Talk:Christianity/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Introduction

"Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism,[5] and includes the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, within its canon" Most christians/churhes use the new testament and not the old one any more, this whould be noted!--203.87.127.18 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination with well over one billion members, and it still uses the Hebrew Bible. All protestant denominations combined may actually come close to that number, and a great many of them too, use the Hebrew bible. So no, I do no believe your statement has any validity, nevermind the vaguery with which it is written. Guldenat 04:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help request, Death and resurrection of Jesus

Recently, the lead of Death and resurrection of Jesus has been changed to be more concise. I think this is a move in the right direction, however, the language used, at least to me, reads to have an Orthodox/Catholic slant to it, and it uses some jargon. So I was wondering if the editors of this page wouldn't mind reviewing the lead, particularly These two events are essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and are commemorated by Christians during the liturgical times of Passiontide and Eastertide, particularly during Holy Week. and see if the wording can't be revised to be more inclusive of Protestants and Christians in general. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The current lead doesn't seem to contain the version of the sentence that you quoted. Nonetheless, here are my comments based on the version of the sentence quoted above.

What are your concerns? Here's what I see. The wording is flawed because it is not the "events" that are "essential doctrines of the Christian faith"; it is the implications of the events that are essential doctrines. Perhaps a better wording would be "these two events play critical roles in the essential doctrines of...".

Also, there are the words "Passiontide", "Eastertide" and "Holy Week". I believe Holy Week is used Protestant contexts. "Passiontide" and "Eastertide" sound archaic to me. I don't think they are widely used in the United States.

I don't really see anything substantive about the sentence that reflects Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant differences. Am I missing something?

--Richard 14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Richard on this one - I reviewed the lead and couldn't see what the problem was. The doctrines emerge from the events, be they historical events or narrative events. I don't think there's a problem with the words "Passiontide" and "Eastertide": These refer to particular seasons of the church year, and the wikification removes any ambiguity. Christians generally commemorate the passion and resurrection of Christ at these times, regardless of their affiliation.

Perhaps if you highlighted the specific difficulties, that would be helpful. fishhead64 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to read my concerns voiced on the Death and Resurrection talk page. However, to summarize, I agree with Richard that "Passiontide" and "Eastertide" are not only archaic, unused terms, the articles they currently link to are specifically about Catholic/Orthodox liturgy. Previous versions of this article linked to Easter and Good Friday which are much more common words to me. My concern is that many protestant are not on the Liturgical Calendar of the Catholics, so the article may benefit from a more inclusive sentence that at least links to more broad topics. Perhaps change the sentence to "commemorated by Christians on Good Friday and Easter Sunday" and then have a sentence about the liturgical calendar for Catholic/Orthodox. But this isn't the place to be making proposals, sorry.-Andrew c 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am with Richard too except that I would insist that the events (including the implications) are fundamental parts of Christianity. Christians do believe in real events and not just in philopsophical principles. That doesn't assume that they are real events but Christians believe they are and Christianity stands or falls with these events being real. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:26, 24 April 2007

"Most Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith and the most important event in history.[16][17]." Gee I thought it was the Jesus giving his life for all the christians sins? Isnt that more important as it enables the existance of christianity?--203.87.127.18 07:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No Christians in general beleive the crucifixion was important as it was the sacrifice of the perfect lamb for the forgiveness of sin (in ancient Israel animals were sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins), whereas the resurection was the victory over sin and death - without the resurection there is no life after this one. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.Floorwalker 04:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in many Christian faiths Easter is considered the most important holiday. However, I do caution, ironically, against using biblical passages to back up statements since many different denominations interpret passages in different ways. Examples of this would be christians who take a 'literal' stance on biblical interpretation tend to insert 'alone' after Paul saying "We are saved by faith". Another example with said christians is, although taking a 'literal' view of the bible, abandon this view with John chapter 6. Guldenat 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Christianity and the Holy Trinity doctrine

Hello folks, I come requesting a little bit of input as regards the definition of Christianity and consensus. On the Jehovah's Witnesses article, there is a fairly steady ongoing debate as to whether it is NPOV to classify the group as Christian (you can see some of the dialog at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses). The crux of this usually centers around the fact that JWs are non-Trinitarian, and on this point hinges the arguments of several (mostly anonymous) editors that JWs cannot be classified as Christian due to the intrinsic association of the Trinity doctrine with Christianity. This point of view is acknowledged briefly in this article, where it points out that non-Trinitarians are often considered heretical by mainstream Christianity.

Using the description outlined in the first few paragraphs of this article, JWs do qualify as Christian. They are monotheistic, believe in all of the teachings of Jesus Christ as set forth in the New Testament, believe Jesus to be the son of God (though reject the notion that he is a manifestation of God almighty) and the prophesied Messiah from the Old Testament.

Amongst the regular editors of the Jehovah's Witnesses pages, it is agreed upon that JWs are correctly called Christians per the above definitions. We have agreed that it is not encyclopedic to use a theological definition of Christianity, which might preclude not only JWs, but other larger denominations depending on whose definition you adopt. Our consensus is that a secular definition of Christianity similar to the one set forth in the lede of this article is the most appropriate and NPOV path to take. It is also consistent with most Wikipedia articles and most secular sources.

The reason I bring this up is that lately some of the anons have been persistently changing the JW article lede to classify them as a "sect" or "religious group" rather than a "Christian denomination". What's more, recently this has been justified by challenging the existence of any consensus on this matter. In my opinion, the consensus is clear from the definitions of Christianity used on Wikipedia in general and the arguments of the regular editors to JW articles. However, I'd like to seek a little broader input from editors of this page so we can hopefully have an even clearer consensus to point to. Thanks for your consideration. -- mattb 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thats it, there is lots of different versions on the definition of what christianity is and offcourse everyone knows theirs is the correct one. Its just one of those things, so the best thing is if JW say they are christian then write it up that way.--203.87.127.18 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I would prefer to keep this discussion free of theological arguments if possible. We're well aware of what they are so they don't need to be rehashed. The question at hand is whether it's appropriate for Wikipedia to adopt one of these definitions in the consideration of whether a group can be called Christian or not. -- mattb 15:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we can't use theological distinctions to answer you, that means some of us can't give you some of our best answers, since of course, "centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament." is the whole crux of the debate basically. Oddly, that particular line is referenced by some BBC article, hardly the best of sources, but whatever....However, if you're looking for references on the issue which would be reliable on the matter, I think I could help you out there, i've looked up a few specifically about Jehovah's witnesses, and from our previous recent debate on the issue here, its relatively clear that most basic dictionary and encyclopedia definitions specifically refer to JW's as a Christian group, where more compleate sources such as academic books and the like (At least, the one's I found anyway) do not so readily adopt the definitions of most encyclopedia type sources, though since that discussion went to nothing, I can't be sure yet if I was even on the right track. Homestarmy 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Monotheistic is what "christians" like to push, but the 10 commandments says "thou shall have no other gods before me" (Paraphrased other ways aswell) the "before me" tends to get cut out alot of bibles, as offcourse without it, it shows there are other god who exists and god doesnt even say you should not have them. Just that he come first them second. This is ignored by most "christians" as they are not comfortable with it.

