Talk:Christians/Archive 1

message: Many people do not consider Christianity monotheistic and this should be stated at the outset, rather than simply stating categorically that it is monotheistic. Additionally, the source for this statement is the Catholic Encyclopedia, most certainly not an unbiased source.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheistic

message: Under the "Christian as a derogatory word" header it has listed that anti-Christian sentiment in Islam goes back to the inception of the Christian religion, but Christianity predates Islam. Either it's wrong or I'm interpreting the wording wrongly. --Freedbyhislove 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline inconsistencies

message: Tolkien was removed because, though he was a Christian, and a teacher, he did not teach Christianity in the way that the other listed persons did.  He taught English.
I am thinking about expanding the stub "Modern Times" and putting in Tolkien there as a Christian who was a popular writer - along with G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and possibly Charles Williams.
His Catholicism had nothing to do with the removal.
Stolzi 20:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confusing two authors: C. S. Lewis, Inkling but not a minister, and Lewis Carroll, who was a minister and is suspected today of (celibate) paedophilia. Fayenatic (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Tolkien 

message: "For the major Christian denominations, the only requirement to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Some Christian denominations require a formal committment to become a member. Other denominations (The Church of Christ, International Churches of Christ, and the Independent Christian Churches) teach that the definition of a Christian is someone who has been baptized as a repenting adult “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” – (Matthew 28:19). For them, adult baptism is the transition from non-Christian to Christian."
THIS IS WAY NOT NPOV, AND IS IN FACT WRONG. What did the author consider to be a major denomination? Catholics (Roman and Eastern), Anglicans and Orthodox (and some Reformed / Protestants) consider only a person who has been baptized to be a Christian. One who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God but who has not yet been baptized is regarded as a catechumen. These churches make up the preponderance of Christianity by almost any definition (at least 75%).
:"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church
Similar statements can be found in the confessional documentation of many other churches:     ...
The following table is derived from a table at adherents.org, and represents a fairly recent breakdown of self-called Christians by denominational grouping.
Breakdown by Major Denominational Groupings
BranchNumber of AdherentsFirst Mechanism of Initiation
Catholic (Roman and Eastern)1,050,000,000Baptism
Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox240,000,000Baptism
African indigenous sects (AICs)110,000,000Various
Pentecostal105,000,000Faith Statement
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United75,000,000Baptism
Anglican73,000,000Baptism
Baptist70,000,000Faith Statement
Methodist70,000,000Faith Statement
Lutheran64,000,000Baptism
Jehovah's Witnesses14,800,000Non-trinitarian
Adventist12,000,000Non-trinitarian
Latter Day Saints12,500,000Non-trinitarian
Apostolic/New Apostolic10,000,000Faith Statement
Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement")5,400,000Baptism not necessary
New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.)1,500,000Various
Brethren (incl. Plymouth)1,500,000Statement of Faith
Mennonite1,250,000Statement of Faith
Friends (Quakers)300,000Non-trinitarian
Most of the denominationals groupings above consider Baptism to be the first step in Christian initiation, followed by Chrismation/Confirmation and Eucharist, with all baptized persons being nominal Christians.
Most?  How do you consider five out of eighteen a majority?207.157.121.50 06:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOVing needed on requirements for consideration as a Christian 

message: I just thought I would tackle this and see what was thought about this.  I saw the below statement as being very much biased.  Many other sects would make the same claim about Roman Catholocism.
           Today many modern Christians live their lives in relation to a community of      
           faith, usually a local church. These churches, with the exception of the Roman   
           Catholic church, stand in a variety of man-made traditions as a result of history."''
I did not edit it out, but thought that was a pretty bad Bias.--69.153.227.37 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I should edit that out if someone hasn't gotten to it.  That's definitely swapped around -- the protestant communion believes in the teachings of the Historical Church, and with the Word of God (Bible) as the primary source of authory.  The Roman Catholic Church developed man-made traditions which added to it on equal authority with the Word of God, hence so many protestant splits (Martin Luther).  Still, that segment should be edited out all together.--NWalterstorf 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a Catholic leaning on this article? 

message: I will make some edits to the following paragraph:
:The term "Christian" has been used by various groups of diametrically opposed beliefs to describe themselves. Some groups, such as Born Again Christians and others, use a very strict definition of "Christian". They believe to be Christian one must agree with the doctrines and creeds begun in 325 CE which they believe elucidate the essentials of the Christian faith. Other groups, particularly those classified as Restorationist reject these creeds as the doctrines of men.
I would interpret diametrically opposed beliefs to be one group believes Christ is the Son of God and the other group believes Christ was the son of Satan.  That is diametrically opposed beliefs.  I think what the editor intended was that groups within Christianity disagree with each other to the point of accusing others to be heretical.  However, I think they have exaggerated and misrepresented the actual status.  Storm Rider 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Diametrically Opposed Beliefs 

message: I'm troubled by this paragraph that has been undergoing so much edit lately.  I don't doubt that there are Christians who use this definition of who else is Christian, but I'm not sure that "Born again" is a good description of who holds that definition.  For example, two famous left-of-center Americans, President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore, identify as born-again Christians, but I suspect that both have an inclusive view of who gets to call themselves Christian.  Can we say that some born-again Christians use that definition?  --Allen 02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: although 'born again' is often connected with the religious right, the phrase has nothing to do with politics at all as many socialists, liberals and left-leaning people have claimed to be born again. From a biblical perspective one cannot claim to be Christian and not born again, simply because Jesus said that a man cannot enter heaven unless they are born again. To be a non-born again Christian is as logical as a Christian atheist or a meat-eating vegetarian.--62.31.62.229 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been trying to edit it; currently it seems to attempting to accomplish several things that may be in conflict.  Fundamentally, I don't think it is accurate.  Most BAC's seem to also be advocates of sola scriptura...which will then bring one to a specific interpretation of scripture.  I don't think they are dogmatic regarding the Trinity as a creed, but certainly support it as their interpretation of scripture.  Also, BAC's are found in many different denominations so it is difficult to describe a specific belief.  Is that a correct understanding?  Storm Rider 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the more I doubt that there should be such a statement in there at all. Concurring with a commonly held definition of who a Christian is is not a pre-requisite to being a born-again Christian. I don't think we can paint this diverse group with such a broad brush. I'll take a look-see at that sentence and see what I can come up with. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Storm Rider and Matt.  Matt, I think the edit you made makes it a lot better.  --Allen 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born-again def. of Christian 

message: 66.55.54.242, the changes you made on this article is destructive and unwanted. If you are keen on editing and want to try out, use the Wikipedia:Sandbox to do so. Keep wikipedia tidy and useful, okay? inky 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To IP 66.55.54.242

message: inky 09:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the unsourced tag for?

message: It should be noted as a point of contention that historical revisionism presents a view of this period of Christian history in which Roman Catholicism is precedential to any other 'division' of Christianity, and is indeed considered synonymous with Christianity. However, this history, for reason of either neglect, or political correctness, fails to make mention of the fact that the Catholic Church was persecuting, torturing and executing, particularly by burning, Christians who rejected the doctrines of the Vatican and adhered exclusively to the direct adoption of the Bible, particularly the New Testament as a source of the earliest and most pure Christian doctrines and indeed the most faithful model for church government. The Catholic Church was observed to materially violate the Biblical doctrines that the church claimed to be founded upon, and rigorously oppressed any and all criticism in this vein, as well as imposing a 'dark age' by insisting that the Bible must be accessible only to priests and in Latin, could not be owned privately, and that the translation of the Bible into accessible languages (English) was punishable by death.
During the period it was the diametrical opposition of Biblical christianity or the 'early-church' doctrinal model of Pauline and Petrine influence, and Roman Catholicism which claimed the place of universal (the meaning of the term 'catholic') dominion over Christianity, which resulted in the theological basis of Protestantism and ultimately the Reformation, having formed much of the basis of the objections of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and their contemporaries, to the Catholic doctrine. 
Academic historical analysis tends to exclude the doctrinal issues of the Protestant movement and the Reformation, and tends to consign these profound changes to issues of ownership and governance, taxation, and of course the inevitable mention of Henry VIII and his divorces. This, of course, turns the Protestant debate into a mere peevish power struggle and does no justice to the legacy of the theologians tortured, abused and burned alive directly over the issue of Catholic doctrinal authority at the expense of Biblical doctrine. Such Christians died rightfully believing that Christ-ianity was to be exclusively consistant with the Bible which Christ Himself commented upon and advocated, upon his teachings, and with precedence for the doctrines formed by his friends, followers, the eyewitnesses and the earliest and most authoritative converts of the early church, and as such followed the New Testament as the doctrinal model, as opposed to the ecumenically-derived and imperially-adapted revisions of a church organisation of vested interest which originated over three centuries later and fell under, literally, state control by being in control of the state, ultimately. 
Catholic history tends to apply a revisionism which rarely mentions Biblical Christianity, or the early church, except to paint a picture of compatibility with early church doctrine, not least the posthumous elevation of the apostle Peter to the role of 'pope', a distinction which Peter himself never adopted and never accepted, which is a dubious and tenuous revision to say the least, given that the role of 'Pope' has more foundation in paganism than it does in New Testament Christianity. The Catholic Church has been seen to present its various 'Councils' as the result of general consensus across the sects of Christianity, although this is an increasingly dishonest view. Formerly, it is historically noted, the councils were hotbeds of contention, but 'minutes' of the discourses were not kept, and neither were notes on the nature of discussion and indeed objection, and ultimately the findings of the council were published under imperial agenda, eventually Vatican agenda, as the 'final verdict.' Additionally the implication of council-defined 'Christianity' is one of uniformity and agreement, which is a fallacious concept considering that a significant number of well-established and influential Christian traditions, groups and personalities refused to even recognise much of what Catholicism tried to acheive based not only on doctrinal objections, but also upon the fact that a massive mistrust existed, following centuries of violent persecution, that the rush to embrace Christianity was a ruse. During the Middle Ages the Vatican applied this exclusive revisionist view to militantly enforce it's own authority as the originator and custodian of Christian doctrine, which promoted the exclusion and elimination of dissenters and those who advocated the restoration of the Bible as the sole source of doctrine, including Protestant martyrs like Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley.
Latterly this history has been interpreted by Protestants (and many ex-Catholics) as a clear hallmark of a profound and fundamental doctrinal schism between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, and as a full understanding of the inherent meaning of the various Papal Bulls and Edicts confirm, lends support to the controversial ideas of Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons, which is now considered a staple, if slightly flawed by virtue of being somewhat preemptive of the expanding science of archaeology, of Protestant Apologetics. In this respect, Hislop traces the roots of Catholicism, it's doctrinal and ceremonial values, and it's anti-Biblical incorporation of iconography, Marian worship, and patron saints to pre-existing pagan cultism which, he claims, originates in Ancient Babylon with the dark cultism established, according to speculation, by Semiramis following the reign of Nimrod and continued into the legends of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, indeed ultimately throughout the world in a recurrent pagan themality, through Isis and latterly Marian worship which is at worst anti-Biblical and at best extra-Biblical.
While the Catholic-dominated 'Ecumenical' movement continues to claim broad 'Christian' compatibility and consensus, there are many Biblical christians who continue to be unhappy with the generic association of nomenclature between the most faithful adherence of the Biblical Christian doctrine, and what is seen as cultism deviant from the Bible as the authoritative source of 'Christian' religion. 
This is, without question, a controversial subject.
:I removed the above addition from the article as I think this is in the wrong place. It's well written and interesting but bloats the section and stops it flowing. Christianity is probably not the place either as that article is already too long - can anyone suggest the correct article for this so it can be placed on the talk page there and discussed (maybe History of Christianity)? Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also heavily biased and inaccurate. No one can seriously claim that doctrinal issues of the Reformation are some how glossed over in historical scholarship. The use of Alexander Hislop also indicates a certain tendency, and the use of "Vatican" as a synonym for the Holy See also denotes a lack of actual historical knowledge (the Vatican became the residence of the Pope only in the 15th century). Thanks, Sophia, for stepping in. Str1977 (smile back) 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved section

