Talk:Christianity/Archive 27

message: ::I am wondering if any of you has even read the Gospel quotes I provided in their full context.  They are not all parables, they are straightforward teaching that you are turning your back on and not even allowing this word of Christ to even be mentioned in an article anywhere.
Matt 18:35 
"So also will my Heavenly Father do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
Your explaining away this one is worthy of Talmudic study.  What then will the Heavenly Father to if you do not forgive your brother from your heart?  You have some other interpretation?  Or do you personally reject this verse, so you won't allow it to be mentioned?
Matt 6:14
What I really meant to write was Matt 6:15, but lets quote both together for context.  Note how it is fully consistent with the teaching in the above verse, Matt 18:35
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
This is no parable, but now you are saying that these words are Original Research?  Now I've heard everything.  Quote them directly if you feel they are liable to be misinterpreted.  Or are these quotes we'd rather keep out for some reason?
Matt 5:23-4
So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go, first be reconciled to your brother.
You ask, what insight does this give of salvation?
So is the teaching now that if you ignore this and refuse to be reconciled with your brother, you are still saved anyway?
Matt 25:45
Then he will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not unto me.'
You wrote: "no mention of salvation other than via interpretation"
Did you check the very next verse: 
46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into  eternal life.
I think this speaks for how that interpretation arose.
Note that only one of these four quotes is from a parable.
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are providing your interpretation of these verses, something another editor has pointed out is a violation of WP:NOR, in order to convey your point of view. And the first verse is from a parable, the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. —Aiden 19:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a doctrinal teaching that directly follows a parable, because he speaks of his "Heavenly Father"...  But anyway, this isn't my interpretation, it's what the verses say. They can be quoted directly if you prefer.  They speak for themselves.  You are only preventing their valid inclusion because you reject their implications.  Do you have some other interpretation of the significance of these verses, or why do you just brush them off?  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "brushing off" the verses. I may agree with your interpretation for all you know. But that's neither here nor there; Wikipedia policy does not allow original research or conveying interpretations as fact. —Aiden 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am doing neither.  The quotes speak for themselves.  I did not invent these concepts, so its hardly original to me, but thanks for the compliment... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is on salvation. There are differences within Christianity as to how salvation is attained.  The most fundamental difference I know of is the notorious "faith versus works" issue of old. These Biblical quotes support the Catholic position. Clearly, however, orthodox Christian teaching holds that Faith in Christ is necessary (e.g., John 3:16), and this point seems to be side-stepped in the text as it stands now. LotR 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, the Orthodox position on John 3:16 "whoseover believeth in him" is that "believeth in him" also implies following his commands (ie = works) and not just lip service.  Orthodox position is on the "works" side of that one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I did not capitalize "orthodox" -- I wasn't referring to Eastern Christianity, but rather "orthodox Christianity." Anyhow, you have just reiterated the Roman Catholic position yet again, which is Faith and Works. LotR 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The purpose of a Talk page is to dicuss the article, not the subject, so I encourage everyone to refrain from entering Codex's theological debate. You have yet to prove how your additions are not unsourced original research or neutral. They do not belong in the article. The section is not meant to advocate one position over another. —Aiden 20:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. LotR 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gospel quotes

message: I saw the link for Sikhism on the Main Page and decided to read it. Needless to say I was quite impressed with how informative it was. I most of all like how it presents the fundamental views of the religion (in terms of how one should live) according to the teachings of Nanat, not simply how Sikhs view Nanat. Coming back to this article, it seems we dwell too much on Christian views of Jesus/God and not enough on the instructions Jesus left for Christians to follow--the teachings that make up the very essence of Christianity. Now, I of course think our sections on God/Jesus, Trinity, Holy Spirit, Salvation, etc. should remain and even revamped, but I think we can draw a lot from how the Sikhism article presents the religion. —Aiden 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be due to a fundamental difference. The essence of Christianity is largely about the person of Jesus, in the view of most of its adherents; it is much more about that than about 'rules for living'. I don't know much about Sikhism but if it emphasises 'rules for living' as the main teachings then I could easily understand that the two articles would be very different. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where we stand 

message: Codex, I don't disbelieve in the doctrinals stance regarding mercy which you consistently seek to focus upon.  My problem is why focus upon this specific teaching?  We have some 36,000 Christian denominations (I read that somewhere, but can't remember the reference) and I suspect that one of the main reasons for their being is a desire to focus on a specific teaching or principle.  
I think after reading Aiden's edit above, I would have to strongly support his comment.  We should attempt to focus on the teachings of Jesus.  My reservation I fear that this effort could easily evolve into disputes on interpretation, value judgements as to what is most important, etc.  I think these waters can be navigated as long as we stick to "church" teachings and not personal preferences and judgements.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have slightly altered the wording, hoping for the addition of a citation. One can hardly dispute the wording of the Gospel, but I am not aware of any Christian church which has actually made this an explicit tenet of faith i.e. something you have to believe, as distinct from something which is simply an accepted part of Christian behaviour (such as praying for other people). Christ also taught lots of other things (such as not fasting ostentatiously) which are accepted by Christian churches, but not taught as a tenet of faith. Myopic Bookworm 13:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central teaching/mercy towards others

message: Before I went off-wiki I'd prepared a revision of part of the article. Those sections still appear unsatisfactory to me, but I don't want to be accused of bringing back ancient artifacts, and the edit war du jour involves one of the parts I revised, so I'm just mentioning it again for now.
User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Beliefs
A.J.A. 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I really like what you've done. I'll have to read through all of it when I get more time, but I especially like the section on Jesus. I think a lot of what you have should be merged into the article. —Aiden 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Business