Monotheistic is they way its described, but it contradicts god word in the bible. --203.87.127.18 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright, my request was probably unreasonable. Answer however you like, I just rather like to avoid long diatribes that merely assert a user's own theological opinion (we get those a good bit on the JW talk page). References are always nice, but I think that consistency across Wikipedia is just as important in this case. -- mattb 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest references on the issue we've come up with here are archived at Talk:Christianity/Archive_39#The_Biblical_Definition_of_a_Christian_and_the_Dictionary_definition_of_JW, its mostly at the top of the section, most of the bottom is just me and some other people arguing. Basically, from what happened there, online encyclopedias tend to have short entries on Jehovah's Witnesses which specifically state that they are Christians or that the Watchtower is Christian, but there are many books out there of varying reliability which say anything from not taking a side at all on the issue to implicitly calling them non-Christian, though I haven't been able to determine exactly how reliable the books I found were, since it seems no matter what I found, it was apparently deemed unreliable solely becase the source did not positively affirm Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower as Christian. However, all that aside, I don't think the introduction of this lead is necessarily saying that whoever fits the definition in the lead is definently Christian. It simply seems to be saying things about Christianity, and things about what Christians do, (Specifically, "Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.") but it doesn't say that all people who believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament are necessarily Christians, its a categorical thing, while all Christians must by this definition believe what is in this line, not everyone who believes in the things in this sentence is necessarily Christian. Indeed, this sentence would seem at face value to cover Messianic Judaism quite nicely, but their membership, if I understand it correctly, is quite adament about not referring to themselves as Christians universally, but rather, mostly a separate group. I do not think there would be a consistancy problem per se with this article's lead if the Jehovah's Witnesses article did not positively affirm the organization to be a Christian denomination, in fact, by simply saying "religious group", that wouldn't really say much one way or the other on the matter. Homestarmy 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bit about consistency goes something like this: if we avoid explicitly calling JWs Christian because they don't believe in the Trinity, should we avoid explicitly calling Methodists Christian because they don't believe in the divine authority of the Pope? (not meaning to pick on Methodism, you can substitute any major Protestant denomination) I'm not suggesting that we should do such a thing, only that this may be an argument for using a simple definition of Christianity where possible. Would anyone find it reasonable to change the lede of the Methodism article to say "religious group that self-identifies as Christian"? While there's nothing incorrect with that statement, I think it is unnecessarily complicated just for the sake of satisfying some peoples' sensibilities. I realize this is a bit of hyperbole because the status of JWs as Christian is, in fact, rather more controversial than the status of Methodism, but I think the principle comparison is sound. -- mattb 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like fun times over at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses.....the first thing seems a bit silly, since there were no "trinitarians" per se when Christianity began. (Bit hard to be trinitarian when the term didn't exist, eh?) I don't really know how important some of the stuff you're saying is concerning the debate since I haven't been involved with the JW article, but based on the discussion here, I think it would be far easier for everyone involved to look up the highest quality and reliable references they can for their respective perspective on the issue, (heh, respective perspective...) and solve the issue that way rather than continuing whatever it is y'all have been doing, even though it didn't go so well here, it would likely result in something that doesn't go for either group's side from what I saw, and if the part of your article in question is written to address some given references rather than written based on theological grounds, I think it would be very hard for people to challenge it for neutrality effectively, and then there would be no need to have consistancy with some pseudo-consensus about what a Christian is across Wikipedia. Homestarmy 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope himself calls Methodists and Protestants generally "separated brethren", precisely on the grounds of shared Trinitarian orthodoxy. A.J.A. 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I can find "high quality references" that endorse either point of view. The tricky thing about neutrality is that even the presumably "neutral" sources aren't consistent on this issue (as you've seen), and representing two points of view equally is not neutrality. Unfortunately, reliable sources rarely do any good in resolving this sort of thing. If we leave the text as-is we'll continue seeing anons change it on the basis of their belief, and if we change it to something like the phrasing I used in my last message we'll see other anons change it on the basis of their belief. This probably isn't solveable since everyone wants to see their own POV represented, but it's difficult to ask anons to stop reverting without pointing to some consensus. The regular editors of that page do have such a consensus, but that is seldom satisfactory to the determined. That's why I'm merely seeking to find a broader consensus if that's possible. While I appreciate your suggestion regarding referencing, it's of limited utility here.

It's quite possible that it's not possible to get a broad consensus on this and we'll just have to live with the frequent edit disputes and revert wars, but I'd like to at least see if there's a possibility for a solution. -- mattb 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be neutral, they just have to be reliable, its when the sources are used in Wikipedia where they have to be rendered in a neutral manner together with other sources if applicable. (Which may be part of the problem here, looking at your notes section, almost every single reference is straight from the Watchtower, a Watchtower affiliated source, or a source writing explicitly from a JW viewpoint) However, if there is already a clear consensus (I.E. not just a supermajority of like 80 percent of editors) among editors of the article, why care what anon's do? Controversial articles all have problems with IP's changing things the way they shouldn't be changed, is there a particular reason that just reverting them all has become too problematic? Homestarmy 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, just trying to determine whether it's fair to do so (revert he IPs, that is). -- mattb 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at a few standard histories of Christianity (Gonzalez, Noll, Pelikan), and all reference nontrinitarian traditions such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarianism as Christian, without further elaboration of whether their beliefs allow for such a designation. This is, I think, completely appropriate, since there is no impartial authority which gets to ajudicate who or who is not "Christian." It is entirely a matter of self-definition (see the rather protracted discussion in the archives of Talk:Roman Catholic Church concerning who gets to call themselves "Catholic"). If a body claims to be Christian, i.e., following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as they understand them, then they get to claim the label, even if some other Christians may find their claims to be dubious or even null.

I can provide the references if you like, but I'm sure that they're not isolated cases, and you can find equivalent references easily enough. fishhead64 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in those references myself, never saw any of those when I went looking up stuff on the issue.... Homestarmy 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, could you please provide the references? I don't doubt you, but these might be useful. Thanks. -- mattb 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Justo A. González, The Story of Chistianity, Vol. 2, "The Reformation to the Present Day" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 193, 240, 244; Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 230-35, 308, 452, 465-66; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5, "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" (Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1983), 192-93; 197-98. fishhead64 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Predictably, every single google book preview on every single source managed to omit all the pages you listed here x_x . Homestarmy 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

lol! Fortunately, the books are in wide circulation, and you shouldn't have much trouble locating them in a decent-sized library. fishhead64 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys! This article is grossly focused on government numbers for the amount of Christians in different nations!! For example, I'm half-Norwegian and half-Cantonese and I've gotta say... there are between 5-10% Christians in China and it's definitely not around 90% in Norway just because there are that many members in the State church. Will the number of Christians in Norway really fall by about 80% if the State Church is disbanded? Most of them wouldn't even care! It doesn't work that way. The number of Christians in a country are personal adherants to Jesus not whatever the State has got on paper. This isn't Islam where you're automatically a muslim at birth when someone orates the passage of faith to your ears as an infant in the crib (thus btw. making you eligible for persecution if you convert away from Islam), this is a volountary faith! As a Norwegian I can witness personally that the number of Christians is definitely below 50% and China will probably pass the magical 10% marker in a decade or two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toteone (talk • contribs) 06:45, 4 May 2007.

The following statement needs to be changed: "all Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human)." A 2002 survey of the Barna Group (www.barna.org) has revealed that only 77% of Christians believe this. The easiest alteration would be to say "MOST Christians believe...." Donbodo 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Any statement in these articles that says "most Christians" say, believe, choose, or, if it says "all Christians" is by nature incorrect or can't be proven. All such terms should be left out. The best that could be said is "some Christians"., Christianity is such a wide-ranging and diverse religion that past or present, there is no way to document such things.

problem with enter to site

Hello. I have problem with enter to this site via GPRS. Please, help me.

Thanks! Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.122.19.61 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Who is mainstream Christianity?

Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, mainstream Christianity considers certain core doctrines essential.

Who is mainstream Christianity? WP:WEASEL, Thanks, Monkeyblue 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. We use the phrase without defining it. That should be fixed although I'm not sure how. "mainstream Christianity" = Roman Catholic+Anglican+Orthodox+Protestant(Reformed+Lutheran+Baptist). It does not include Mormons or JWs.

--Richard 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Should not use the term, as whos definition of it are you going to use? Monkeyblu is correct it should just be left out--203.87.127.18 13:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We need a source defining 'mainstream Christianity' or not have the term at all. Does the article really need a one line intro to beliefs? Monkeyblue 10:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it as "creedal" Christianity. On top of that comes specifics like the Trinity, one holy cathlic church, etc. If your church adheres to the Nicene and other creeds you are mainstream, or traditional or apostolic, but it all comes down to the creeds as I see it. Protestants who broke from the Catholic church did not abandon the creeds or early Catholic traditions. Extortionists Restorationists (Mormons, JWs, and others) hold no allegiance to 4th century structure. I will look for references, but I don't even like the term "mainstream" in favor of "traditional" Bytebear 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Extortionists? George 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, wtf? Was this a Freudian slip - meant to say "Restorationists" and somehow "Extortionists" slipped out? --Richard 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My spell checker changed it without me catching it. Bytebear 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, almost all attempts to say "mainstream" or "traditional" have problems.

As for "creedal", well, what does that mean? Affirming the Nicene Creed? I reviewed the Nicene Creed and there isn't much there for JWs or Mormons to object to except for this bit which is not part of the revised (Council of Constantinopele) version of the creed

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

I think Monkeblue raised a very valid point and I have reworded the intro to the "Beliefs" section as follows...

Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, most Christian branches and denominations share a common set of doctrines that they hold as essential to their faith.

I know there was a big tussle over "branches and denominations" and frankly I can't remember what the outcome of that was. I'm fine to replace that phrase with something better if anyone can remind me of what the conclusion was.

--Richard 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to find a place to ask for changes in this article. I have looked everywhere but there doesn't seem to be any place to make changes or even suggest changes. How do we make changes? Also, how come the pages that talk about making edits don't talk about how to make changes in pages that don't allow changes?

69.181.188.254 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The number one cause of atheism

The discussion of this topic isn't related to the editing of this article so I'm moving it to User talk:Lolahothot.

--Richard 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert of comparison to other religions

Richardshusr reverted the following statement

Christianity can be differentiated from other religions, such as Islam, that have Jesus as an important figure by, among other things, the Christian worship of Jesus.

claiming it was redunandant with

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.

I don't understand the redundancy referred to.

--Mcorazao 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OH! Oops. I just re-read the sentence and I now see what you are getting at. Sorry, my revert was late at night and maybe I didn't give it the level of thought and consideration that I should have. (Is that enough sackcloth and ashes?)

Well, this morning, I see that it's not as redundant as I thought last night but perhaps your point could be stated better and I'm not 100% sure it belongs in the lead.

First of all, what other religions besides Islam have Jesus as an important figure? I'm not sure what Judaism thinks of Jesus. I think they acknowledge him as a wise teacher and a prophet although I don't ever hear of Jews quoting the sayings of Jesus. Muslims don't quote him much either.

Second, while it is true that the "worship of Jesus" differentiates Christianity from Islam, the phrase "worship of Jesus" is a vague phrase that may or may not mean something to the reader.

How about using the following text?

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. While some other religions such as Judaism and Islam revere Jesus as an important prophet and teacher, Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

I think this makes your point by hitting the nail square on its head and more clearly states the differentiation.

--Richard 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; overlaying my version on the current version --Richard 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Mmmm, while there is nothing technically incorrect about that version it comes across with what could be interpreted as POV (i.e. someone reading it could assume some things that are not true). So to answer more specifically

• Islam was mainly what I was thinking of. As you mention some Judaic sects have certain opinions of Jesus and but it is debatable whether you could say that any see Jesus as a part of their faith. There are other faiths that have Jesus in them like Bahai and some more obscure sects. I had started to just say Islam but I thought that was unfair to the other faiths so I simply said "other religions such as Islam" to sidestep the question.

OK, let's agree on "other religions such as Islam" --Richard 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Be careful about how you relate Jesus to Islam. Jesus is not just some person that they acknowledge. He is a key prophet in their faith and to even hint otherwise (even unintentionally) would be an insult to their beliefs. --Mcorazao 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that but that often feels more like an abstract concept than a concrete reality (in other words, how often do mullahs, imams and Ayatollahs quote Jesus as opposed to quoting the prophet Mohammed? I don't propose to raise this point directly in this article but I do think we have to consider that Jesus is clearly subordinate to Mohammed in precedence. --Richard 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the "order of precedence" does not mean that He is not key to their religion. To say that He is "abstract" to them because as an outsider you don't hear them quote him is very POV. You're imposing your judgements about how they should act if they truly revered him. In other words, the question is not whether you are actually right or wrong but whether there is a neutral basis to make your argument. --Mcorazao 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding "Son of God" and "Messiah" you have to be careful how you use these expressions. Depending on the context (and who you ask), Muslims view all of us as children of God including Jesus. As far as "Messiah", this term, like "Christ" means literally "annointed one" (or more loosely chosen one) which they do believe Jesus was although certainly not in the way we do. I deliberately avoided terminology like that because you can easily find yourself in trouble without offering a ton of explanation (which would be inappropriate in the intro). --Mcorazao 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are difficulties but that text is the second sentence in the lead paragraph now and has been there for some time. All I did was change it from "Christians believe Jesus..." to "While some other religions such as Judaism and Islam revere Jesus as an important prophet and teacher, Christians believe Jesus...". My objection to the placement of your sentence is that it repeats the "worship of Jesus" at the end of the second paragraph when the point was already made in the second sentence of the first paragraph. My proposed text takes your point and merges it into the second sentence. --Richard 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that's true. The into text, as is, doesn't really try to get into the specific detail that Jesus is worshipped. Granted one could sort of infer that but the intent of my sentence was to go ahead and state this as a differentiating factor. I realize that in general Christian terminology "Son of God" and "Messiah" are commonly interpreted to imply worship but that's only one way to interpret the terms and it is not how all people would interpret those terms. One thing that's funny about religion is how often two groups will interpret the same

words as "obviously" meaning two different things. --Mcorazao 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is it seems a little odd to be contrasting Christianity to other religions in the first paragraph. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that but it seems like the contrasts should be saved for another paragraph. --Mcorazao 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not specifically hung up on the "worship of Jesus" phrase but it is consistent with a lot of usage out there and, as far as I know, non-controversial. Various Islamic sources specifically state that the "worship of Jesus" is one of the major issues, if not the issue, that they have with Christianity (this is interpreted by them as polytheism). Christians certainly do not have an issue with saying that they "worship Jesus" (or at least I am not aware of any sect that would). --Mcorazao 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand but Christians worship all three persons of the Trinity. In addition, we have to ask how "worship of Jesus" adds to the reader's understanding when we have already said "Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament". I could understand a proposal to append "and therefore worthy of worship on a par with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit". However, "worship of Jesus" is both vague and potentially misleading (as in suggesting that Christians worship only Jesus or primarily Jesus). --Richard 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I say contrasting these terms to Islam does not necessarily make sense. Muslims do use the term "Messiah" and even sometimes "son of God" to refer to Jesus (depends on the source. Some Muslims avoid those specific terms in English because of the Christian association). --Mcorazao 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly it can be debated whether this belongs in the intro. My feeling, though, from the philosophy that the intro of an article should stand on its own and serve as a very short article in itself, is that this is a valuable aspect of understanding the religion in the world context. Many Christians are under the impression that Jesus is only a figure in Christianity and that other groups don't even believe he existed. I think this is a valuable point to clarify up front (i.e. ideally an article should be clear about how it its topic differs from others). For those who are neither Christian nor Muslim (setting aside the question of how often somebody like that might actually read this article) it would certainly be reasonable to ask "If both religions consider Jesus important, why are they classified as different religions?" Obviously one can come up with a lot of answers to that but, at the core of it, this is a key differentiator.

--Mcorazao 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with drawing the distinction between Christianity and Islam although I'm not convinced that it is critical to include in the lead (i.e. I wouldn't object if it were included nor if it were excluded).

With these explanations above, do you accept my proposed text or do you have outstanding issues with it?

--Richard 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but your text doesn't convey what you intend it to convey and it can potentially be misinterpreted. If you're really sold on the idea of keeping this issue in the first paragraph perhaps you could try something like

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Unlike religions, such as Islam, which also regard Jesus as a Messiah, Christians worship Jesus as a divine figure, a part of their One God.

--Mcorazao 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If a reader reads the start of the Islam article and the start of the Christianity article and can't tell that the two religions are clearly different, I don't think any amount of extra material in the lead could convince them otherwise, they'd have to have almost no reading skills whatsoever. I don't mean that in a mean way, but basic reading comprehension should indicate so far that clearly the two religions are different, the contents of the lead and the proposed beliefs and/or practices are both more than different enough in both articles that I think it's sort of blatantly obvious that Christianity and Islam are clearly different. Homestarmy 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

? I'd say you're over-simplifying a lot. By your argument I'd say Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are parts of different religions since, other than the early writings that they have in common, I can come up with tons of writings and theology over the last millenium that are different. So obviously they can't both be Christian. Which would you say really is? The point is that when you pare down all the traditions and the dogma Islam and Christianity share a lot of religious foundation and are not so different as we are sometimes led to believe. That is, one could argue that many of the theological divisions within Christianity are nearly as great as those that divide us from Islam (although I like to believe that are not quite so great). An educated reader would hopefully see that.

Frankly I don't see how your statements are helpful. Frankly I think this kind of attitude is why wars keep being fought.

In any event, I think we've given this one sentence more attention than is warranted. I'll leave this discussion with my last suggestion there. Do with it what you will.

I certainly hope that the editors of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism article have constructed their articles correctly so that its quite easy to tell that one denomination is clearly different from the other. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are certainly two very different things, but the categorical difference is one of denominational differences primarily, whereas the categorical difference between Christianity and Islam is one of being two separate religions. I do hope an educated reader certainly does not get the impression that Christianity and Islam are very similar in their foundations, while of course a great many moral imperatives are shared between Christianity and Islam, (And many other religions) the fundamental approaches to each religion's purposes of existance are very different. While every denomination that is Christian or claims to be Christian seem to universally agree that Jesus, however He is defined, is, one way or another, instrumental to man's salvation and more or less the reason for Christianitie's existance, there are no Islamic branches I know of which would even come close to such beliefs concerning Jesus, and i'm fairly certain most would reject it very emphatically, and a few would and do reject it with a great amount of violence no less.

I don't know any major series of edit wars concerning this article that have anything to do with this topic however, you'd think that the article over Christianity would deal mostly with itself, rather than how it is different from other religions. I think my statement is extremely helpful, as making large sections on the differences between Christianity and other major religions (which the proposed addition to the lead would require, otherwise, introducing such original content not discussed in the article would violate WP:LEAD) would be rather off-track in my opinion. Homestarmy 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read all, so forgive any repetition. I don't see why Christianity must be distinguished from other religions in this way. Just state what Christianity believes, will you? Also, Judaism does not regard Jesus as a prophet or wise man. In practice, they pretty much ignore him (Messianic Jews of course excepted, but I wouldn't count them under Judaism). Also, the Talmud has some less than nice things to say about Jesus, if indeed these verses are about Jesus Christ. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say on the controversy on Christianity

Why is it necessary to say that "It is Paul who start Christianity" How many percent of the people in the world consider "Paul start Christianity" that it warrant to be put on a encyclopedia

Why is it necessary to say that most Jews does not believe Christianity. Does this encyclopedia list out 1.1) how Jews consider Chrisitinity

Christianity and Judaism

1.2) how Hindu consider Chrisitinity

Christianity and Hinduism => Hinduism and other religions

1.3) how Buddhist consider Chrisitinity

Christianity and Buddhism

2.1) how Christian consider Judism

Christianity and Judaism

2.2) how Hindu consider Judism Hinduism and other religions

2.3) how Buddhist consider Judism Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and Buddhism

..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.81.218 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

The Apostle Paul didn't "start" Christianity, that was none other than Jesus Christ. The first apostles of the faith simply spread the "good news." C-Cheat 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Paul didn't "start" Christianity. Nonetheless, there is the phrase "Pauline Christianity" which asserts that orthodox Christianity as we know it today is a distortion of the original teachings of Christ. --Richard 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention on how Paul is seen as having established the fundementals of the Catholic church in specific to avoid possiblt making readers think he was responsible for Christianity as a whole?

John 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Paul establish the Catholic Church? I thought it was Constantine. Bytebear 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. The Catholics claim that Jesus created his Church (which the Catholic Church claims to be) when he said to Simon Peter "You are the rock (Petros) upon which I will build my church". Thus all Popes claim apostolic succession from Peter, the first Pope.

Paul was not a Pope but his influence on Christian belief and practice is, for better or worse, unmistakably greater than anyone else except Jesus himself. This isn't just about his influence on Catholic belief and practice. This is about his influence on all of Christianity with the exception of Restorationists like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

--Richard 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's my point. Peter was the start of Christianity, as far as formal leadership. Paul did influence the creeds that established Catholocism, but saying Paul established Catholicism is incorrect. His teachings influenced those who started Catholicism, but he was not the author or creator of those creeds. Bytebear 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT carte blanche state he founded Catholicism, I implied that he is influential in its beginings... not all of Christianity is as impacted by Paul as some of you are claiming. But Catholicism is impacted by Paul a great deal. Jeez... John 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The map

I find that map to be extremely incorrect, Sweden over 90 % Christians? And I'm Adolf Hitler reincarnated, no, I swear, It's true! Seriously. Everyone born before 2000 are members of the church but just around 20 % belive that there is a God, alot of those 20 % are immigrant Muslims. Just read the Sweden article and check it up, that map is highly incorrect.

I disagree. ALOT. Around 15%+ are atheist and the rest believe in a creator of some sort. Show me the stats.Philip Auguste 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Philip Auguste

Yes such things as what relgion are you, are tick the appropriate box Eg: Parent once went to a Baptist church....therefore they put baptist on the form. Most "christians" dont go to church and dotn have a very strong belief --203.87.127.18 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Some text to be merged

I have proposed the article Universal opportunity (theology) for deletion since notability has not been established. I also did not know where to merge it to. However, if you want to merge it somewhere, here is its (very limited) content. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Universal opportunity is the idea, particularly in Christianity, that an opportunity to follow the deity, e.g. Jesus, will be an option at the time of death.[1]

Page protection

This page is supposed to be semi-protected (hence the little silver padlock in the upper right corner). So how did this edit by an anon user with only one other edit get through? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody may of forgotten to remove the padlock when unprotecting. Homestarmy 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I thought that protecting the article made the little padlock appear. Now I see 'tis a little template thingy. Tks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is a way of life.

crusades?

what about a section on the crusades. cause you have a section on jihad.

I don't see any section about Jihad, but the material on the crusades and Jihad seems to be together in just two sentences, "Beginning in the 7th century, Muslim rulers began a long series of military conquests of Christian areas, and it quickly conquered areas of the Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, and even captured southern Spain. Numerous military struggles followed, including the Crusades, the Spanish Reconquista, the Fall of Constantinople and the aggression of the Turks.", and perhaps its for the best, the Crusades were very complicated, and in the grand scheme of things, probably not notable enough for its own long involved section, it was only started by one denomination of Christianity, and they didn't last for that long. Jihad, on the other hand, sort of began the moment Muhammad first started attacking cities, and has kind of been going on ever since. Homestarmy 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article requires a section about the crusades. its only fair.

This anonymous comment is right. The crusades are a part of Christian history. -Yancyfry 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The right place to discuss the Crusades at length is History of Christianity.

--Richard 07:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In Islam, Jihad is a theological concept. In Christianity, the Crusades were a historical event. I don't think they can be paralleled too easily. (NO info on who wrote this)

Crusades where done for religious reasons to get Jeruselum etc back in the hands of the christians where they belonged.--203.87.127.18 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, Jerusalem is a Jewish city. Therefore, it's a Jewish city. Maybe you missed the part about the Christians killing Muslims AND Jews during the Crusades?

"It's only fair" is a poor reason to propose a section.

Certainly there are parallels which may be drawn between the Crusades and the doctrine and goals of jihad. However, as an anon wrote above, "Crusade" is not a fundamental concept of any Christian church. Jihad is a religious duty for the Muslim community; the questions are which members of the community are so obliged, under what circumstances and how may/must this be carried out. I'm not aware that any church would argue today that Christians are obliged to engage in "Crusade."Proabivouac 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

the image

that image is horribly inaccurate. it should be removed or updated immediately.

For instance, according to Wikipedia's Norway article, 92.5% of Norweigans identify as Christian. On the map, Norway is colored Orange.

--Danreitz 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with category inquiry

I just came across Category:Christian holy days, Category:Christian festivals and Category:Liturgical calendar. For an article like Advent , All Souls' Day or All Saints (that's just the A's), you will find all 3 categories on the article. So what is the difference between these three categories? What is the difference between a festival and a holy day? There is a lot of overlap and redundancy. It seems to me that, assuming there is a difference between a festival and a holy day, that they both should be subcats of liturgical calendar, and that all the articles should go into either one or the other (and the few articles that are neither holy days nor festivals could be thrown in the parent cat of liturgical calendar.) If there isn't a difference, then perhaps all 3 categories should be merged together. Anyway, does anyone understand the current categorization scheme? Could someone please explain it to me? If not, what do others think about categorizing things of this sort? Thanks for your input.-Andrew c 01:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that not all festivals might necessarily fall on a holy day and vice verse, and not all events on the liturgical calendar would necessarily be both or either a festival or holy day per se. Homestarmy 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well my concern is that there is way too much overlap between these categories, and no defining factor that differentiates a festival from a holy day. I'll see if anyone can help me on wikiprojects, before I do anything BOLD (I'm thinking a merger, or removing categories that are not explained in the article for example if Advent doesn't use the word "festival", remove that cat). Thanks, Homestarmy, for your input.-Andrew c 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Catholic terminology and practice, I believe that there is a difference between a "holy day of obligation" and the "feast day of a saint". Catholics are obligated to go to Mass on holy days of obligation whereas attending Mass is optional on the feast days of saints. I agree that both could be subcategories of Category:Liturgical calendar although the category should probably be named Category:Christian liturgical calendar. I also am concerned about using the word "Christian" here since Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have different liturgical calendars.

--Richard 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Spiritual Exercises to Practices Area

I would propose that a section on Spiritual Exercises be added under Worship and Practices. The impact that certain spiritual exercises have upon a person's health is relative in today's world where the health of people in America is a major concern. As a person grows in their Christian faith, they have an opportunity to impact their health in a positive way.

See article on Christian Spiritual Exercises. I would appreciate any comments at this email.

Dale Fletcher 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

....That looks like 100 percent original reaserch, with no discernable notability. Homestarmy 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted it as blatant advertising. Original research indeed, and furthermore WP:NOT a soapbox. Fram 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

I think the author needs to add the 40-50 million killed during the Soviet period in Russia. It has been well documented by writers such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The murderers of this period also need to be named from Leon Trotsky to Beria. A good source is Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar.