message: Just a question: Should anything be included about what many Protestant Christians consider "Christian cults?"  The late Dr. Walter Martin (as I assume many Christians) considers Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Unification Church members, and Seventh-Day Adventists as "cults" in his work, The Kingdom of the Cults.  Maybe this could be placed in a subsection or in the cult article...--Mikepope 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is already covered in the cults article.  It may even be better in his own personal article.  I don't have a problem with it as long as we precisely define "cult".  If one reads the cult article, it is readily apparent there is no definition that is universal.  One thing to remember, if you open this door on which churches are viewed as cults by others, I suspect you will also open the door for appropriate responses and comments on all Christian churches.  Sounds like an excellent way to have a mud fight!  Interested?  Storm Rider (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One man's cult is another man's True christianity. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and one man's "True Christianity" is another man's "cult" all the still.  When we're looking into this article we want to cover Historical Christianity, not cults and groups which formed within 400 years.--NWalterstorf 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd strongly oppose adding definitions of groups considered cults, especially by "Dr." Martin. Huge POV problems. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I checked the cult articles.  I agree.  There's no place for it here.--Mikepope 13:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Cults?

message: I just want to point out this statement...
"Some Christians devote themselves to active participation in prophetic communication and miraculous healing, as represented in the early church and the pre-Christ prophets. They are categorized as Charismatic or Pentecostal, but can be found in other denominations, as well."
I feel this is inaccurate, a Pentecostal church is one of a specific denomination (like an Anglican church or Methodist etc) however it is true that they are well known for having such 'charasmatic' beliefs (which are the beliefs in the ability to practise such 'gifts'). I have included in the article what I think it should be, but though I would post here as well as I am knew to this 'wiki' thing and wanted to explain what/why I am doing it.
--[guest:Tim] 02:00 26 May 2006 (GMT)
:I read the edit.  Maybe we should create a stub/internal link on "charismatic Christians."  I wonder how in-depth we should go with "charismatic Christians" on the Christian article...If we take time/effort in fleshing out charismatic Christians in this article, then we would, in effect, be taking on the task of describing Reformed Christians, Catholic Christians, Gnostic Christians, etc...--Mikepope 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think it may be worth having an article on the debate between charismatic and sensationalist viewpoints to the holy-spirit power...but then as you said it would in effect be tring to describe all the denominational differences (if we werent careful)...perhaps a brief section on some 'common differences' would be in order.. briefly stating a charismatic 'type' of view, and a sensationalist 'type' of view.. then allow room for other issues such as calvanism and (the other one that doesnt allow pre-destination), but only with a brief summary. Then have links to specific denominations/churches/types of churches which hold versions of these views....
--TM-77 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to note, I seem to have lost my source/can't find it again, that said 'the "charismatic movemant" started in the "high-church" first'. I have already stated that such beliefs were around before the protestants split from catholicism, so to an extent this is true, but the term charismatic movemant is normally refering to a very specific event in N.America.  I shall continue to try and re-find this source (and then post some kind of link so I don't loose it again, but in the mean time if anyone wants to remove the phrase "Indeed the so called 'charismatic movement' began in high churches first, despite being attributed to more low-church style of worship." I won't contest it ... (for now).. --TM-77 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pentecostal/Charismatic

message: Hi
I arrived here through the sandbox, but it's still tooooo difficult for me (as an IT numpty) to get to grips with how to engage in the Wki community generally.  Therefore, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended.
I read the article from top to bottom and was appalled to find "criticisms of Christianity" relegated to an associated link.  Yes, I need to declare my colours - all religion is a bit bonkers in my book (do they have a Wiki for "bonkers"?) - but the point of view is *not* neutral if the balancing points are made a link away.
Anyway, I have resisted the temptation (sooooooo naughty, but soooooo nice) to scribble my own views into the published article but thought you might want to consider a more truly balanced presentation.  Something that addresses the interplay between the desperate need we have, as humans, for something to rationalise and contextualise our lives, and the fundamental absurdity of the solution we have concocted (in its many forms).
Generally, I think Wiki is an amazing, and often (*often*) definitive source, so keep up the good work.  If anyone has an issue with these comments, please feel free to contact me directly on [personal email removed] my talk page.
JJ
*Opposing criticisms are minimised in this article, because this article is an explanation of what Christians are, not what people believe is wrong with Christianity.  Both subjects are given attention, but they don't need to invade each other's article. Djcartwright 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bypasser's viewpoint 

message: I very strongly oppose merging this article into the Christianity article. I think there is a big difference on what it means to be a Christian as opposed to Christianity as a whole.—Who123 03:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I came here for a good definition of Christian.  I'm already a Christian and a member of Christianity, and those are two different subjects. --Mrcolj 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too oppose. Since there are no "agree" comments, and since this has been up for a few months, I'm removing the merge tag. Akradecki 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merging into Christianity 

message: The introduction is kind of problematic in my view. The second sentance is not only run-on, but also a bit unenclyclopedic. (Ex: "who lived a life befitting that of the Creator of the universe") The second paragraph is particularly troubling. It takes a definative position in the works v. faith debate and totally discounts such positions as those taken by Liberal Christianity. The third paragraph seems to be more or less on track to me. The closing statement is extremely problematic as it only refers to one opposition group ignoring liberal theology, Quakers, Pentecostals and other such groups, which are more significant in terms of population. Really, it seems to me the lede needs an extensive rewrite. Before I dig in, what are other editors' thoughts? Vassyana 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a first swipe at the intro paragraphs. Sometimes articles morph into a rather narrrow view. It happens slowly, but then eventually it must be reigned in and made more in keeping with WP:NPOV.  Thanks for taking the time to read the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lede 

message: You know, this article really should be merged into Christianity. There's nothing in this article that's unique to Christian and not Christianity: Usage of the word, History, Persecution, Groupings: they all pertain the same to Christianity as much as Christian. Part Deux 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Oh, I see Richard and I have been trying to edit at the same time. I'll just leave you to it, and come back later to review your final version. StAnselm 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: There is a discussion over on Talk:Christianity on the proposed merger of this article with that one.  Right now there are no supporters of keeping the version of this article that existed this morning.  One camp wants to just merge/delete this article with a redirect to Christianity.  If you look at the edit history of this article, you will see that User:Part Deux was bold and jumped the gun by redirecting this title to Christianity earlier today.  I reverted that redirect in favor of my rewrite which represents the other camp in the proposed merge debate.  This camp asserts that there is worthwhile content about the word "Christian" which is not and should not be in the article "Christianity".  I'm not convinced that this is true but I'm taking a stab at writing an article which will fit this description.  As a result, I have deleted anything which would reasonably fit in the Christianity article.
I know this is bold but, considering the current trend over at Talk:Christianity, this article is destined to become a redirect to Christianity unless some radical changes are made.  
User:StAnselm reverted my rewrite on the premise to restore the deleted content.  I reverted his revert on the assumption that he was unaware of the proposed merge discussion.  
--Richard 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, I was aware of the merge discussion - it was the mass deletion here that bothered me. But particularly the "usage of the term" info - the history didn't seem to fit, anyway. But now that it's back in, I think we're back on track - though currently the article contradicts itself in the "earliest use of the term"! Thanks for your work. StAnselm 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite of article 

message: I have reviewed the version of the article that existed before I took a machete to it.  There were two sections "Usage of the word" and "History".  I have restored the "Usage of the word" section as it fits nicely with what I wrote.  The "History" section was a mess and did not describe the history of the word "Christian" or the concept "Christian".  It kind of talked about the history of the word "church" and kind of talked about the history of Christianity.  All of that section belongs elsewhere.  There's an article Church where the stuff about the word "church" could go.  Most of the rest of the "History" section belongs in either the Christianity article or the History of Christianity article but, frankly, those articles cover the topic much better than this one does.
--Richard 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History should start with the Bible of course, and then we can expand from there. Bytebear 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: This is a much better focus on the definition of the term, its history and usage in various cultures.  Much improved.  Thought you should know. Bytebear 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  Tacitus uses "Christian" in describing Nero's blaming the Christians for the fire.  Suetonius uses "Chrestus" to describe the reason that Claudius expelled the Jews (either 45 or 55 ce, its not in front of me).  Something to the effect of Claudius expelled the Jews because of a conflict over a certain "Chrestus" -- it has never been clear if these were the first Christians in Rome and Suetonius got the name confused, or if this was caused by an unrelated person named Chrestus (as that was, I believe, a Latin name).  -- Pastordavid 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Sadly, I'm not an expert on modern church history (ie., post-100). Fishhead64 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good clarifying footnote to me. Bytebear 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much better focus for this article 

