Talk:Christianity/Archive 46

message: This is a rather awkward section all of a sudden.  Right before its creation, Esmehwp went into a bit of a rant against those that diagree with him, ending by saying he was esentially withdrawing from editing this article. (See )  Then his comments were self-deleted from the talk page, so they don't even appear.  I'm not sure if that means he withdraws his withdrawal, just regretted his comments, or what.  But I think this Dispute discussion would have been appropriate a few days ago.  Now it may not be necessary, and may just open up some old wounds.  If others disagree, feel free to comment here.  By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Side B advocate.  --Anietor 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah consensus was reached with this already--two days ago. The last directly related comment was at 17.25 11 August. And yes I'm also on the B side. Carl.bunderson 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is the correct way of resolving disputes not going on rants giving up or lying about other people accepting consensus I accepted the changes just before it was shown to be short lived and futile this is the way its going to be:no criticism section, discussion here, TAG up on article OR critism section up tag gone discussion finished.Esmehwp 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Bible worshiping worms?" I tried to remove the criticism section from Islam as well, for the same reason: it's unencyclopedic.Proabivouac 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Esmehwp, the only difference between the version you agreed with and the current version is these sentences . These don't really add anything to the article because they just say: there are criticisms of christianity and nothing beyond it. If you replace "Christianity" with any other religion and "Church" with their organization, you'll get a valid statement. So, please let me know why is that so important in changing your views about the neutrality of the article? --Aminz 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion

message: I am not sure if (at least some part of) this section really belongs to this article. This article is about Christianity and not the deeds of whoever happens to be Christian. Many of the persecuters probably had other motives (economical, political, social, etc etc) and, furthermore, they may not have been Christians by definition (follow teachings of Christ) as opposed to a Christian by conviction. --Aminz 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it belongs just fine and could be expanded. What happened to the controversy section? It looks like some editors have removed both the section and the information that was added to the body of the article. I guess this means we should re add the category itself, or do editors still agree the points should be within the body of the article? It looks like POV pushing to me to keep removing this information.75.48.2.41 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rereading the article I think there is too much that comes from a particular branch within Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole.  Persecution is a particularly messy problem because most Christan persecution came from other Christan groups under the charge of Heresy.  For example, the Gnostics were persecuted for their beliefs as were Mormons.  In fact, some Christians even try to denigh these groups are Christian because of their polytheistic teachings.  The article is getting a little unwieldy and perhaps so effort at pulling some denominational stuff out into separate articles is in order.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim a lot without substantiating it. Gnostics were not persecuted on a large scale by other Christians as they flourished way before Christians had any power (of course there are instance of Gnostic groups later own who were persecuted). Mormons definitely were not persecuted very much by others, even if only because they left. In both cases the classification as Christians is controversial at best. If they groups are polytheists they definitely are not Christians. It is strange that you think such a classification as worse ("even") than persecution. Str1977 (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but everybody but right wind fundamentalist theologians accept that Gnostics and Mormons are Christian groups even though they have polytheist beliefs (The Encyclopedia Britannica, religious tolerance and many other sources admit this). The persecution of any form of Christianity that did not conform to local views is well documented and doing googling will produce reams of articles.  The Mormons left because they were persecuted (the [Light Planet] fully documents this.  Similar articles regarding Gnostic persecution can also be found.  As I have said before you don't need references out the wazoo to show the sky is blue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bzzzt!  Mormons, polytheistic?  WP:RS please.  What you really need is a reliable seconard source identifying Christianity as being sometimes polytheistic.  Oh, I've said that before, haven't I?  Time to do it, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution section 

