Talk:Christianity/Archive 17

message: As I promised this morning, I will explain my edit this morning. I will not discuss into who posted what and how far the reaction towards my edit was uncalled for (at least not now and not here). I also will not get into the dispute with KV about orthodoxy being defined "in contrast to heresy" (and not vice versa), as I have written about this above. So I will explain point for point:
*"Christianity began within the Jewish religion among those who claimed to be the followers of Jesus of Nazareth."
:Though there are instances where we have to use the word claim, it is countd as one of the weasel words implying a certain POV. In this case it implies uncertainity or controversy where there is none. Even the most extravagant Gnostics, even scholars like Elain Pagels, and Pseudo-Scholars like Baigent/Leigh or Eisenman, consider the followers/disciples to be the starting point of Christianity, though they think it was corrupted at one point. THe only people that don't think so are those denying the historicity of Jesus, but that is because if Jesus didn't exist he couldn't have followers. But a) these are a fringe groups, b) including these into our wording gives undue weight to them, and c) even they view Jesus' followers as the origin of Christianity, though in their view these people were following a myth.
*"in which there also existed great diversity 'of beliefs"
:This is a minor point. IMHO it is needlessly restricting diversity in beliefs while also unduly highlighting the same.
*I reposted the paragraph about "Theological disputes". There has been no justificaton for its removal or move. This is the proper chronological place, as theological disputes and condemnation for heresy started in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, way before Constantine. The other version suggests that disputes and condemnations were something brought up by Constantine etc., laying the basis for the widespread but nonetheless unhistorical views about Constantine "making Christianity".  I also retain my preference for the word heresy, which is, if properly used not POV but merely reporting historical reality.In contrast to what has been argued above, the antonym of "Orthodox" is not "unorthodox" (a word that shouldn't exist in the first place (like ungood) but which has a definitely positive connotation (hence POV) and is mostly used in expressions like "unorhtodox methods") but "heterodox". I am willing to employ this term, though we cannot avoid "heresy" alltogether, but "unorthodox" will not do ever.
*The other version also talked about state authorities "establishing" orthodoxy - that suggests again that the state started orthodoxy which is at least POV. I have included a proper treamtment of  the issue in my version.
*I also didn't like some ungrammatical or unfortunate wordings, such as:
:*"the condemnation of some theologians as heretics resulted." - resulted in what? It also inaccurate to say that making heresy a crime (and not elevating it to crimes against hte state - are there other crimes?) resulte in the condemnation of theologians as heretics. Such condemnations existed way before Constantine and very few theologians were tried by state courts or punished by the state for heresy.
:*"dissented from the decisions of particular councils (especially the Council of Chalcedon" - I don't think it was intentional but "particular" is ambiguous in this case: meaning either individual  or pertaining to a part of the world. This is problematic as the Council of Chalcedon was an Ecumenical council, in fact the biggest council until Vatican I.
*I approve of the expansion of the "Monaticism" passage, as it always seemed a bit lost, but we shouldn't take it too far and indulge into speculative or too short explanations. This can be done in another article, where there is more space.
*"restrictions on Christian practices" seems quite soft, given especially current news.
*"self proclaimed Communist states" - this is the pinnacle of pov pushing, I must say: why  should we used preface like this? Some Christians employ a tactic posthumusly excommunicating every "evil-doer" from our history, sometimes using such a preface "Self proclaimed Christian Constantine" (not saying he was such a bad man, just giving an example) etc. Secularists oppose this and so would  I, unless there is clear evidence that someone only claimed to be Christian while holding contrary beliefs otherwise. In what way are the regimes in question not Communists, i.e. adhering to the various branches of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.
*"allows only government-regulated churches and has regularly enforced restrictions against house churches or underground Catholics" - I replaced the bolded words with suppressed. Why use the more circumstantial and downplaying wording. If I restrict something, there is still room for its existence. House churches however are not restricted in China, they are banned, "cracked down" to use another term. The term is colloquial and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia - replacing it was called for, but it should be replaced by an adequate word and not by downplaying.
Now, that wasn't all that much. That's the reason for my revert this morning and I stand by it. Str1977 (smile back) 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Str1977 -- re: the "among those who claimed" bit...I agree with you.  Scholars are virtually unanimous (hard to believe we have to argue this, it's so self-evident) that Jesus' followers started the whole ball of wax.  No reason to give undue weight to the "Jesus myth" theory, which barely registers on the academic radar (mention it in an "other views" section or something, but don't use it as a major scholarly viewpoint...it isn't).  KHM03 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel we may go too far in the direction of saying that state authorities established orthodoxy...eccesiastical and theological authorities had at least as much to do with that as the politicians.  Can't we clarify that?  KHM03 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to add I edited to the text to take into account that there was religous freedom under Constantine.  As much as any ancient ruler could enforce anything, there probably was religous freedom for centuries in the Mediterranean.  But at any rate, the official laws against other beliefs did not start until he was dead - I'm using the same Catholic encyclopedia that is referenced later in the article, though I knew this well from my college classes.  Constantine, while he did host meetings to tie down 'official' beliefs, did not adhere as strictly to Christianity as the authors of this article believe.  I don't think we need a lot of detail about religous freedom here, since it WAS relatively short-lived, but it's only fair, when the church fathers discussed religous freedom themselves. solomonrex 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my issues and my edit this morning

