Talk:Christianity/Archive 43

message: Formerly I posted saying that Christianity, as refered to by the world today, is really many diferent religions.
There was a lot of input on the subject,but no final overwhelming opinion.
Therefore I am taking a vote on my talk page (to conserve space here)  
EVERYONE VOTE, WE NEED TO BRING IT TO A CONCLUSION.
Thank you! 
Zantaggerung 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find the vote on your Talk Page but, if I had found it there, I would have suggested that you move it here as this kind of vote/discussion should be held here.  Any result will seem more legitimate if the vote/discussion is held on an article Talk Page rather than a user's Talk Page. Don't worry about "conserving space".  There's plenty of space, we won't run out.  ;^) --Richard 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a vote to be any way to bring this to a conclusion as the facts of the matter are so glaringly pointing in one direction. Nevertheless, if it pleases Zantaggerung, so be it. I move the vote over here and also voiced my stance. Str1977 (smile back) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absurd.  It doesn't matter what any of us thinks Christianity is.  Either find a source that says Christianity is multiple religions, and cite it, or else we can't say that.  It's very simple. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity, multiple religions?

message: # Zantaggerung 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been asked to clarify this... i still disagree with the statment it's a bit like having non-fiction and fiction books... they are still books. Does this help??? personaly i don't think it is but i do belive the world sees it that way :) Philsgirl 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, I think Christianity, as refered to by the world in general today is more than one religion

message: # Str1977 (smile back) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No I think Christianity is one religion

message: Comment Voting is evil.  Decisions should not be made by votes but by consensus.  See WP:VIE.  However, straw polls are useful for determining consensus (or lack thereof). --Richard 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you do agree with WP:VINE then? Nice that some people aren't being so...mmph...DOGMATIC about WP:VIE! bwahahah.... Homestarmy 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting is stupid - which is why democracy is stupid - and wikipedia should not be ruined by voting, that's all I'm saying. Savagepine 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting is evil, decisions are made by consensus, not votes

message: We aren't religious scholars.  We aren't qualified to vote.  What do they have to say about this?  Whatever happened to using scholarly sources and attributing statements about Christianity to the scholars who actually said them?
# Iamunknown 17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are we even having this poll?  

message: The collaborative environment on this page has collapsed.  No profitable participation is possible - edits with reliable sources are reverted without discussion.  Discussion is ignored, and obstinate misunderstanding trumps patient explanation.  Votes are substituted for research.  This page is a prime example of a broken process.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: go easy on the page, it only mirrors Christian unity. The Jackal God 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have cynical wit; but you're not incapable of telling the truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been away from this page for a few days due to pollen counts over five thousand, but if you're talking about the "a religion/the religion" thing, I have found that it is often considered very bad to change things in an article that are under heavy debate on any article talk page concerning any topic. Of course, I don't know what you did, so I can't say whether or not the person who reverted you may of been justified or not. Homestarmy 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  collaboration 

message: I understand some editors may disagree that Christianity is a religion. I understand some editors may object to certain terms becuase they perceive a potential problem with equivocation. I understand many people have many opinions regarding religion. However, Wikipedia articles are not the place for our personal opinions. We must rely on the common discourse when discussing such a broad topic as Christianity. We cannot build our own logical arguments or build an argument from Scripture to support our views. If most reliable sources use a particular term or frame Christianity in a particular fashion, that is what this article should reflect. If a dissenting view is to be presented, it needs to be given only a passing mention and it needs to be attributed to a verifiable reference. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything that is said here; however, simple sense should not be thrown out the window.  Language requires context for its meaning.  We must choose terms that make sense in their context: not invent terms, but choose terms that arise from a comparable context.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This may seem to be a hard thing, or too difficult for folk like us.  But that's why we need to put our heads together, to think things through.  When demonstration and good-will prevail, in making such subtle decisions, this is what makes the difference between a crap article, and a good article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting back to basics 

message: I mentioned this on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and User:George m suggested that I mention it here as well so here goes...
The experience that I'm sharing comes from working on other articles such as Aztec and United States where there are repeated controversies and where it is easier to simply document the consensus and the rationale behind them.  If the explanation is short, it is done as an "in-line" comment in the article itself.  If it's long, it's done on a subpage of the Talk Page.  Once that's done, it's easier to mention where to find the explanation than to re-explain things to every new editor that comes along.
--Richard 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting consensus decisions. 

message: The following sentence from the introduction gives a good example of some  doubts I have with this article in general:
Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.
Amongst others:
- It suggests that christianity is a single organisation/faith (and sort of contradicts with While there have been theological disputes over the nature of Jesus, most Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human). from a bit further down the article (under Jesus), instead of an umbrella of religions & cults with some  related principles (this applies to article such as islam and buddhism, as well). I guess we've all seen some christian (religion) attacking another christ-following religion as not being 'christian'.
- The overall traditional PoV in the article. Pointing back to my previous point: with such diversity within christianity it's hard to find out what the majority thinks. Even the largest christian organisation, the roman-catholic church, is very divided.
For an encyclopedia I think this article is not neutral enough. But considering this is subject is controversial and multi-faceted I doubt this will ever happen. Syrion 21:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are aiming for "objectivity", not neutrality.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A neutral point of view is not a point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected, english is not my native language. And I'm wondering what you're meaning with the last remark. Syrion 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we speak of a neutral point of view, we mean that we are neither biased in favor of, nor against, any particular point of view - instead, we mean that we will use attributable, reliable sources in a non-argumentative manner.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  In other words, we will put our emphasis on building content, instead of building arguments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mark, this guy is making a great point and you are deliberately blocking it. Why?  213.140.6.119 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well sr., for the record I didn't "block" anything.  Regardless, there is a difference between objectivity and neutrality, which I've simply pointed out.  Pointing out what the rules are that govern editing is allowed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  He's certainly free to disagree; or to point out that I've misapplied the rule. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts on this article 

message: After reverting some terribly blatant POV pushing about circumcision which was placed in the lead, I noticed that it seems far shorter than it was a few days ago, but I can't seem to figure out what's missing....and even if nothing is missing, this is certainly much too short of a lead for an article this long. Homestarmy 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems User:Philosopher1 is quite adament about this Circumcision thing, and I think it might be useful to give a little bit of effort to dismiss it. Makes Christianity of note according to whom? Is a heinous crime according to whom? You? Invisible human rights organizations of compleatly unknown notability? And it's not just WHO anymore, those recent studies in Africa seem to of changed the tide of medical opinion compleatly in Circumcision's favor, if the news isn't misleading me terribly of course. Then, there's the stylistic problems. A Lead is supposed to summarize the article. I don't even think this one discusses Circumcision at all, making the bloating of the lead with the improperly capitalized use of "Christianity" and totally undue weight insertion of this content very contradictory with the facts, with Wikipedia policy, and with an interest in mind for our readers, who will have to stop and wonder why Wikipedia could be so sloppy as to go off on random, mis-capitalized tangents about circumcision, which doesn't even have any references for the side it seems to be trying to POV-push to the max in favor of. Homestarmy 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph needs to be simply reverted as it is a total falsehood.  There is no sect of Christianity anywhere that makes circumcision a 'requirement', and the Bible / New Testament explicitly states that it is NOT a requirement for Christians. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go back a few weeks it looks the same but the pictures have been messed up so it does look different. maybe someone who is better at aligning them than me can sort it out.  Sophia 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does something seem like its missing from the lead?

message: A question--shouldn't Quakers/Friends be mentioned at greater length in the article aside from the sole reference in regard to personal religious experience? I'm thinking it could me mentioned among, or as being similar to, groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, whose doctrines are at greater or lesser variance with the majority of other Christian groups. Does anyone think this would be appropriate/beneficial? Thank you. --Dpr 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know; are they as different from orthodoxy as Mormons and JWs?  A.J.A. 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways, yes and in other ways, no.  I think the main problem is that they are non-creedal and so it is really difficult to figure out what a Quaker believes.  (See the article on Quakers)  Apparently, you don't even have to be Christian to be a Quaker.  I think they should be mentioned in no more than a sentence or two.  I'm just trying where to put them.  I figure they should be described in the "Christian divisions" section just below the Restorationists.  --Richard 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to open a can of worms, but this opens the door to adding them to the Christianity Template, which I think did mention them at one time. Bytebear 06:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't claim to know a lot about the Quakers.  Most of what I know I learned an hour ago when I read the Wikipedia article on them.  However, if the Wikipedia article is accurate, some Quakers are far less Christian than Mormons or JWs.  This has probably become more true in the last 50-60 years than it was 400 years ago.  So... should they be added to the Christianity template?  I don't know.... --Richard 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are so non-creedal that its difficult to define them, I don't think it would really be possible to summarize them in the article in a manner short enough to be a good summary yet still remain accurate :/. . Homestarmy 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having perused the article on the Society of Friends it looks like they probably don't merit a lot of space on a list of Christian groups. Because they (according to the article)are made up of atheists, mystics and pagans, and do not regard the bible as the word of God. but if they want to call themselves christians.... ok. Kljenni 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think they(we as it happens, but that irrelevant) merit a proper mention, due to their lack of creed as mentioned by others. Certain sections of Quakerism (such as the orthodox and evangelicals) can be defined as definitely Christian, but Quakerism as a whole cannot. Some Quakers identify with Buddhism, are agnostic or atheist, or simply spiritual. Doesn't merit a mention here as a result. Ian Goggin 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  as has been stated Quakers don't always identify as being chrisitians (though they did start of as Christians) while they may hold christian values, the two are very different, there is a seperate page for Quakers prehaps there should be a note like 'for more info see Quakers page' ....???Philsgirl 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quakers/Friends

message: Well, being an impatient sort of fellow, I decided not to wait for a resolution to my last question but to plunge ahead and create Pagan influences on Christianity.  I'm still interested in figuring out what to do about the "Impact of evolving trends in Judaism on Christianity" question but I didn't think it was worth holding up the parade to resolve that question.
My suggestion is that further discussion of pagan influences on Christianity be held on the Talk Page of that article.  See you there.  
--Richard 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pagan influences on Christianity]]

message: #Fishal 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Bytebear 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Shouldn't the mention of ichtys include a link to the concerning article? CubOfJudahsLion 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ichtys