the Catholic Church to have been wrong from the very beginning - Anglicans for example are proud of tracing their origins to Roman missionaries reaching Britain in the 6th century AD. Therefore, I imagine that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans would see Peter as more of a Western Pope than an Eastern Patriarch. Therefore it is not only the Catholics who would say that Peter is more closely associated with Rome than with Constantinople or Antioch. May I once more remind everyone that ultimately Peter's mission was to bring Christianity to Rome, he was martyred in Rome and is known as the Bishop of Rome - what does one need to say in order to state that he was more of a Roman Catholic than an Eastern Orthodox? Tourskin (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I think you want the thread on if Peter could have started the church of Rome before any other church.

If it was was Peter's mission was to bring Christianity to Rome, he was awful slow about it. Paul wrote to about 50 Christians in Rome by name in 57 AD and Peter still had not shown up there by 61 AD (Acts 28).

The only question weather say that Peter is "considered by Roman Catholics and many historians to be the first pope" or say that he is "considered by Roman Catholics to be the first pope."

Protestants do not claim, per say, that RCC was "wrong from the very beginning." I admit it was a somewhat early claim (but not necessarly historical, documentation is late for historian's purposes) that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, but Catholics and Protestants know that the office and idea of pope devloped over time. It was only much later that Peter was called Pope, and even then Pope does not mean all Pope means today.

To use historian's terms, a non-RC historian would consider calling Peter a Pope, at best, acronistic.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why, throughout this exhaustive argument, I have used the words "more closely associated with Rome than Easter Orthodoxy" to argue my point. Tourskin (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Misc.

Let me ask you first if you, as a Roman Catholic, think being a Christian is the same as being a baptized Christian? can you be baptized and not a Christian?--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleated Nancy's avoiding the question and just repeating the statements made above.

The above edit was made by Carlaude here [14]. He deleted my response to his question on this page. Carlaude, you can not delete someone's response to your question. NancyHeise ^talk 01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Deleting somebody else's comments (with the exception of personal attacks and spamming the page) is really a no-no (even when done in bad english). Carlaude should consider what he is trying to achieve by that. Gain consensus? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to insert my original response to the baptism question, the one that DJ Clayworth is responding to below:

The sentence reflects the reference. If you think that being a Christian means you are baptized, they why do we even need to say it? I only want the sentence to reflect the reference. I may mislead the reader to think that the sentence means only baptized persons and not those who have identified themselves as such on goverment census. Since one of the references is the United States CIA World Factbook, we need to leave the word "baptized" out and let the sentence represent the referenced facts only. NancyHeise ^talk 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nancy here. We should stick as closely as possible to the reference's wording. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

basically agree with Nancy on all the individual facts but still: here edits have made the RCC section far too long and have introduced details that do not belong here. I also have stylistic problems with her edits, begining with her changing the logial order (first define, then count), longish quotes in footnotes (I will keep them for now but will eventually remove them), using "Vatican" as an author (and ascribing a conciliar document to the pope as author) etc. Some things are also giving a wrong perspective: the RCC does not consist of 22 + 1 rite, it consists of local churches who then are grouped in these rites according to their liturgical tradition.

The main problem however is one of undue weight as most of this belongs into the RCC article and not here. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nancy , I have stopped putting "baptized" in hope you can discuss this -- can you?

Let me ask you first, again, as a Roman Catholic or wantever, do you think being a Christian is the same as being a baptized Christian? Can you be baptized and not a Christian?--Carlaude ^(talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, once you are baptized you are a Christian. However, if the baptism occurred with deceit in a consenting adult's heart, than the sacrament is null. Therefore, if you willing and openly accept the sacrament of Baptism and have been sorry for all your sins, then you are a Christian. But the baptism must be valid and for that your heart must be pure by accepting the sacrament fully. Tourskin (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, could you please stop repeating over and over again a question already asked and replied to. What is the point in probing into the religous beliefs of another editor. However, if you asked her as a fellow editor, that'd be different. But in any case, Nancy has already replied. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, once you are baptized you are a Christian, as long as a the baptism occurred without deceit in a consenting adult's heart.

Then what do you think the "number of Roman Catholics" is quoted by the RCC/CIA? Is it number of baptized Roman Catholics (baptized Christians) or the number of baptized Roman Catholics that occurred without deceit in a consenting adult's heart-- and thus Christians.

There is no way to know all who were baptized without deceit in a consenting adult's heart-- or to count them-- and all Christian faiths have doctrine to this effect that makes the true number of Christians unknown. It is more accurate to say "baptized Christians". --Carlaude ^(talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We stick with the numbers reported by the sources. No more, no less. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what it means, "deceit in there hearts"? It means the foolish person has no intention to be a Christian. However, babies do not have evil intentions (we're not going to debate this one) in that they do not have the understanding to reject Christ and Adults who do get baptized can only do so through voluntary conversion, lasting weeks of training for the faith. Thus, those who have deceit in there hearts are non-existent, but they can exist in a crazy hypothetical situation in which an individual wished to waste several weeks of their lives attempting to be a Christian and yet not wanting to be one. Understand me?Tourskin (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "number of Roman Catholics" has two refs. One of these is the CIA World Factbook which is issued by the United States Government. It uses, among other materials, results of world census information. A census includes those people who self identify as Catholic, it does not just count baptismal records. I purposely left out the word "baptized" because 1)it is an unnecessary description 2)the refs do not include this word 3)people can be baptized in other denominations and convert to Catholicism 4)Perhaps there are some unknown number of unbaptized Catholics who self-identify themselves as Catholic - thus the safest and most accurate sentence there should not contain the word "baptized". NancyHeise ^talk 05:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just addressing being baptized vs being a Christian. If the former is accomplished willingly or there is intent to accomplish before death, than theologically that person is Christian. As for census, good work there, but that's out of my league!! Tourskin (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are we

• You need to build consensus to add things in.
• One or two people is not consensus.
• "scholary reference" is important but it does not trump or by-pass consensus because Wikipedia is not, for example, a collection of random scholary quotes and references.
• Please stop editing for a bit-- and discuss.--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia values scholars. Therefore, if a correct opinion or piece of information exits, it should not have to depend upon consensus if the people opposing it have no concrete evidence to counter the claim. Tourskin (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"scholary reference is important" is not contrary to "wikipedia values scholars"

Read this wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information--Carlaude ^(talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with your running around telling other editors what to do: you tell Nancy to stop editing, you tell others to read some policy. And in regard to that policy, you now speak different from above where you wanted to disqualify a source just for being "not a textbook" - that is not demanded by policy. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, I'm a hundred percent certain that the rules favor what I am saying far more than what you are saying. I am not saying that we should indiscriminately include all verifiable pieces of information. I am saying that scholarly references are very important to wikipedia. Why don't you read Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. If you want a consensus, its going to be achieved by working with others. That is, as Str1977 has said, you will need to stop telling people what to do on a bossy basis. Furthermore, these editors have worked very hard in other Christian-related articles. You can understand from their histories that they have contributed well to wikipedia and therefore have good intentions, and are well accustomed to working well in wikipedia. Tourskin (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, that was not very nice of you to have labelled the section a user's name. That is getting too personal IMO.Tourskin (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As I am taking pains to tell you myself, I agree that scholarly references are very important to wikipedia.

I am also glad that others such as you and Str1977 getting involved. My issue with Nancy in this section was when she edited so fast we could not even find what really had consensus and what didn't-- but that seems better now also.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Now I see your points. I did not mean to be a pain.Tourskin (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, not every change to the article needs to have its own talk page thread. Sometimes it's easier and saves time to just be bold in editing. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Word Tourskin (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Move this to talk for furhter discussion

To further its mission to spread the Gospel and administer the sacraments,.< ref name="LumenG" />< ref name="DeusCE">Benedict XVI, Pope (2005). "Deus Caritas Est". Vatican. Retrieved 2008-05-06.< /ref>< ref name="OneFaith50">Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), p. 50–51< /ref> the Roman Catholic Church operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including schools and universities, hospitals, orphanages and homes for the elderly and handicapped and dispensaries, leprosaries, nurseries.< ref name="Froehle17">Froehle, Global Catholicism (2003), p. 17-20.</ref> as well as Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly and the sick.< ref name="OneFaith98">Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), p. 98f.–9< /ref>

Modern challenges facing the Catholic Church include the rise of secularism and opposition to its pro-life stance on abortion, contraception and euthanasia.< ref>Shorto, Russel (2007-04-08). "Keeping the Faith". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-03-29.< /ref>

jurisdictional areas

Stating that the "Roman Catholic Church is divided into 2,782 worldwide jurisdictional areas ..." is a bit misleading since a lot of the "sees" purposely overlap in phyical areas covered-- for the sake of different culture and langages. At least different parishishs do this and I gather the sees, do this also at least in the "East." Is there a brief way to express this any better? --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any doubt about the figure? What should be counted are bishoprics and groups canonically on the same level (e.g. organised monastic orders, Opus Dei, FSSP). Geographic overlap is no problem. It is people that count, not acres. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that "worldwide jurisdictional areas" sounds like it means geographic areas, and does not (as it once did). Can this be worded to make this clear, or more clear?--Carlaude ^(talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well most of these local churches are geographical in nature - but some are not. This is a trend that is on the rise (though mainly on a lower level - note, we are not talking about parishes.)

Furthermore "worldwide jurisdictional areas" is strange as it seems that the jurisdictional area is worldwide - why then are there more than one? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I made a few changes to the Roman Catholic Church subsection under "denominations" that I'd like to explain. The diocese's in the Eastern Catholic Church are not called "diocese" but "eparchies" and ECC bishops are "eparchs" thus the previous version of this subsection was incorrect in calling all the jurisdictional areas "diocese". I changed this to eliminate the reference leaving just the jurisdictional areas called sees bit to keep it concise.

The sentence about Catholics and ecumenism was also slightly incorrect and I changed the wording to reflect the sources, previous wording made an incorrect statement. I have not added any new info as you trimmed already the info I offered before. If you have any questions in the future about RCC issues, I'd be glad to come see the article and check it for accuracy in regards to RCC. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Nancy, I have to disagree. In the east bishops are called bishops too. Dioceses might be used in regard to the east too, as we are writing in the west and hence use western terminology.

The CC does not, as your edits suggests (and it bothers me that you repeatedly reintroduce this fallacy), consist of one "Western" church and 22 Eastern churches. It consists of the church of Rome, the church of Milan, the church of Mainz, the church of whatever and so on. The other things are distinctions regarding rites. The particular Church article has the term "Local particular Churches" and this is what we are talking about here.

Another error: the Catholic faith is NOT summarized in the Nicene creed. A lot of important tenets are not mentioned by that creed.

The Ecumenism passage now is too wordy. My version did not misrepresent (I think your version did with the focus on "bringing to salvation"). Str1977 ^(talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Nicene creed summarizes the Incarnation and Trinity but nothing distingtive of the RCC.--Carlaude ^(talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong too. These ARE distinctive of the Catholic faith, though others agree on that. However, the creed is hardly a comprehensive summary of the whole of the Catholic faith. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? -- Yes, of course there are distinctives of the Catholic faith, but the Nicene creed is not about any of those distinctives. The RCC, for example, is not known for its distinctive view of the Trinity. Since (as far as I can tell I was agreeing with you I fail to see any point you make now. --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not "there are", Carlaude, "these are". The things mentioned in the Nicene creed are exactly the distinctives of the Catholic faith back in the day when the creed was worded. The creed summarizes the Catholic faith but only on the issues surounding the trinity. Even further Christology (vs. Nestorianism and Monophysitism) is already beyond the creed's scope. The point: correcting what I think you mistated, despite the overall agreement. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article

I would like to ask the editors of this to take a look at the FA Islam. Whoever did that page did an excellent job of making a page that is informative to the reader (especially non-Muslims like me), it is simple and clear. It is helpful to reader to give them a clear picture of the subject, minus the muck. I think the whole Christianity page needs some upgrade in organization, sources, and more simplification. If I was not a person who worked on the Roman Catholic Church page, I would never have known that most Christians are Roman Catholics - that is a very important fact to tell reader. On the Islam page, we find that most Muslims are Sunni, not Shiite Muslims. I never knew that, I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe we could arrive at some sort of ecumenical effort and enlist the efforts of at least one editor from each denomination to work together to form a decent page, then get a Muslim or Jewish person who does not know about Christianity to come take a look and give us comments on what is still unclear to them. Here are some of my specific comments:

• I think the article section under Scripture, the first paragraph is fine but I don't like the rest of that section listed under "Interpretation". I think that mucks up the article. It makes it too detailed, violates simplicity and can be helped by including a sentence with wikilinks instead of the detailed summary that exists now.

• The Denominations section can also be improved by inserting a summary of each denomination and tell reader what percentage of total Christians belong to what denomination, see CIA World Fact Book reference used in the RCC section here [15]. This is a very reliable source and can help with that.

• The Islam article nicely tells reader what Islam thinks of Christianity and Judaism. I never knew what they thought and it was very informative to read this. Maybe we should include a similar section telling reader what Christians think about Muhammad (that he is not a prophet and why) and Judaism (that they were the original true bearers of God's message - sent to be a light to the Gentiles but who do not accept Jesus as Messiah nor Mohammad as prophet). These are important and informative facts about Christianity. Pope John Paul II's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope explains the Catholic view of other religions, not sure if there is a decent ref explaining this for the whole of Christianity but there must be some scholarly work on Christianity that makes these differences in belief clear.

These are just some ideas, I don't know what others think about them and I dont want to mess up something that people have probably worked long and hard on. I just want to help make the article better if possible. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle. But in every case we must also consider how far we want to go into detail. You say the "interpretations" is too detailed and that might be so. But others think that the RCC section is too detailed after your edits, also going into many things that can be said for other groups as well. I am asking all editors of good will of their opinion on this (And note, this is of course different then the quibbling about supposed errors and POV raised above in the name of a even more POV view.) Str1977 ^(talk) 07:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Adherents is and will be a better number to compare than membership since, for starters, membership critrira vary widly for different denominations. Membership is just (sometimes) an easier number to get.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Adherents is that it is dated 2005; not really very current when later reports can be found. They indicate they take their information from membership reports; seems like it would be easier to go straight to the horse's mouth and get current information. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Adherents are not the same as members! --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be using a different definition of adherent than the one accepted by English. An adherents is an individual that by agreement or contract to follow; to be a follower.[16] That is also the definition of a member. If there is no agreement between the follower and the "group" then one is not a member or an adherent. How are you defining it? Do you have any references to support your definition? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A substantial part of the Protestant Christianity, including Mennonites and many kinds of Baptist make a distinction between adherents and members. Members are those that have formally satisified the criteria for membership, have applied and been accepted as such. Adherents are those that regularly attend services, take part in activities, contribute, and so on but have not gone through the formalities of membership.

The website above does not seem to use the term adherents in that sense; or at least uses it in a sense that includes members. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But for the sake of our article here, are they not really the same or rather is this not merely a different way of counting, i.e. you can count members more easily than adherents that might not be formal members and just drop by.

In any case, we use the figures our sources give. We do not have to pick just one and use this at the expense of others. And we should give rough figures, which should solve some problems. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

persecution of and persecution by Christians both have relevance to this article, but equally marginal relevance. This is WP:SS, there are dedicated sub-articles. Also compare how this is dealt with in articles on other major religions. Roman persecution of Christians is highly relevant to the history of Christianity, its formative phase in Late Antiquity. Religious wars of the Middle Ages have lesser relevance, but should still be addressed. Persecution of heresy (i.e. persecution of Christians by other Christians) are highly relevant to the development of the Christian Church and of Christian dogma. The Reformation, including associated persecutions, is highly relevant to western Christianity. All of this needs to be addressed, and all of it needs to be kept within WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Dab. I am in agreement with some of your points. However, it would have been better if you had given your ideas to the discussion below. Gabr-el 23:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Overplaying Some Persecution, Playing Down other persecution...

There seems to be a general trend on the Christianity page to try to present Christianity in the best possible light. I can't help but be concerned by what I percieve as an intentional attempt to play up persecution against Christians while at the same time playing down or failing mention persecution by Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.85.130 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Christianity, not about what people do in the name of Christianity. People are persecuted in the name of their religion. The idea of Christianity is the direct reason for their martyrdom. However, when Christians kill, they do so outside of Christian thought, for the Bible explicitly and implicitly states that killing is wrong. Jesus many times talks of loving our enemies, turning the other cheek etc. Thus, if Christians have persecuted others, it is not because of the religion of Christianity, but their perversion of it, and therefore has less of a bearing on Christianity itself, than persecution of Christianity which is directly related to Christian though - remember, Jesus asks us to carry is cross... and asked Peter to not live by the sword eitherTourskin (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your view Tourskin but practicalities dictate that we cannot make the distinction. Firstly not everyone agrees with your point, and secondly if people kill in the name of Christianity that's an important part of describing Christianity, whether Jesus would have approved or not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As you know, we once had a section on this. Since this has been removed, an alternative is to mention historical instances of persecution in the history section (but only real persecution, please). Possibly existing few cases of contemporary persecution of course would not be covered by this. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is distinction, but anti-religious atheists assert there is no distinction - they assert that religions generate violence.

• Christianity teaches we must suffer for our faith - carry his cross, etc.
• Christianity explicitly rejects violence.

Therefore, only persecution of Christians is relevant as an example of the first point. Examples of killings by christians has no bearing on the religion of Christianity directly. I am saying the former has more relevance than the latterTourskin (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"There is distinction, but anti-religious atheists assert there is no distinction". This is the second time on this talk page that you've suddenly and inexplicably started talking about atheists. They have nothing to do with this.

If Christians have engaged in persecution that was either motivated by or defined relative to their understanding of Christianity, then it is relevant to this article. We cannot decide whether to include an instance of persecution based on how consistent we think it is with Christian teachings. Ilkali (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And who are you, Ilkali, to complain about that? Tourskin has not addressed you made his comment to which he is entitled.

Regarding the includibility of persecution BY Christians, I have already stated my view. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be relevant to Christians. Christianity cannot be held accountable for the actions of individuals who do not follow her teachings. This article is about Christianity. Christianity's essence is based on persecution. Chistianity was founded upon by a man, or as we Christians believe, the son of God who suffered for who he was. Christianity arose in the Roman Empire and spread under persecution. The greatest Christians are martyrs. Therefore, Christian persecution is a core essence of the religion. Where there is no suffering of Christians because of Christianity, there is no Christianity. Christians must suffer (abstain from excessive worldly pleasures). Therefore, persecution is directly tied to Christian theology, thought and all. The bread of life, the Eucharist is tied to the suffering of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I have proven to you why suffering, and hence persecution of Christianity is essential and core to this article.

Now then, this article is about Christianity. Not Christians. Its about Christianity. Its about what Christianity teaches. Ilkali, you have twisted my objective. My objective is to show you, as I have above, how persecution is 100% relevant to Christianity, because Christianity is about suffering for Christ, as he suffered for us; in contrast, the killings conducted by Christianity have nothing to do with the teachings, principles, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, Sacred Tradition at all. You will be incapable of finding anything in the Bible that advocates Christians or followers of Christ to kill non-Christians. Therefore, this article, which described the ideas of Christianity, is separate from persecutions conducted by Christians, since such persecutions are not related to Christian thought.

You can find these in the far more relevant Criticism of Christianity and Christians articles. Do you have a problem with me addressing what Atheists have done? Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have attacked religions. I am merely citing what some atheists have done. Tourskin (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, don't take this personally. Atheism naturally rejects religion; the most vocal and well known atheists like Dawkins are anti-religious, not just rejecting it but attacking it too; and therefore it is not going too far for me to assume that atheists believe religion to be harmful. After all, that is one of their powerful arguments. Tourskin (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Some atheists believe religion is harmful. But what does that have to do with the matter at hand? How are atheists' opinions remotely relevant? Ilkali (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Christianity cannot be held accountable for the actions of individuals who do not follow her teachings". This isn't about "accountability". Including these instances of persecution in the article would not imply that Christianity is to blame for them.

"Christianity's essence is based on persecution". This is your own view. You are proposing that we arbitrate on what content can be included based on what you think Christianity is about. Ilkali (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but as an atheist, not a Christian, you cannot you are going to tell me what Christianity is? Christianity is about suffering for God and for your neighbors by loving them, by serving them. Suffering is integral to Christianity. This is not my opinion, this is Christianity - don't you know that the pinnacle moment of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ!!!

And why are you twisting my words again? Who is talking about accountability? I meant to say that Christianity and the actions of Christians, what Christians do is less relevant than what Christians are suppose to do, also known as Christianity. Tourskin (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry but as an atheist, not a Christian, you cannot you are going to tell me what Christianity is?" No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that I should decide what Christianity is about. I am saying that neither of us should. That kind of judgement is OR and can't be used as a basis for deciding what to include in the article.

"Who is talking about accountability?" You, when you used the word 'accountable'. "Twisting" your words? Really?

"what Christians do is less relevant than what Christians are suppose to do". That's not the dichotomy. We're talking about what Christians do versus what is done to Christians. Ilkali (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a short statement to clear up the confusion. A determinant of relevance is the closeness of linkage between the subject matter and content in question. In that vein of argument, any activity linked to the faith is up for grabs. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected; I did use the word "accountable". I concede defeat and withdraw my argument. Include whatever list of persecutions Christians have done. Gabr-el 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we will not have a list of persecutions here. For what we can have, see above. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me make one final stab at this.

Persecutions done by Christians has been conducted not because they were Christians, but because of other reasons. There is no relevance of this to Christianity.

Persecutions done to Christians is done because of their Christianity. Therefore it is of relevance to the article. Gabr-el 22:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So the slaughtering of Muslims in the Crusades (both military and civilian) was due to "other reasons" than the Crusader's faith? Or maybe the Salem Witch Trials were executed because of some other reason besides that it says in Leviticus "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? These and many other persecutions were executed because of the persecutor's interpretation of the Bible, whether their interpretation was far from mainstream and convoluted or not. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, persecution of Christians qua Christians virtually disappeared after the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant above by "real persecution". If crusades is all you can write, don't bother, as the crusades do not constitute religious persecution. And note that the crusades are already covered, albeit in a sober, non-phantastical manner. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Crusades was due to the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars, Pope Urban used the Bible as an excuse to arose Military aid. Why don't you take a look at the article I made myself? Your own knowledge of Christian persecution is poor. You trample upon the sacrifices of my Eastern brethren. Persecutions of Christians ended after the Roman Empire - do you know so little about Eastern Christianity? In the last 100 years hundreds of thousands of Chaldo-Assyrians have been slaughtered: in the Iraq War you have the Bishop of the Chaldeans, you have the Simele Massacre in 1933, you have the Assyrian genocide in 1918. For the Armenians you have the Armenian genocide in 1918, in 1860 you have the 1860 Lebanon conflict where Christians were slaughtered. In Iberian Spain you have the traditional Islamic practice of treating Christians as second class citizens in medieval Europe. You are incorrect and insulting to say that the Roman Empire's conversion ended Christian persecution, for persecution of Nestorians in Tang China and under Timur i Lenk...

“ We, Christians of Mesopotamia, are used to religious persecution and pressures by those in power. After Constantine, persecution ended only for Western Christians, whereas in the East threats continued. Even today we continue to be a Church of martyrs. ” — Mar Paulos on November 26, 2007, three months before he was found murdered.

Gabr-el 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By your own logic Eric, we should include persecutions conducted by the North Korean dictators, by Stalin, by Mao Ze Dung and other, "individuals", who have treated Humans as fertilizer in the Atheism article. Gabr-el 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After all, all those fools were Atheists too, and no one can deny their murders, in the same sense that I cannot deny the murders conducted by the Crusaders, etc. Gabr-el 00:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But none of the Communist persecutions were committed in the name of Atheism ie people were persecuted because they were political opponents, not because they were theists. Please don't engage in self-righteous Atheism-bashing.

Your saying that the Crusades were just "helping" the Byzantines is one of the more ridiculous statements I've heard recently. The reason for the Crusades was simple: "The evil, unholy Muslims have 'our' land, let's go kill them and restore 'God' to the Middle East". Of course persecution of Christians must be mentioned in this article. But so must persecution by Christians. To say that no one has ever persecuted in the name of Christ is historical revisionism and sheer ignorance. The song "Cathedral" by Crosby, Stills, and Nash puts it nicely: "Too many have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call; too many have died in the name of Christ, and I can't believe it all." Please stop trying to re-write history to protect your own religion, by doing so you just look desperate and ignorant. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Though your presentation is extreme, even by that you do not arrive at religious persecution but merely at a (series of) war(s) fought for (partly) religious motives. Quoting some pop song does not make up for lack of argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am neither desperate, nor ignorant. I have written many good neutral articles, such as Ottoman-Habsburg wars and Byzantine-Ottoman wars. I have already told you that I cannot deny that Crusaders committed murders and so forth, and others too. You need to study the First Crusade a lot better. Do you not see how simple your statement is? I said the Crusades occurred due to the Byzantine Seljuk Wars. Where is your proof otherwise? I do not deny that killing Muslims was also an objective; of course, how do you suppose the Crusaders were going to help Alexius I, if not by Killing the Saracens and Turks that stood between Constantinople and Jerusalem? I am not trying to re-write history, only argue a point - that persecutions by Christians is not as relevant as persecutions of Christianity itself.

You say I am re-writing history, even though you are the one with the historical inaccuracies. You say that it does not matter if the Christians interpreted the Bible correctly or not. By that logic, it does not matter if Stalin interpreted his Atheism correct or not. Of course, Chinese and Russian Communists have demolished many Churches and killed many priests. Even today in Communist China, the Churches are state sanctioned. Thus, when Stalin and Khrushchev demolished Churches in the name of Atheism, why should we not include those? Finally, you and I do not have to accuse each other. Answer my points, do not direct any fire against me. Do not call me "atheist righteous basher", "ignorant" or "desperate". In a discussion, it is convention to address points, not people. Gabr-el 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"The killing of Muslims" was NOT an objective of the crusades anymore than the killing of people is an objective of war in general. You fight wars to achieve a certain military and political goal. Getting there involves destroying the other side's military opposition, mostly by killing. But that killing is not and end to itself. And the crusaders did not go around the Holy Land, looking for Muslims to kill. Despite widespread ignorance on the matter, the crusades were not about spreading the faith either. They had a simply military and political goal and that's that. So no persecution here. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If the point of the First Crusade was to help the Byzantines kill Turks between Byzantium and Jerusalem, why then did the Crusaders capture Jerusalem and slaughter many of its citizens. You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, the only thing every atheist shares in common is a lack of belief in a god or gods. But that doesn't matter. The point is that people were persecuted in the name of Christ and so those persecutions should be in this article in neutral, reliably sourced prose just like every other claim on Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1st crusade had two objectives: help the Eastern Empire and ensure the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Emperor Alexius and Pope Urban were initially more concerned with the former goal but the second one proved much more popular, given the drawing power of the word "Jerusalem" Things do not always turn out the way they are planned. But one things the crusades were not is persecution. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the Crusades were due to Byzantine request for aid. I do not deny that killing Turks and Saracens was part of the objective. Also a part of the objective was the liberation of Jerusalem from Muslim control. I understand that to collect atheism into one character is foolish, considering it is more of a negation rather than an assertion of an idea. You still have not addressed my point in which I said that persecutions conducted by Christians exists in Criticism of Christianity, whilst persecutions of Christians is central to Christian theology and therefore necessary, where else adding in the former would be redundant. We don't add in Terrorism caused by Osama Bin Laden or the persecutions conducted by Muslims in the Islam article, why have double standards? Christ says, "[he] must take up his cross and follow me". Gabr-el 06:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, could you please stop yielding to nonsense claims. Killing the Turks was not part of the objective.

I agree somewhat with Erik's objection that Stalin's crimes were not committed in the name of atheism. That is true. They were committed in the name of Communism, which is one atheistic ideology. OTOH, the causal link between atheism (as one element of Communism) and some these crimes (those directed against religious groupings) is greater than it is between, say Christianity and witch hunting. Witch hunting was not a product of Christianity but a left over from pre-Christian, pagan Europe that came back with a vengeance in the early modern period. In the middle ages, there is no witch hunting and the few witchtrials that there were were of a different sort, a sort already covered under inquisition. (And if you doubt this, look at modern Africa, where witchhunting thrives in traditional, pagan places, not in Christian ones.)

However, I do think that a line about this phenomenon may be included in the history section, in the early modern period.

Finally, referring to bible verses constitutes WP:OR. Just because you find a witch verse in the Old Testament, does not mean that merely by that Christianity led to witch trials. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I give up... If ten percent of Americans think that a man never landed on the moon, then ten percent of Wikipedians will cling to the notion that no one was ever persecuted in the name of Christ. This is ridiculous. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe there are ten percent of Wikipedians thinking that but you won't find them here. No one here has uttered such absurdities. And no one who would could cite our article here for that notion since - despite all clattering - the article clearly mentions persecutions by Christians, it just doesn't shout them from the rooftops as if it were the most notable thing about Christianity. Nor does it BTW do that with persecutions of Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am returning to this discussion late. What I understand this conversation to be about is the value of expanding information about persecution, both by and against, Christians. What I don't see is a proposal for language based upon reputable sources that are experts in this area. It is not helpful to continue the conversation when all that is exchanged is opinion; they are too divergent and do not provide common ground to achieve consensus. More importantly, opinion is good, but is not of value for this article.

As an aside, being a Christian today or 1,000 years ago does not mean one's actions are always in accord with the precepts of Christianity. That a Christian commits atrocious sins is irrelevant to the history of Christianity. It is absolutely relevant, eternally so for Christians, to the welfare of that individual. The Church at times has done things for which it is not proud. For this topic to carry the most weight and relevance to the topic, reputable sources need to support the actions of the Church...how was it persecuted and how did it persecute. Does this make sense to all of you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think sins of Christians are relevant to the history of Christianity when they do have an impact or are notable to a particular period. But it all must be placed in context. Otherwise we would be going back to a persecution by and of christians section that we once abolished. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric the Red, you continue to launch personal attacks against me. I am not ignorant. There were persecutions. We do not deny that they existed. Will you cease your personal nonesense, or shall I slam you for your attack on a point that we do not hold? Let me put it in Capital letters so that even your giving up eyes will see - WE DO NOT DENY PERSECUTIONS! ONLY THERE RELEVANCE TO THIS ARTICLEGabr-el 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually -- persecutions of Christians, by Christians, and between Christians all have full relevance to the article. Foxes Book of Martyrs is just as relevant as Nicholls' "Christian Antisemitism" or a history of the Reformation. That said, persecution -- or perceived persecution -- between editors is not relevant ;-) Ben Asher (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We're throwing opinions at each other now, since we can only agree to disagree. I suggest we leave it as the status quo. Gabr-el 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hidden text

User:Zara1709 writes in an edit summary:

"Str1977, I am not going to get into a discussion about this on the talk page, but pls, have at least the decency to give your argument against the hidden note in the edit summary"

regarding his reinsertion of the hidden text:

"Christians believe that Jesus is still alive in heaven, and that, as God, he exists in eternity, hence the use of "is"."

It is quite simple. There is neither a need or a justification for sporting such hidden messages. They can be used temporarily to mark things that need fixing. But here, there is no problem that needs fixing.

The only reason why it is there is because apparently some people do not understand Christianity or are not able to read the entire article. The argument that someone will come along, think it strange and change it, does not cut as this can be said about a thousand other things which we do not supply with hidden advice.

Furthermore, the sentence - based on misunderstandings - is partly wrong as the only reason that Christians say that Christ "is" is that he rose from the dead and hence lives now, at this moment. This has nothing to do with his divinity.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So I am actually on the talk page discussion this... when there are more important issues with the article. In don't know what's so hard to see about this. To Christians, Jesus IS the Son of God, etc. . To non-Christians (if they acknowledge his existence), he WAS just a human. Now, actually, the wording, "Christians believe that Jesus IS..." takes this into account. But from my previous experiences at Wikipedia I consider it very well possible that some non-Christian just hits edit to change that word. The whole point of having the hidden note there is to give that editor another 5 seconds to think about this, and to help him get the point of the wording "CHRISTIANS BELIEVE that Jesus IS...". That would save us the time of a discussion about this, then. (Not that we are saving time with the discussion at the moment.) Zara1709 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of linguistic convention. If someone has left our own immediate personal universes, whether by dying or migrating or joining a different social circle, we use the past tense when describing them. It's not meant to imply they don't exist anymore. For example, if a Christian were talking about her late father, she would be more likely to say "He was a good man" than "He is a good man", even though she believes he is still alive in heaven. Ilkali (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara, what non-Christians think is of no concern as the sentence in question says "Christians, believe that Jesus is the son of God". We do not need to put up hidden signs to prevent the ignorant from hitting edit - we cannot do that everywhere. And the only reason we are wasting time with this issue is because of your insistence that this is an issue.

Ilkali, alltough what you say is beside the point as the case of Jesus lies differently. Christians believes that Jesus lives (not just as a soul in heaven as in your example) and that is all the sentence is saying. Saying Jesus WAS the son of God is also nonsensical as this is not a part time job. Also your example is already assuming a life after death - not even all Christians agree on that. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, before I had moved that comment to a hidden note, it was a footnote, and then some other editor came a long and completely removed all footnotes from the lead because of some style guideline. I didn't want to look thought 46 pages of archives to see whether there actually had been an issue about this, but I considered that very well possible. Now, since it is totally implausible to suppose that an editor an editor who preferred a wording with "was" would look through 46 pages of talk archives, I considered it appropriate to keep that footnote as a hidden note. But since the only purpose of the hidden note is to avoid unnecessary discussion, well, there's no point at all in having a discussion about it. Really, why didn't you just keep it to the edit summary?...I only checked the discussion after I had reverted. Zara1709 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue was originally brought up by SP-KP when he tagged every second word in the article with "clarifyme". He probably made this into the footnote. But apart from him, there never was a real issue. There is absolutely no reason not to have footnotes in the lead. I am no blaming you, Zara, if you once turned the footnote into a hidden text (better than a footnote in this case). Not at all. I just don't think it justified to have that advice at all. I raised this on talk because you asked me to explain. I prefer explaining on talk if there is controversy. But you need not participate here. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Christians believes that Jesus lives (not just as a soul in heaven as in your example)" I don't see any relevant difference between living as a soul in heaven and living as a Jesus. In both cases, a present tense would be just as acceptable. For what linguistic reason is past tense used for the former but not the latter?

"Saying Jesus WAS the son of God is also nonsensical as this is not a part time job". The locus of our disagreement is that you're assuming "Jesus was the son of God" entails (or heavily implies) "Jesus is not currently the son of God". That's just not the case. I've already given one supporting example, but here's another: "The previous mayor was Texan". Does this entail the ex-mayor is either dead or no longer Texan? Ilkali (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be acceptable at all. The father example assumes that a) there is a soul, b) it lives on after death. With Jesus is a whole different ballgame as he is believed not just to live on after death as in the above example. He is believed to actually have come back from the dead.

And again, your comparisons are nonsensical. Someone becomes mayor and after some time leaves office - quite different from being son of God.

I take your previous comments as being made in good faith. But I ask you to stop making nonsensical comparisons. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, I'm trying to follow the argument here, and I'm having trouble figuring out what you are trying to accomplish. Christians will see "Jesus was" and think "Jesus is." Non-Christians will see "Jesus is" and think "Jesus was." It's a stylistic convention that can neither be agreed upon, nor enforced. And as such it's not a worthwhile discussion on the talk page. It will have zero effect on the readers regardless of their POV. Abraham Lincoln was a (living) human being. Abraham Lincoln is a (dead) human being. The use of the tense is irrelevant because the context and POV of the reader fill in whatever inference fits.Ben Asher (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Ben, it is not a stylistic convention. Christians believe that Jesus IS the son of God, not that he WAS the son of God. The former wording happens to be accurate, the latter one happens to be a misrepresentation. Hence, there can be only "is" in this instance.

Yes, we should stop talking about this. But as long editors are raising opposing arguments against "is", this will not happen. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Str -- if the statement is about what Christians believe, then they do believe that Jesus is (fill in the blank). This is an article about Christianity. As such, the convention should express Christian beliefs. Also, "Jesus was the son of God" is, as someone said, nonsensical. I do believe that this is a non-issue, but not that no convention is applicable. "Jesus is" is applicable and "Jesus was" is not. But I have a bigger problem here -- the only kind of editor who would be arguing such a non-issue in favor of a non-sensical convention is one who is attempting to impose some kind of POV. I'll consider it good faith, but an imposition (and a distracting one) nonetheless. Regardless of the "faith" involved, the "effect" is to bog useful editing down into a morass of pointless distractions. My recommendation -- go with the present tense and stop the discussion in favor of something that actually benefits the article.Ben Asher (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ben, the statement "Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God" is a statement, not a convention. Indeed, there is the possibility that a POV-driven editor would try to change "is" into "was". If that happens, we will just have to resist him. Until then, the whole thing is a non-issue and I, for my part, have no longing for such discussions. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some editors are being deliberately obtuse about this. Unless there's been an outbreak of amnesia, regular editors arguing that this is a non-issue know that that's not the case. It's come up before, and anyone who's familiar with the way Wikipedia works must realise it's going to come up again until we can form a consensus view. It's not just that the occasional driveby editor is going to come along and change IS to WAS - if that was the problem, we could live with it by reverting their edit, just like any other driveby edit. This goes back to one of the fundamental issues about this article - who it's written for. Please please please - this shouldn't be difficult, but for some people seems to be - can editors keep in mind, in this discussion and all others, that this is not "Wikipedia's article on Christianity written for Christians, by Christians". It's meant to be (and it won't get anywhere near GA status, let alone FA status unless it becomes) an well-written, neutral article on Christianity, written for "the average reader" (someone who doesn't know much about Christianity and wants to learn more). No-one can disagree that the statement "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God" is factually correct. Whether that statement, in that form, should appear right at the start of the lead of the article is the issue. Without any explanation of what something is, frankly, going to strike the "average reader" as quite an odd, difficult-to-understand, belief, we don't have a well-written article, it's as simple as that IMO. I'm not sure that Zara's solution is the right one, but there clearly is an issue worth discussing, unless we don't care about getting this article up to GA/FA status. Personally, I've no idea what's wrong with a footnote as a solution - this kind of thing is exactly what footnotes are there for. Can someone explain why a footnote is a bad idea? Constructive replies only please (i.e. not "because this is a non-issue"). SP-KP (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to put a statement of conventions at the top of the talk page. In fact, I'll do so now.Ben Asher (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is amnesia, but I can't remember anyone ever trying to change the "is" into "was" before you (in good faith) tried that. So it's come up before but that's no reason to add this note (especially not as a footnote - footnotes are content and content shouldn't tell the reader what to do, but neither as a hidden message) - a lot of things have come up before and will possibly come up again. Other things have come up far more often than this.

Who it is written for? For anyone who can read. But that doesn't mean that we'll have to explain our choice of wording to the reader (hence no footnote). And most well-meaning readers will not have a problem at all with "is", many probably not even recognise anything unusual.

I see no alternative to mention that statement that early since it is the foundational belief of Christianity. It is mentioned in the lead and explained further down in the article. That's nothing the average reader cannot shoulder.

Ah, I for my part care only that this is a good, accurate, NPOV, readable article. I care nothing for any kind of status.

Can we stop this non-issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. If I'm wrong, discuss it here, reach a consensus, and change it -- then archive the discussion to unclutter the talk page.Ben Asher (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I have accidentally reverted you (edit-conflict). However, I will not reinstate it at the top (but post it here) since I disagree with your actions.

1. You cannot just post "conventions" (formulated by you alone) and put them on top of the talk page where they seem as if they were wiki-rules.
2. The top of the talk page is already crowded.
3. It is your pet idea that this is about conventions. It is about accuracy.
4. The content of the convetions is empty. Of course we say "Jesus was born" as birth is always something that happened once.

So, as explained this is what you posted:

Conventions for this Article
This is a list of conventions that have been discussed on the talk page and have a consensus. Please
list only summary statements here, and leave discussion to separate sections below. Only change a 
listed convention if discussion reaches a consensus to change it.

