Talk:Conversion to Christianity

message: Could someone PLEASE update this article with relevant NPOV information?
IMPROVE!  IMPROOOOOOVEEE!!!! -69.29.141.54
Think the POV's a bit over the top for a simple update.153.2.246.32 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As i am not experienced with Christianity, i cant edit to it usefully, but statements like "in the third world" definately need to be cleaned up. Please leave a message on my page if u need help in doing so. Thanks! Bhaveer 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page needs improving 

message: This topic seems to overlap with the content of articles like Believer's baptism and Born again (among others).  To try to flesh this article out would merely duplicate the work on those articles (in my opinion).  I saw that an AfD failed for this article, but would a merge be possible?  Pastordavid 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a Merge there? 

message: I deleted the "Pre-Majority Conversion" section which read:  "Several churches, such as the Catholic Church baptize children a few days after birth. Mennonites and other denominations reject this practice."  I found it to be too underdeveloped. Ejectgoose 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pre-Majority Conversion" 

message: I'm going to try and fix this page up a bit.  Should I post the new content here in discussion before replacing the article or just go ahead and make changes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neffland (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, be bold and make the changes.  If someone objects, we can deal with that then.  There is currently not a lot of editing going on at this article, nor are there currently any editing disagreements.  Have at it.  Pastordavid 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on it 

message: I've substantially expanded the article, differentiating between reception through baptism and otherwise, and again differentiating between Churches with paedobaptism (most of them) and denominations with believer baptism. It would be nice if someone could contribute some details especially about the Orthodox Church and the mainline Protestant Churches.Lumendelumine 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified the believer's baptism portion some.Akubhai 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Biblical Explanation section needs to be cleaned up and the Bible references should be linked to biblegateway to make it easier for a reader. Akubhai 12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I shortened the believer's baptism section.  In denominations that practice that, the baptism isn't seen as part of the conversion.  A section needs to be added about conversion though, maybe something about the "sinner's prayer", although that isn't really very thorough. Akubhai 04:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well improved?

message: I've added the "Peer Review" tag to the banner above, and listed this on the WP Christianity Peer Review page.  You can see my initial comments on the article there.  I'll see what I can do in the next few days.  Nswinton 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: I started a section called Conversion through "Relationship".  The name could definitely be changed, I was going to say "Faith" but that seems to imply there is no faith involved in the baptism version (although this implies it doesn't involve relationship which isn't right either).  Either way, it is just a stub.  Please feel free to change or add. Akubhai 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, I initially thought your new section would be one on "relational evangelism", and would introduce a new level of unwanted controversy to this article.  Good proposal, though.  I'm not sure how to really expand that section myself, but I'm sure some of our better wiki communicators will expand it when they see it.  Nswinton\talk 14:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The more I think about this, it doesn't seem right.  I think the article needs to be reorganized.  The initial portion should talk about how Conversion involves starting a relationship with Christ (with less Christianese terms).  Then later there should be a section talking about how some groups view baptism as part of that conversion and others don't.  From what I understand, all groups see the relationship or personal decision or whatever as necessary, but not all groups see baptism.  It looks like we're trying to work backwards by saying what some groups think and then expanding to what all groups think.  Does that make sense? Akubhai 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That totally makes sense.  The relationship section (renamed "conversion into relationship"?) should precede the baptism section.  Perhaps we should lay out the article like this:
*Lead
*TOC
*Basic layout of Biblical texts regarding conversion
*Confession
*Repentance
*Relationship
*Baptism
**Different views on Baptism's role in conversion
*Conversion to another denomination
I don't know if that would be ideal, but it seems to me like there should be more clarity in the how and why of conversion to christianity in the mind of the potential/recent/longtime convert.
Nswinton\talk 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved a paragraph I found hidden down in the Biblical explanation section up to the Lead.  It seems pretty broad and should be up there (based on the Conversion to Judaism article).  How much should the Confession and Repentance sections cover?  Something else I just thought of, isn't a lot of this covered under Salvation? Akubhai 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and made a change.  I added salvation instead of relationship and moved it up.  I got rid of the sections on infant and believer's baptism since the actual timing doesn't have anything to do with conversion from what i understand.  Thoughts? Akubhai 16:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that you mention it, this article might be redundant...  I'm looking at Salvation and it's proposed merging to Soteriology, and I think those articles probably cover the topic much more appropriately than this one is going to.  I'd be worth getting the opinion of a few other editors on this one, IMO.  Do you think we should make a comment on those talk pages, or possibly the merge discussion and see what they think about this article?  Nswinton\talk 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I figured the inclusion of the Baptism talked meant "conversion" was more than "salvation" for some groups, but maybe they see baptism as part of salvation, I don't know.  The part about coversion among denominations seems separate from salvation though.Akubhai 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the changes you both have made. Regarding a possible merger: if Salvation goes to Soteriology, I don't see how a seeker would ever find this material. (I don't even know what Soteriology means.) The redundancy that I see is between this present article and Religious conversion which has a section entitled Conversion to Christianity. What about merging this article into that section?I just searched the Wiki index. Conversion to Islam redirects to Religious conversion. Conversion to Judaism is a standalone article. Converted to Christianity redirects to Christianization.Afaprof01 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There was some talk of merging the article before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conversion_to_Christianity) but it was voted against.  I think I like the idea of a separate article. Akubhai 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion through "Relationship" 

