Talk:Christianity/Archive 42

message: An anon going by the IP 213... is making edits that are unwarranted IMHO. Despite being opposed several times he has not yet explained himself on talk. This is his opportunity to do so.
To state the problems with his edits beforehand:
*He opposes any mentioning of the origin of Christianity within the Jewish religion, constantly talking about Judaism, which we have already covered by not using the term Judaism. Also using strange edit summaries talking about what "he (presumamby Jesus) was very clear about" and that "Unitarianismus did not orginated from Catholicism" (indeed, U did originated via intermediate stepts from Catholicism)
*he opposes the fact that most Christians believe in an eternal and triune God and needlessly complicates this. The entire "beliefs" sections is about the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. There is no use of separating the two items. 
*he also censors the word Jewish from the "history and origins" section
*he introduced a personal conversion of Constantine into the same section. Personally, I do believe that such a one occured but a) it is not needed in this context, b) it is highly contested, some stating that Constantine only adopted Christianity out of political motives
*he adds a detail about early disagreements (Easter date dispute) that can never be covered fully in this section. The passage reads horridly, confuses the first (years 1-100) with the second century (years 101-200), includes wrong information (he pits West vs. East, when it was in fact only Asia Minor), and pushes the POV that this had "a profound effect" when it actually had little effect at all.
But I have said enough, I'd like to hear from him. Otherwise I will have to revert him again. Str1977 (smile back) 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, in fact, reverted the anon, but kept the edits from Mkmcconn. I had some problems with the implication that the Trinity is not part of mainstream Christianity. "Christianity has a common origin the Jewish people" is ungrammatical, though I'm sure it's just a typo. I also think there was a POV problem with changing "Christianity" to "Christ's teachings", as the latter implies that Jesus really was the Christ. However, I also invite User:213.140.6.103 to join us on the talk page, as I'm sure we can reach a compromise. ElinorD (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Factually incorrect. I do not oppose all mentions of the origin of Christianty with the Jewish religion. In fact, it was my improvement to say they have a common origin rather than that one comes from the other. Jesus' central theme was that Judaism - of his day, not of today - was so far removed from what he taught that he did not recognise it. He introduced new symbols. He introduced the concept of spiritual understanding rather than physical ritual (and incidentally some elements of modern, ritualistic high church and have more in common with judaism in that respect). 
If Christ's teachings are not the origin of Christianity, then what is? I wonder where Marxism got its name. Would it be that the man upon whose teachings the movement was founded....
To ignore a major schism in the first century Church is a grave error. The bishop/apostle/pastor of Rome excommunicates his fellow christian from Asia minor over a major observance but my dear friend STR1977 dismisses this with the comment "superstitious nonsense"...end of story. Perhaps STR1977 is editing comments as irrelevant because he does not understand their significance. Let's show some academic backbone and say a paragraph is poorly written and suggest how and where it might be better inserted but don't presume to be the sole caretaker of a subject which is much broader than you give it credit for. There are entire paragraphs focused on doctrinal issues which MANY Christians do not believe in and yet the FIRST MAJOR SCHISM in the Christian church is dismissed as superstitious nonsense despite solid references being inserted and, more generally, the existence of copious material from the Church fathers themselves documenting the schism. I am flabbergasted. 
Constantine: "personally I don't believe it" says my favourite contributor. Central issue: 1) Constantine's conversion (geniune or not) and his patronage of the Church gave such an incredible momentum to Christianity that it revolutionised the world and 2) STR1977's believing or not believing something is not the issue (excuse me if I return the personal slant on your flawed arguments).  
I don't think I have unnecessarily complicated the article. I think I have necessarily complicated some people's views. I am glad that some of the changes have created a debate. I invite certain "guardians" to take the challenge and open up the article to a broader, truer history...or at least stand aside and let that process take its natural path. 213.140.6.119 23:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Space for 213... objections

message: Because disruptive edits by an anon IP (or rather one person from similar IPs) and the fact that hardly anyone is doing anything about it, I suggest that this page should be semiprotected. Str1977 (smile back) 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do it, but I've been pretty heavily involved lately.  I think that disqualifies me.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somebody attempting to add valid information with supporting reference material and fact (and who tried twice and gave up because STR1977 just reversed edits with no justification) is considered disruptive. That is not what Wikipedia is all about. STR1977 is attempting to practice censorship. This page needs a serious overhaul, but it cannot be done if people with set ideas establish themselves as guardian. Can we have a discussion about how to redesign this page and about how to prevent people such as him/her cutting all new information without a valid rationale. This page is not in good shape and I understand why. Medic! Moderator!! 213.140.6.119 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid there is nobody here but us editors. Wikipedia operates by consensus. If you want to change things, you have to use reasoned argument to convince people. If you are proposing a wholesale rewrite of the page, I would not support that. Tom Harrison Talk 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The page is biased. It spends too much time on certain theologies. We need to focus more on the history and less on theologies of certain groups. Those can be dealt with under other subjects. There are contributors who are essentially blocking any new material. First item on the Wikipedia instructions is "be bold". Someone introduces supported material and it is summarily dismissed by the current "guardians" of the page and the page is put under semi-protection. That doesn't square with academic openness or Wikipedia policy. 213.140.6.119 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for semi-protection

message: I removed a spurious passage about the Holy Spirit raising Christ from the dead. References for this were only bible verses (primary sources) and an extract from the CCC that actually talked about the "involvement" of all Three Divine Persons in the Resurrection. And of course such a thing can be stated, either in general (that the Trinity cooperates in all things) or in specific. However, it cannot be the basis of a statement about the Holy Spirit in specific. Str1977 (smile back) 08:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only primary-source-supported statement was concerning the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture.  The statement regarding the Holy Spirit raising Christ from the dead is grievously mis-described, when you call it "spurious".  Please tell me what you mean - since the CCC excerpt quoted above in full - supports both, the Trinitarian nature of salvation, and the specific work of the Holy Spirit.  But by supporting the first, it does not fail to support the other - for, as you very rightly say (the Trinity cooperates in all things). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed this whole "cooperation" bit now in a separate passage, which covers both the problems from the section just above and this here. Have a look. And please forgive my over-polemic wording. Str1977 (smile back) 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll look at it in the morning.  Thanks for your help. I'm not offended by your wording. 'night. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirit raised Christ