Past, Future, and Present Tenses

1. Christian beliefs about Jesus are stated in the past tense about events recorded in the gospel 
(Jesus was born, Jesus was crucified, Jesus was raised).
2. Christian beliefs about Jesus are stated in the future tense about eschatological events (Jesus 
will come again, Jesus will raise the dead, Jesus will judge the nations).
3. All other Christian beliefs about Jesus are stated in the present tense (Jesus is fully man, 
Jesus is fully God, Jesus sits at the right hand of God).

Ben Asher (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

YOU were doing this? Geeze louise, I thought my account was screwed up. Look -- I wasn't saying what it had to be. I was throwing up something that seemed to describe what the consensus was so we don't have to keep arguing about where to put this so everyone could see it. If you need to move it down here, then at least put it in the original format. If we don't need conventions, then what the heck is this entire thread about?Ben Asher (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but please believe me that the first time around was only because of the edit conflict as we were writing simultanousely. I saw that you had written something and copied that into my version but I caught only the bit posted here in this section. The second time around I intentionally deleted it.

The problem is that you are moving much to fast because you think you have the problem figured out. But you haven't. The problem is not about conventions ... and NEITHER is THIS THREAD. Can you please get of the convention horse. My point is a) that we should use the accurate wording, which in this case is "is", and b) that we do not need hidden messages to tell editors respect accuracy. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight:

• We don't need hidden messages.
• We don't need visible messages.

I'm game -- what do we need? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm a bit confused about what you want. I'm trying to agree with you here so we can move on to content.Ben Asher (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. We don't any messages of that sort to fix this non-problem. What I want: that this non-issue would go away. Then we can move on to content. There is nothing to solve here.

I merely posted on talk page because Zara asked me to. Now I see Zara didn't want a discussion on talk page. Fine with me as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay -- but for the record, did you disagree with the tense use I expressed? I understand that you don't want anyone to see it, but did you disagree with the now hidden text?Ben Asher (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: no, I don't disagree with the tense uses proposed under "conventions". Only I see them as logically flowing from the content described. Re the hidden text, it was not that I did not want anyone to see it - I think it unneeded and unhelpful to the article. I agreed with the first part, though "still alive in heaven" was clumsily worded. I disagreed with "as God, he exists in eternity" to be a rationale for having "is" in this very instance (it is appropriate for statements that merely concern Christ's divinity or talk about the Logos.) I hope this cleared things up a bit, just for the record. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that. I was talking about my text that you hid. I didn't read someone else's text that you hid because you hid it and I couldn't read it. Was that what you were talking about? I'm having trouble talking about invisible things here. Erasing them before I can talk about them leaves me at a disadvantage.Ben Asher (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I most definitely, absolutely hid no text whatsover.

I removed a hidden text from the article (as explained in the opening comment in this thread). And I removed your "conventions" section from the top of the article, placing it (inside a box) into this section. And I have also replied to your request "did you disagree with the tense use I expressed?". I see no other hidden text (apart from the one I removed from the article), hence it seems you lost me here. If you need to know more, clearly state next time what you are talking about. Otherwise I will simply ignore it. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You wiped it out about three times. It's not up there any more, so it's hidden. If you want to ignore me, okay, but I was honestly trying to agree with you and you kept pinging my suggestion out of sight before anyone could agree or disagree with the idea. If you want to do the article without anyone trying to help you, I'll go somewhere else and you can have it. I'm unwatching this article now. Thanks.Ben Asher (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my!

• The thing I, as you call it, "wiped out" three times IS the conventions section. And I didn't wipe it out. I moved it to this section, just a few postings above, easily detectable by the box around it. Try searching this page for "So, as explained this is what you posted" - the box begins in the very next line.
• I didn't say I want to ignore you. I said, if you cannot clearly state what you are talking about, I will not continue guessing (since I partly guessed wrong above).
• I have neither the intention nor the illision to "do the article without anyone trying to help" - I am certainly not alone. And of course your help is welcome. But only as it pertains to actual problems. Here in this section, we are wasting time and server space, typing hundreds of words about a non-existing problem. But do as you please. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Late middle ages missing

As there are more pressing things right now, this is more as a memo to me and other editors: currently the history section has nothing on the late middle ages (except one sentence about the renaissance). Some day this should be fixed. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This former version [17] had one line on it, in its introduction to the Reformation. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Elements of this period include: Political turmoil, ermengence of strong nation states, corruption among clergy, schism, state interference and concordats, failing attempts to achieve reform, heretical movements (e.g. Husitism), Renaissance, fall of Constantinople and Turkish threat. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A major point in the late medieval history of Christianity is the Palamite schism. The importance of this can hardly be over-estimated, both in terms of separating the Eastern and the Western Church for good, and in setting off the Renaissance. In terms of RCC, the various antipopes and proto-Protestants would need to be reviewed. It is impossible to understand Christianity as it presents itself today without looking into the Late Middle Ages, hell, it is impossible to understand what the Reformation was about in the first place, so this is really more than just a pedantic tidbit to be added for completeness. dab (𒁳) 14:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I now see that my list was a bit slanted towards the west. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Str, The page Roman Catholic Church has a very good history section that is well referenced if you'd like to borrow from it at any time.NancyHeise ^talk 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will move your other comments into the proper section as these have nothing to do with what is discussed here and are needed elsewhere. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

talk page comments may not be eliminated by other editors

I have reverted an edit to this talk page made by Carlaude that eliminated comments by another editor, see [18]. I left a comment on his talk page since this is the second time he has done this on this (first time was here [19]) - I am assuming he did not know that it is not OK to do this. Please, we need to keep a correct record of talk page activity. NancyHeise ^talk 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. "Deleting material not relevant to the article" is acceptable, as is "removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details" and "removing personal attacks and incivility". But in the first instance, you are correct, as the edit seemed to refactor Eric the Red 2's comments without cause. The second is debatable. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Aunt Entropy, The second instance you refer to deleted both my and Str1977 comments, neither of which was inappropriate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look you will see that Tourskin made an edit just 12 sec before my edit in a totally differet section and my software must have let me overwrite it unknowingly. I acknowledge the error now, but had no intent or knowledge of it at the time.

I did purposely remove text once before-- but for what I consider a good reason-- because it was an purely off topic restatements of arguments made just above.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way Nancy-- following your own advice in highly recomended.

After discovering my in adverterant deleation of Tourskin's edit you purposely removed my "jurisdictional areas" talk text by undoing the entire action. All that was called for was reinstating Tourskin's text. --Carlaude ^(talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You eliminated my response (and Str1977's comments) to your direct question to me about the article, that is not off topic. Also, Eric the Red's comment was read by me long before you deleted it, that was not a computer glitch. NancyHeise ^talk 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how I deleted Eric the Red's comments also but I apologize for it being somehow my fault.

I asked a question about baptizism and you did not answer the question, nor even refer to the question in you response, but only made comments along the lines of which would be better placed elsewhere in the larger section (and in effect were already elsewhere in the larger section) but by placing them where you did they served only to hide the question that was the sole purpose (so far) for that subsection. Given the choice between creating another identical subsection with the question repeated and deleating your purely off topic restatements of arguments made just above, I would do the same again.--Carlaude ^(talk) 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis of my answer to your question and with your decision to eliminate both my and Str's comments that were resonable responses to your question. However, let's not go at it over this issue, please lets respect each other's opinions and work together to improve the article for the benefit of readers who want to know about the subject matter, not see useless bickering on this religion's talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Claimed reasons for intro rewrite

An article is never without room for improvement and neither is an intro. However there is no reasoned discussion here about why there is supposedly the need to tag the intro for a rewrite.

One editor in an edit summary (instead of here) said:

<<the overreferenced lead does not even contain words like "Trinity", "church", "Reformation", "sacrament" - i.e. does not summarize the article, fails NPOV>>

• Overreferenced is hardly a reason for a rewrite.
• Church is difficult to include as so many think so differently about this. But this is certainly something missing.
• Similar things can be said for "Trinity" and "sacrament".
• There's no reason to have "Reformation" in the intro. Reformation is no doctrine of Christianity. If it goes in, so should "Ecumenical Council" or "Magisterium".
• Not containing these words (and it is always bad merely to look for certain words) doesn't hurt NPOV a bit. However, elaborating on Trinity and sacrament and church may cause POV problems.

the claim NPOV.

Str1977 ^(talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Str, the lead is supposed to be a complete summary of the article's contents and Christianity's lead does not do this. I was not the person who tagged the lead but I agree that it needs to be expanded because it does not properly summarize the article. Reformation was an important part of Christian history that FA reviewers would probably be asking for if the article gets submitted. Do you want my help writing a new lead? I will try to help you if you want my help but I dont want to impose if you have a different idea - maybe your end product will be better than what I am thinking of - I dont know but I will be available to help you if you need me. Thanks for your hard work. NancyHeise ^talk 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And everyone is welcome to suggest improvements to the intro. Simply tagging it and then leave is the proper way to proceed. And as I said, I care only for that article being a good article, I care not for whether it has a status of a good or featured article. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anglican

Sorry I see the move of Anglicanism into Protestantism was deliberate. I must admit I thought it was accidental, or uninformed. I don't think Anglicanism really belongs in either cos it has elements of both but what was the reason for asserting that it "belongs" to Protestantism? I think we should go with self declaration in articles (which is that it is Catholic as far as I can tell) and note the disagreement of others, and many members? This discussion exists in spades in the various Anglican articles in Wikipedia (see for example Church of England and you can see there is a strong Roman Catholic POV that Anglican should be called Protestant. But we seem to go in general for a "you are what you say you are" and we should align with the rest of WP. --BozMo talk 07:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Anglican Church is at heart a protestant church though it has retained various catholic elements. That's not a POV, that's a fact. Self-declaration doesn't change that. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Str1977 here. Wikipedia has its own bias also. Would you like an Anglican website comments on this also?

