Talk:Christianity/Archive 39

message: In the introductory portion of this entry, it states that Christianity is a religion centered around Jesus as the Son of God and the divinity within Jesus himself.  While this is certainly true for some sects of Christianity, quite obviously the majority, this is not a belief shared by all Christians and has been the subject of a number of Church reforms.  This issue is addressed in the "Non-Trinitarians" section later in the article, so I suggest that this be expressed in the introduction as well, or simply leave the issue out to be discussed later in the article.
23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion is not only man made, but I don't even know of any other species, besides man, that can make it. Do you? As far we know only humans have a need to invent god, hence it is man made, not, say dog-made. But if dogs did make it, surely, their god would look like a dog and have many dog-like attributes.Giovanni33 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you addressing? Str1977 (smile back) 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gio, hope you have an Excellent New Year! Most religions are believed to be evolved from interaction with God or the Divine. Your propostion above is also an accurate belief of some, but I think the final say, or the truth, has not yet been determined. The old adage about no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole comes to mind. Also, not all religions on earth worship a "God/man"; Ganesha comes immediately to mind, but there are many others. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: In the "Death and Resurrection" section, I changed the statement that Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers to reflect the statements in the Gospels, that it was the temple guard who arrested Jesus.  See Mt 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:52 John 18:3. CBadSurf 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who arrested Jesus... 

message: References to Latter-Day Saints should either use the full name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or, if abbreviated, the name should be Church of Jesus Christ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andycandy75 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Latter Day Saints (no hyphen) is used to describe all of the churches that evolved from the chruch founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The largest, by a wide margin is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which has a membership in excess of 12 million. The next largest is the Community of Christ, which has a membership of under 300,000. When the acronym LDS (Latter-day Saint) is used it is used specifically for members of the largest group. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter-Day Saints 

message: Some of these archives are very short. Wait until there are more discussion topics before archiving.--Sefringle 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the last archive is "very short". It existed for sometime after someone merged various "short" archives into one (Please do not do that again). Remember there is a guideline on how long a page should be, and it is not 150 kilobytes. The aim of archives is not to create only full archive but to relieve the talk page from old discussion topics. Therefore the last archiving was called for. Str1977 (smile back) 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I tried reverting vandalism about 5 times a minute ago on this article, but it isn't showing up. So be it. Just H 13:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I'm just writing to say that someone randomly inserted the word "SATAN" into the main article, and I tried to delete it, but I don't know how, it doesn't work for me... Anyway, now you know that I didn't write it, even though my IP is probably the latest one in the log.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention that I posted this entry on 17:11, 10 Jan 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some idiot vandalizing the entry... 

message: Since this is the topic on Christianity, I figured that it would have to do with the books written by the Apostles. On that note, I was looking for a mentioning of the Books that were NOT put in the Bible because they weren't discovered until the last hundred years or so. Does anyone object to making references to those books in the article?Solon Olrek 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you mean by those books, and what you intend.  An extra sentence at the end of the section on the scriptures saying something about non-canonical books wouldn't go amiss, I don't think, but a whole section would be out of place in this article.  Furthermore, I'd take issue with what you might state about these books - I appreciate that you're not editing the article here, but saying that they weren't put into the bible because they weren't found until this century is completely untrue; they weren't accepted as canonical for a number of reasons.  There's a dispute over whether they were rightfully or wrongly excluded from the canon, but no-one disputes that the early church fathers knew most of the non-canonical works and rejected them for whatever reason.  TheologyJohn 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John. Furthermore, it should not be claimed t hat these books were written by the Apostles. Str1977 (smile back) 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate you bringing the topic up here before making revision.  Thank you.  Personally, done right, I have no objections.  But provide reliable sources for any works you include, and be prepared for it to be a contentious issue.  People have strong feelings, and even if you add solid material, it could get attacked.  Just be prepared.  Pastordavid 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the Bible would be a better place for a full discussion, which I do think it already has. For this article, a brief statement by an noted expert would not be inappropriate. Cheers.  --Storm Rider (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lost Books

message: Str1977, please explain why you are removing the quote. This article is not about Christian view of Christianity. Scholarly view is also important. In that quote an scholar is arguing for the historicity of Ressurection. It does have a place here. --Aminz 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is about Christian beliefs. I don't think beliefs need approval (including by way of random quotes) from scholars to substantiate them. —Aiden 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Also, it begins with an arguement without being embedded into the article. Furthermore, you are beginning to quotefarming again. Not that I don't agree with the gist of what Sanders says but it is not topical here. (At a more detailed look he is not accurate either: no one said "they didn't see him at all".) But the main point is as stated by Aiden. Str1977 (smile back) 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be welcomed on Historical Jesus; Lostcaesar 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of Ressurection 

message: I recently added again Large be ause the text read parts of Africa. For your information Africa has one the largest christian TOTAL populations.
Could someone please tell me the sequence of events pertaining to christianity as far as rapture, resurrection, second resurrection, tribulation, and the coming of Christ? Thanks, Judy
:Clarence Larkin produced charts of these events in about 1918, in several books. These are now in the Public Domain (copyright expired). Here is one chart on the resurrections —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough draft of article on creationist organization

