Talk:Christianity/Archive 19

message: Alienus, you have reverted the following text four times in less than twelve hours:
"*The Bible And Christianity - "The Historical Origins: A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture", Scott Bidstrup."
07:46, 24 April 2006
20:40, 23 April2006
20:21, 23 April 2006
19:57, 23 April 2006
Timothy Usher 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3RR]]

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the "Denominations section":
"These broad divisions do not themselves encompass unanimity. On the contrary, some branches contain vast internal disagreements, while in other cases the divisions overlook strong sympathies between and among the groups. Nevertheless, this tends to be the standard overview of distinctions, especially as viewed in the Western world."
As it was never stated otherwise, and one learns nothing in particular here, I've removed it.  Even if some of it is needed - and I doubt it - it's needlessly complex.  Though I'm sure someone had a great time writing it.  And what can be the purpose of the link to the Western World?  Any feedback?Timothy Usher 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Denominations caveat removed

message: Other early sects deemed heretical included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism, Gnosticism and Montanism. Again, while some churches take exception to some of these articles, to the extent that they do so, this usually represents a conscious departure from the Christian mainstream. 
:Could someone explain whether the text in bold is needed and what it actually means as it's pretty inscrutable. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I killed it.Timothy Usher 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what it was trying to say was that while some churches might disagree with some of the listed beliefs, they're generally self-aware that their disagreement places them outside the Christian mainstream. I think it's helpful to keep that general sense in the article, but perhaps there's a clearer way to say it? Wesley 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a stab at it: "While these churches generally affirm that they represent a true version of Christianity, most of their members exibit (or exibited) conscious acknowladgement of their large differences with the orthodoxy". Homestarmy 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved them to the history section as they fit better there. Then rejection or acceptance of creeds becomes irrelevant. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit (as were all of yours I saw the other night).  Thank you.Timothy Usher 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heresies

message: Str, it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop using the term "view of the afterlife" in replacement for "Ressurection".  It is accepted by Egyptologists as being the Ressurection, not a view of the afterlife.  It is specifically the rising of the Dead at some ungiven date in the future, not a view of Heaven or Hell, and Budge has written a book on it alone that I unfortunately have not yet purchased.  When you make that change, you put in an inaccuracy in an attempt to prevent anyone from seeing them as the same.  The stagnant POV pushing has to stop.
Btw, what ever happened to that text I added to show some defense of Jesus' existence....... it wasn't even shortened down, just outright removed.
KV 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean this edit. AvB ÷ talk 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian Ressurection 

message: I mean I could do it myself if need be but it might take a bit because I haven't done it very much, but really, this talk page is getting huge, and if I archive myself im a bit worried I might mess it up :/. Homestarmy 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If you are looking for recent conversations no longer on this page, please look here: /Archive_28.--Andrew c 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive anyone?