You cite nothing and do not sign. Highly suspect. Also the Soviet Union never exercised organized, government level persecutions of Christians for being Christians. The Soviet Union was athiestic by doctrine but as long as the people kept their faith seperated from their role in the communist society then they didn't have to worry about such persecution. Go find a source saying there were structured and organized persecutions against Christians in the Soviet Union. Also, 40-50 million seems rather high don't you think... even for the roughly 70+ years of the USSR. John 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a source is necessary, but "The Soviet Union never exercised organised, government-level persecution of Christians for being Christians" is simply untrue. Stalin's repression of the Russian Orthodox Church was brutal. Slac speak up! 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But that was the Russian Orthodox Church in particular, and it was for political reasons. Jersey John 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Um yes? That's still enough to disprove your statement above. To reiterate: Christians were not free to practice their religion in Soviet Russia under Stalin; the converse is in fact true. There was a high degree of deliberate state interference in worship. Of course the Orthodox were the main recipients of this, seeing as how the vast majority of Soviet Christians were of an Orthodox persuasion. Slac speak up! 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On that note, you might also want to mention Stalin's use of the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II to inspire morale and solidarity. 146.201.133.144 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You should look at the following articles Persecution of Christians, History of the Russian Orthodox Church and Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. Those are better places to discuss this information. --Richard 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Political system of Christianity

Hi, I want to suggest the following modifications to the Christianity article: Tgeorgescu 09:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The political organization system of the Christians is communism. This is shown by the ideology proclaimed by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:1-11. Acts 2:44 says that the economic system introduced by the Christian religion required the common (collective) property (of goods, money and land). Karl Kautsky work on this subject, Foundations of Christianity (1908, http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm ) is a classical reference work in this respect. The revolutionary (class fight) aspect of Christianity is also shown by James 5:3. It follows that Jesus and the Apostles were socialist revolutionaries fighting for the realization of a communist economic system. That's why they were so severly persecuted by the power elite. Tgeorgescu 09:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is probably too esoteric a topic to include in this article. You should consider starting a new article with a title along the lines of Christianity and Marxism or Christianity and political economy. The fact that the early Christians shared their material possessions communally is documented in the New Testament. Whether this was why they were persecuted by "the power elite" is highly debatable. Nonetheless, this set of theories may be encyclopedic provided that it is written in accordance to Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.

--Richard 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have found the Wikipedia article on it: Christian communism. Tgeorgescu 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

TOo general

THe article says Christians believe "salvation is a gift by unmerited grace of God." I think to say all christians believe this is overly generalized. Do not anabaptists believe one must work towards salvation? Basejumper 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The juxtapostion of Faith and works is a long debate indeed and is often misunderstood by most; it seems like a difference in emphasis rather than substnace. At the end of the day, all believe that some work must be accomplished, even if it just accepting Jesus Christ as the Savior. However, the overriding principal is that Grace is fundamental to salvation; it is only through the Atonment of Jesus Christ that we are saved and without Christ no one can be saved. Curious, do the Ansbaptists believe differently or is it the same old difference in emphasis? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: The term "anabaptist" comes from the practice of baptizing individuals who had been baptized previously, often as infants. Anabaptists believe infant baptism is not valid, because a child cannot commit to a religious faith, and they instead support what is called believer's baptism.

As I understand it, a branch of Christianity exists that does not belive in the saving "work" of baptism, making baptism a choice and not a requirement. Of course, there is debate on whether baptism is a work, or not, but the point is, there are debates (long, wide and deep) on the level of human effort required to receive grace. Bytebear 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The summary of anabaptist belief is a good brief summary, but it is very brief. They have many books describing other aspects of their beliefs. To my knowledge, from my encounters with the AMish and Mennonites, they believe that salvation is something one works towards, that belief in Jesus opens the door of salvation, but a person must work to attain it fully, and that one does not truly know if he has been saved until he dies. Basejumper 06:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Five solas exclude salvation by (through) works (deeds). The Heidelberg Catechism insists that humans are not able to do any good, and that they are inclined to all wickedness, unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit (cf. http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#Q8 ). The churches which believe this dogma maintain the Total depravity of all human beings (except Our Savior), cf. http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_45.html Tgeorgescu 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So one is able to do good deeds if and only if he/she is already reborn (through the Holy Spirit). I think Seventh Day Adventists equate being reborn with being saved (redeemed). Ellen G. White insists that through our own deeds we cannot redeem ourselves, but we receive as a gift the holyness (moral purity) of Jesus, as if a coat of sinlessness covers our sinful body. The sinlessness is not ours, but is merely borrowed from Jesus, therefore the good deeds we do aren't really ours, but they are made by Jesus Christ. Tgeorgescu 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think most of the links in this article need to go. Most of them should be farmed off to daughter articles (such as the LDS link, the bible link, and so forth). The further reading section is also a bit dubious, and feels like a disorganized hodge-podge. In my opinion, it too needs to go. Which links should stay? Silly rabbit 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not none. A.J.A. 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have cleaned up many of the links. As per the Wikipedia policy on external links (see WP:EL), blogs and other such dubious sources are not proper external links. I notice that some other editors may not agree with my characterization of the links as blogs. I may have gotten it wrong, but the onus is on the editor inserting the link to indicate why the source is reliable and encyclopedic. One of the links deleted, and then reinstated, was http://www.newadvent.org/. As far as I can tell, this is a blog run by webmaster Kevin Knight. Similarly, http://www.monergism.com is a blog run by webmaster John W. Hendryx. Other removed links clearly belong to daughter articles rather than to the main Christianity article, or failed to establish relevance or suitable context. Silly rabbit 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your failure to know the definition of "blog" is irrelevant here. So, too, is your apparent belief that if something is available somewhere -- anywhere -- else on Wikipedia readers should be compelled to go looking for it, regardless of how relevant to this article it may be and regardless of the fact they may not have been aware of it otherwise. Also you don't know what "insert" means; those links have been there for a long time. As the person making changes to a longstanding section, you should offer some explaination other than your risible claim that all links are cruft or mislabeling a site. A.J.A. 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted links in accordance with WP:EL policy. We must still be able to attribute a site to a particular source of information, hence the moratorium on blogs and personal websites except in cases where the author is notable or the subject of the page. You are free, of course, to re-insert the links. But they need to be justified. For example, who is Kevin Knight? Who is John Hendryx? Why are they significant sources of information about Christianity? From the state of the external links section, it was clear to me that no one had taken a good look at any of them in a long time. Silly rabbit 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More like no one wants to put their hand in that hornet's nest. Sophia 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see things are now finally moving in a more productive direction. Hopefully no one will be "stung" too badly by this little dispute. ;-) Silly rabbit 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please name a good-faith reason you would claim that a collection of resources including the Summa Theologica depends on John Knight for its credibility. A.J.A. 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Summa and Catholic Encyclopedia are both linked (twice) from the body of the article. Silly rabbit 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, one section of it is cited (once). A.J.A. 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I generally go with what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In this situation, you either open the door to all christian churches and their respective websites or resources or you close the door on all of them. To approve just a specific denominations resource page or even just "mainstream" links is POV. I will support either way you want to go, but you can not go halfway with either path; it is either all or nothing. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Total sense - watch them squeak! Sophia 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, this is my feeling too. And there is such a superabundance of material out there on Christianity that the litmus test for inclusion should be very strict. Hence my initial reaction was to eliminate the links altogether. None of them are of an exceptional quality, and they look rather silly next to the vast and well-organized list of references. I know that sometimes lists like this can accrue during the normal editorial process as references that didn't quite make it into the article. Silly rabbit 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens and I support your drive to include quality links as you are right that there are plenty to choose from. Sophia 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV policy itself says otherwise. But you knew that. A.J.A. 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AJA, I am not sure if your comment was directed at my statement, but I believe my statement is in keeping with NPOV policy. If my position is in error, I would appreciate you correcting me. As I said, I don't really have a preference. I understand Rabbit's position and I can equally understand having a plethora of links to resources of all major Christian churches or denominations. What I find completely unacceptable is to go halfway and allow only a certain perspective to be highlighted; I view that being competely against NPOV policy. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're already backpedaling, from "all" to "all major". Not that you'd ever admit I was right in the first place. A.J.A. 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think A.J.A. is mixing up NPOV and undue weight. Sophia 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. A.J.A. 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what I mean then - NPOV does not mean excluding all non mainstream links but making sure that they are balanced with other views in a way that does not give undue weight. Sophia 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

They can't be "mixed up" if undue weight is a subset of the NPOV policy, now can they? A.J.A. 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did add a clarifier, my objective was to clarify that not all 32,000 Christian churches needed to add a website. Some qualificatoin is warranted. Your complaint was the Catholic resource and another mainstream resource was acceptable; however, you were quite comfortable stating that an LDS site, (which I support did not need to be listed) was deleted that was acceptable. In fact, you stated that all of them could be deleted. It is not a question about you personally being "right" and "wrong", if fact, it has nothing to do with you. We are talking about the article and links. If you care to just answer the question about how it is not NPOV, your answer to that question would be appreciated. Sometimes interacting with you is like interacting with porcupine; it is as if you seek an opportunity to be offended; it is tiresome. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't state anything about the Mormon link, let alone anything about "all of them" -- there was only one in the first place. But I suppose objecting to your fabulism at my expense is seeking out opportunities to be offended. A.J.A. 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Vladislav1968 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Dear friends!