message: I was just wondering what the purpose is of the Current Controversies and Criticism section?  In reviewing articles for all the other major religions -- Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism -- I find nothing similar in any of those articles.  The closest is Islam, with a debate about how Mohamed was viewed.  Why does Christianity get the sole honour of this section?  I actually think it would be a good idea to standardize the articles on religions to a single format, that presented relevant information about the religion, without all the attempts at (not so subtle) indoctrination in any direction -- especially when it is so obviously negative as this section.  What do others think?   CBadSurf 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my question then is why they do not have it for the major religions other than Christianity?  Or am I just not seeing them? CBadSurf 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinkt they all should, if there are notable controvieries or criticisms, which then point to a larger article itself on the subject.Giovanni33 07:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the optimal solution is to have them integrated within the article, so as to give a seemless portrayal. Slac speak up! 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reader I generally prefer articles that focus on the topic and not the topic's critcal assessment by others. Thus, I prefer a section(s) that are dedicated to the criticism. I can see pros and cons for both sides; what I reject most is for there to be controversy and it simply not appear at all. If there is not a section to explain the issues there should at least be a link to an article(s) that address the issues. It does surprise me how some topics seem to be able to exclude all appearance controversy on the main article page, but eventually I would hope that would change; slow but sure and by limiting critiques to scholarly assessment devoid of emotion and personal agenda will work. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do think the key here, is, as you write "limiting critiques to scholarly assessment devoid of emotion and personal agenda"  In my view, this section does not live up to that standard.  And, again, I also think some form of standard should develop for articles on religions, so that each religion is treated equally. CBadSurf 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Current Controversy and Criticism section 

message: Now look folks, I know alot of skeptical type people out there like the sorts of things Dawkins says. But in an article dedicated to a worldwide religion, why should the criticism section choose this one book critical of Christianity to elaborate on, out of every single work critical of Christianity that has ever been written? And why even mention individual books? Out of a religion which has likely claimed several billion adherants over its lifespan, I fail to see how a single man's work is worthy of coverage as criticism of a religion which is nearing 2,000 years of age. If this was an article about a religion started 10 years ago, and Dawkins was the premier critic of it in a field of just a handful of people, I could see Dawkins book mentioned and described in a criticism section. But right now, this is serious undue weight here, just because Dawkins is reasonably famous at the moment doesn't mean he and he alone is the only person on earth worthy of the distinction of having his critical views of Christianity from but one of his books detailed in the criticism section of the religion of Christianity. Anyone else see what i'm trying to get at here? Homestarmy 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who (or what book) would you prefer? josh
buddy, talk 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preferably no single book at all, since even if it comes down to having to include some awesomely notable and amazingly important person, just citing a single book by that single person ignores all their other possible books. But even then, even just trying to pick one person doesn't seem to me very fair either, even if their as famous as Volatire or something (or Volatire himself of course), that's still one single solitary person on his own, with nobody else mentioned with him, and doesn't establish much importance for why this person's views and this person's views alone are a very important and weighty part of everything that is criticism of Christianity. Homestarmy 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A single book is that important?

message: I had a woman says to me that she like me, and want to be in a committed relationship with me, but as soon as she learns that I was agnostic the next day she said that she can not ever date me, and would not even consider being my friend due to religious differences. Bluntly put and I quote: "I know that you don't understand why I cant be your friend but it's because You don't believe in God and I think that it would just be wrong if I did [Be your friend]. I don't think anyone would disagree with that." I leave this up to the WikiMOB what are your opinions? Paul.Paquette
:As much as we would like to help you, I'm afraid that this has no place on this talk page. However, I'll take this opportunity to hope that things will work out for you. =) Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed personal attacks by Giovanni33 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, but I wanna give the answer, it sounds like the woman Paul is talking about isn't understanding the unequally yoked thing right if what Paul says is what she more or less literally said :(. And since that is related to the topic of the article, (namely, Christianity) I don't see how helping someone understand part of the subject of the article isn't appropriate. Homestarmy 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To tell you the truth I did not think it was inappropriate to ask on this page. For I take it that the best and most devote of christians edit this page and are willing to give me thier insight.  In case you wonder I told her to forget me, I do not need a fake friend.  But I am still left wondering.  If you want you can message me instead.  I am open to ideas, comments, and suggestions. Paul.Paquette 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history seems to think you aren't logged on, are you actually Paul.Paquette? I'd be glad to explain on your talk page. Homestarmy 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I forgot to log on, and I was on Western Kentucky University campus when I did post the last comments, and yes I would appreciate an in depth discussion if you do not mind. The more I know, the better off I am, so it would be much welcome.Paul.Paquette 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Speak for yourself! Not every group adopts that attitude, you know. Slac speak up! 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you define romantic involvement i'd think, there's more than one way to take that. Homestarmy 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  would this be consider christian like?