Talk:Christianity/Archive 7

message: I removed the two sections dealing with criticism.  Neither was very good and seemed to be getting worse.  If we can come up with a worthwhile (and concise) section, I'm all for adding it.  KHM03 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: You wrote:
Also, we weren't "shirking our duty"; this is an NPOV encyclopedia. We are here because we believe that the Truth can speak for itself, even when presented in an NPOV fashion....PS - There are a lot of bad things for which we Christians have to answer to God and humankind. 
------
I do think that if the Christians do not provide factual content (I do agree with the NPOV policy) giving perspective to the criticisms of Christianity that the non-Christian community likely will not.  Most people would rather not get involved in edit wars and other commonly associated activity involved in responding to such material. It is far easier to do nothing.  
Secondly,  I never said Christians have not done wrong things.  And given that Christianity is very large in adherents and has been around for 2,000 years there is no argueing Christians have done many bad things.  However, it seemed to me that the article was out of whack.  Are there no good things Christians have done?  Given that Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and has many adherents I would find this hard to believe.  LOL  I know that Christians organizations do a lot of charity. I am not going to get into the issue of which worldview per capita creates the most good.  In a consensus environment this is not going to happen. 
Also, are the critics of Christianity above reproach and allowed to make strong accusations but strong responses are not allowed?  I realize that in a consensus environment that many valid criticisms or many valid positive statements are left out.  I believe the article was out of whack though.  
signed, the gentleman who created the responses to the criticisms of Christianity.
: Why the anonymity, (ken)? A little research will discover how many hospitals and other charitable organizations, colleges and universities, and liberating movements were started with a Christian-religious cause in mind. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: to KHM03

message: I think if a criticism of Christianity section is given/allowed (I didn't see any under the subject areas Mormon, Judaism, etc.) then I think a response to the criticism should be given.  I think it is very important that the response to the criticism be allowed to take the totally opposite position.  
I don't think the criticism section is practical and will likely last.   Why?  Because the critics of Christianity will likely object to the criticism and some type of Wikipedia problems will occur.  This is what happened to the Voltaire and Dawkins commentary.  
Signed, the gentleman who created the response to the criticisms of Christianity
: Why the anonymity?  You are mistaken about there being no "criticism" sections; especially for Mormonism.  In fact, several of those articles are written by Mormons themselves in the interest of candor, to their credit.  To understand Christianity, you must understand those who hate it and why.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: regarding a potential criticism to christianity section

message: Unlike the Judaism and Mormon and other religious sections there is criticism offered to the relgious subject area in the Christianity subject area.  What I see happening though is that there are many criticisms and often  with no responses.  Why?  Are they being deleted?  Are no responses to Christianity's possible?  Is nobody interested in offering responses?  What is happening here?  
I did create a response to Bertrand Russell just now.  I am guessing Russell's essay was there a long time.  I frankly am currently disappointed  by the Christianity subject area and somewhat puzzled by it. It is better than many sections though.  I do like some of the people who are writing this section though.  I just think that critics are busier bees than those who offer responses.  
Signed, the gentleman who created the response to criticisms of Christianity
: Why the anonymity?  Do you really give so much credit to a critic of Christianity?  Your aim seems to be to persuade, and for that reason you post counter-arguments.  Put that goal of persuasion out of your mind.  If you feel compelled to answer the critics, it's best to do it in a venue structured for defining and describing the debate. In order to give your answers a chance of surviving on Wikipedia, describe the debate, rather than engaging in it. 
: But the best way, in my opinion, is to structure the article itself in such a way that Christianity is represented accurately and the criticisms are counterpoised against those assertions.  Christianity should be described, for example, as seeking the salvation of all men, encouraging justice and compassion toward the poor, defending the helpless.  It will be criticised for seeking to destroy people, for fostering injustice and oppression, and for exploitation.  That's to be expected not only because this is the nature of Wikipedia, but because this is what Christianity is like.  Indeed, the most effective of these criticisms will arise from Christians themselves.  Christianity is chiefly a witness not to the goodness of Christians, but to the righteousness of God, and to God's mercy on those who fall short of his righteousness.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* wikipedia abuse then? --LucaviX 04:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: regarding Bertrand Russell Essay (why I am not a christian)

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is damaging Wikipedia it is the attitude above. *Religion is clearly a belief. * Superstition is "an irrational belief" (dictionary definition)
*Christians themselves have said that "reason can only get you so far" in explaining religion. It is a faith based position.
*Clearly Christianity is a superstition. 
*But that doesn't mean you should hide your superstitious ideas. If you want to go round believing in all sorts of fanciful ideas about the existence of a god, then go for it. 203...
You are jumping too quickly, 203 ...,
*Superstition is "an irrational belief" 
*Christians themselves have said that "reason can only get you so far" 
Both statements are true. But the second says only that reason is not enough. At one point you need to have faith. That doesn't apply only to Christianity, not only to religions in general but to anything in life, for any belief including Rationalism.
I could say Rationalism is a faith based position, therefore it is superstition.
But that doesn't mean you should hide it. If you want to gor round believing all sorts of fanciful ideas about explaining everything by rational discourse without assumptions than go ahead, but you won't be able to do it. 
In fact, the rationalistic conclusion from rationalism is not to hide it because there is nothing to hide. You just would have nothing to say on anything.
Note, a superstition according to your definition. But the thing is you confused "rational" with "rationalistic". Rational only means that you can present it in rational discourse. You can do it with "Christianity" (and other religions) and you can do it with "Rationalism" - both are rational beliefs/views/philosophies but both also resort to assumptions.
Str1977 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, Wikipedia strives to be a place for all people, where NPOV is the rule of the day; "Clearly Christianity is a superstition..." is not only a false statement (it simply isn't that clear), it's POV.  That's the problem.  The claim that "Christianity is the one true religion established by God..." would be equally POV (unless the sentence began, "Christians believe that...", which would then render it acceptable on Wikipedia, theoretically).   KHM03 13:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Str1977 17:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling christianity a superstition in an article is simply unacceptable IMO, but leaving my opinion out of it, it's also clear POV and and direct violation of Wikipedia policy. --Lucavix 10:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: I read all of this....and am ready to give my two cents worth. 
(Note: 'Tis long, but worth reading...)
First of all, let's make something clear here; there will always be criticism of Christianity no matter who gives it--whether edited or not. There are BOUND to be skeptics and all those kind of folks who come along asking supposedly "unanswerable" questions...
However...there IS an answer to them! And let me start by asking this...
Where did the big bang come from?
...Obviously, this is a VERY dangerous question to answer...Why? Because you would have to admit that the big bang was made by some-THING or some-ONE. And this question would have to be asked over and over--until, you got to square one. Square one is this--a diety (or THING), existing BEFORE the Big Bang, that has always existed before time.....
Now...here is the deal with Christianity. But first...let's ask the critics WHY they don't believe or QUIT believing in Jesus? 
"Well, I realized this, then I realized that; and THEN, I decided that there is no God!"
or...
"The idea and/or concept of God is for the 'ignorant.' "
Or...
"The idea of God came because man just HAD to explain something or that his emotional feelings needed fulfilled."
or...
"God does not exist because of this and this and this--PROVE to me that He DOES exist."
...Let's answer these....
First off, what does the Bible have to say about folks who believe this way?
The Bible states that man KNOWS deep down inside that God really DOES exist--however, later on, they decide to TURN AGAINST that idea and trust the creature more then the Creator. 
...Do you have to understand EVERY SINGLE CONCEPT of what God is like BEFORE you believe Him? If so, that would take an eternity! And you know as well as I do that our bodies don't live that long.
"Well then, I just won't believe in God if I can't see Him nor understand every single detail about Him."
...What did Jesus tell you that you needed to do in order to follow Him?
He said that you had to become like a child. 
How does a child think? He BELIEVES what he is told!
....Over and over in the Bible it says that you must BELIEVE in Jesus FIRST; and everything else will be taken care of afterward. And even if you don't get all your questions answered, it DOESN'T mean that Christ doesn't exist...
....Do you know every single detail about the cell? EVERY SINGLE BIT??? No! But just because you don't know or understand every single detail on how it works, does that mean that it doesn't exist? No! It's still there--whether you choose to believe that it exists or choose to NOT believe it because of "lack of evidence", it's STILL THERE!
...You must BELIEVE first--only until you believe, will your questions be answered. And even if they aren't ALL answered, can't you be thankful for the small amount of questions that WERE answered?
"No! I refuse; we MUST know more about the world around us! We MUST!"
...If this is your answer, let me ask you something; can't you set aside your pride in your own accomplishments? Can't you set aside your ego? Can't you just believe what I'm telling you? 
"NO! Believing God is for the 'feeble-minded.'It's for those who DON'T understand how the world REALLY works! It's for those who aimlessly shuffle about--wanting their emotions filled with this...this...utter nonesense called God!"
If this is your answer....Are you feeble-minded just because you have emotions that need filling? Are you? You cannot say that you don't have any emotions or that you have supreme control over all your emotions--because we all have emotions that overrun us and cause us trouble sometimes. They are there--and they need Life! All this search--for knowing more and more about the world around you is an emotion. In fact, it's an over-zealous love for this planet.
There is nothing wrong with liking the good things in this world...but...there's the second law of thermodynamics--all things eventually fall apart. And when it does, what good would all that knowledge of the universe do you once it's all gone? 
Nothing...it's all a sham; you're emotions though. They'll still be around--and you'll be really down on yourself and your emotions will start bugging you. Because all of your life, you were searching and searching and searching--for something to love. Someone to love you. 
...And you'll realize that you've done wrong--all this knowledge of the universe did you no good. You've actually disobeyed God by doing everything God doesn't want you to do. And for doing that, you'll be punished. 
...However, God loved you enough to send His Son to pay your fine--and yeah, His Son loved you enough to follow through with the plan. He really did want to die for you--and He proved it by dying on the cross. And in doing so, He payed your fine...
...And all you have to do now is ask forgiveness of doing those things that displease God, totally turn away from those things, and trust Jesus the way you'd trust in a parachute before jumping out of a plane. And now, let me ask you this question....do you love Jesus enough to do what He asks you to do? Do you love Jesus enough to believe what He has taught?
I hope you do....
---JFB 22:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A response....to all this ruffled fury... 

message: I have created the :Category:State churches (Christian) for Christian state (established) churches. If anyone thinks this ought be be renamed, perhaps we could discuss it here--or likewise if anyone wants to support it. Should we create corresponding categories for other religions (Islam, Buddhism, etc.)? Frankly they are not precisely the same...and state Catholicism is problematic as well. Should all state religions be integrated into one category? Thanks. --Dpr 02:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:State churches (Christian)

message: The quality and extensiveness of this article is probably far below the standard displayed in many Wikipedia articles. Perhaps this betrays the bias toward technical subjects seen among many Wikipedians. Either we, there exists a challenge that we, the Wikipedia community should answer--to raise the standard of this article. --Dpr 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was a very pretty piece of preachin', but what substantive problems do you see that can be remedied? --FOo 04:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had concerns with sections being written in such a way as to present a favorable or disfavorable image of christianity, but I've regulated a lot by providing counterpoints and removing pov. I am concerned that some tidbits of information are either put in or left out to make Christianity look good at times, for example restrictions on certain religious practices in the public sphere was included under persecution of christians so I had to include that such restrictions apply to nonchristians as well. I have nothing against factual information being presented, rather it makes christianity look good or bad is of little concern when it's factual, but I do worry that some may include opinion (either to make christianity look bad or good) at times. --Lucavix 13:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd favor a complete "re-do" of the article.  KHM03 14:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve 

message: I removed Anabaptist as one of the main branches of Christianity.  There are 3: Eastern, Roman, & Protestant...Anabaptism is essentially a Protestant movement, and I listed it there.  KHM03 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Absolutely they are Christians...specifically, they are Protestant Christians.  I listed them as such.  KHM03 23:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the argument was about whether ABs are Christians but whether they constitute one of the major branches or rather belong to Protestantism. I'd prefer the latter view. Str1977 14:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Preach it, brother.  KHM03 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Our own Anabaptist article begins, "Anabaptists ... are Christians of the so-called radical wing of the Protestant Reformation." Historically they arose at the same time as the (rest of the) Protestant Reformation, and I don't think there's really much doubt that they're Protestant. They just disagreed with Luther and Zwingly on certain points, as well as disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on several other points. Wesley 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Christianity Came From and That Anabaptist edit..... 

message: I see a problem in the following paragraph:
:Many Jews argue that since Jesus failed to fulfill numerous prophecies he could not have been the true Messiah. Because of this argument some religious Jews have dismissed Messianic Judaism as little more than Christianity with Jewish undertones. However Messianic Jews believe in the Second Coming of Jesus and that those prophecies which Jesus did not fulfill will be fulfilled upon his eventual return. From the Christian view the rejection and execution of the Messiah fulfills numerous prophecies from the Old Testament.
While it is certainly true that 
:"many Jews argue that since Jesus failed to fulfill numerous prophecies he could not have been the true Messiah." 
- if they didn't they'd accept him - and it is also true that
:"some religious Jews have dismissed Messianic Judaism as little more than Christianity with Jewish undertones"
I can't see, where these two points are linked. I don't think some dismiss MJ als "Christianity with Jewish undertones" because of the "unfulfilled prophecies argument", but rather because they reject Jesus as the Messiah and Christianity as not Jewish. Str1977 14:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  KHM03 18:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but which part of the article does this relate to, and what change are you proposing? Wesley 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Messianic paragraph

message: I propose changing the following sentence:
"Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth  presented in the New Testament writings of his early followers."
to:
"Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as how his life is presented in the New Testament writings of his early followers."
Many branches of Christianity such as Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican, for example, believe that the phenomenon of Jesus' life, as passed through the tradition of the church is as central to the basis of Christianity as is the text of the New Testament. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorrell (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain your proposed edit makes your intent clear. Could you reword/clarify your proposal? KHM03 18:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And please don't forget to sign your posts. It makes it easier to read the talk page. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis of Christianity 

message: The real basis of Christianity is that Adam and Eve sinned and disobeyed God and as their descendents which are humans today. And so we have inherited sinfulness and are doomed to repeat their disobedience in a different form. So we have seperated ourselves from God. So as the prophesies say as early as Gen. 22:8 God came to us. Jesus was born to a virgin and then took followers to take his word and spread it after his death. And then the Jewish leaders getting "ticked off" seeing a religion rising that does not require them or their power had to get rid of him. So the Romans "giving the babies their bottles" nailed Jesus' palms and feet to a large wooden cross next to to thieves. And the price for all that each and every one of us has sinned, and will sin are paid for with Jesus' blood. And that blood made it possible for the rest of us to come to Jesus. There is nothing keeping any of us to come to him. And if you pray and ask for Christ's forgiveness and we shall recieve. But God just knows that we sin but does not know which sin so we must tell him. Please, if you are not a Christian just remember this is your descision and if you ever consider God will never shun you away.
-Anonymous Follower (User:66.82.116.160)
ANON, I can't disagree with you; however, you will find many "Christians" who would state that you are not restrictive enough; your definition of basis would allow too many people to be called Christian and does not allow for the state church created after 325 AD at the direction of Emperor Constatine to be able to define exactly who can be called Christian and who can not be called Christian.  You see Jesus Christ has nothing to do with their defnition, but the creeds of man created hundreds of years after the death of Christ takes precedent over everything for them.  Also, some would say you have a rather creative way at looking at the Jewish people.  Storm Rider 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The base of Christianity as the Southern Baptist Church says

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
Help!! I'm a total noob and didn't understand the wikipedia concept and I CUT out something from the first line of the article and part way down the first couple paragraphs.  Can you fix it PLEASE?  SORRY!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.45.29 (talk • contribs) .
:Hi anon, and Welcome. I've just sent a message to your talk page. Don't worry about the mistake. Newcomers often press wrong buttons etc. It's very easy to fix an edit, and it's usually done within minutes. By the way, while edits are welcomed from unregistered users, there are a lot of advantages in registering. Ann Heneghan (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Error at [[Christianity]]