Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 6

message: Someone deleted the link to the Ex-Church of Christ website.  There was a debate on this in the past and it was agreed that it should stay.  I have restored the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.26.194.15 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored Link

message: Just shown up in this article is the proposal to replace all the verse references with the NIV. <BR>
I oppose injecting NIV verse references into an article on the churches of Christ. The churches of Christ have no means to select for use as a body one translation over another, but there are some significant doctrinal issues with the NIV. Most notable are the doctrines of Calvinism which are presumed by the NIV. (see the section in the article on "Theology", churches of Christ are opposed to Calvinism. )<bR>
The References that are in the article now are to the very well respected and neutral BibleGateway. Whoever puts in the reference can pick a translation and once the translation verse text is selected, the reader can choose from nearly any available translation.<BR>
The choice is with the reader - this is neutral.
RFranklin 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree with that. While a person can choose translations once they're there, the choice of initial translation can still fit POV because choosing one version suggests that this is the "main" version. Informally, I'd argue for the New King James Version to be the initial version. I worked in a bookstore that catered primarily to churches of Christ and their members. Until the publisher started phasing out the New King James, that was our most popular version. --Carl (talk|contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imposing the NIV in this article

message: I'm not a big fan of the use of "progressive" to distinguish different elements of the churches of Christ. It suggests a negative connotation for the other elements. Also, as the goal of the churches of Christ is to get back to the New Testament, being "progressive" is in some ways an insult to the congregations to which it is applied, as it suggests a progression which, assuming that everyone was originally at the New Testament, can only be leading away from it. --Carl (talk|contribs) 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some weaselling, IMO 

message: I was looking for some reference of  what I had heard as a child--that that members of the Church of Christ believe that only they go to heaven--are saved. I wasn't dismayed by the length of the article--just that the author didn't address this problem. 
 P.S. I don't really care if they sing acapello or with acompaniment.
If they think that people are going to hell because they like music with accompaniment--I think they're jerks! Teresa Gibson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.107.230 (talk • contribs) 
:The more conservative churches, the non-institutional ones, would say that you're going to hell if you're not in the Church of Christ (some ultra conservatives would even say if you're using instruments).   The progressive Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are the only ones that accept more than just Church of Christers as being saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.6 (talk • contribs) 
:: Any reason why the above two random observations contributing nothing to the article shouldn't be deleted? Jdb1972 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random statements 

message: I took out a lot of the discussion in the NIV section for two reasons:
(1) It is a matter of significant debate whether the NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation at all. 
(2) Controversy over the NIV is certainly not limited to the churches of Christ.  A quick mention is enough here.  Elaboration and scriptural support/lack thereof is appropriate at New International Version or Bible translations, but not here.--Velvet elvis81 22:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIV Controversy in translations section 

message: As mentioned on the page itself, this article is getting RIDICULOUSLY long and really needs to be pared down.  There are a great number of things that are either extremely tangential or simply unsourced conjecture (and often both) that could initially be removed or drastically reduced to deal with the problem.  Beyond that I'll have to take a closer look, but I imagine much of it is covered elsewhere (for example at the baptism page) or could be moved there a be in a more appropriate place.
My initial suggestions for deletion/pruning are as follows:
(1)  The section on Bible translations is pretty tangential and I'm not sure it properly belongs here.    And even if it does, hermeneutics is the incorrect location for it.  Perhaps in common beliefs/practices?  But more on that section later...
(2)  The section on racial integration should almost certainly be pruned immensely and moved to the history section.  There is a lot of good info there that perhaps belongs in another article.  Or--despite the fact that it's interesting stuff--just might not be encyclopedic.
(3) The section on social dancing is probably not encyclopedic (how many people have come here looking for info on the CofC's position on dancing?) and is unsourced anyway.  Also, it's a difficult one to handle anyway the anti-dancing position is probably in rapid decline.  I vote for a delete.
(4) The entire section on other Restoration Movement bodies could be eliminated and handled with a simple cite to the Restoration Movement article.  Or, if you prefer, to the individual groups mentioned (though I would certainly disfavor that approach).
Please comment.--Velvet elvis81 22:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your last point on notable members; the "see also" link is sufficient for all but the historical CofC leaders.  And don't have an objection to your other points.  --Spiffy sperry 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been slowly working on whittling it down over the past couple weeks.--Velvet elvis81 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edits Needed 

message: Can any adult man in the Church of Christ preside over a marriage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.95.164.241 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage