Talk:Christianity/Archive 40

message: Some idiot vandalised this article. Can someone fix it? 24.218.198.220 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What section is it in? You can remove it yourself too, just edit it out. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There are two examples of "saviour" and one of "savior". I use the British spelling ("saviour") myself, but I don't want to jump in and change it, as I imagine many Wikipedia editors are American. I do think the article should be consistent, though. Thoughts? ElinorD 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original article used the  American spelling so that is the one that should be used as per convention .  Sophia 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected one of the occurences of Saviour to Savior. However, the remaining one is part of the Justin quote and hence cannot be changed. Str1977 (smile back) 09:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, both of you. Useful link, Sophia. ElinorD 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: I altered the end of the Christian divisions section. Expanded it slightly. Added fact tag until we can cite the claim. Just because we know it to be true is not sufficient. Feel free to revert if people object, but please explain why if you do. Vassyana 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited that because I think it adds little new information, and that which it does add is unbalanced globally/historically.  It focuses very much on evangelical views on 'dodgy' groups, whereas globally/historically other groups have/have had an at least equally significant disapproval of other groups for various grounds.  In most mainstream non-evangelical churches, groups like the Jehovah's witnesses - to which the article refers - are not regarded as 'properly' Christian. TheologyJohn 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have removed the reference to evangelicals, rather than reverted the entire change, if that is the crux of your concern. It does add new info, as it includes reference to those with open canons and continuing revelation, which also are beliefs meeting much criticism and hostility from many mainstream and evangelical groups. The mention of evangelicals seemed appropriate, as they are the principal active critics of such groups, generally speaking. I also don't understand why you removed the fact tag from an uncited claim. Vassyana 09:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored my edit, minus the evangelical reference. If you have further concerns about this change, please discuss it with me. Vassyana 09:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being Bold

message: *Are you sure that the Anglicans should be considered Protestants? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.11.210 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered in the article. "Others, particularly some Anglicans, eschew the term Protestant and thus insist on being thought of as Catholic, adopting the name "Anglo-Catholic."" Vassyana 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two main schools of Anglicanism: "High Church", which is more formally called Anglo-Catholic Tractarianism, and "Low Church", better called Protestant Reformed. The latter stems from Messrs Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, et al, the former from an address given in 1823 by John Keble (see [Anglo-Catholicism]). Haoran 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicans

message: Do we really need the paragraph about the Reformed Theology take on the Trinity? It seems to emphesize one particular POV and there's already an article for RT and the Trinity where such details would better fit. Why not remove that paragraph? Also, should we split off that paragraph about the Holy Spirit into its own section titled Holy Spirit? These change would drastically change the section and perhaps create another, so I'm not quite going to be bold on this until I hear some other feedback. ElinorD? Str1977? Vassyana 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the RT paragraph from Trinity and split the Holy Spirit paragraph into its own section. Vassyana 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Trinity 

message: there will be three or more opinions as to what to call yourselves.
That's what Jesus should have said.
What happened to "They will know them by their love."?
OK, let's take a straw poll and see how things are falling out.  If I missed your favorite combination, feel free to add it below.
===Christian churches and denominations===
Support
#SigPig. The Anglican Church of Canada. The Roman Catholic Church. The United Church of Canada. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Presbyterian Church in Canada. Et alii. Church + church + church +...=Churches. And yes, while I as a post-Nicene Christian believe there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (prescription), I know that the majority of these groups self-identify as "church" (description). As for denominations, Newfoundland had a denominational school system, and I never heard anyone complain (RC included) about that particular word. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name... 

message: Support
#SigPig. The Anglican Church of Canada. The Roman Catholic Church. The United Church of Canada. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Presbyterian Church in Canada. Et alii. Church + church + church +...=Churches. And yes, while I as a post-Nicene Christian believe there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (prescription), I know that the majority of these groups self-identify as "church" (description). As for denominations, Newfoundland had a denominational school system, and I never heard anyone complain (RC included) about that particular word. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian churches and denominations

message: Support
Oppose
#lquilter 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian communions and traditions

message: Support
Oppose
#SigPig. Ecclesial group? I know this was mentioned above; but is that a neologism? --SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian denominations and ecclesial groups

message: I note that the category, :Category:Christian denominations remains. Am I to assume that this issue is no longer of concern, or simply that editors are unable or unwilling to assume the task of recategorizing such a large array of articles? I know I am. Fishhead64 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still not been moved

message: The following text has recently been repetitively added and then deleted:
:In contrast, on the basis of discovery of Talmud Jmmanuel Discovery of the Talmud of Jmmanuel(Jesus) some Christian researchers do not believe that Jesus died on the cross.Prof. James Deardorff's website (Research Professor Emeritus Oregon State University); About crucifixion: See Chapter 30 Verses 48-72, Journal: English translation of "Talmud of Jmmanuel" ; 
This material is not suitable for this article for a number of reasons.  I think that the most compelling is that it is an extremely minority view in academic circles, even if the research is supposed to be taken seriously.  I genuinely cannot understand why someone keeps adding it.  I have removed it again as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  And if you deny the resurrection, then how exactly do you call yourself a Christian?  It's like me claiming to be a Muslim, and then insisting that Jesus must be the Son of God because I'm a 'Muslim' and I believe it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheologyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of including minority viewpoints, particularly those with significant recurrence or strong notability. However, this is not a notable minority viewpoint by almost any criteria. It is widely derided as a hoax by the academic community. It is written by a UFO researcher who claimed it was entrusted to him by Pleiadian extraterrestrials, there is no available original Aramaic manuscript (only modern "translations") and it is printed by a UFO vanity press for Billy Meier. It should definately stay out of this article. Vassyana 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Repeated Added Text 

message: Is there any link for the topic of Christian mysticism in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have I missed it....? 

message: I added "Most Christians consider themselves to be completed Judaism because they have the Old Testament and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah—the one who the Jews are still waiting for." but Zazaban reverted it.  I think it's an important piece of information that should be included.  Why was it taken out?  Gert2 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't look gramatically correct, I certainly don't consider myself to be a religion, and I know of no Christians who consider themselves to be religions. Homestarmy 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, that's funny.  I didn't even notice.  I'll fix it and put it back.  Gert2 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supersessionism is a view, but unless you have evidence to back up the claim that "most" Christians believe this, it is original research. Fishhead64 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, that sentence works too.  Thanks, Gert2 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed Judaism 

message: The following text is taken from the "Consensus in practice" section of WP:Consensus
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.  The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:
In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.  You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.
Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.
--Richard 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus in practice 

message: # Support Homestarmy 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1: Yes

message: #Support --Richard 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2: No, but provide a link in the WikiBox

message: Of those who supported the full text, who would find the WikiBox link solution acceptable or tolerable? Of those who opposed the full text, who would find keeping the full text acceptable or tolerable? Please keep comments short. Please do not use this space to advocate an inflexible position. I am simply seeing who might be flexible so we can reach consensus and move past this impasse. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have posted a proposal for three articles related to the History of Christianity over at Talk:History of Christianity.  The proposed article titles are:
*History of the Christian church
*History of Christian theology
*History of Christian rites and practice
The rationale behind these three proposed articles is explained in the section titled "Private penitence seems out of place here".
Your opinion is solicited.  Please respond on that Talk Page.  
--Richard 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Christianity]] - scope question