Talk:Christianity/Archive 4

message: An anon IP (User:80.41.239.231) is making a lot of edits to the article (see 80.41.231.239's contributions). Can someone more knowledgable than me check them out?
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  80.49.239.231's edits 

message: I think the insertion that 
:and in some groups it is considered idolatry and not used in worship.
Is worthy of inclusion somehow.  Rather than simply deleting it, we should probably incorporate it.  As for an image for Christianity, I think it is appropriate that there be a cross with an explanation in the caption that the cross is the generally recognized icon of Christianity, though some Christian groups don't identify with its use. In other words, we can include the NPOV-requisite disclaimer without getting into particulars of idolatry and worship. Tom 18:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: restore caption for now -- it seems weird to refer to it as an icon for "Non-Christians"
The non-Christian POV of the cross is quite important.  The cross is the world symbol of Christianity even if I don't choose to use it in my worship and iconography. Tom 21:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: IMHO, while the first points are true for some very small number of the world's Christians, noting it in the caption for a cross very much overemphasizes the matter. Can it be put somewhere in the text of the article? And as far as the second, while it is true, I would argue that it is not an essential characteristic of the cross, and that that should go into the article Christian cross if it's not there already. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross 

message: The Original Teaching of Jesus Christ
1) "Christianity" in Wikipedia is not only christian's view.
The article, which not contain different views, is non-enciclopedian, but only "confession".
It is not good.
2) This material is not commercial information.
3) This book was written with blessing of God and under His guidance and contan deep knowledge.
4) I think you not read this book yet. 
Sorry for my bad english, 
Yours faithfully,
Skywalker
:I removed the "Original teaching" link, and wrote "v minority, POV link". I think that this is an accurate statement. To answer your points - 1. The article isn't written from a Christian's point of view - it's pretty neutral I think. 2. I didn't consider this when deleting the link. 3. That's your point of view - I'd seriously disagree with it, but again that isn't why I deleted it. 4. No, I haven't read all of it, but I have read a few of the pages.
:The reason I deleted it is because the book makes unverifiable statements about what its author believes to be true. It does not attempt to reconstruct the orignal teaching of Jesus by any historical, textual criticism or scientific method that I can see. The text itself is probably more Gnostic than Christian, while the website on which it is published is syncreistic. I think that the purpose of the Christianity article should be to present information on the beliefs of mainstream and large minority groups, and on groups who disagree with these beliefs. I think that the current article does that, but I don't think that the addition of the link accurately represents what is believed about Christianity by any significant minority of people. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a collection of websites - we'd soon be swamped if we included every website which discusses Chrisitanity. I think we can only choose the most appropriate to list, and I'm afraid that in my opinion, this website is not on that list.
:Furthermore, I note that a link to the same book (on a different webiste) is also listed on the Jesus page - I certainly don't think it needs to be listed twice. I hope that this helps you understand why I deleted your link. If people disagree with me, then I'm sure they'll say and the link will be re-instated. --G Rutter 10:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analitical materials 

message: I've deleted this discussion, as it doesn't belong here and has been covered elsewhere. If you really care you can read it here (but please don't edit it otherwise you'll remove any more recent changes). --G Rutter 08:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution vs. Creation 

message: A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus died for us on the cross, taking the full wrath of God on himself, and who has trusted in Jesus for his salvation from hell in the life to come. - 207.27.152.6 [UNSIGNED]
RESPONSE: This is already defined on the Christian page:
:*a follower of the faith of Christianity 
:*those who followed Jesus as his disciples 
Since the first definition is a circular reference to this page, only the second is helpful. It is specific enough to be meaningful, yet broad enough to not be controversial and start more "Edit Wars," (ie. "My doctrine is more Christian than your doctrine!")
The problem with the previous UNSIGNED definition is that it includes some doctrinal beliefs that not all that profess to be Christians would agree with. There is a definite trend here among many contributors to define things in terms that INCLUDE themselves and EXCLUDES those that they don't agree with. Obviously, this is not NPOV. --DannyMuse 20:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the matter of using generally understood meanings versus newly invented meanings. Wesley 06:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wesley, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify by being more specific, perhaps giving some examples of what you mean and an explanation? Thanks! --DannyMuse 16:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  For instance, a follower of Rev. Moon might agree that "Jesus died for us on the cross..." as stated above, but believe that his mission failed for whatever reason, necessitating another messiah such as Rev. Moon. A muslim might even subscribe to that statement, believing that Jesus died for us, and that trusting in Jesus' moral teachings (which he thinks are consistent with the Koran etc.) will lead him to eternal life. Short simple statements like that can be interpreted a dozen different ways, often in direct contradiction to what was initially intended by the statement or definition. (sorry to take so long to respond, didn't see this question until now.) Wesley 17:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Christian? 

message: In the Emergence of National Churches, I read this:
:By the second millennium, Christianity had spread to most of the civilized world.
This should be phrased differently.  "Civilized world" is a meaningless term - there have been civilizations all over the world.  In most uses it is extremely ethnocentric, implying that the writer's civilization is the only really "civilized" one.  I'd change it, but I don't know jack about the history of Christianity, only enough to know that there are plenty of civilized places that are not particularly Christian now and never have been. So might someone who knows about this stuff fill in a specific term, like "had spread to most of Pitcairn Island" or "had spread to most of western Greenland" or whatever the right term is? Thanks! - Cdc 07:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I just made a change myself, making it "most of Europe" since I'm guessing that that's what the author meant by "most of the civilized world", but like I say, I don't know for sure what was meant. Feel free to fix it if that's wrong, but I couldn't let the implication of Christianity==civilized world stand any longer..  Cdc 22:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "civilized world"? 

message: I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who created this high quality article. It's very NPOV and talks about Christianity from historical and philospophical persepective, unlike sorry Wikipedia entries about Islam and Qur'an that spread hate and intolerance.
:: Do they? Where? Slinky puppet 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: is the "Opposing views" links relevant here , Opposing to what ? --82.213.33.73 22:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, one probably could. Even better would be to summarize who believes they did write some, and who believes this is in serious doubt. Broad generalizations would probably suffice, as long as the generalizations aren't meant to be prejudicial.  Wesley 22:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing views

message: Do we really need this section here?
Maybe the quotes should go in the individual wikipedia articles "Rowan Atkinson"'s for example.
Rowan Atkinson's is a comedian and hardly a philosopher or theologian.
What is a freethinker?
--Vizcarra 17:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed that section.  I think a link to wikiquote would probably be alright, though. PaulStansifer 21:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes about Christianity 

message: I posted this on my talk page User:OneGuy/Christianity by country. It was easy to create this since I already had the program/data file from Islam by country article. I would like to see some comments/correction and if such an article should be on main namespace OneGuy 20:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian population of the world and each country

message: "In the second half of the 20th century a battle in Northern Ireland continues between Roman Catholics and Protestants over the forced British occupation of Ireland."
Wrong tense, on two accounts;  characterisation as a "religious battle" is over-simplified;  "forced occupation" is a tautology, wildly "Greener than Sinn Fein" POV in rhetorical terms, and confusing out of context.  (Vaguely implying the "occupation" started around 1950, not c. 1200 (or 1600, or 1700 take your pick).) Alai 06:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and persecution 

message: I do believe it is important to leave the sentence on miracles in the first paragraph. These are a central feature of Christian faith - not the basis, but a central feature nevertheless. Even today - both in the Roman Catholic church (what else is Lourdes etc about?) and in charismatic/pentecostal churches. To call these "supernatural nonsense" is gross POV Refdoc 08:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracles et al