Talk:Christianity/Archive 24

message: Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Christ. User:Jim Bart
:But which Christ are you referring to, there is more than one definition, many of which are not Christian in the slightest. Homestarmy 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion, Religion, Religion; I hate that word.

message: Should bahai be mentioned? it's as much related to christianity as islam is. Pure inuyasha 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above section, On the latest episode of "As the Article Turns...". —Aiden 20:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should mushroom omelette be mentioned? It's as much related to Christianity as a lot of the stuff people here seem to be obsessed with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopic Bookworm (talk • contribs) 
i'm sorry, but bahai has much more related to christianity than a mushroom omlette. Pure inuyasha 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of bahai. 

message: Whilst I thank LV for the citations (even though some don't exactly pass the RS test) I was actually looking for a quote saying that anti abortion violence and the troubles in Northern Itreland are persecution by Christians. Certainly the NI claim I have never seen - I live in the Uk so we do see the local news on issues there. This quote starts with the weasley "some people" - always a bad sign for NPOV and reliability.  Sophia 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persecution

message: The point of me finding all those refs was that nobody could use the excuse "Well, the statement isn't backed up that thoroughly, that's an excuse to edit war over it because its not very verifiable!". I know of no reference policy which discourages or outlaws heavy referencing for obviously contentious statements. Most of the books I added because they were used as references in other references, so I went on the assumption that they back up the claim of the sentence, that and they have "monotheism" in the title and apparently involve Christianity. The "History for Kids" site I put in because it was apparently written by some collage history professor, but if people think its too immature or something I won't complain much. Homestarmy 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheism refs

message: Okay, since my dear friend Gio chose to revert my removal of blatant POV pushing that had slipped in during the last few days, I will explain. The passage is:
"Scholars differ on the extent to which the developing Christian faith adopted identifiably pagan beliefs, such as the date for Christmas, the Sol Invictus cult, the Labarum, and ritual and priesthood of the Ancient Roman religion such as the Pontifex Maximus.Pagan context (Christianity) Religionfacts.com. URL accessed on July 3 2006."
There is no problem about the first part (not bolded), and the date for Christmas could be acceptable. However, the following (all of them recent additions) are sheer nonsense: 
*the Sol Invictus cult: Christianity has not adopted a Sol Invictus cult - it may have adopted certain symbols and other elements (one of them arguably the Christmas date), but that's not quite the same
*the Labarum: is not in any way pagan but a field sign made by Emperor Cosntantine the day he converted to Chrsitianity. It doesn't contain pagan iconography but the two Greek letters Chi and Rho. Hardly pagan!
*the priesthood of the Ancient Roman religion: was not adopted Christianity, as we don't see any Salii or Flamen moving around in churches. Instead we have bishops, presbyters and deacons - offices that existed since the first century. It was Paganism under Emperor Julian taht adopted the organisation of the church - but that attempt was short-lived.
*Pontifex Maximus: yes, after the Emperor had resigned that title it gradually was adopted as referring to bishops and most of all, the Roman Pope. But that's a mere archaism that got stuck. There is not continuity of the office, as the PM had quite a different job from the Pope.
As a sign of good-will I (and because I did not intend to remove it) I will not re-delete the passage about "only legal religion" that Gio appearently loves so much.
Str1977 (smile back) 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like problems to me, what does Gio say about all this? Homestarmy 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the only real reason that I reverted was because I saw Str1977 also removed the part "I love so much," which was not mentioned in the edit summary. I know he has removed that part before on occassion, so when I saw he did it again,  the result was my revert in whole including the other removals which, I am ok with either way at this point (leaving in with some minor corrections, per above, or taking out, also per Str's explanation)--as long as the part that I love so much is not removed. Giovanni33 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The POV pushing I removed

message: Would it be possible for someone to create a map similar to this one representing distributions of Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians worldwide? —Cuiviénen 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the CIA factbook thing the picture mentions give information on Christianity I suppose it's possible.... Homestarmy 21:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Christianity