message: For those of you interested in christianity, a new wiki has been started over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site. 
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. It will include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. The site could use your help to build a resource that would really enrich the lives of Christians. nsandwich 06:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Knowledge Base could use your help! 

message: Hi,
I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site. 
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.
I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. 
Empty2005 03:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Help Would Be Wonderful! 

message: I've spent enough time trying to NPOV this article, and it's not what I'm looking to add to.  My activity here has left me not paying attention to other articles that mean much more to me than Christianity.  I see the main problem as it being too biased towards, not Christianity, but the victorious streams thereof over the squashed out streams.  And that is my last word before unwatching this.
KV 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowing Out 

message: In an an attempt to get the history section of this article and Early Christianity out of dispute for the first time in months I have listed and RfC. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Princeton Professor Cornel West [Class of 1943 University Professor of Religion at Princeton University. He has held positions at Union Theological Seminary, Yale University, Harvard University, and the University of Paris. He has written numerous books, including Race Matters: The American Evasion of Philosophy, Beyond Eurocentrism and Multiculturalism (two Volumes), and The Cornel West Reader.) , published a book in 2004 entitled Democracy Matters: Winning The Fight Against Imperialism. [2004; Penguin Group;  and ISBN 01430.35835)
As the title suggests, the book discusses the issue of the fight between the concepts of American Imperialism and American Democratic principles. Chapter 5, which runs 27 pages in the paperback edition,  is entitled The Crisis Of Christian Identity In America. In this chapter, he discuses the long battle between so-called Prophetic Christians, which he identifies with Christ, Paul, Martin Luther King, William Sloan Coffin, and the Separation of Church and State; and the so-called Constantinian Christians, which he identifies with Emporor Constantin, Jerry Falwell and the institutional connection between Church and State in political society. Professor West traces the history of the fight between these two concepts, including the struggle between them in the American Constitutional Period where the result was specific language that protected the freedom of worship, the freedom from institutional worship, and the Separation of Church and State in the body of the Constitution, and explains how it is the Constantinians who are in power now in America, as evidenced by the amount of influence the group we call Fundamentalist Christians have in the government of the United States. He outlines the religious threat to democratic practices, both domestically in the USA, and abroad, and explains the developmental link between the Constantinians and the Fundamentalist Jews and Muslims throughout the world, and their effect on the nations they are dominant in. His complaint is that the Constantinians have an undue influence over governmental policies through the justification of three Dogmas: Free Market Fundamentalism; Aggressive Militarism; and Escalating Authoritarianism. This justification is achieved through their religious rhetoric, and he feels that this is ironic and sad, in that "this fundamentalism is subverting the most profound, seminal teachings of Christianity, those being that we should live with humility, love our neighbors, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us." 
I notice that there is absolutely nothing on this topic in this article, and I would recommend someone in your group reading this book, and then writing a section on it. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I doubt mention of this would be allowed here by the majority of editors who defend a more conservative approach. This material would certainly be allowed and good for part of the discussion on another article, titled Christian fascism.Giovanni33 07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first sight I think it would be inappropriate, not because of conservatism (most Christians would regard me as strongly liberal) but because it is totally focused on the USA and has no international relevance. This article is about a world religion, not about domestic US politics. (I wonder if this author acknowledges the much more general thread in comparative religion between what are sometimes called 'soteriological religion' (focus on individual salvation) and 'community religion' (focus on social cohesion).) I think Gio is quite right that there is material here for a separate article on American Christianity and politics (fascist or otherwise). Myopic Bookworm 08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a conservative Christian argument against this, Christians aren't the only people who argue against separation of church and state, if there was a fight over this information it might get far more political than religious, and I dunno if anyone wants to mess with that. I know I don't, politics can be so annoying....Homestarmy 13:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crisis Of Christian Identity in America

message: Note: The word "Deceptive" in this case should be understood as a description of the effect the quote had on me and has presumably readers - no accusation of intention is intended. Now read on.
I just learned a lesson - one has to be careful and check any quote someone provides. The article quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to say: "The 'Catholic Encyclopedia' notes, "from the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime." I wanted to find out which Theodosius the CE was referring to, so I followed the link only to find out that the text actually read:
:"From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned." ( Vide "Codex Theodosianus", lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis".)"
Technically all that was missing were three dots to indicate that something has been left out in the quote. However, this "something" (which I put in bold type) actually provided a number of penalties and restrictions on heretics, with the death penalty being reserved for a few, extreme cases and only seldomly exectuted. The actual contents of what "Theodosius ... pronounced" are also ommitted.
Finally, to return to my initial reason for checking the source, I am quite convinced that the Theodosius in question is not Theodosius I (lived 347-395) but his grandson Theodosius II (lived 401-450). He was the originator of the great legislative work called "Codex Theodosianus", published in 438). The CE is a bit careless with not giving numerals to the various Theodosii. The first instance is clearly Theodosius I. The second mentions a Theodosius alongside of Valentinian III it is most plausible to think of his contemporary Theodosius II. Also, Theodosius and Valentinian are seen as end points in a development starting with Cosntantine. Penal laws were enacted, CE says, ... until all these different laws were codified under Thedosius II. Now, the third instance, we cannot tell for certain which Theo is correct but given that the preceding Theo was No. 2 I think it more plausible to identify him with Theodosius II. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I can agree; the text states that someone called Theodosius promulgated 'this law' about heresy in 382: that must have been Theodosius I. So we are not talking about the Theodosian Code of 438, but some component of the Theodosian Decrees of 389-392 or thereabouts. What it also says, though, is that it was a law against particular 'heretical' groups (though the list includes Manichaeans who were more pagan than heretical in modern terms). Not against heresy in general (so perhaps not operative against Arians, for example). If this is ther case, it is not made clear enough at the moment in the Wikipedia article. Myopic Bookworm 16:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, now that you say it I see it too. I overread it. The second Theo however is clearl No. 2. Someone should admonish the writers of the CE, but they are all dead by now. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 16:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was the provider of the original; quote and although I gave the link so people could check for themselves I should have made it clear there was a lot of skipped over text covered by the" ...". I was trying to summarise the salient point but see now that this could misrepresent them and give then "undue weight". I'll be clearer next time. Myopic Bookworm does have a point about the dates and the different Theodosius' though. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deceptive quotes

message: Since this is brought up frequently, let me comment on this addition. I don't know ancient Greek except for a few words, but I can positively state that the addition is wrong. Maybe ancient Greeks used the word "Christos" to refer to an athlete in the annointed state (or maybe not) - but that's hardly relevant to this article. For the early Christians, Christos (someone male who is annointed) was the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Machshiach, which meant annointed as well. In Hebrew of course it does not refer to athlethes rubbed in oil as the Jews were not as sport crazy as the Greeks (see 1 Maccabees for that). The passage in question is about the belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah and any statements about Greek athletes are irrelevant, if the etymological remark is true after all (Paul in his letters refers to athletes but he never draws a connection to the term Christos). (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Sam. I've noticed the Greek babel box on your user page, and I wonder if you'd have time to take a look at this? I don't know Greek, unfortunately, but since I know that the English word athlete comes from a very similar Greek word, and since the English word chrism comes from a Greek word meaning something to do with oil or anointing, it seems unlikely that the relatively short word Christos could have the meanings "athlete" and " rubbed in oil" incorporated into it. Thanks. And by the way, last time I looked at your user page, you were sixteen, so Happy Birthday! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greek root is the verb χριειν (chriein or khriein) meaning "to rub on" or "to anoint".  χριστος (christos with a small c) means anointed, and Χριστος (Christos with a large C) is therefore taken as Christ.  It is a precise translation of the Hebrew "Messiah".  They both mean "anointed one".  The comment on that diff stems from the fact that Greek athletes were rubbed with oil at games, and the verb here would also have been χριειν and χριστος in an athletics context would therefore have come to mean "athlete" by understanding.  However, χριειν in itself was not specific to athletics, and neither was χριστος.  I hope that helps, and thanks for the birthday wishes!  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already removed this curious piece of folk etymology from the Messiah entry some days ago, and there I actually cited Liddell & Scott's Greek lexicon as support. As far as I know, it is rubbish: there is no inherent connection between 'christos' and athletes and it is irrelvant to the meaning of the religious term. (I wonder if someone has picked it up from some well-meaning but ill-informed preacher.) In ancient Greece, everyone who bathed used oils afterwards, whether they were athletes or not. Myopic Bookworm 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubbed in oil

message: A whole thread has developed, which has nothing to do with how to improve the article. I sympathize with both editors in not wanting to leave unanswered something which they think is false or unfair, as I have sometimes felt the same way myself. However, I think it's cluttering up the talk page, so I've taken the liberty of removing the entire thread. For those who are curious, it can be seen at the bottom of  If you really must continue, maybe take it to your user talk pages? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I just decided to delete it, without the background of that discussion my comment didn't have much point, plus I was just kinda throwing in my 2 cents heh. Homestarmy 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic thread removed

message: As a rule, I think we should avoid formulations like "is growing" and "is declining" because they imply a prediction. It would be better to say "declined in Europe from 1800 - 1950 according to X" or "grew in Asia from...", etc. Tom Harrison Talk 14:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds very reasonable, and consistent with the 'cite facts' policy. Wesley 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change and Decay

message: AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what you mean by "similar IP addresses" and what significance it has. Trollwatcher 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IP addresses are Internet Protocol numbers that identify specific computers and servers on the World Wide Web. Certain areas have different numbers associated with it. So you can have different IP ranges, so IP addresses such as 202.12.45.107 would be similar and likely in the same general geographical area as 202.12.47.129. If they are making similar style of edits, more than likely they are sockpuppets. But then you have the whole issue of proxy IPs etc. and it gets a little tricky. Hope this helps some. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made a heading that suggests I haven't answered. Did you check first to see whether or not I had. You've been away from Wikipedia for a month, except to gather evidence for and tell a few selected editors anonymously about your website where you attack editors from this page. Regarding your question to me, see here. AnnH ♫ 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aw man, nothing about the Jesus article in that report :(. Homestarmy 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same Question Yet Again for AnnH

message: KHM03, Reviewing your contributions I note that you have rejected a number of citatations of authorities critical of Christianity on the grounds that there are better authorities, rejected a number of books on the grounds that there are better critical books, and rejected references to external websites on the grounds that there are better critical websites. As it is not very clear what criteria you are using to dismiss sources which look perfectly good to others, and as you neglected to give examples of these "better" sources, I wonder of you would be kind enough to supply a list of the critical authorities (journalists, historians, ex-theologians, etc), critical books and critical websites that you would recommend. This will save many people wasting their time in future. Hope this does not sound an unreasonable request Trollwatcher 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wanting to answer for KHM03 but I think it would be helpful for other editors if you gave examples of the sources that were rejected. In situations like this to avoid misunderstandings it is vitally important to be specific with any issues you have. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll: I've responded on your talk page.  KHM03 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for KHM03