Talk:Christianity/Archive 29

message: As I was reading the article, I noticed that Anabaptists are shown to be a Protestant group. Though, technically this may be true (they protested against the Catholic church), traditionally they have been considered a third way, neither in line with Catholic thought or the other protestant groups of the time such as the Lutherans. There are Anabaptist groups that still consider themselves a third way, such as The Meeting House. There are many distinguishing characteristics about the Anabaptists which seperate them from the other Protestant faiths that warrant them to be grouped seperately, such as their emphasis on community, simplicity of living, seperation of church and state, and active pacifism. 142.167.181.23 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divisions of Christian Thought

message: Would it be more appropriate to use the Christian Fish sign as opposed to a black cross? Colonel Marksman 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd need to discuss that on Template:Christianity. Homestarmy 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Cross Figure

message: A table should be created to show the origins of various ideas presented in the bible, such as creator of universe, omnipotent god, trinity, 7 days in a week, incarnation... etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholor (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 September 2006.
:Scholor, please read this section of this page, where objections to your edits are clearly stated.  Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); they will automatically expand into your signature and the date, making it easier for others to follow the talk page. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. Those objections are clearly nonsense. --Scholor 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that these proposals are unsourced, I don’t see the relevance.  Lostcaesar 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholor, nonsense were not my objections but most of what you wrote. I will not repeat my comments here again and focus on the "new" items. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Found in common sense probably a lot sooner, can't have a creation without a creator. Homestarmy 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? Then could you tell me who created the creator? Bachila 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, this is why people would save themselves a whole bunch of time if they read the Bible before trying to get all sneaky with philosophy, nobody created the creator, He has existed for all eternity, otherwise you have an infinite chain of causes causing each other, which doesn't make any sense if they all have to be finite. Homestarmy 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Creator of everything probably doesn't require a huge leap in logic to figure that He probably knows everything about what He created. Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Aten in Atenism is mother of the different omnipotent gods. -- Bachila 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not the same as Christianity's trinity at all, other religions can organize their concepts of deity any way they please, of course one of them might hit on a concept which might bear an abstract resemblance to Christianity Homestarmy 13:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholor: Where on Earth are you getting these exact dates from?  I cannot imagine that such dates (e.g., 3102 BC) could have been determined with a precision of 1 year.  Oh, and BTW, the Triune God is a uniquely Christian concept that is, to this day, difficult to comprehend and is outright rejected by the other monotheistic belief systems (Judaism and Islam). LotR 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Most likely had the story handed down as their society got farther away from Adam and Eve geneologically Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Incarnation"? Is this supposed to be reincarnation? Because that's not the same as "incarnation". Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So would it appease you if Jesus had just punched the guy's lights out or something, and then he could of awoke while not being blind? Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely nonsense in the wording. The "godman vespatian" (I guess you mean the Emperor Vespasian?) is actually no godman at all but a man, Roman, soldier, general, Emperor. Romans held that an Emperor, once deceased would become a god (not the God!). Vespasian didn't think this way and made fun of the idea. However, no one thought of him as a god (or the God) in his lifetime. Additionally, Vespasian (prominent since 67 AD) chronologically comes after Jesus (crucified 30 AD). Also, miraculous healings are nothing new - you can find a couple of these in the Old Testament - and nothing so spectacular - unlees you categorically deny miracles - that it needs special sourcing of the idea. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not nonsense, the idea of healing blindness WITH SPITTLE was not common at all, and it's mentioned in Tacitus and in the bible (John 9:6). Could someone show me the recipe to perform this miracle?  Bachila 19:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also found in common sense, wine was pretty much the most sanitary drink in all of, well, everywhere during this time period. Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dionysus is a deity, as you say: the god of wine - hence it is his job to do this. If a man does it, it is quite another matter. In the end, it is just another miracle, this time involving nourishment, for which again you can turn to Elijah. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a joke! Nowadays, I don't think people would believe this kind of unrealistic thing. --Bachila 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of concepts 

message: found in Atenism before 1962 BCE
:Found in common sense probably a lot sooner, can't have a creation without a creator. Homestarmy 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? Then could you tell me who created the creator? Bachila 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, this is why people would save themselves a whole bunch of time if they read the Bible before trying to get all sneaky with philosophy, nobody created the creator, He has existed for all eternity, otherwise you have an infinite chain of causes causing each other, which doesn't make any sense if they all have to be finite. Homestarmy 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creator of universe

message: found in Atenism before 1962 BCE.
:Creator of everything probably doesn't require a huge leap in logic to figure that He probably knows everything about what He created. Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Aten in Atenism is mother of the different omnipotent gods. -- Bachila 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omnipotent god

message: found in Hinduism before 3102 BCE.
:Not the same as Christianity's trinity at all, other religions can organize their concepts of deity any way they please, of course one of them might hit on a concept which might bear an abstract resemblance to Christianity Homestarmy 13:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholor: Where on Earth are you getting these exact dates from?  I cannot imagine that such dates (e.g., 3102 BC) could have been determined with a precision of 1 year.  Oh, and BTW, the Triune God is a uniquely Christian concept that is, to this day, difficult to comprehend and is outright rejected by the other monotheistic belief systems (Judaism and Islam). LotR 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinity

message: found in old Babylon before 1900 BCE
:Most likely had the story handed down as their society got farther away from Adam and Eve geneologically Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 days in a week

