Talk:Christianity/Archive 34

message: As this is now the GA collaboration I believe our first job would be to cleanup the merge thing and then perhaps fix the problems that the article had that granted its removal from the FA list. Tarret 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the article has changed quite a good deal since that FA nom, and apparently somebody added in content in the Primite Christianity article, I don't think we were planning to seriously merge that into this article anyway. (It's really way too small a group in my opinion to warrent inclusion.) Homestarmy 04:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree; I almost put the article up for a prod, because I can't find many references. It needs to get merged to something else. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that after this collaboration we should get a Peer Review, because as far as I can tell, pretty much everything in this article is referenced except for some thing about motivations of monasteries. Homestarmy 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sending it for peer review, hopefully well get more critique on how we can improving the article. Tarret 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That bot is pretty convienent, we should have one of those to use on every GA collaboration.... :D Homestarmy 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Collaboration

message: Hey guys, I know removing text in these articles can upset people, but the article flows quite well except for in three places: 
1) Reformation under Christianity. It seems tangential to the subject of Christianity itself. We are reading the article to find out about the religion, not the changes it made in the 4th century. That could be another article.
2) Persecution of/by Christians - this might work better under the article Christian. This article is about the belief system, not the practice that some people have used it for. Persecution of early Christianity is relevant - I'm uncomfortable with mentioning modern persecution in places like Cuba, Saudi Arabi because it seems tangential. The same goes for persecution by Christians. These already have their own article; perhaps they should just be linked to. 
3) The non-trinitarian  = controversial at the top, that we agreed to, looks ugly, and should probably be placed in the "non-trinitarian" part of the article, IMHO. 
Thanks. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should explain how Christianity served humanity. That "reformation" section is just an start. --Aminz 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, you say, " This article is about the belief system, not the practice that some people have used it for." Is that right? The lead paragraph treats the topic as a religion: population, geography, history, etc. You're saying that the proper topic for this article is "the belief system," in which case the lead paragraphs are off-topic. I like "Christianity" as the catch-all article about the religion: its beliefs (of course) but also its history and identity as an institution. An article about the Christian belief system(s) would be "Christian theology," or something. Can the text be improved? Sure. Should it be removed because it's not about the belief system? No. Jonathan Tweet 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think it would be reductionist to reduce Christianity (or any religion for that matter) to just its beliefs. This is one of the problems with the Christianity article on the Simple English wikipedia. (hint hint some of you could move over and help with that one too.) --Just nigel 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of some text 

message: This article is far from being a Good One. As I've explained here , I want to see these articles in a situation that when someone reads it, he becomes filled with esteem and respect for Jesus and Christianity; but not through viewing Jesus as a cosmic figure; through his teachings. It is shameful to see people consider this article a good one while it doesn't explain how Christianity changed the world. --Aminz 08:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's what can be checked. That's what people in academia do. This doesn't contradict religous aspects. --Aminz 10:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My last concern was more directed against your comment here. You may still do the right thing for the wrong reasons. References are fine but a section consisting of one big quote or two is narrow. As it widens it will bloat by all these quotations. Hence it is better to simply present the thoughts instead of quoting. Str1977 (smile back) 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ps.It might be better to first create this section outside of the article and work on it until it has some sufficient stature and then include it. Str1977 (smile back) 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Aminz you should make a project page and get people to contribute there, rather than make this page a work in progress.  Lostcaesar 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Material of this length and detail belongs on a spin-off page, not the main Christianity article. Asserting only the positive side is to invite people to add the negative side, which is going to make these new sections even longer. This main article can summarize and reference the spin-off page. Jonathan Tweet 15:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project on Reforms under Christianity 

message: Since there's such an overwhelming number of general references at the bottom, it doesn't look to me like anything's been overlooked. The only thing I see clearly is the thing about whether monasteries were first founded because some people felt Christianities successes were making us less Christian, but other than that, i'd say everything else seems like it'd either be referenced in its parent article or by something at the bottom. Anyone else know about anything unreferenced in this article, or is this article basically referenced fully now?Homestarmy 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anything really major left unreferenced?

message: Could somebody please block Wikih8lulz from editing? The vandalism he made to this article has to be the worst I've ever seen. And you can tell by his name that he's not a Wikipedia user to do any kind of good for the encyclopedia. --Christknight 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard vandalism for dealing with vandalism are at WP:VAND. If this is the worst you've seen, then apparently you haven't seen some of the schoolboy stuff we get around 1PM on weekdays. ;). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and btw, I'm reporting him for his username anyway; people can be banned for bad usernames. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The username is acceptable, this admin's opinion. Vandalism should as Pat mentioned, be reported at WP:VIP for fastest response. Be sure to warn prior to listing, as explained on WP:VAND. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I see lots and lots of vandalism on my other watched pages, and it's extremely sad to see how many people want to defile an encyclopedia as great as this one - and for no reason. --Christknight 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism is rampant almost everywhere on this site.  And I agree with Christknight in the fact that it sad that people in today's society have nothing better to do than vandalize a widely used information powerhouse.youngscholar 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Block 

message: I have tried to imporve this section two ways:
* Describe on the role unions as well as divisions have contributed to the shape of Christianity today.
* Better distinguish between restoration movements that share ecumenically with other Christians and those that say they exclusively represent true Christianity. On this point I wonder if the illustration should show two different restorationist groups - one with both a dotted line to the past and a solid line to their neighboring Protestant siblings (as is there now) and one that only has the dotted line back (to represent groups like the Latter Day Saints) who reject a continuity with mainline forms of Christianity.--Just nigel 05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigel I think you might be confusing United Church of Christ with Church of Church, the latter is a fundamentalist group that sees itself as the only true Church and other groups as heretical.  The former is a liberal body with a totaly different nature (their idea of a "Church", if it exists, is far more vague and emptied of visible content).  As for the new title, it might be a problem in the sense that it positively states the groups therein are Christian, and may even imply that they are all equally Christian (a big problem in that case) whereas the older title was a bit more vague.  I will think on it might considering changing it back.  The new information is really good, though incomplete, but it is itsown group so I added a subtitle and it might need to be moved to another place in the article.  The section on Christian divisions was meant only as a lead paragraph to introduce to readers the groups that would be discussed below, so when someone read "catholics do this orthodox do that" they would have an idea what the article was talking about.  Its not really suppose to get into ecumenism and the historical reasons for the divisions and so forth.  Lastly, the section on ecumenism needs balance, because it (1) treats protestant ecumenical movements and the Catholic-Orthodox movement as the same, and they are very different, and (2) it doesn't give the negative view of ecumenism.  Still, I think its a good addition.   Lostcaesar 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the statement "Restorationists ... do not describe themselves as "reforming" a Christian Church continuously existing from the time of Jesus, but as restoring the Church that was historically lost at some point" is that it is not true. Only restorationists claiming no other Church is true (often non-trinitarian) beleive this. The Stone-Campbell type churches like Disciples of Christ Churches of Christ in Australia etc were not trying to start a new separate religious denomination but had a strong plea for Christian unity long before it became popular amon other protestants in the 20th century. They do beleive the Christian Church has continuously existing from the time of Jesus and do not beleive the church was lost, just needing simplification - hence primitve christianity. --Just nigel 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nigel I think you are right on several points.  I think the talk of Christian division does need to be tempered with discussion of moments of unity.  I also think you are right to point to the complexities of relations between groups, especially small and independent groups (as restorationists tend to be), and lastly because the graphic is a simplification it is going to inherently fall short of accurately representing the reality of Christianity's history.  I think your edits are in the right direction.  Where I disagree I have already stated.  As for this bit about Stone-Campbell restorationism, I think we need to better explore the matter.  The very nature of restorationism is that the groups see themselves as restoring something, and hence something was lost.  Indeed, the difference between Reformation and Restoration Christianity is one of degree: reformers see a continuously existing Church that needs (doctrinal) reform, whilst restorationists think that something essential to the nature of the Church was totally lost (if not the entire Church itself, into a "Great Apostasy"), and must be rediscovered.  Often these groups have a modern day prophet who does the restoring.  Yes, the lines are blurred.  Some reformation texts see Luther as a prophet, quite explicitly, whilst some restorationists perhaps see themselves as cutting away non-Biblical pomp more than starting from scratch, though the fact remains that their method of building a Christian church is to sit down with a copy of Acts and, by careful analysis, determine what is acceptable to God and what is not.  I will say that in my experience with Restorationists, the talk of unity is markedly anti-denominational, i.e. they see denominationalism as either fragmenting or watering down the teachings of Christ.  Perhaps you could just explain more where you are coming from and what you want the article to say.  I need to listen more to your view before I can really say that I understand.  Lostcaesar 11:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try another edit that better describes these differences. The difficulty is 'Restorationist' describes a methodology and not the (sometimes mutually exclusive) conclussions about doctrine or practice that people who have used this method reach.--Just nigel 04:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain it here first please? Lostcaesar 08:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups in Christiantiy 

message: How can we unprotect this page for editing information here? Something Wrong 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin would need to do it, I presume it was protected after more vandalism yet again. Homestarmy 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to unprotect this page? 

message: In at least one point the chart in the Ecumenism subsection is inaccurate; but I think the problem cannot be remedied.  It indicates that the Eastern Rites of Roman Catholicism derive from Eastern Orthodoxy.  This ignores the fact that the Malabar Church (one of the largest Eastern Catholic Churches) comes from the "Nestorians" tradition (as do the Chaldaeans) and the Catholic of Armenian, Copt, Ethiopic, Malankara and Syrian tradition derive from the Oriental Orthodoxy line.  As I said, I think this cannot be remedied without making the chart hopelessly complicated.  However, it might - note that I only say "might" - be better to change "Eastern Rites" to "Byzantine Eastern Rites", corresponding to what the chart presents as the origin of these Churches. I would suggest more strongly that "Western Rite" (singular) be used instead of "Western Rites" (see the distinction indicated in the "Latin rite" disambiguation page).  Lima 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was complaining about another detailed specific issue with the chart above - although I too think it is generally OK. So my solution is to just change the caption to point out it is a generalisation.--Just nigel 09:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JN, I am really pleased with that change.  Lostcaesar 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart in the Ecumenism section 

message: The first page of the Christianity article is pretty darn good - very good coverage of all the major (and many of the minor) traditions and denominations.  But the section entitled "Eschaton and the afterlife" is a bit brief and assumes universal agreement on issues that are controversial.  I'm a Seventh-day Adventist (thank you for correctly including us under Restorationists - I think this is probably accurate).
I've pasted the section for you to look at...
Eschaton and afterlife
Main article: Eschatology
Christians believe that the soul is eternal, and consciousness continues after death. In the General Resurrection, all who have died will bodily rise from the dead at the end of time to be judged by Jesus when he returns in fulfilment of scriptural prophecies.[63]
The Christian view of the afterlife includes the eternal realms of heaven and hell; in Catholicism those who die in a state of grace undergo purification in order to achieve the holiness necessary to enter Heaven in what is known as purgatory.
Firstly, not all Christians believe the soul is eternal.  An alternative view (held by Seventh-day Adventists, for example) is that death is a state of oblivion that the Bible compares to an unconscious sleep.  At the second coming, the bodies of believers are raised to life again, but this time in an "incorruptible" (ie, immortal) state.  
There are basic conflicts between this alternative view and the mainstream view.  The alternative view refutes as dualistic the notion of a separate body and spirit.  The alternative view states that immortality is a gift from God, not the natural state of all human beings.  The mainstream view can be seen as internally contradictory, in the logistical difficulty of the unconscious, sleeping "dead in Christ" being raised from their graves when their conscious souls are already in heaven.
Secondly, the writer has made no mention of the doctrine of the secret rapture (as popularised in the "Left Behind" series of books and movies).  This is a fairly widespread view amongst evangelical/Pentecostal Protestants and deserves some attention.
Also there are differing views on hell.  Seventh-day Adventists see hell as synonymous for eternal death/oblivion rather than eternal suffering of uncoverted sinners.  This follows from a belief that humans do not naturally have immortal souls.
Sorry I've focused on my own denomination a bit here, but I can only talk about what I know (the secret rapture is not my denomination's theology, btw, but I thought it should be included in the interests of comprehensiveness).
I'm not really sure how this Wiki thing works, but if anyone wants to email me, they can at kahnakuhlAThotmail.com (I used AT to discourage spam - pls replace with @ of course).
:I think you are right to say that the section needs improvement and expanding.  It should be observed, however, that it is only a gloss of the topic, which is covered more throughly in the main article.  Minority views are sometimes difficult to work into a gloss, but it is something that can be worked on at least.  In my experience there are basically two views of the afterlife, one in which includes a particular judgement, and saints actively doing things in heaven, and the other which could be called roughly a "soul sleep", where the dead just sort of linger until the genral judgement and the end of time.  This might be a worthy distinction to make in the article.  As for the rapture, I don't know anything much about it.  Where I think you are wrong, however, is that I think we ought to avoid phrasing things like "the mainstream view can be seen as internally contradictory" — it sounds pov pushing.   But that aside, I think we should have a better section on the afterlife.  The essential doctrines seem to be, first, judgement, then the eschaton, and secondarily the structure of the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, sheol, &c.).  What you need now is to find sourcs, and editors willing to colaborate with you, and perhaps start up a project page, or just make small changes to the page here.  Lostcaesar 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged it as a stub, though its not really a stub since there is a main article, but I guess it gets the point across, and I added some hidden text to see where the section can be expanded.  Lostcaesar 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eschaton and afterlife" - needs expanding! 

message: I thought it was that User:Illiterate person, but now it seems I can't find a recent version of the page where the footnotes section doesn't look like a formatting bomb went off. Does anyone else see this on their screen? Homestarmy 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it was a random ref tag thrown in near reference twelve I think. Homestarmy 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone named superdave mutilated the page, removing some footnotes and adding anti-catholic things; I tried to fix it.  I spent a good while on those notes, so its a bit disheartening. Lostcaesar 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything else missing do you think? Homestarmy 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the footnotes?

message: Hey, could someone please lock this article? Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia for letting just anyone go in and add what they know to articles, but I never see anyone who isn't a user add anything relevant. It's all just pointless vandalism that doesn't need to be seen on this article. It's extremely sad how many people want to defile, not just the Christianity article, but the encyclopedia at all. And even though it always gets corrected, thousands of people read Wikipedia every minute. Just think about how many people might go to this article looking for real information, and find immature, usually offensive, vandalism. --Christknight 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be permanently semi protected, like the main page, because it is a perpetual site of vandalism. Lostcaesar 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much vandalism