Talk:Christianity/Archive 41

message: I politely request that people tone down the rhetoric and, if necessary, take a breather. We're all trying to do our best to improve Wikipedia, and sometimes things do get heated and there are POV conflicts, but that's no excuse for incivility. This is not directed at any single editor, but rather a general appeal. If we're just arguing and flinging out accusations, we're not focusing on productive consensus building and constructive criticism, which is what should be our focus on the talk page. Vassyana 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This page is quite horrible at the moment, and I don't want to blame anyone in particular. I think everyone who's involved should be prepared, for the good of the encyclopaedia, to stop, even if there's a remark you feel is unfair, that you haven't answered yet. ElinorD (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo the above sentiments hope we can get back on track soon as usually we do work well together in an atmosphere of mutual respect - well most of the time :-)  Sophia 07:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, cool down 

message: A few days ago, I made a snide remark in response to Str1977's comment that "there was no consensus" to remove the text of the Nicene Creed from this article.  My response was made on a good faith assessment from the discussion at the time that the consensus seemed to be running 7-8 for removal and or 1 or 2 against.  The results of the straw poll seem to indicate that the sentiment is running approximately 2-1 for removal of the text.  Thus, it seems that Str1977's comment that "there was no consensus to remove the text" is at least partly correct in that the sentiment to remove the text is far from unanimous.  And thus it was inappropriate for me to cast aspersions on his motivation for making it.
That said, it should also be apparent that "there is no consensus for keeping the text".  What we have here is "a failure to reach consensus".  And, in the meantime, the article remains protected.  What we need now is to find a way to reach consensus.  
It is my feeling that it is not really critical to have the text of the Nicene creed in the article.  An easy solution would be for those who favor including it to explain why it is critical i.e. why the article would be incomplete and unencyclopedic without it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Nicene creed and have it so memorized that I often accidentally insert bits of it when we recite the Apostle's creed.  But, why is it important for it to be in the article?  If it doesn't represent all of Christian belief then why fight so hard to have it included here?
--Richard 18:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view exactly. I don't understand what's at stake here. Would someone please explain why the text needs to be here in its entirity, when it is available for perusal at Nicene Creed? Fishhead64 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, your apology (if it is indeed needed at all) I fully accept. My main concern was always that this shouldn't be changed at will by one (or even a few, but one in particular) editor. If any proceedings result in the removing of the entire text, I will glady yield. Str1977 (smile back) 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apology to Str1977 

message: Reading the comments here, I have a few questions:
#What are the essential elements of the creed that need to be addressed in the article?
#Should the creeds section focus on the creeds themselves or the place of creeds in Christianity?
#Why the Nicene Creed over all others, such as the Apostles' Creed which is arguably more ecumenical?
Comment. It seems as though the general consensus is moving towards the removal of the Nicene Creed. However, to prevent edit conflicts and ending back at a similar point, we do need to address the above questions, in my opinion. (It's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.) It makes no sense to rush to unprotection agreeing and tolerating the removal of the full quote, only to end up in conflict over what to then do with the section. Please answer under the appropriate section just to keep the differant  questions seperated for clarity. Vassyana 08:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all very good points. As noted above, I think it is important to explain the significances of creeds in a section on creeds. As an example, if I were an English major and I was to read the text of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, I may have the skills necessary to analyze the poem, but I still woudldn't know its historical significance or background. Having the full text is only helpful to a certain extent. In an overview encyclopedia article aimed for non-specialist audience, it would be better to describe the histrory and themes of sonnet 18 than to include the full text (if we had to choose). So regardless if we include the full text of the Nicene Creed or not, I think the more important information is a good background, history, summary, and explanation of the creed's importance than the full text. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Christian theology or the history of this creed myself to feel comfortable enough adding this information (most of my books are about earlier Christian history, though I'll see if Koester doesn't mention the creeds)-Andrew c 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards Consensus (Nicene Creed) 

message: #I believe the essential element that distinguishes the Nicene Creed is the emphesis on Christology. (Comparable say to the Chalcedonian Creed's emphesis on Christology or the Athanasian Creed's focus on Trinitarianism.) Vassyana 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. Essential Elements

message: #I think the creeds section should briefly touch the emphesis of the major creeds (as it does with all but the Nicene) and provide an overview of why they are important. Importance being measured in an objective and historical sense, as opposed to the sentiment and attachment some may feel towards them. Though certainly some mention of such sentimental attachment has a place. Vassyana 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Creeds Focus

message: #I do not think the Nicene Creed should be given too much extra weight compared to the other creeds. However, its central place in mainstream Christian identity and as a common "gold standard" should not be ignored or discounted. Vassyana 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all very good points. As noted above, I think it is important to explain the significances of creeds in a section on creeds. As an example, if I were an English major and I was to read the text of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, I may have the skills necessary to analyze the poem, but I still woudldn't know its historical significance or background. Having the full text is only helpful to a certain extent. In an overview encyclopedia article aimed for non-specialist audience, it would be better to describe the histrory and themes of sonnet 18 than to include the full text (if we had to choose). So regardless if we include the full text of the Nicene Creed or not, I think the more important information is a good background, history, summary, and explanation of the creed's importance than the full text. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Christian theology or the history of this creed myself to feel comfortable enough adding this information (most of my books are about earlier Christian history, though I'll see if Koester doesn't mention the creeds)-Andrew c 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Why the Nicene Creed?

message: Are we ready to move on to discussions as to how the Creed should be represented in the text instead of a full quote? Vassyana makes good points but I just want to be clear if we have a tentative concensus to move forward. If we do then discussion from this point should revolve aroud NPOV and stylistic concerns. Please squeak loudly if you feel events are moving too fast.  Sophia 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is going slow and no one is speaking up, much less loudly. I think we can proceed to agreement per the majority view on this, and note that even the majority of the minority view accepts the majority view, although its not their preference. Therefore, I think we should ask for unprotection and make the changes.Giovanni33 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the creed is to be removed, then, I think it would be better for someone who wasn't part of the edit war or the inflamed situation here to remove it. Perhaps Jkelly would be a good choice, as he suggested the box, as he didn't revert, and as he didn't vote. It might make it less galling for the losing side! (It wouldn't particularly bother me, but just since this talk page got so heated a few days ago, I think this solution would be more sensitive.) ElinorD (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems silly to me, but whatever works.Giovanni33 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is silly. As I say, it wouldn't bother me who removes it, if it's removed (which I still think is a pity). But since you kept removing it when there was no consensus (without even trying to add the box that Jkelly had suggested), and since that obviously caused a lot of annoyance, I think it would be a very bad idea if you were to be the one to remove it as soon as the page is unprotected. Musical Linguist might be another possibility, as he didn't vote, and he did try to calm things down. ElinorD (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you might have a point there. I hope for someone else to make the edit in question, and insert the wikibox (which I was not sure how to do myself).Giovanni33 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Musical Linguist is a she!!! Actually, I'd have no problem removing it, if that's what the consensus says, but although I didn't vote, I think most frequenters of this page would know which side I was likely to be on. Anyway, I think we could ask for unprotection now. Musical Linguist 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested unprotection. Musical Linguist if you would be kind enough to make the edit when the protection is lifted, it would be appreciated. Vassyana 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jkelly is a good choice to make the change (always nice to give someone else a job!). I still think it would good to see the proposed change here first to make sure there are no NPOV issues with the Filioque clause etc.  Sophia 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message for Jkelly. Vassyana 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you! Vassyana 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I was invited to make the edit I had recommended a while ago, and just did so.  I'd like to encourage those editors here who have been doing so much thinking about this issue to take a look at our Nicene Creed article.  There are some very uncontroversial improvements that could be made there.  For example, we currently have "...originally written in Greek, the language of the eastern Mediterranean..." in the article... Jkelly 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Vassyana 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicene Creed replaced with sisterlink box 