I'd like to add to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christianity in a chapter Jesus Christ after words According to the Gospels, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary. Little of Jesus' childhood is recorded in the Gospels compared to his adulthood, especially the week before his death.

these lines:

Yeshua (Jesus) was Jewish, He was brought up as Jew, observed Torah, went to synagogue on shabbat, and observed the holidays. The Apostles, the first disciples of Yeshua, were Jews.

Your truly- Vlad Vladislav1968 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is (or should be) adequately covered in the linked articles such as Jesus of Nazareth. ^rossnixon 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

additions

I ask add these lines: Christianity has Jewish roots. Yeshua (Jesus) was Jew, apostles, first disciples of Him were Jews too.

to: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christianity (No authour info)

Yes your right God was Jewish and alot of christians still use the jewish religious book.--203.87.127.18 13:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

_{Subscript text}== Introduction == "Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism,[5] and includes the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, within its canon" Most christians/churhes use the new testament and not the old one any more, this whould be noted!--203.87.127.18 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you would find your statement to be incorrect. The Old Testament is used regularly by Christians and Christian churches. Do you have any references that support your statement? Which churches do you think ignore the OT? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stormrider, you use old the old testament aswell? When was the last time you made sacrifices to god as done in the old testament?--203.87.127.18 08:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dearest editors!

When these lines about the Jewish roots of Christianity will be added to: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christianity:

Christianity has Jewish roots. Yeshua (Jesus) was Jew, apostles, first disciples of Him were Jews too ?

Secondly, I ask correct this phrase: The name "Christian" (Greek Χριστιανός Strong's G5546), meaning "belonging to Christ" or "partisan of Christ",[9] http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christianity

Let address to: Strong's Greek Definition for # 5547

5547 // Xristov // Christos // khris-tos' //

Christ = "anointed"

1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God 2) anointed http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=5547

This word corresponds to Hebrew word - Маshiah (Messiah). -- Vladislav1968 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC]]

The section of this article on Jesus does not explicitly state that he was Jewish, that is true. However, it links to the article on Jesus which clearly identifies him as having been a Galilean Jew in the first section. Given the size of the Jesus section in this Christianity article, it can't contain every fact, which is why it links to a more thorough article. I don't believe there is any insidious attempt to hide Jesus' Jewishness here, especially given the link to the Jesus article. Having said that, I don't think it would be inappropriate to include it in this article, since it is certainly relevant. But let's not create conspiracy theories about it...if you want to add it, go ahead (in a concise, well-written way) and let other editors discuss it, modify, revert it, etc.

Now to the comment above by 203.87.127.18 that Christians don't use the "old" testament anymore...that is just incorrect, as Storm Rider stated. For example, every Catholic Mass includes a reading from the old testament. So we can check off a billion Christians right there...and other Christian churches do the same. The question posed to Storm Rider " When was the last time you made sacrifices to god as done in the old testament?"... what a silly question. I expect there are quite a few Jews who haven't slaughtered any animals lately either. There are obviously different interpretations of the old testament among Christians and Jews, but to say that Christians don't "use" the Hebrew bible (whatever "use" means) is wrong. --Anietor 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends! Jewishness of Jesus is a very important fact. Jewish roots of Christianity is a very important fact. Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers: Rom 15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [his] mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. Rom 15:10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

That's why I ask you include some lines about Jewish roots of Christianity to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christianity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladislav1968 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2007

The well-referenced "Origins of Christianity as a distinct religion" section in Early Christianity may be a useful starting point. It should probably only be mentioned in a statement or two in this article, as an exploration of the roots of Christianity is best suited for the 'Early Christianity' article. Vassyana 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

nominal adherents

I've changed the wording of the numbers here to attempt to make it clear that not every one of the possibly 2.1 people quoted as Christians believe everything in the preceding sentence. It's important to remember that, especially in the developing world, many people who are nominally Christians do not hold the orthodox beliefs of the religion. The CIA World Factbook reference is almost certainly an overestimate and is certainly misleading. Here are some examples:

The United Kingdom census quotes 72% of the population as Christian. Yet the Soul of Britain survey in 2000 found that only 26 % of British people believe in a personal God, and 61 % believe Jesus was an ordinary human or even a fictional person. [2]

The reference from the CIA World Factbook says that 89% of French people are Christian, yet a recent survey showed that 51% described themselves as Catholic – and half of those did not believe in God (there were 3% Protestant).[3]

The CIA World Factbook says that 78% of Americans are Christian. Yet research by the Barna Group suggests that only two thirds of Americans believe that “God is best described as the all-powerful, all-knowing perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today” [4].

Rbreen 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The new phrasing is particularly awkward. Are there any other suggestions? I don't necessarily agree that the previous version was inaccurate. If The Christian Science Monitor, CIA World Facatbook and other reputable sources quote a 2.1 billion figure, the numbers are well-sourced. Saying that "a recent survey showed" (vague) or "the Barna Group suggests" doesn't seem sufficient to change the article. Perhaps it can be clarified elsewhere in the article? It's the first paragraph of a large article. --Anietor 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with the original phrasing is that by juxtaposing the statement that "Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and they see the New Testament as the record of the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus" with "With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion" clearly implies that 2.1 billion people believe these things, and that is certainly untrue.

There are two issues here. The first is that the figure of 2.1 billion appears to include many people who do not, in fact, describe themselves as Christians (for example, those baptised as children but who abandon the faith); the second is that even those who describe themselves as Christians do not necessarily hold all of the beliefs outlined here as what Christians believe.

A good example is France. The CIA Factbook says that 83-88% of the French are Catholic. It is unclear where this figure comes from. The French Wikipedia article [5] says that in 1975, 80% of French children were baptised, but in 2004 it was 46%; and that 71% described themselves as Catholic in 1981, and just 53% in 1999. Scholarly studies and opinion polls all indicate fairly low figures of adherents; Grace Davie in 1999 reported that 43% of the French do not believe in God; Paul Froese in 2001 reported a figure of 54 per cent atheist or agnostic. And the complexity of the situation is shown by the survey carried out by Le Monde des Religions this year (which I quoted earlier) which pointed out that while 55% of the French described themselves as Catholic, half of those said they did not believe in God.

Similar examples can be found in most European countries. 72 percent of the British say they are Christian [2002 census] ; but only 32 per cent believe Jesus was the Son of God.[2000 Soul of Britain survey]

There's little question that, in general, Christianity is the world's largest religion; but the figure of 2.1 billion, as currently presented, is simply misleading in this context. If we cannot find a way of presenting it that does not make clear that the figure only a very rough and possibly exaggerated estimate, perhaps it ought to be left out completely, or at least moved to a different place in the article.Rbreen 22:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The numbers you cite are not enough to justify an inclusion of this mention in the article, no matter how true it is. Analyzing the numbers, as above, is blatant original research. However, there are plenty of secondary sources which discuss this discrepancy and citing one of them would avoid any policy violations. That would allow you to cite a verifiable secondary reliable source. Cheers! Vassyana 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a canonical example of original research. Good questions, and worthy of a paper, but not things we can pursue here on our own.Proabivouac 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image Image:Christianity percentage by country.PNG has been modified and now it is a mess. Please see the talk page of that image. --Mocu 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is better I would say... http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Christianity_percentage_by_country.png

Christianity as a monotheistic religion.