message: I know I'm beating a dead horse from reading the discussions above but I'll throw in my two cents.
The article as it stands now is more of a dictionary article with a detailed etymology and various examples of how it is used in different contexts. Dictionary entries, of course, violate Wikipedia policies and the detailed etymologies do not make this more legitimate. The question here is "what is the topic?". The topic hear seems to be the definition and usage of a word which is inappropriate. Various people in this discussion forum have argued that there is a difference between "a Christian" and "Christianity" (the topics, not the words) nobody has made a good showing of what this difference is that justifies two articles. The argument that "Christian" discusses "an individual" is not strictly correct in the sense that this is a general term for a group. The only legitimate argument for having an article with this title is if it actually described characteristics of the individuals that were independent of the religion itself (e.g. "Christians only blow their noses on Sundays which is different from what most non-Christians do and is not specifically prescribed by Christianity"). Certainly this is not what the article is currently about and I'm not sure that one could credibly say that any such characteristics exist (and arguing that, say, Christians in the U.S. tend to act a certain way is POV in that the Christians of any particular community cannot be legitimately called the only "real" Christians).
This article should not exist. Most of its material can be merged with the Christianity article. I don't believe anybody would be confused by doing so (I'd argue confusion would be lessened by linking this to Christianity).
--Mcorazao 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger (redux) 

message: That is not the usuage of the word Christian in the Muslim world...or in the Arab world. Please remember not all Arabs are Muslim many of them are Christians. Muslims view Christians are the people of Christ, in Arabic Christians are Messiehiye which comes from Issa El Messieh; this mean Jesus the Messiah. Muslims recognize Jesus as the Messiah. I keep trying to correct this but Im not being allowed. Why give out false information??
The mainstream Christian view of who the Messiah is and what He had to do is different than the view of Islam. Most Christians view the Messiah as God Himself, I don't know of many (if any at all) Muslims that hold this belief.(ApJ (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usuage in the Muslim World... August 11, 2007 

message: In Christianity, does the week begin on Monday or Sunday? In the United Kingdom, the week officially begins on Monday.--98.195.141.44 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Christian Week 

message: I deleted this section because the article is about the term "Christian" as a noun, and not as an adjective.ChristophMartel 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be reinstated.  This article is about how the term "Christian" is used and the history of its usage, including "Christian nation". Bytebear 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the United States of America was founded on Christian principles, but now, many people deny that we were ever a Christian nation. -Yancyfry 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Most of our Founding Fathers were Deists. 206.66.66.1 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Great.  Find references to both the usage and the denial and add all that information to the article.  Bytebear 06:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States as a "Christian" nation 

message: I think we should add the controversy and complete hate that this religion has actually caused Solidpilot 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify? --Kukini  hablame aqui 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is not Christianity. It is about the term "Christian" and how it is applied and used.  Your issues are covered in the article Criticism of Christianity.  Bytebear 06:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You bring up a good point. As I read the introduction it first tells the reader that a Christian is one who adheres to teachings of Jesus Christ. However, when you go to the section "Who is a Christian", it is then redefined as someone who partakes of the Sacraments. This is confusing. The first seems to be a definition of a follower of Jesus Christ and the second denotes membership in a church or organization. Is there a way to improve this contradiction or confusion? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear enough to me.  The opening paragraph rightly sets out the broad position, then that section starts The definition of who is a "Christian" varies among different Christian groups and goes into detail, stating which branches of the church define by sacrament/ membership/etc. I'm sorry that we Christians don't all agree on everything, as that would be less confusing for all of us; but taking things as they are, I think the explanations here are about right for an encyclopedia article. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Later) OK, you've improved it - well done! The section could do with some references, though. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After your comment I went back and read it and I think you were right there was not significant confusion. However, I did try to make improvements. When I was editing it I came to the same conclusion as you; we need to references that whole section. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian 

message: Christians believe...</br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian&oldid=188394476
This is driving me nutty. There are no citations, no references, no sources. It's all biased personal research, and while I agree with most (if not all) of it, it's not meeting the standards or the style of Wikipedia. Why is this being kept? (ApJ (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're clearly right, Joe. Even if that section did meet the standards of Wikipedia, it does not belong in this article, as it is a Content Fork from the main article Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverified claims, personal research