message: Hello.  Thank you for your efforts.  In reference to the statement that: Christians identify Jesus as the Messiah. This title comes from the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (māšiáħ) meaning "the anointed one" - the translation of the Hebrew word is incorrect.  The literal and correct translation of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (pronounced mo-shi-ach) is "Messenger".  Definitely and absolutely does not translate as "The Annointed One".
Thank you again for your efforts.
Charlesr44 09:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. "Messiah" means "The Annointed One" in Hebrew. Str1977 (smile back) 11:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both right.  Read the intro to the Messiah article.  Someone please change the article text accordingly.  --Richard 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but no. We can't both be right. Charles above proclaimed "Annointed" to be wrong - and that "definitely and absolutely". In doing this, he was in error. There is no need to change the article text accordingly, as "Annointed" is perfectly accurate, as shown by the early Christians translating Messiah into Greek as Christ. Str1977 (smile back) 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not intending to argue, just point out a couple things. Messiah (meshiach) literally means "annointed". "Annointed" is sometimes used to mean "appointed" (no pun). This can obviously carry connotations of a "messenger" (e.g. an "appointed [representative]"). This literal meaning can be clearly seen in Leviticus for example ("annointed priest"). Malak is the word that literally means "messenger". It is the most commonly used word for "messenger" and is also used as an expression for angels. Just some facts and thoughts. Vassyana 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Malak meant King. Str1977 (smile back) 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;o) That's the problem with transliterated Hebrew with vowel inserted. It can be confusing. You are right though. Malak (MLK) means "reign" or "become king" and Melek (also MLK) means "king". Malak (MLAK) meaning "messenger" has an aleph. Vassyana 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messiah means "Messenger" in Hebrew

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wjesus24.xml
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070225/jesus_tomb_070225/20070225?hub=TopStories
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/
Im sure you all have read about this recently in the news, and the documentary which is playing this week, I think, on the Discovery Channel, called "The Jesus Family Tomb," by Cameron, and a new book that makes this case. To quote from MSN, "With the help of statisticians, archeologists, historians, DNA experts, robot-camera technicians, epigraphers and a CSI expert from New York's Long Island, Jacobovici puts together a case in which he argues that the bones of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene, along with some of their lesser-known relatives, were once entombed in this cave. James Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary consulted with Jacobovici on the project and is intrigued: "A very good claim could be made that this was Jesus' clan." Does any of this merit mention anywhere in this article, maybe under controversies? Giovanni33 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, no. The documentary has yet to air. The companion book is not scholarly, but a work of historical fiction (or as the author puts it, it is "novelistic"). The methodology of the statistics has not been released, but is already questionable as it is known to be based on exclusion of data (focuses on half the names), on disputed readings of nearly illegible text and on fringe interpretations of some names (notably, Mary Magdeline). The missing tenth ossuary from this "discovery" is the James Ossuary, which is widely known as a fraud. Jacobovici's reputation is decidedly "thin" among professional scholars on top of all that. At the least, we should definately wait a month or two and see what furor remains before adding anything. Vassyana 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an reasonable assessment, thanks.Giovanni33 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I spend a lot of my time exploring minority-view theories. After a while, you get pretty good at seperating the pseudo-scholars from the pack. Of course, when it's a known figure and includes a known fraud among the discoveries, it does make the call easier. ;o) Vassyana 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, if what I heard about this whole thing - ossuary and film's content alike - is correct, I see no relevance to this article here at all. (Apart from the fact that it is so clearly pseudo-scholarship.) Str1977 (smile back) 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remains of Jesus/Bones Controversy?

message: * This page was mention here: Wikipedia_talk:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Excessive_archiving  Why is this page archived so much? Anyone else have any theories? Travb (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: excessive archiving

message: reading this article. Before it talked about God's love, Jesus, or the forgiveness of sins it talked about divisions within Christianity. Steve Dufour 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen brother.  Why can we not start with what unites us rather than what divides us?  Reverend Mommy 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Furthermore, the article reads much more logicially if it begins with the definition of Christian beliefs before focusing on differences. Djma12 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does seem to be a better organization, even if the template makes that weird gap thing. Homestarmy 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, Thanks. Reverend Mommy 07:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tip my hat to all of you! What an outstanding improvement. I am surprised at how long that significantly valid change took. It says something about my own way of thinking, as well a great many others, that we would focus on that which divides rather than that which binds us together...Jesus Christ. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to rain on the parade but the change is fine until you get the the section on the trinity where the different beliefs of the various groups are discussed. At that point unless you already know the various links/splits you are going to be left wondering what is going on. I would suggest the "Christian divisions" setion is moved to just before the "Trinity" section as at that point we are no longer discussing simple history and faith but have stepped into the realm of theology.  Sophia 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good point, is there a way we can do this without breaking up the overall structure?  (Otherwise, an entire subsection would be nested within the "Beliefs" subsection.) Djma12 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I was saddened

message: There is a cleanup tag for this section.  Can someone enumerate exactly what is being sought?  I'm sure the page's editors would love to start improving this section if we knew where to begin. Djma12 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this section is a much-too-detailed retelling of the events of Jesus' passion, death and resurrection instead of a presentation of Christian beliefs about these things. If I find the time I will tackle this soon but if someone else wants to have go, please do so. Str1977 (smile back) 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done IMHO. Str1977 (smile back) 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death and Resurrection cleanup? 

message: There seems to be a minor dispute concerning the size of Christianity currently.  I found a couple of sources that may be helpful.  Feel free to use them within the article if you see fit.
Source: 1997 Britannica Book of the Year. © 1997 Encyclopædia Britannica 
Total World Religious Population: 5,804,120,000 
Christians (total): 1,955,229,000 (33.7%) 
Roman Catholics: 981,465,000 (16.9%)
Protestants : 404,020,000 (7.0%)
Orthodox: 218,350,000 (3.8%)
Anglicans: 69,136,000 (1.2%)<Br>
Other Christians; 282,258,000 (4.9%)
  
Source: International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 2003. David B. Barrett & Todd M. Johnson. <Br>
Christians (total): 2,076,629,000 (33.1%) 
Evangelicals: 221,637,000<Br>
Pentecostal/Charismatics: 553,763,000 
Anglicans: 82,895,000
Orthodox: 218,501,000
Protestants: 356,138,000
Roman Catholics: 1,097,144,000
Best regards,
Djma12 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also much more recent, and it does round to 2.1 million, which is what Adherants.com said anyway. Homestarmy 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  However, these figures are definitely upwards estimates.  For example, the Roman Catholic Church derives its census from the number of indiduals who were baptized as RC, as opposed to the number who are practicing.  I think the citation is good, but I think we are obliged to present it honestly as well.  Maybe add a phrase, "an upwards estimate of..." ?  Any thoughts? Djma12 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm concerned about the possibility of overlapping in the second set of numbers. Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics are all Protestants, Anglicans might be Protestants depending on who you ask, and some Roman Catholics would also call themselves Charismatic, as would some Evangelicals. The first set of figures doesn't seem to have that problem. Wesley 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  What do people think about adjusting the figure to the first source?  I'll give some time for people to respond before altering the article. Djma12 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has to be a source that doesn't suffer from the possible problems of the second source, yet isn't 10 years old. I really don't think the first source has much chance of being very accurate anymore. What was wrong with Adherants.com in the first place, the person who started the edit war never seemed to actually mount any case at all against the site.Homestarmy 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep looking, though I haven't been able to dig anything up yet. Djma12 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Christianity 

message: Any suggestions on improving the article appearance?  As it stands, there are awkward spaces and the drop-down TOC doesn't seem to work too well. Djma12 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's some way to make text flow alongside the template, but it might require some wikisyntax stuff that I don't really know much about :/. Homestarmy 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone has taken care of our problem for us.... Homestarmy 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Formatting 