message: Is there any way to have a caption show below an image besides having it formatted as a "thumb"?  I think the image of Paul's conversion looks better ~275px, but the caption only shows with a mouseover at that size, and there's no links in the mouseover, obviously.  Nswinton\talk 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should work although I think it might get overridden by user preferences.  Not sure. Akubhai 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quick question on image caption 

message: This could be a very touchy subject, but I'm wondering if it'd be worth it to add a section on Speaking in Tongues or being "Filled with the Holy Spirit" to the article, as many people groups in Acts and in some demographics since have had both those occurences as they've "received the gospel" for the first time.  I know this is a very controversial point of doctrine, and I'm not totally sure if it's worthy of mention in the article.  Any thoughts?  Nswinton\talk 14:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably don't know enough about the subject to make a judgement call.  Are there groups that consider gifts of the Holy Spirit part of conversion?  I think some might consider it proof over coversion, if that is the case, it might deserve a mention. Akubhai 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some charismatic groups consider it part of conversion, and others consider it proof of conversion.  Nswinton\talk 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking in tongues (glossolalia) is a phenomenon said to accompany a post-conversion experience variously called the "Second Blessing" and "Baptism of the Holy Spirit." While some experience conversion (being "born again") and receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in rapid succession, almost simultaneously, they still are two different events for charismatic Christians. Let's leave it out of the conversion article. Afaprof01 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, just thought I'd ask.  Nswinton\talk 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking in Tongues 

message: I just undid the last edit by X451422.  It added a lot of talk of conversion through baptism to the conversion through salvation section.  I don't see what the point of that was.  Please explain.  Akubhai 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid edit by X451422 

message: > In terms of people converting from Islam, an Al-Jazeerah interview gave evidence that up to 6 million Africans leave Islam for Christianity every year.
This is not from a statistics poll or anything like that but what a person said on an interview to Al Jazeera. It is baseless and has no data supporting it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake statistic cited 

message: I have done my best to revise this article. I tried to use more relevant, well sourced, and neutral information that I can. I might still enact more edits to the article. It would be helpful if other editors could expand upon Protestant conversions and well as nontrinitarian conversions. Mooters 1563 (talk) 5:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: This is not what the source says. In fact, it's kind of the opposite of what it says. Plus, it's in the lead and social science isn't covered in the article - and it should be. I'm going to be changing that and probably making some other changes to this article accordingly. Just letting everyone know up front, please come here and yell at me here (or just talk) if there are any problems with anything I do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem