Talk:Christian anthropology

message: I created this article after suggesting it at Talk:Soul sleep. Vassilis78 gave general support to the suggestion, and also commented in a separate post that scholarly views were under-represented. Colin MacLaurin 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the Christian theology article uses "Theological anthropology". That is an option. I do not suggest "Nature of man", because although it is very common, it could sound sexist today. Colin MacLaurin 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page renamed to Christian anthropology, which will serve as an offshoot of Theological anthropology, which I have just created as a stub article. Colin MacLaurin 11:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article creation

message: I see the scope of this article (topics it covers) as quite broad. The original intention was to create a page which would serve as a "parent" for topics such as body, soul, spirit, conditional immortality, immortal soul, annihilationism, eternal hell, purgatory, soul sleep etc. Then I realized that "anthropology" (the study of man), which seems to be the preferred term for what I was attempting to describe, is actually much broader than the "innate constitution of man" alone. Theological authority Millard Erickson titles the corresponding chapter of Christian theology 2nd edn. as #5 "Humanity". The five sub-chapters are an introduction, "The Origin of Humanity", "The Image of God in the Human", "The Constitutional Nature of the Human" and "The Universality of Humanity". On first glance he does not discuss concepts such as free will in these chapters, but I do believe they are also "anthropology". Colin MacLaurin 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: I would like to invite Vassilis to enter in the Greek characters for soma, sarx, pneuma, psuche (or maybe psyche is preferred) etc. and also the best Roman ("English") transliterations for these (others would probably get an accent wrong, etc). Please also link to the correct Greek language article, as there are many different ones for modern Greek, Koine Greek, ancient Greek etc. and I have no idea. Colin MacLaurin 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do so today.--Vassilis78 06:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Vassilis, Thanks for your contributions. Your English is very good - especially compared to my Greek! You seem to have a good understanding of the Orthodox Church POV. This is very helpful because I must confess that many Christians in Australia etc. often don't know much about. Colin MacLaurin 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek terms 

message: The opening paragraph says: "One aspect studies the innate nature or constitution of the human..."  The introduction then doesn't tell the reader what the other aspects are.
As I can best figure out, the article seems to talk also about the origin of man (Creation) and the end of man (eschatology).  If that's the intent, it should say so in the introduction and the article should be organized to give these two aspects comparable status to the first one.  --SteveMcCluskey 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspects need clarification 

message: "modern neuroscience, which has revealed that the so-called "higher functions" of the mind are emergent from the brain"
This statement needs to be changed or rewritten. It uses the word emergent which is consistent with holism. Holism is contrasted with monism. Furthermore scientific reductionism is based upon the presupposition of monism, so you cannot use scientific reductionism to prove monism when, if fact, monism is assumed. This circularity would make it simply meaningless. I'm too busy at the moment to provide references, but it would be nice if someone who studied philosophy inserted some accuracy here. I study philosophy myself, but admittedly I have only taken one course in Philosophy of Science. I did research and write a paper on the multiple realizability argument regarding scientific reductionism. During the course of my research I discovered that monism is assumed in the whole issue. Cheers. 75.157.15.201 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Problematic Statement 

message: The article states "The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches the soul is created at the very moment of conception." and cites generically the Catechism of the Catholic Church's entry on Man, which does not make this statement of souls being created at the moment of conception. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. I've always heard that it can't be the moment of conception, since there is always a chance that the zygote can split, forming monozygotic twins (and in such a case, it wouldn't make sense to say that the soul "split" or that one zygote has no soul. 
If the Catholic Church does in fact teach this, please provide a better citation and resubmit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Casy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another citation needed for Catholic teaching on the origin/transmission of souls 

message: I removed this section because it was original research. The contributor did not present published findings of others working in Christian anthropology, but rather made arguments him- or herself in the article, and cited only a source that served as inspiration for the ideas argued for. In a survey of multiple Christian systematic theology texts sitting on the shelf beside me here, the concept of "Word" as a constituent of human nature does not appear once. The reason for this is fairly simple to understand; the term Word is used in Christian theology either (a) to indicate God's revelation, God's command, or other sorts of divine communication (thus the common use of the phrase "the Word of God" to refer to the Bible), or (b) as an appellation for the Second Person of the Trinity, a.k.a. the Son, in accordance with John 1:1-18. When John 1:14 declares that "The Word became flesh," this has been understood throughout Christian history as a statement about this divine person becoming human and therefore that "Word" is precisely not a constituent of human nature. So, regardless of any merits or deficiencies in the contributor's argument about the anthropological significance of "Word," it remains the case that incorporating the concept of "Word" into the realm of theological anthropology stand at odds with most, if not all, of the rest of Christian theological tradition. Therefore, this material is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstovell (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Word" subsection from "Terms and concepts" section 

message: Substituted at 11:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christian anthropology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325153504/http://www.iscast.org.au/papers/?action=detailed&ID=47 to http://www.iscast.org.au/papers/?action=detailed&ID=47
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow editors. 
This afternoon I will be re-orginizing expanding the Human nature section of the page. I will add a slightly more organized discussion of human nature and link to other articles that have expanded discussion. 
(I am a student in a wiki-class so I am required to make this edit but if you feel it needs to be removed I completely understand.) 
JLeonard01 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of the "Human Nature" section.   

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Nature of humankind. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Nature of humankind until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nature of humankind" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]