message: Could Satanism be considered a Christian sect? It draws all of its ideas about the nature of God and Satan from the Bible. - R160K 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also seem to me that Satanism is only drawing some of its ideas from the Bible specifically to oppose the ideas and commands of the Bible, I don't really think it counts if you're only believing parts of a religion so that your religion can oppose them.... Homestarmy 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, this is a case of biblecentrism. Christianity is not the religion of the Bible - the Bible is the Holy Scripture of Christianity. Using the Bible does not make one a Christian. Str1977 (smile back) 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is meant by "biblecentrism"? -centerism is a political middle ground. also -centric is pertaining to the center, the bible is the one thing all "Christian" groups hold in common. it is central to their beliefs. it is not possible to discuss Christianity and not be bibliocentric. Kljenni 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bibliocentric means (overdue) centering on the Bible. It has no relation to the concept of centrist politics. Now, what I meant is the attitude of turning the Bible into the central aspect of Christianity. That is a common problem (though those doing this don't realize) in Protestantism (with its formal principle of Sola Scriptura) and those having developed from Protestantism or in a culture influenced by either. Shakespeare wrote "Even the devil can quote scripture". Which leads us back to Satanism. But even others can do that without being Christian. The Bible, as God's revelation written down, is of course of the utmost importance in Christianity, in all its denominations, but it is neither the only nor the most important thing. Remember: God's word became man, not book. Str1977 (smile back) 20:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As i've understood it, Satanism actually is split up into several different varities, the main one I think follows the Book of Satan, (You'd think they'd of come up with a less obviously evil title....) which doesn't have much to do with the scary type of satanism I think, and has as its thesis the idea that you should do whatever you please, and not let any type of law or, if I understand this right, innate morality get in the way of whatever you want. But i'm pretty sure the child-kidnapping serious satanic ritual practicing Christ-hating variety is still around, i've heard them pop into the news now and again.... Homestarmy 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That main group explicitly discourages murder, rape and such crimes, rather than completely ignoring the law. They have philosophical reasons for doing so. In essence, "mainstream" Satanists claim that life and passion produce a greater amount of energy than death and destruction. "Mainstream" Satanists are also very strongly opposed to the abuse of children, on ethical and philosophical grounds. (Generally expressed along the lines of: it's OK to scorn the weak, mock the stupid, etc, but children have yet to reach an age of accountability for their actions.) There are also pragmatic reasons given for following the law. After all, it's a bit impossible to follow your "will" when imprisoned and stripped of most freedoms. It has more in common with moral relativism than with amorality. (Though, I know some would dispute the differance, there is a practical one.) As far as the child-kidnapping variety, it's widely considered to not even exist. The closest thing is the occasional group of stupid teenagers who are into "being evil" because it's "cool", and the even more rare group of them that are seriously just disturbed. The next closest thing would the be very real, and thankfully very small, splinter group Temple of Set. While they do not advocate murder, they do condone far more violent and intrusive acts than most Satanists, particularly in relation to their magickal workings. Vassyana 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanism 

message: Someone might want to correct the article where it says when Christ returns will be the "establishment of the Kingdom of God." Nothing in the Bible teaches that the kingdom will be established when Christ returns. All the verses which speak of the kingdom, present it as a current kingdom. I Cor 15:24 refers to Christ coming back as the end and He "delivers the kingdom to God the Father" as a completed kingdom. Christ constantly in the gospels refers to establishing His kingdom during His first advent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kstevenham (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Christ returns, he will establish the physical "Kingdom of Heaven". Whereas the "Kingdom of God" is spiritual (within you). rossnixon 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page isn't about what the Bible says. It's about what Christians believe. While Christians try to believe what the Bible says, it's clear that many of them get it wrong (or else there wouldn't be all these different sects and denominations). So just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that something belongs here. Jonathan Tweet 07:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Christians believe that the Bible is God communicating with them, so Christians hold the Bible in HIGHEST regard. I do not say that because the Christians do then everyone does or should, but the Christians do because they have studied it and have come to know its value. Kljenni 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ Establishing His Kingdom 

message: Interested editors may wish to vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22.  Badagnani 06:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion review for [[Melissa Scott (pastor)]]

message: Homestarmy - 2
George - 0
The Jackal God 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize we were keeping score.  I also think there are a few more teams involved than just Homestarmy and George. Bytebear 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't realize I was winning, I thought you had to actually change people's opinions to win a debate :/. Homestarmy 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Score - Christianness of LDS/JW

message: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16786777.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George m (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, i've heard of this group several times, their main leader basically pretends to be a new reincarnation of a Biblical figure every so often, first I think it was Paul, then he claimed to be Christ, and now he claims to be the Antichrist, but I think he's got some freaky "Nobody knows anything about the Antichrist" kind of thing to explain away the obvious aversion most people would have about the Antichrist. Homestarmy 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is because the Book of Fortitude was only Revealed to our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher a mere four Years ago, and it was only in the last Month that we have discovered that we may Spread the One Sacred Truth to others.  Esa29 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend that you get yourself listed there (or some other independent list of Christian denominations) first, in order to establish your verifiability. Good luck! -- Cat Whisperer 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this the group you are talking about?