The statement "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" is not accurate. Just as many religions believed in several deities with one chief deity, so does Christianity. "God" is the chief deity, but there are numerous other supernatural beings as part of the belief system. There are "Satan" and many angels as well as saints. These supernatural beings can all be prayed to and called upon for assistance. There is no definition of what the limitations of the supernatural powers of these lesser gods are. I would suggest that the statement "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" be removed from the article. Freeman2001 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Freeman, this has been raised before. A supernatural being is not a god or viewed as a god. Christianity has always described itself as strictly monotheistic and critics have generally focused on the concept of the Trinity as being henotheistic. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is clear that there is one God. I think if you will review the archives you will see this discussion in full and why the current statement is accurate; Christianity is a monotheistic religion. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Freeman, you miss the distinction between praying to saints and praying through saints. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and others have a tradition of asking saints to interecede to God, similarly to how you may ask a fellow-Christian to pray for you. Many Protestant faiths do not consider even this concepect of intercession to be scripturally based and do not advocate it at all. So Christianity does not involve multiple deities, and is indeed a monotheistic faith. --Anietor 20:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight. There is one perspective from those within the religion and another perspective from those observing from the outside. From the outside, saints, angels, god, Jesus, and Satan are all supernatural beings who, in any other religion, are known as deities. The question is should Wikipedia give a description as the religion sees itself or as the outside world sees it? The same question can be asked of any religion, or for that matter probably of most entries. Do we need an entry by Jack the Ripper as he sees himself or as seen by an outside observer? Freeman2001 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Freeman has a valid point. The LDS Church article had to be wrangled because of objections to it being called a "Christian relgion", and ended the debate by stating "They consider themselves to be Christians." We should require the same amount of scrutiny here. I suggest a compromise by removing "monotheistic" and replacing it with something like, they worship "God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as One God." This should cover monotheism and henotheism, depending on who is reading and interpreting the meaning of that statement. Bytebear 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you're misusing "henotheism".

Second, the definition of "monotheism" is "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God" [6]. Christian doctrine is that there is only one God. Therefore Christianity is monotheist. QED. A.J.A. 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's as straightforward as that.Proabivouac 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed what monotheism means. As AJA points out, traditional Christian doctrine is that there is only one God, even if the nature of God is a mystery. Christian belief in saints, angels, devils, etc. does not take it out of the realm of monotheism. Judaism and Islam have a tradition that incorporates angels and other beings, but the Abrahamic religions are all considered monotheistic. Freeman2001's narrow definition of monotheism would make it hard to think of any religion that would qualify. --Anietor 18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite. ElinorD (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So many people suggesting in favor of Christianity being a monotheistic belief, so why would someone, perhaps non christian have objections in that?, if all christians say that " We testify that there is no god(lord) but one GOD, the One and Only, and there is no partner to share His divine attributes" this is truely Monotheism.Mkashifafzal 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How does monotheism logically entail that God has no partners, or that no one can share his divine attributes? I believe you're thinking of Tawhid, which is not only monotheism, but a number of associated doctrinal and polemical points.Proabivouac 07:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So what else can be definition of monotheism?, I think that will require redefining monotheism, please suggest a definition, and we would also talk to incorporate that input in the wiki article on monotheism.Mkashifafzal 08:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As cited above, the doctrine or belief that there is only one God. It was coined in the European languages by people who had Christianity in mind; you're the one trying to redefine it.

Most Muslims misunderstand the Trinity. It does not involve associating partners with God. That is, the Trinity isn't God plus Jesus plus the Holy Spirit (still less God plus Jesus plus Mary); the Trinity is one God who in Himself is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is not one among others; he is already a perfect community. But we don't adhere to Tawhid. How could we, when Jesus and the Spirit witnessing to our spirits tell us that we ourselves are partners with God because we have been united to Christ? A.J.A. 04:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You call it a misunderstanding, they call you an infidel. Who shall we believe? Fortunately, we don't need to take sides, just report the reliable sources. It is a simple fact that muslims often view Christianity as insufficiently pure in its monotheism. Whether they're right is immaterial. ThAtSo 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They can call me whatever they want. That's hardly relevant to what the doctrine of the Trinity actually says. A.J.A. 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mormons say they're Christians, and it would be POV not to mention that. Then again, not all Christians agree with the Mormons on this issue, and it would also be POV not to mention that. This is analagous to the situation here, where the Christians say they're monotheistic, but not everyone agrees. A standard Muslim criticism of Christianity is that it's polytheistic. It's also a standard unitarian criticism of trinitarianism, and even a Protestant criticism of Catholicism. So what I'm saying is that we have to say "Christians consider their religion to be monotheistic", but then explain later that there are conflicting views. ThAtSo 08:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with adding a statment that Christians "consider" themselves to be monotheistic. LDS state clearly that they are monotheistic and yet I would also state that henotheistic might apply (just not quite, there is not pantheon of Gods; just God the Father, his Son, and the Holy Spirit). If necessary, it would be easier to simply quote church doctrine that states the monotheistic nature of Christainity. The concept of monotheism is integral to the vast majority of Christians.

It would obviously be acceptable to add later in the article the contention from other groups that Trinitarianism, concepts of the Godhead, etc. is really not monotheisim as viewed by Islam or anyone else. I hope that makes sense. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. I also feel that the definition of monotheistic (believing that there is one God) is more straightforward than the definition of Christian — some people would say that being "nice" entitles a person to being referred to as Christian, regardless of their beliefs. I don't hold that view myself, but I do feel that "Christian" has a broader definition than "monotheist". ElinorD (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Storm Rider. It is proven that Christians are monotheistic in the First Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no gods before me." Also, Christianity is tons more than monotheism. Just look up the Apostle's Creed. --Imhungry 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of contrarian views of Christianity in the External Links section

I will point out that this is a long-standing link that was added with consensus some time ago, and was a compromise among several other links. The others being, "A Cathar Interpretation of Christianity," "A Gnostic view of Christian teachings," and "The Rosicrucian Interpretation of Christianity.", The link I originally contributed, now being removed, solved an edit war, and which presents a scholarly secular POV on the origins of Christianity. Now, again, we have removed all external links which provide different POV's (one of the purposes of an external links section), and only the mainstream POV is presented. This is a problem.

To review, the edit war that produced this secular link in question, as a compromise , stemmed from this link, The Origins of ChristianitySee:[7]. Finally, I proposed another, better one, that presented a similar POV, but was more scholarly, and it was accepted, with a compromise on the wording of the title that was offered by Str1977. See: [8]

The editor now removing it has done so with the charaterization that its not relevant?! This secular POV essay in question references two main scholars. One is Karen Armstrong who is a prolific scholar of religions and she has written on a multitude of faiths. The other is Burton, Mack, who is a Professor in early Christianity. This makes it relevant. This author is a notable speaker on this topic, and this POV it expresses is well referenced. There are many different versions of Christianity and takes on the subject, and this one presents the view of Burton Mack which is one that looks at it from an historical aim to demythologize Jesus and reach the historical teacher. Some of his books are: Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) (1986) A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins Fortress Press (1988) The Lost Gospel: The Book Q and Christian Origins Macmillan Co. (1966, paperback 1994). A reconstruction for the layman of the Q Gospel; historiography and its relation to belief. Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth HarperSan Francisco 1996. The gospels as fictional mythologies created by various communities. Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God (with Michael L. Humphries) The International Lost Gospel Rhetoric and the New Testament Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels If there is a better link that explores this historical, secular POV on Christianities orgigins, then I'd welcome that. But for now, this is the best one I could find, and better than the original one that this replaced.

And, to show this issue had consenus, I reproduce the reponse from other long term editors on this article, below, concerning it:

Gio, this might be a first but I actually agree with the point you are making. I never liked that link...but I do not approve of deleting it alltogether, especially without discussion. However, it needs to have a NPOV title (which was what we two were fighting about back in the day, if you remember, Gio) without dashing the article, but also without endorsing it or giving false statements about it...they do serve a useful purpose of covering "alternative versions of Christianity" (yes, I do still hate that expression, but get what I mean). How relevant they are today is another matter, but they shouldn't be removed without discussion.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:35, 16

Then we agree on principal. I am not opposed to a fair and NPOV description of the link. My interest is only to have the external links section provide different perspective and takes on Christianity in porportion to the degree with which they are POV in the larger society, and to the degree that they reflect the contents and treatment of the subject in the article itself. TO me this means at least one link with such a pov.Giovanni33 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are talking about a headmaster or about Pamela Ewing, but if you actually mean principle, yes, then yes. Just a little good night joking. Your aim seems reasonable to me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the external links and other reading references. Until this discussion is completed. Gio is correct; we need balance and NPOV in this article. Those viewpoints that we might view as "false", "wrong", or just contrary are appropriate as long as they are from a reputable source. I beleive these meet that standard.

As an aside, Christianity has nothing to fear from contrarian viewpoints just as truth as nothing to fear from falsehoods. Though we might think we are strengthening others by "protecting" them from secular viewpoints, in reality we weaken them. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about consensus, count me as one who doesn't agree. Anietor's edit summary says it all: "How is this essay by a random person relevant? His personal views on Christian history not important for article." ElinorD (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was told that my comments should be posted here.

I am pointing out that the article on Christianity where it constantly says "most Christians" believe, think, chose, etc. is inherently inaccurate and unfair and the wording should be changed.