message: With an estimated 1.9 billion adherents in 2007, Christianity is the world's largest religion
Citation is needed here. Gagueci 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one knows, but, however, most of the sites I visited can agree that 33% of the world's population is Christian. --Imhungry 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems that we don't have a reference for the 1.9 billion statement. So I put a "citation needed" tag on it. 33% sounds like a just share, though. One third for the Muslims, one third for the Christians and one third for the rest :-) Alfons Åberg 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a cite at www.adherents.com - not sure if that is sufficient. Is there no 'world census' site that we can use for this? SparrowsWing (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’m afraid the adherents.com site will not do, it cannot be considered a reliable source. I will demonstrate this problem. If you want to determine the percentage of Christians in a population, you’ll have to go and ask people about their beliefs. If you don’t, you’re heading for trouble. Just as an example, adherents.com has incorporated statistics of the Lutheran (dominant) churches of Denmark, Norway and Sweden in their material. According to these statistics, 87%, 90% and 79.6% respectively of the populations of these countries are members of the national churches. However, according to a Eurobarometer survey (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf - p. 9), only 31%, 32% and 23% respectively of the population believe in God in the first place. God knows how big this discrepancy is on a world scale – but adherents.com don’t know. So basically, the info on adherents.com cannot substantiate a 2.1 billion figure (or any other figure on the world scale). I am reverting the last edit by SparrowsWing, as this edit does not conform to WP:VERIFY. Best regards, Alfons Åberg 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  www.cia.gov gives 33% of world religion as Christian. This info is compiled from nation's stats. Given current world population of +/- 6,613,671,241 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) this gives +/- 2.1 billion. SparrowsWing (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, no matter how we go about this, our claims have to be verifiable. Unfortunately, the CIA info is suffering from the same flaws as the adherents.com site. Just to demonstrate this, the CIA source says that 98%, 90.1% and above 87% of the populations in the countries I mentioned above, are Christians. This is simply not true (as per my previous comment). SparrowsWing, by providing the CIA source as a replacement for the erroneous adherents.com source, you are only replacing one unreliable source with another unreliable source. This does not conform to WP:VERIFY. So I am removing the CIA source and adding a comment about the general problem with statistical data in this field. Alfons Åberg 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We must report information that is verifiable in reliable sources. We must present that information in proportion to its appearance in recent reference material. We are not permitted to use our own research, theories or thoughts in articles, including through synthesis, as this is prohibited original research. This is not the place to debate your opinion of those claims and facts. If you disagree with the assertion, please find verifiable information from reliable references to present an opposing view, preferably a reference with an equitable, or better, reputation for accuracy and fact-checking as the government source. Addressing your edit specifically, some of it was fundamentally flawed. For example, presenting the number of Lutherans and the number of all Christians as contradictory is a fallacy, as there is no contradiction between those numbers. The EU site is currently being very slow (attempts to download or access the document stall), but question formulation is large matter in such surveys. For example, a common formulation is asking whether or not people believe in a "personal God", which many interpret to mean a G-d who currently intervenes directly in human affairs, which many Christians do not believe. I'll check the source to see more specifically what it says (if it reveals that information). Vassyana 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The download of the pdf is still stalling. I will continue to attempt to access the document. Vassyana 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not really important because it's a bogus number anyway. Christians themselves can't agree on who actually is a Christian. Actually are those Christians who can't agree on who is a Christian Christians themselves? True Christians at that? You get the point...--Svetovid 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 33% is an old statistic that has been jumping around for quite a time now. A new survey is needed to determine how many christians there are. Until then, all numbers are mere speculations.216.99.60.106 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, i'd say 1 out of 50 christians is a devout christian, maybe less.. so that brings the population down to somewhere around 40 Million..:D 216.99.60.106 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Christianity by Country Article, christians total between 1.68 - 1.99 billion. The article also mentions CIA factbook's contradiction of numbers: while it says that there are about 2.1 billion christians, if you add up the individual numbers, it turns out to be quite less..around 1.8 billion216.99.60.106 01:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's purely original research. Even a dated survey is not speculation. "Devout" was never an issue is the door for subjective speculation. Str1977 (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, Christianity by Country gives the best estimate to the number of christians as of today. Atleast it's not outdated like many other sources..216.99.60.106 01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adherents.com is accurate, in the sense that the site collects all available statistics, good and bad. "2.1 billion" (give-or-take) is surely the number of *nominal Christians*, while the number of *self-identified* Christians is some unknown percentage of that. Both are meaningful. If someone is born into a Christian family, and vaguely exposed to the religion on holidays or weddings / funerals (even if he becomes an atheist), that's important. In the Middle East, when people ask about your religion, nobody cares very much what *you* believe--they want to know what your father was, and what identity group you belong to. For the sake of comparison, oft-encountered figures of 1 billion + for Islam are made on the same basis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.168.222 (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just leave as is. it's a 'given' that the figure is 'nominal'. A lot of muslims will be nominal - just going along with convention to avoid hassles. rossnixon 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Today, people believe that if someone believes in a god or gods, then they have a religion.  This has been true until the birth of Christ.  What is a religion?  A religion is when there is a divine being, who requires the "lower" man to worship and preform specific rituals or commands man to perform something for his own honor.  However, according to the Bible, man is a sinner.  The Bible is commanding us to always do the right thing.  Then, Christ, the Lord, came down in the flesh of man.  The definition of sinning is death and destruction.  Jesus did nothing wrong, but was killed.  How does this make sense, then?  It doesn't.  When he died, after doing nothing wrong, death itself turned around, so that even if a man is a sinner, then he can live for an eternity.  Now, all what man must do is love and create a personal relationship with Jesus, and our loving God will take us to a place where no sin has ever been committed: Heaven.  This contradicts the principles of a religion.  Unfortunately, people nowadays have no understanding of the Gospel, and many people's foolishness and pride condemn them to an eternity of torture and pain.  Even though it is so simple, man cannot overcome their pride.  Love is what Christianity is about, not the specific rules we should be following.  It is not a rule-based belief.  The rules are still to be followed, but when you break them, it is not a condemnation to Hell.  Christianity is a belief, not a religion.  It is a relationship.  God may be the power of the universe and beyond, but he can still be a friend, for he is a loving God.  I cannot prove that He exists, but nobody can prove that He doesn't exist.  Some Christians have physically seen, heard, and felt Jesus.  For all others, the only evidence of Christ is the power and vigor of love, which has transformed even the most stubborn of men.  People of the world see Christians as weak, but the stronger Christians have overcome fear, and have been even tortured for Christ.  It is only through Jesus's power that they can accomplish such deeds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.108.111 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you about the lessened dependence upon practices, polity, and rules. After all, part of Jesus' campaign went up against the legalistic bean-counting practices of the Pharisees, but your definition of religion is problematic. What about traditions which we call religion, but which are explicitly atheist in orientation? Orthodox Buddhism is a religion, but it has no higher being to which adherents make supplication for their souls. What about aboriginal religions? Lindbeck's definition of religion is a bit more flexible, so long as it is used with a few provisos. Religion, Lindbeck states in The Nature of Doctrine, "can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought...It is not primarily an array of beliefs about the true and the good...it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments." Now, obviously, this is so broad as to include too much, but the definition which is dependent on "God," which is a rather Western-centric idea, is too narrow. MerricMaker 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: I'm thinking that this talk page needs one of those  templates Connör (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC
Lol yeah it does...I <3 the Lord!! (had 2 say that sorry...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.210 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk page