Talk:Christianity/Archive 33

message: Dear Aminz,
I reply to what you wrote above in your reply to LC.
*I am an academic too and I understand that you want to use proper source. I agree but I think your standard of only using "university press published books written by renowned scholars" both too narrow, as it will lead to stagnation and too endless debates about how renowned renowned is, and also not accepted by Wiki-custom. You might prefer it to be otherwise but this is not how things are. You cannot just unilaterally decide otherwise.
*I don't think mediation is needed. I am sorry if a tone in my edits is not to your liking but I am afraid that I can say the same about yours. I guess we have both met each other "on the wrong foot". Let me state that I never took you for a Christian-hater and since I have seen your userpage I know what you think about a couple of things (whether these views can be squared with Islam I cannot answer, being not a Muslim). And I appreciate your "unlike the majority" approach. 
*Having said that, what I detect in your edits is not hate for Christians but love for Islam. That wouldn't be bad but in this case IMHO it leads to an overzealous attitude and denial of any possible wrong-doing by Muslims or the need to counter this by the proof that Christians are/were much worse. That is understandable and unfortunately supported by stereotypes and cliches about Christian history, especially the Middle Ages. As I wrote somewhere, all too many writers, even scholars, compare Islamic principles with Christian practice ... and since Christians are sinful human beings too, the practice can only come out the loser. Islam (and other "exotic cultures" like Persia or China) have been used as bats to hit Christianity with, especially in the Enlightenment. Don't fall for that.
*Also, many things that you added are either questionable opinions (like the one comparing before and and after the Edict of Milan ... I might also ask how long after the Edict?) or details that do not belong here in this article: This article is the head article for all of Christianity, with the History and the persecution sections only a small part (and not the most important I should say). Also, other things are completely irrelevant to the issue: the extent of Roman taxation is not relevant for the situation of Christians under Islam.
*I cannot see how the text as it currently stands can be controversial. Though you write as if you denied that there ever was any persecution of Christians under Islam ("Muslims never did that") I actually think that you don't believe that. It is also contradicted by your much cherished Mr Lewis. I am open about my critical approach to what he says but my problem is mainly when he draws comparisons to topics outside his field, especially Christendom in the Middle Ages. If I followed his rout I could first write that persecution of Jews (whose legal state certainly is comparable in some ways to that of Dhimmis under Islam) was rare or sporadic. And in the next step I could erradicate these sad events alltogether. But the ugly truth is that both Christians and Muslims violated the legal state of their respective minorities at times. And that is all the text states.
*In the end, I can absolutely repeat everything LC wrote about collegiality and helping each other. But you to help us in that regard by the same approach.
Regards, Str1977 (smile back) 13:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, I have not read any of Bat Ye'or's books, but aren't they published by Fairleigh Dickinson University Press? Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking through the catalogues of a few university presses, I think being published by a university press is not in itself a good indicator of merit. It looks like they accept manuscripts for publication on about the same basis as other publishers, except some are willing to publish books that would not be profitable for a commercial publisher. Maybe someone who knows more can correct me. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So include it. She's reputable. Arrow740 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a discussion on Bat Ye'or's scholarship  --Aminz 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a pretty boring discussion. But it seems that if we're including that plant Esposito we should include her. Arrow740 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: She is notable and deserves a place in a larger treatment of these issues. However, this is merely the overview article and the issue merely one setence in a section. Str1977 (smile back) 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Aminz in general

message: I took a look at the other article, and it doesn't look good. In fact, it looks like almost compleatly taken from the one non-biblegateway.com site listed at the bottom, which may have disputable reliability. Homestarmy 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed the merge, because I ran across it on New Article Patrol and wasn't sure what to do with it, since I'm not an expert on the subject.  Should it perhaps be simply blanked and set up as a redirect?  --Elonka 19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do have what appears to be a short mention of spirituality in the life section, (and it seems to be referenced), a redirect might be fine. Homestarmy 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have a strong opionion, but maybe redirect to Christian worship? Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian spirituality merge?

message: Could I ask for some help in shaping the 'Christianity' article on the Simple English Wikipedia?
So far that site consists of a list of (so-called) common Christian beliefs that are ill defined and so still in contention - and a potted history of denominational divisions. Based on the experience here I think there are some authors who could greatly improve it.
- (Just nigel 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity in Basic English

message: I like what LostCaesar's doing with the references. There's one thing that I think needs clarification, though. The References section is divided into three parts (keeping with the Caesar theme), Primary sources, Secondary sources, and Popular media, which is good because it helps readability. The problem is I'm not sure it follows any real standard for which source goes where. The primary sources appear to be Church Fathers, ancient historians and Reformation-era Protestant confessions. But the article uses a lot of other things as primary sources (as defined in the reliable sources policy), including Boettner (which is why I had moved him up for a while), the Chicago Statement, a Jehovah's Witness tract, and, you know, the Bible.
I'm not sure what the distinction between secondary and popular is. As a very general rule it seems that the secondary is more scholarly, but there are enough exceptions that if we make that an explicit standard for inclusion (which we probably should) there's going to need to be some cutting and pasting.  A.J.A. 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AJ you are exactly right to point this out.  The distinction between the three is alway fuzzy.  Some sources I was not sure where to place, but I did not want that to stop the cleanup process.  There will be a need for cutting and pasting.  I am really just trying to make a framework than anything certain.  I just saw that there was an advisory posted that the section needed cleanup so I tried to move it forward.  I really think we should source even ref in the bibliography.  BTW, access date now accepts numerical values in the order ####-##-## year-month-date. Lostcaesar 17:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I won't be stepping on your toes, I'll reorganize it a little.  A.J.A. 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Np, though you may wish to wait until I run through the article, but if you want to start now that is fine.Lostcaesar 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Throughout the article, Christianity is called a religion, but it's really not. Has anyone ever heard a pastor say that Christianity isn't a religion becuase religion means "to bind to"? It's really not that big a deal, since the whole world calls it a religion anyway, but does anyone have any thoughts? --Christknight 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 Timothy 5:4, James 1:26. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology of religion (latin religio) is somewhat disputed, but re + ligare is probable, which does mean to re-bind-to.  That said, why wouldn't this be apt for describing Christianity?  The Latin Christians had no problem calling it a religio. Lostcaesar 22:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: James 1:26-27 in the KJV is an even stronger statement taken jointly.  These types of word games are often fruitless and mere curiosities.  Our religion is Christ Jesus who died for our sins and rose again that we might live and be forgiven of our sins.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Dropping Barth" would be a good band name.  A.J.A. 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, since this would be undue weight to a very questionable categorisation that is based on a misreading of Barth in the first place. Str1977 (smile back) 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion? 

message: The section on beliefs says "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion". This is disputed even among the Gospels. See this quote from the Jesus page:
The exact date of Jesus' death is also unclear. Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.[8] Further, the Jews followed a lunisolar calendar with phases of the moon as dates, complicating calculations of any exact date in a solar calendar. According to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, allowing for the time of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate and the dates of the Passover in those years, his death can be placed most probably on April 7, 30 AD/CE or April 3, 33 AD/CE.[9]
What is clear is the gospels use the phrase "third day" - but what they meant by it may not be so clear. It had precedents in the Hebrew Scriptures of refering to a day of Rising/Salvation/Vindication (eg Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days).
Instead of being a phrase refering to a 'day' in the sense of a chornologically, it could be refering to a 'day' in the sense of the rightness and significance of that day. (Just nigel 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am at a loss; what are you proposing for the article?  I am not sure what you are trying to get at.  Many, if not most, of the editors of this article are studied Christians.  They are not ignorant of theological debate or the diverse opinions that exist within Christianty.  I may be more obtuse than my fellow editors, but please more clear about your objective.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long thought that too many articles here play up this supposed difference as if no reasonable reconciliation has been put forward.  Seeing a contradiction here is based on a certain kind of interpretation - a secular exegesis if you will.  Lostcaesar 07:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date of the resurrection in relation to the crucifixion is undisputed and unanimously given by the Gospels. Crucifixion on Friday, Resurrection on Sunday (using our terms), or, in other words, on the third day, since the starting day is included in counts in antiquity. The only arguable uncertainty is the relation of the day of crucifixion to the feast of Passover. Maybe the "third day after his crucifixion" is problematic and simply "third day" or "third day since his crucifixion" would be better. Str1977 (smile back) 09:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Jewish reckoning a day starts at sunset, according to others at sunrise. Nothing ever starts at midnight. Str1977 (smile back) 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the invention of reliable mechanical clocks, that is. Myopic Bookworm 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmh, Bookworm, I meant what I said: nothing ever happens at midnight. This is why this time was chosen to mark the switch from one date to another. No one will notice. It is modern folly to invest this with any significance, whether it be army units assemble at night to switch a flag, people counting down on New Year's Eve or opening book stores to sell the newest Harry Potter. Just my personal opinion. Str1977 (smile back) 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the quote I posted from the Jesus page I think it has an error within it I will change there. It should say: ..."The Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Thursday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan..." Does that make it clearer for people? Matthew and Luke's narratives kill Jesus on Friday. John's kills Jesus on Thursdays which traditionally was the day the Passover Lamb was slaughtered. Meanwhile the resurrection is never depicted within the Gospels. They only ever describe people's reactions after the event! (Just nigel 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the third day?

message: Ever since this edit on October 10 wikipedia has again claimed as fact that Jesus rose from the dead. An event like going to Jerusalem for the Passover gets prefaced by "according to the Gospels" but disputed events like a resurrection & trial by the Sanhedrin are stated as bald fact --JimWae 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, if you feel that additional reminders that Jesus and his spiritual history are issues of faith should be made to readers, please edit the article to include further statements.  When I read articles that are based on issues of faith, I actually don't enjoy repeated statements that the topic is only as believed by adherents.  My purpose in reading such articles is to understand the topic from the position of who believes it.  I want to understand what they believe.  Maybe I have too high of expectation that readers really are capable of remembering that the topic is one of faith.  However, I also undertand that sometimes editors are highly committed to repeated warnings.  I think the best standard is not to measure a single sentence against NPOV, but rather measure the article as a whole against NPOV standards.  We both want the same thing, but I recommend evaluating the article and not a individual sentences.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News since Oct 10 

message: As per the Good Article review on this page, this article has been relisted as a GA, primarily due to lack of confidence in the motivations of the delister. Dispute archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7 Homestarmy 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review