Unfortunately, I tried to figure out how to request a change, or alternately, request that the article be open to edits, but that procedure is incomprehensible when trying to figure the process of how to do that.

I feel that any words such as saying "most" in regards to any group is probably an inaccurate term and should not be used on the site. Possibly if there were an opinion poll - i.e. "do you consider yourself Christian?" and then "If so, do you hold this or that view?", perhaps then it could be stated as accurate, although we all know the problems with opinion polls.

It may not be important for the body of the article, as this author may fail reliable sources criteria, but the external links section has different standards that make it relevant, an meaningful content to this article for the EL section. This makes is valid, even if its not suitable for inclusion into the body of the article, and also even if the author is not considered a reliable source as per below:

• What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

• Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Moreover, this link does not violate any of the guildlines for inclusion. No one alleges that it is not accurate, misleading, etc. The author talks about the dominant POV, but does an excellent job at discussing the secularist POV, and its this POV (not the author) that is of important. Thus, it is completely germaine, meaningful, relevant content, with the source being knowlegable as is evidenced by this very essay, among others, as well as notabilty he has recieved as a speaker on the subject. But this is not too relevant since its not his own personal views, its the views of the school of thought he is articulating.Giovanni33 23:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Gio, you conveniently overlooked the Links to be Avoided section when quoting the Wiki policy.

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

This site barely quotes two sources throughout the entire multi-page essay. As the author is not an authority in the field, this clearly violates WP:NOR.

If you want to link out to essays by established authorities in theological criticsm (and there are many...), by all means, but who is this guy? This isn't censorship, just find a better link. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that but you seem to ignore, still, the policy I quoted. No, I don't need to seek out an authority, or someone who meets reliable sources in order for it to be a valid link in the external links section. Isn't that what policy says, above, as I quoted it? So why are you insisting on that high bar? That high bar is not required here (I'll also point out that only this POV is picked on and made to confirm to this artifically high standard--wikiChristian is left alone without objection). However, you are correct that if the links does contain something that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material, then its not suitable. But, it does not do this. If it does, please point it out. Also, the work has no less than 9 citations to support its more controversial claims, by respected authorities in the field. It doesnt need to cite everything, and importantly, this is not his own personal POV, but a standard secularist POV representative of the sources he is using, an that I listed above. If its not, please point out where he makes up somehthing that is rather unique or original. He does not. Its not his own origianl research at all. But, again, this is the EL section. The main point here is that it does the best job that I can find on the net now, for articulating a secular historical point of view on the origins of Christianity. Since there is nothign being proposed to replace it, it does amount to censorship of this rather important POV. Lastly, this link was oringinally added through consensus--twice. It was removed 6 months later, but then consensus determined it was valid. Do we need to go through this every 6 months?Giovanni33 00:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, please don't invent citations for the cite merely to make an argument. From the website:

Notes and sources:

1Armstrong, Karen, "A History Of God" New York: Ballantine Books, 1993, pp. 10-11.

2ibid., pp. 14-15.

3ibid., pp. 15-16.

4ibid., p. 24.

5ibid., p. 62.

6Mack, Burton L., "Who Wrote the New Testament?" New York: Harper Collins, 1996, p. 40.

7ibid., p. 43.

8ibid., p. 76.

9ibid., p. 228.

Two sources, with unclear citation within the article. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I count 9 citations from two scholarly works written by luminaries in their field. There is no invention. But, again, this is really a non-issue, a red herring. Do you allege that there is anything misleading or inaccurate with the link? If so list them. If not, you have no case here.Giovanni33 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly censorship to exclude an essay from someone that nobody ever heard of! For goodness sake...this is an article on Christianity. Are there many other topics that would have more written material about them? Why would we include some obscure person who wrote an essay? The fact that the author quotes reliable sources does not lift it above what it is...some guy's personal views on Christian history. You or I can write an article and quote Thomas Aquinas a dozen times, but it doesn't make our musings, however insightful, reliable source material. As far as why we are not proposing alternatives....why should we, to be frank? If you believe a certain "issue" needs to be raised, it is not the responsibility of other editors to find support for it. We can identify and purge inappropriate material without being required to take up the torch for the original editor, especially since the original editor may have his own POV. I mean that as a general proposition, not directed at you, Giovanni33, since I do not mean to assume you have bad motives here. I don't mean that to sound confrontational, but I do think your reaction to our reverts needs to be addressed. It is not a question of keeping this guy's article in until someone comes up with something better. If it is not appropriate, that is a threshold question that does not require further action. --Anietor 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you keep sidestepping and ignoring the actual issue, and instead raise a straw man argument, an red herring, pretending as if this has to do with this authors personal views. Wrong no matter how many times you reapeat yourself. Please adddress the real argument. Who the author happens to be is NOT the reason why the link should remain. He would not qualify as a source for the main body of the article. It should remain not because of who the author is, it should remain because of the POV that the links articulates. Its an important minority POV that is being excluded form this article, an in particular from the external links section which should be balanced per NPOV. If this writer/speaker does it in a very well manner, its cited, and presents this POV as best as we can find it, does not mislead the reader with any false information, etc,--then it passes the criteria for inclusion: relevance, meaning content to the subject, knowlegable. Those are the relevant standards. And the fact that you pick out this lone POV link for suppression, for blanking, does suggest censorship, and POV issues on your part. That is why the WikiChristian link was left untouched even though that is content that can't even be attributed to any person and constantly changes. But, yest you want to insist on stanards that exist for the body of the article and selectively apply it to this link in the external links section, when no such policy supports that? That is what I find very objectionable.Giovanni33 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, let's just take it from the horse's mouth. From WP:EL:

Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability

Meaniful and relevant, as you pointed out, does not need to be at the same standard as internal inclusion, but it still needs to have some degree of academic standard. Some random masters student's poorly cited personal thoughts hardly qualifies.

Instead of spending all this energy on this, why not just find a good link? I'm sure you can find them out there. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost at random:

On another occasion, he (Ezekiel) was required to eat excrement.

Nope. He was required to use it as fuel for cooking what he did eat, which was wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and emmer. A.J.A. 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Skimming it, he sure seems to like taking the standard "scholarly" skeptical line, and then, shall we say, embellish it. But going line by line would be tedious overkill. So, again almost at random:

the protests of many bishops about the gnosticism of the Gospel of John.

Which bishops? A.J.A. 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems I can't help myself.

Athanasius, the actual author of the original version of the Apostolic Creed

Do you, Gio, notice what's wrong with this? A.J.A. 03:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed many claims within the essay such as the ones you pointed out as well. Just because there are lower academic standards for external links shouldn't mean that there should be NO standards...Djma12 ^(talk) 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This brings up the question of what is a valid reference. Everything must be written by someone. Why is something written by one someone more valid than something written by another someone? Why does a source make something true, and not another source? And who decides if a source is valid or not? And who decides who is an expert or not?

We always demand "evidence" but now comes the question of what is evidence, especially in the internet age, where everything is a source and Wikipedia is a source, but Wikipedia uses something else as the source for itself. None of us hardly ever verifies whether the evidence is valid, yet we take some things as "gospel", even though it's clear that, as Henry Ford supposedly said: "History is bunk!" (Note I found on the web that he supposedly said that - I can't even verify he did or not! Reminds me of my professor who said to always type your papers, because people would always regard them more highly just because they are in print.69.181.188.254 18:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well to answer your question, what is a valid reference, you are welcome to read our guidelines and policies that deal with this: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:NPOV and WP:OR wouldn't hurt either). Basically, we are only trying to reproduce what already exists in terms of scholarly research/media attention on a subject. Wikipedia is not the place to advance original ideas. We try to present all notable views, and we do this by attributing views to sources, and not giving undue weight to minority views. In the future, try to keep your comments more on topic. Your above post deals with overarching issues that are more general than this specific article. I'd be glad to address your concerns, if any persist, back on your user talk page. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed this debate until now but since I have been "quoted" I want to weigh in as well.

I totally stand by my statement quoted by Gio that a) such a link should not be removed without consensus b) that if included it needs to be properly title (i.e. not using the inaccurate headline penned by the author.

However, that's just one side of the story.

I also agree with all the arguments brought forth against including this link. It is penned by a nobody and the inclusion of a few links to two authors (most probably only those suiting the author's view) doesn't make it scholarly or balanced.

I haven't reread it but what I can remember, the article did not simply espouse a mainstream view but picked on various extreme points. Also, it sure is not "the secular view" as there is not such thing.

Finally, history is not bunk just because some car manufacturer (actually quite a parallel to the weblinks author - both talk about things they are ignorant of) said so. He also said alcohol is bad and Jews are evil. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50