I am struggling with the grammar of your statement, please clarify. The Church of England (a small but leading part of the Anglican Communion) is about the same size as the Church of the Latter Day Saints (so low double digit millions of members). The Church of England declares itself to be a fragment of the Catholic church separated from Rome by the excommunication of Elizabeth I, for denying Papal authority. That's basically what the Elizabethan Settlement which split the current CoE off from Rome says. Others contest this claim but I make the analogy with the Church of the Latter Days Saints, which is similar size and which claims to be a Christian church from another revelation (a claim contested by others). Where religious terms are not well defined (and are NOT owned) we allow people to define what they are to a reasonable degree, so yes we include the LDS as Christian and CoE as Catholic. WP certainly has a bias on this issue because it has a huge US demographic bias of people who often do not really study European History, only hear a version from a POV sources. Therefore think the current CoE was set up by Henry VIII to allow his divorce (that Church of England was abolished by Bloody Mary, who martyred by burning a leading saint a week for five years to do it). Personally I am not an Anglo Catholic and the limit of my Catholicism is probably the belief that unity is at least as important as intellectual correctness. But I have been an Anglican for 30 odd years since confirmation and when the creed is said every Sunday about the "Catholic Church" no one I have ever met thinks we are talking about some other church. We mean us. But hey, sure lets all clear out everyone whose claims we do not accept. That should make for a few months of fun. --BozMo talk 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reciting these words in the creed does not mean a thing. Lutherans (except in Germany) do that too, are they not Protestant for it. It is clear that in some way at least some Anglican consider themselves part of that "Catholic Church" of the creed. That doesn't make them a part of Catholicism however. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A fact? At heart? I am sorry but that's one of the most opinionated pieces of OR I have ever heard. Can I suggest you dig deep within yourself and try to work out where this prejudice comes from, and then remember at Wikipedia we try to look for substance behind classification? It is also only remotely arguable if you use your own personal definitions of "Protestant" and "Catholic". It is semantically equivalent to confining the word "Christian" to those people you happen to believe will be saved. This part of the article should be re-aligned with the rest of Wikipedia (and the via media diagram below) where those who actually know about the Church of England have settled on more careful use of words. --BozMo talk 10:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also your re-introduction of the wording "a special grouping" to describe the Anglican communion is borderline vandalism. I suggest you self-revert that too. --BozMo talk 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I can say the same about your edit. It is pure self-delusional Anglican ideology that the CoE somehow is both Protestant and Catholic. Can you please dig depp into yourself and see where this prejudice comes from. We will not privilege the Anglican church because recently she sometimes feels uneasy to be grouped with Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists. The next step would be a special group for Lutherans who are NOT really Protestants as they have liturgy and blah blah.

There is nothing untoward in the wording "a special grouping". Str1977 ^(talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet, I am open to substantial suggestions how to improve the wording. I am not open to inserting falsehoods like placing the CoE among Catholicism. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Really it will all come down to what experts think. If a scholarly source published by a university press that is oft cited by Googlescholar says the "Anglican Church is x" then that is what we should put in the article. No need to go back and forth between what individual Wikipedia editors say it is - we are not considered experts even if we are - no original research is allowed. We are only allowed to put info that is verifiable by reliable sources. Per the CIA World Factbook, the Anglican church is grouped outside of both Catholics and Protestants, it has its own category. I am not sure if this would be considered the best source but its not a bad one and meets WP:RS. I hope that helps. NancyHeise ^talk 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing them separately seems fine to me. Listing them as Protestant is at least as bad on every third party test as listing them as Catholic. --BozMo talk 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing them separately is not fine with me. In the end we will have fifty categories because logically Lutherans would not be Protestants (even though they coined the term) and Baptists would protest that they aren't either. And on and on and on. Because every church is basically its own. That's what our classification is for: it classifies, i.e. it sorts into classes.

Let's face it, the Anglican church is born out of the Reformation. In earlier times it wasn't so shy about that allegiance. Now, if it now considers itself "catholic and protestant" that's fine and we note that but that doesn't mean that we place it into the catholicism section. And no googlescholar can help us with that as he can only provide the facts or views. He cannot structure our article here.

If the Anglican Church is labelled as Catholic, then all other Protestant Churches who protest against Rome will also claim to be "Catholic". Thus draw a line, look to the history of the Church and recognize its Protesting origins. Were it not for the Oxford movement, the Church would have called itself Protestant. Gabr-el 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, suit yourself. My only personal objection to all this is the extraordinary extent to which people allow their prejudice to intervene, rather than producing any fact or principle. There is a lot of difference between all the churches, bishops, buldings and congregations together splitting from authority from Rome and individual or preachers setting up a new church. But I see no point in trying to persuade you and I kind of agree about the Oxford Movement being influential on the issue. Bottom line though is there is no "fact" on these words, they are through a glass darkly. Plenty of people say the Pope is protestant in England. But who cares if he is? Not me. Perhaps no church is really Catholic. I went to a RC christening a couple of weeks ago and it is so totally indistinguishable to an Anglican one it is stunning they aren't back together by now. --BozMo talk 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But, BozMo, prejudices exist everywhere. You say I object to your version because I am a Catholic. Don't you disagree with my version because you are Anglican? And for the record: my version allowed for the Anglican self-characterisation of "both Protestant and Catholic". It just classified the Anglicans into one larger group, the group that they historically belong to, the group that they (with the possible exception of the relatively small group of Anglo-Catholics) theologically belong to.

And consider this: other editors before you have moved the independent Catholic groups and the "Old-Catholic church" outside of the Catholicism classification (redubbed RCC). I opposed this as well because these groups don't fit under any other header, cannot stand as a group of their own. And I myself certainly am not prejudiced in favour of the "Old-Catholic church". Str1977 ^(talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two additional issues here. While the Anglican church does indeed call itself "both Protestant and Catholic" on occasions, external observers almost always place it in the Protestant camp. The trouble with creating a fourth category for them is a) the category isn't recognised by any significant numbers of people outside the Anglican church (and many inside it), and b) many groups want to place themselves outside the big three groupings because they think their situation is unique. In the last year or two I've seen claims for this put forward by Baptists and several Restorationist groups, all claiming that their roots can be traced back to before the Reformation. Accepting all of these would make a mockery of the classification. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, DJ. Long time no read. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As ever DJ I yield to you. But perhaps the mockery of the classification is because the classification is such a strange way for a church to be divided up. I will unwatch this for a while. The article never seems to go anywhere. --BozMo talk 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this classification strange? It is quite the common one. Of course, one might object to any classification for various reasons. Note that classification is nothing more than this: all these classes are filled with quite distinct individual churches, especially the Protestantism section. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

... So, what do the scholars say about this? Anyone? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Protestant, both by historical proximity and stated doctrines. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Faith are distinctly Reformed (in the Calvinistic sense). Anglicans (Greek for English, I believe) like to point to a political origin, but Lutherans did as well. Again this is mainline Protestant. As for being also Catholic, so are mainline Protestants as per the Nicene Creed "I believe in one holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church." Although politically separate, they see themselves as part of the larger body of faith... as do other mainline Protestants.Tim (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently confusion as to the term "Catholic". Catholic in the Greek word means "Universal", in which case every single Church out there, even ones composed of only one person, will call themselves "Catholic", so long as they follow Niceae. This definition is useless for distinguishing as such, because it does not distinguish but merely trolls around the idea of "whose the one church". Rather, I suggest we abandon this definition and accept the more common one which is that Catholics are Christians in communion with Rome and Protestants are those who have broken their communion with Rome after the 15th century so as to include the Hussite Church(es?) and the Anglicans as well as the Lutherans. All other schism with Rome were in 450 AD after rejecting Chalcedon (Oriental Orthodox) Ephesus (Assyrian Church of the East) and 1054 (Eastern Orthodox Church) and all except the Assyrian Church of these are Orthodox. The Assyrian Church's unique character - neither Orthodox, nor Catholic nor Protestant in this defining sense is difficult to classify in any regard. Thus, for these reasons, forgetting the fact that Catholic menas universal, which gets us nowhere, the Anglican Church is Protestant, even though many if not all of its practices have been heavily influenced by the Oxford movement. Gabr-el 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"broken their communion with Rome">>> or just been excommunicated for political reasons or whatever...

For what it is worth, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian History (1971) says of Protestantism: "the word "protestant" thereafter applied to those seperating themselves from papal authority while claiming full recognition as Christians." Well and good. It then goes on to say, "Evangelical groups seldom used the expression themselves. All prefered to be called Reformed, or Evangelical Churches, nor did they surrender the traditional name "Catholics." Against Luther's own wishes, his followers became known as Lutherans. Anglicans often object to the negative connotations of the word "protestant" and many of them do not regard their communion as a part of Protestantism." I don't know that this helps at all, as it points out that Protestantism is a self-designation of very few churches or traditions. Rather, it is a term applied by others out of convenience.

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (1983) makes this explicit: "The term (Protestant) was soon applied to Lutherans in general and finally to all adherents of the Reformation, including Anglicans and left-wing groups. Few of the many branches of Protestantism have adopted the designation "Protestant" in their titles. In many minds, it beats connotations of controversy and of contrast with "Catholicism," where this term is made equivilent to Roman Catholicism. In this sense the word becomes a convenience for statisticians."

This is the constant debate that has yet to be resolved on wikipedia. Do we, for the sake of organization and clarity, adopt the norm of "Protestantism" which in various ways does and does not suit the traditions that fall under that umbrella? Or does self-identification trump all, and we only group or organize according to the standard of self-identification? I'm not sure which is best - but let's be honest about the lack of clarity on this one. The scholars agree it (for the most part) that it is a ambiguous and somewhat misleading classification - yet it continues to be used because it is (deemed to be) the most useful classification - the least muddy of the muddy waters. Pastordavid (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"broken their communion with Rome">>> or just been excommunicated for political reasons or whatever...

In the case of the CoE, it was the Anglican side that broke the communion after the accession of Elisabeth, who had her parliament reintroduce royal supremacy. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's muddy, but historically there are explicit lines of descent. There is the Eastern Church, and the Western Church. The Western Church is divided between those who are Roman Catholic and those who are not. One could go one step further and divide mainline Protestants from Evangelicals, but the dividing line there is the muddy one. The others aren't too difficult or controversial.Tim (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have learnt quite a bit from this. I don't know what to do on Wikipedia, but it is interesting that Protestant is a pejorative term more of a counter-part to say "Papist" which those thus designated often don't use or object to, whereas Catholic like Christian many or most claim. Respectfully though Tourskin we cannot ignore definitions and usage which exists. "Catholic" as a word has as many ownership issues as the word Christian itself and we have to be equally fair here. We should reflect the world's words not make it. Anglicanism is much less important than Roman Catholicism for historical reasons but still has 60-80 million members (the CoE cutoff is twelve services a year versus 4 for RC as well which distorts the numbers a lot). --BozMo talk 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protestant is not a pejorative term. It goes back to a bunch of pro-Luther princes issueing a "protestation" against the rejection of the Augsburg Confession. Aisde from this, there is no alternative to "Protestant" avaiable. "Reformed" certainly not, as this implies that all others are simply unreformed.

"Anglicanism is much less important than Roman Catholicism for historical reasons but still has 60-80 million members (...)"

But placing Anglicanism among Protestantism doesn't mean that it is unimportant. If it where unimportant, we would not be mentioning it all and simply treat it as any small church placed within Protestantism. PS. I have no clue what you are trying to say in parantheses. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing important in parenthesis, just Roman Catholics here count membership as anyone who comes to four services a year, rather than 12 which gives a signficantly higher membership count (but this doesn't matter). However I have had a look around those non RC/Orthodox churches I can find and indeed "Reformed" does look like the right word, and the word they tend to use of themselves. The issues with it are identical to the issues with Catholic (using "Catholic" for in communion with Rome implies a claim that others are not Catholic in exactly the same way as using "Reformed" for non RC Churches implies others are not Reformed). Reformed v Catholic is neutral Protestant v Papist is neutral Protestant versus Catholic does not seem to be so. But I grant you it is used (especially with the RC church) --BozMo talk 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand. However, I think that means of determining membership are hardly uniform around the world. (And I don't think you'd suggest that differing counting measures would substantially change the figures.)

No, Reformed is unacceptable because a) when taken literally it is POV and insulting towards non-Protestants. b) they do refer more strictly to the Zwinglian/Calvinian branch of Protestantism (which impacted Anglicanism too). Str1977 ^(talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

BoZo, "Reformed" is used for those Protestants who have Augustinian/Calvinistic beliefs (i.e. predestination). A "Reformed Baptist" is different from a "Dispensationalist Baptist" for instance. My break down would be:

• Eastern Orthodox
• Western Christianity

• Roman Catholic (always keep "Roman" on there to keep from confusing the term with "catholic", which applies to all Nicene Christians)
• Protestants

• Mainline Protestants (generally meaning representative or appointed government, to include Anglicans)
• Evangelicals (generally meaning congregational democratic government)

On could go further with historical lineages, to show what came from what... Baptists and Mennonites both came from older Anabaptists (although the Baptists are less direct). Methodists came from Anglicans. Holiness came from Methodists, etc. But on Wikipedia, the simpler the better.

Protestant is not pejorative. Roman Catholic is not pejorative. "Reformed" only speaks of SOME Protestants, and not all. Anglicans are doctrinally "Reformed" (Calvinistic) but Methodists are not (they are Arminians). "Catholic" is ambiguous, since it is often used of ALL Christians. "Roman Catholic" is not ambiguous. Hope this helps.Tim (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your breakdown does not work that way as Roman Catholic (using the Roman merely for its common use and to distinguish it clearly) includes Eastern Catholics as well. Also, I don't think the geographic East-West distinction is held up in today's circumstances with Eastern Orthodox Christians in the West and Protestants in the East.

I also disagree with a distinction between mainline protestant and Evangelicals as the two are not mutally exclusive.

I always thought Methodists were Reformed as far as I know as Reformed does not mean merely Calvinistic in the strict sense (5 points, vs. Arminian) but in the broader sense, including all Protestants that look towards Geneva rather than Wittenberg. And you confirm this when you say Anglicans are Reformed - but not all Anglicans are 5-Point-Calvinists.

Finally, "Catholic" is never used to refer to ALL Christians. I agree with using "Roman Catholic" for clarity's sake but it is not the proper term. Hence, Protestants can bear with being called Protestants and Anglicans can bear with being subsumed under that heading. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Str, I'd suggest Reformed Baptist as a good place to start. Can "Reformed" be synonymous with "Protestant"? Sure! Can "Catholic" be synonymous with "Roman Catholic"? Absolutely!

But you will notice that these terms point to radically different articles in Wikipedia. The simplest approach is to Wikilink all possible terms and see which articles are what you have in mind.

All I'm suggesting is an organizational breakdown in which non-overlapping terms are favored above overlapping terms. "Reformed" can EITHER mean "Protestant" or "Calvinistic" (as in Reformed Baptists; but "Protestant" is unambiguous. "Catholic" can EITHER mean "universal" or "Roman Catholic"; while "Roman Catholic" is not ambiguous. My approach avoids making a pronouncement of who is right. I'm NOT saying catholic can't mean "Roman Catholic." Instead I'm saying that "Roman Catholic" means the same thing to Protestants and Roman Catholics, while "catholic" means something different. "Protestant" means the same thing to Calvinists and Arminians, while "Reformed" does not. I do agree that Evangelical is muddy -- and I've said so above. There are even Roman Catholics who consider themselves Evangelical, because they use the term for an approach to outreach, rather than as a political distinction. Methodists are "Protestants" to Calvinists, but they are not "Reformed" to Calvinists. Does that mean they are not "Reformed" to non-Calvinists? No. Of course they are. But they are "Protestants" to everyone, so why not use a term that does not cause confusion?Tim (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that we agree about using Protestant and Roman Catholic (unless the context makes it superfluous, such as in "the Catechism details/summarizes the Catholic faith") and hence we needn't continue to discuss it. I was nitpicking a bit in my last posting. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! In general I try to make as many terms Wikilinkable as possible. You never know who's gonna come behind you and double bracket something you've writtem ;-) Tim (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[un-indent] A scholarly take, from an Anglican source: "Anglicanism aspires to be a Catholic faith. Charles Gore used to speak of 'catholicism without the pope', and Garbett described the Church of England as 'the catholic church in this land, set free from subjection to the Church of Rome'...The catholicity of the Anglican Church (or Churches) rests upon its continuity of worship, employing ancient forms purged of medieval accretions, and of pastoral care in the parishes and parish churches whose origins go back to time immemorial. It rests also upon the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons...through 'apostolic succession'...Above all, the catholicity of Anglicanism is revealed in its adherence to the Scriptures, creeds, and the councils of the undivided church." (Paul Avis, "What is Anglicanism," in The Study of Anglicanism, ed. by Stephen Sykes and John Booty, London, SPCK: 1988). What this issue seems to come down to is having those who object to Anglicanism's claims for itself attempt to define our branch of Christianity for us. I defy anyone to find a mainstream introduction to Anglicanism which does not define it is having elements of both Catholicism and Protestantism. To say it is strictly one or the other ignores the definition of Anglicanism itself, as well as its actual character. Nothing ecclesiologically changed in the Church of England after Rome broke communion with it with the exception of Rome breaking communion with it. This evidently sticks in the craw of some Roman Catholics, who believe the definition of "Catholic" is a designating power of their Primate. fishhead64 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fishhead (cute moniker), having been born and raised an Anglican, I completely understand that Anglicans are Catholic (in the Protestant understanding of that word). That is, they are Catholic and not Roman Catholic. We used to call ourselves "English Cathollics" -- which I carried over into my Baptist days, when, as a Reformed Baptist pastor I used to call myself a "Baptist Catholic." As all Nicene Christians know, they believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. One can certainly contain Anglican within the scope of the Catholic and Protestant articles on Wikipedia. But do you pick one term or both? And if you have to choose, which one? Well, Anglicans are indeed "Catholic" in the Protestant understanding of that word, but not "Catholic" in the Roman Catholic understanding of that word. But look at that again -- they are "Catholic" in the Protestant understanding of that word. The defining term, then, with the least ambiguity, is Protestant. If you want to say "Catholic and Protestant", okay, but you'll need a good deal of explanation for 1.2 billion potential Wikipedia readers (the Roman Catholic ones). Or, you could just say "Protestant" in generic articles like this one and then go into detail on the Anglican article to explain.Tim (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim (my head doesn't really look fishlike, btw) - I disagree that there is only a "Protestant" and a "Roman Catholic" understanding of the word "Catholic." Indeed, even within the ambit of these branches of Christianity, I am certain there is a multiplicity of understandings of the word, as described in the excellent articles Catholic, Catholic Church (disambiguation), and Catholicism. The clarity which puzzled readers might seek should Anglicanism be described as a "middle path between Protestantism and Catholicism," say, would be found in the Anglicanism article. Perhaps a brief description of the various meanings of the term "Catholic" within the body of the article would be useful, especially since this is an ongoing source of fervid debate on many Wikipedia talk pages. fishhead64 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell Fishhead and Tim,

I am afraid you are both using Idiosyncratic meanings of the word "Catholic" - Tim more so with his "Baptised Catholic" while Fishhead is giving more a very far off Anglican POV. And of course these claims of "continuity of worship, employing ancient forms purged of medieval accretions" and "the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons...through 'apostolic succession'" is not actually historical but fiction. AS far as "adherence to the Scriptures", everyone claims that. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church section is incorrect

I have offered a correct version with proper wording for this section but it keeps getting eliminated in favor of calling it a collection of "local particular churches" - please read the link Particular Church to understand why we can not summarize the entire Roman Catholic Church in this way, it makes an incorrect and misleading statment. NancyHeise ^talk 18:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are technically right and have gone back to your version but it doesn't read terribly well. It would be nice to start with an a priori definition of RC (e.g. in communion with and under the Pope) rather than a collective one. --BozMo talk 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the consitution of the church of the last council, the church consists of local (particular) churches in communion with the head of the episcopate. "governed by Peter and the bishops in communion with him", it says nothing about eastern rites and latin rite etc. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If I were not a Catholic who knew better, and I was reading about the Catholic Church for the first time on this page, I would think that there were only 2782 "local" Catholic Churches. This paragraph is very misleading to the average reader and since many young people use Wikipedia as a source, I think the page is doing a disservice to the advancement of a true picture of Christianity. There is a huge paragraph on Protestantism even though that sector of Christianity makes up less than 1/3 of total Christians. Is there not some way of wording the Roman Catholic Church paragraph so that it is not misleading the reader? Why is the very important fact that it is the largest denomination representing over half of all Christians buried underneath the less important and obscure detail of telling us there are 2782 local Churches? This is incorrect. There are 2782 "sees" not "local Churches". For a person who does not know what a "see" is, it is a jurisdictional area which I think is a better way to describe it. My sentence telling reader that the RCC is divided into 2782 jurisdictional areas was tossed in favor of telling reader that the RCC is made up of 2782 "local churches" - an incorrect statement and misleading at best. NancyHeise ^talk 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the Roman Catholic Church page, of which I am a major contributor, "Worldwide, the Catholic Church comprises a Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches. The Latin Church divides into jurisdictional areas known as dioceses, or eparchies in the Eastern Church. Each is headed by a bishop, patriarch or eparch, appointed by the pope. By 2007, including both dioceses and eparchies, there were 2,782 sees. Each diocese is divided into individual communities called parishes, which are staffed by one or more priests." The information is referenced to the Annuario Pontificio, a book I bought and used as the most authoritative reference for the information. The jurisdictional areas in the Pontificio are called "sees", not local churches. The different churches with different rites are called autonomous particular churches not "local churches". I have changed the RCC paragraph several times to offer more correct versions but you keep changing it in favor of a misleading and incorrect version that does not have any references to back up your changes. Please either insert a reference to back up your changes or make use of the correct information I have provided with references. NancyHeise ^talk 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So is your beef with the term local, do you fear that it can be misunderstood as municipal, as referring to parishes? If that is so - a problem I had not considered before - I would not object to dropping local (even though it is the accurate term) and just speaking of "particular churches", as long as you agree to retain the description as outlined, proceeding from bishops and pope and mentioning the rites only later.

Note however, that we give figures for every grouping, hence the idea that Protestantism is larger than Catholicism would soon be dispelled.

WP cannot ever serve as reference for WP, and in particular not when the editor arguing for a change is herself involved in making the other article look like it does. Patriarchs and "Eparchs" are bishops too. Bishoprics still make up for the vast majority of particular churches, only a few organisations are outside of that framework: some monastic orders, Opus Dei, the FSSP. We should not be using sees a) because the term is a bit obscure, b) accurately refers to the bishop, not to his particular church, c) though true for most particular churches it is not for all.

I have unforunately seen that you have reverted the passage several times. However, I cannot accept your changes if you keep on trying to make the RCC a 1+22 affair. Anything else is a matter of best presentation.

And please don't ask for sources. The sources are the very same ones that you use. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Str, I am trying to help you create an accurate RCC section, I want to work with you not against you and I fear that my efforts are not welcomed. My beef is with the term local because not only can it be misunderstood as municipal, it is the incorrect term to describe the entire Catholic Church. I think your change is better now and I dont have a problem with it except that it is inconsistent with the rest of the article's denominations that do not mention how many particular churches or how many sees they have. If you are going to say something about one denomination, you should give the same information about the other denominations to be consistent. Honestly I dont think reader cares how many sees a church has though and there are better pieces of information to pick from to give them than that - for instance: 1)What percentage of Christians are members (which you have already addressed) 2)When was the denomination established - how old is it? (which you have already addressed) 3)Who makes up the community of believers - Catholic Church has celibate priests, monks and nuns and laity, Methodists have married male and female priests and laity, etc 4)Is membership in such denomination growing and where do members primarily live? 5)Charitable works associated with that denomination are .... ex. Latter Day Saints and Brigham Young University, Catholic and Anglican missions in Africa, etc. The point of giving this information is to tell reader A)What the Church is, B)Who belongs to this church and C)What does the Church do. Please see the FA Islam and thier handling of the denomination section also for help. I think they did a good job of providing reader with basic valuable information that gives us a clear picture of that faith. This page needs that kind of clarity. NancyHeise ^talk 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section under scriptural interpretation only shows two of the denominations - Catholic and Protestant - this is inconsistent with the denominations section. It leaves us wondering how do Eastern Orthodox or Restorationists interpret scripture? Do they do it all by themselves like Protestants or is their some acknowledged teaching authority like Roman Catholic? NancyHeise ^talk 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I am not working against you and I am glad that in your last edit you restricted yourself to two issues.

However, I have to disagree with you that local is "inaccurate". Consider

• "This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church."
• "A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood," (48*) especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered,(49*) and by which the Church continually lives and grows. This Church of Christ is truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful which, united with their pastors, are themselves called churches in the New Testament."
• "Any institute of perfection and its individual members may be removed from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinaries by the Supreme Pontiff and subjected to himself alone."

I also don't think that the Catechism details the Catholic faith - sure it is a longish book but it still only a summary of the vast richness of the faith. But I will not fight you over it and am glad that you at least dropped the claim that the Nicene Creed summarizes the Catholic faith.

"Except that it is inconsistent with the rest of the article's denominations that do not mention how many particular churches or how many sees they have." - Well, you introduced that information. And IMHO it would be an improvement if that information were given for the others as well, as far as possible (it is different because these others are not unified churches but rather many churches)

"If you are going to say something about one denomination, you should give the same information about the other denominations to be consistent." - If I had it I would.

"Honestly I dont think reader cares how many sees a church has though" - why then did you include this in the first place? Of course in the end I don't really object to doing without the number but I am just wondering.

"2)When was the denomination established - how old is it? (which you have already addressed)" - that would prove difficult because when we insert the date the CC was founded, others undoubtedly will cry out POV.

"3)Who makes up the community of believers - Catholic Church has celibate priests, monks and nuns and laity, Methodists have married male and female priests and laity, etc" - I'd not included "celibate" here as there are married Catholic priests (though few), Methodists BTW do not have priests at all (not even by name). A better way of covering this would be to note in the case of the RCC, the EO, the OO and others that they do have ordained clergy. Laity is presumed to be present anyway.

"4)Is membership in such denomination growing and where do members primarily live?" - the places we can easily include in the passages were we talk about the members. About the growth I am not so certain how to include it.

"5)Charitable works associated with that denomination are .... ex. Latter Day Saints and Brigham Young University, Catholic and Anglican missions in Africa, etc." - I think that breaks the bonds of this article. We can in general create a section about charitable works in Christianity but I object to inserting this into every denomination as it is not a matter of distinct characteristics.

Finally, I prefer if we looked at this article for its own merits rather than trying to copy some other article. Note that Christianity is much more diverse than Islam. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of Contents reorganization suggestion

I was examining the structure of the FA Islam and comparing it to this page. I was noticing that their section on denominations devotes itself primarily to what makes the denominations different from each other, which amounts to differences in beliefs. I was wondering if editors of this page would consider moving the subsections on trinitarians and non-trinitarians and scriptural interpretation to the denominations section and describing these things there. For instance, the RCC section could have the information that it is trinitarian and its scriptural interpretation methods summarized in that section of denominations. Likewise for Protestants. Not many Christians are non-trinitarian so that could be addressed in their particular denominations too. I think that would simplify and clean up the page a little more - any thoughts from others on this? NancyHeise ^talk 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one big snag in this structure, although it is a good idea. The Latter Day Saint movement has denominations that are both trinitarian and non-trinitarian, so you can't really divide them up that way. I would rather have it be Orthodoxy, Protestantism/Reformationism and Restorationism as the major divisions, although I suspect there are other denominations that don't fit into any of these categories. Bytebear (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-trinitarian is a much more meaningful catagory. "Restorationism" groups things that are very like & unlike Protestantism togther. Latter Day Saint movement can be explained or footnoted as needed.--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do like the idea, but there is more than just one big snag. What comes to mind most is that Protestants are rather diverse in their scriptural interpretation. There is a few things that would be rather commom Protestants, but it would mostly be a contrast in with (some) RCC & EO scriptural interpretation ideas. I think scriptural interpretation would be handled better all togther. --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about Christianity as a whole and hence should present Christianity as such (the common stock with variations) and not just an assembly of individual denominations - these are presented further down. If we broke down this article into such an assembly, there would be no reason to have such an article at all. And please can we discuss this article on its own merits rather than copying other articles? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Storm Rider's (Sorry) Str1977 rejection of listing the many denominations, though am neutral on all other points. Islam has far fewer splits and its splits are far easier to unite. There is very little theological disagreements within Islam itself; it stresses its simplicity in the 5 pillars (or 6) pillars. Christianity on the other hand is quite branched. There are disagreements with interpretations of scripture and the relationship within the Trinity, if the trinity is accepted (which in some denominations it is not). Gabr-el 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-trinitarianism

Right now the section starts with a clear, concise, understandable definition of a nontrinitarian: "Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. ". User:Storm Rider keeps adding an additional, more complex, definition that is harder to understand, including stuff about "unifying belief". I don't understand the point of this, and I think it's unhelful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, did you notice that the definition I removed was a duplicate (the term is defined at the top of the section) but the definition you removed was not a duplicate? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can undestand how it would be complex to you given that it is a subject with diverse meanings. Non-trinitarianism is a catch-all phrase for every belief system that is not Trinitarian. User:Afaprof01 took out most of the language that expounded, though poorly, on the diversity of beliefs in this section. I think we can make both sections more concise and helpful. However, with your continued efforts to only revert, it will be overly difficult. Have you ever thought of simply assisting in the edit rather than reverting?

Also, why is it necessary to have two sections about the same topic. We currently have the Trinity section and then a Trinitarian section. I think they can both be combined. They seem redundant to me. Thoughts? --^StormRider 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Non-trinitarianism is a catch-all phrase for every belief system that is not Trinitarian, and that's what the definition in the section currently says. My objection wasn't to the definition that is there now, it's to the one that was added at the bottom of the section. It meant that the section had two conflicting definitions. I assisted with the edit by removing one of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise I also duplicated the definition of Trinity, which was already defined in the section above. Fixed it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to the Trinity/Trinitarianism question, I would agree that the only part of the Trinitarianism section that really belongs there and not in the Trinity section is the statement about the prevalence of Trinitarianism. I would have no particular objection to merging the rest of the Trinitarianism section into Trinity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no chapter entitled "Criticism" ? There have been many critics of religion in general and of christianity in particular, so I think that in order for the article to respect wikipedia's NPOV, the criticisms brought fourth by these people (most of whom were eminent scientists, like Albert Einstein) should appear. Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Criticism of Christianity. We have had ample people crying like babies for a criticism section, we have something "better" - why not do something even better too by actually searching for such a named article?Gabr-el 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)