message: found in Egyptian religions and Hinduism before 3102 BCE.
:"Incarnation"? Is this supposed to be reincarnation? Because that's not the same as "incarnation". Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incarnation

message: found in godman Vespatian 
:So would it appease you if Jesus had just punched the guy's lights out or something, and then he could of awoke while not being blind? Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely nonsense in the wording. The "godman vespatian" (I guess you mean the Emperor Vespasian?) is actually no godman at all but a man, Roman, soldier, general, Emperor. Romans held that an Emperor, once deceased would become a god (not the God!). Vespasian didn't think this way and made fun of the idea. However, no one thought of him as a god (or the God) in his lifetime. Additionally, Vespasian (prominent since 67 AD) chronologically comes after Jesus (crucified 30 AD). Also, miraculous healings are nothing new - you can find a couple of these in the Old Testament - and nothing so spectacular - unlees you categorically deny miracles - that it needs special sourcing of the idea. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not nonsense, the idea of healing blindness WITH SPITTLE was not common at all, and it's mentioned in Tacitus and in the bible (John 9:6). Could someone show me the recipe to perform this miracle?  Bachila 19:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Healing blindness with spittle

message: found in Thracian god of wine called Dionysus
:Also found in common sense, wine was pretty much the most sanitary drink in all of, well, everywhere during this time period. Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dionysus is a deity, as you say: the god of wine - hence it is his job to do this. If a man does it, it is quite another matter. In the end, it is just another miracle, this time involving nourishment, for which again you can turn to Elijah. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a joke! Nowadays, I don't think people would believe this kind of unrealistic thing. --Bachila 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turning water to wine

message: Some basic style changes, I removed articles from titles; I made the lead for beliefs a little more technical, for the section on salvation I cleaned up the association between justification and salvation to show the appropriate subtlety; I kept the structure of subparagraphs that of the main groupings within the "divisions" section, i.e. I went Catholic - Reformed rather than the other way around for stylistic consistency; the creed was missing a line (through whom all things were made) and had odd links which were removed or cleared up (passion is disambiguous, for example). Lostcaesar 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sytle Cleanup 

message: I am of the mindset that we should put the creed first in the section on beliefs, since that provides a clear statement of beliefs and its order can be used to frame the remainder of the section.  It has the advantage of naming the beliefs, then explaining them; which should be sytlistically fruitful I think. Lostcaesar 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning of section on the Creed 

message: I'd look at it, except our firewall at school blocked it for "Gay and Lesbian issues". Anyone want to take a look at it for me? Because even though our firewall can be pretty weird sometimes and lump sites in the wrong categories, that sounds like it could be a really lousy external link. Homestarmy 12:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is included before. It is basically an essay based on various fringe theories about Christianity, lumping them all together and presenting them as "findings of scholarship". Back in the day it was a hard battle to even word the link in a NPOV fashion. Who removed and and why I cannot tell. Str1977 (smile back) 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it basically presenting assumptions that are false about scholarship? Homestarmy 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been scholars that held these views, but the essay portrays the fringe as the mainstream. BTW, I have now realised that Gio was mistaken when he thougt the link was removed. It wasn't removed at all, but was placed under further reading. I have deleted one of the links, since even the best articles (and this isn't one) is linked to only once. Str1977 (smile back) 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gio's external link

message: I'm not completely convinced that the Shield of the Trinity diagram is significant enough to include in this article (and I say this as the main author of the Shield of the Trinity article) -- but if it is included, there ought to be some minimal context and a link to its article (which I've provided).  Also, you might want to consider using the translated English version (instead of the original Latin). AnonMoos 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shield of Trinity image in "Creeds" section

message: I read this on the website: <<The Catholic and Orthodox canon includes the Jewish canon and other books called Deuterocanonical>>
There is no such thing as the Catholic and Orthodox canon nor a single Jewish canon.  There are many different Orthodox canons (Syriac, Greek, Slavonic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic...) also different Jewish canons (Septuagint LXX, Hebrew, ).  The "other books" in the Orthodox canons (not canon) are not called Deuterocanonical and these books are in the Jewish canon of the Septuagint LXX tradition, whereas this sentence implies they are not in the Jewish canon - depends which Jewish canon you refer to.  Deuterocanonical means refers to a 2nd canonisation (deutero = 2nd) at the Council of Trent  in teh sixteenth century.  These "other books" were always protocanonical and in the original canons of the Orthodox Churches.  To call these books deuterocanonical in the Orthodox context is misleading and implies 2 stages of canonisation which is historically incorrect.  Can we rephrase this to something like this:
<<The Catholic canon and the Orthodox canons include the Jewish canon of the Septuagint tradition.  In the Catholic tradition additional books which were accepted as canonical later are called Deuterocanonical.>>
:I have to pick you up there: the Deuterocanonical books were accepted to be canonical long before the Council of Trent. Slac speak up! 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scriptures

message: I can hardly believe that there isn't a separate section for PF, as this was a widespread structural revolution that "came from within" (essentially more than just a few rebellious priests who found many Catholic practices to be perverse and anti-Christian) and then proceded to alter many structures and functions of the Catholic Church.
I believe it is a big deal (a major and permanent shift of direction in a good portion of Christian belief and practice) and requires a separate section.
Homebuilding 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant Reformation