Talk:Christianity/Archive 26

message: In response to the previous discussion at Talk:Christianity/Archive 34#Non-resistance_to_evil, I'd like to know what everyone thinks about including a section on Mosaic Law and Jesus' Expounding of the Law or perhaps a more general section entitled "Teachings of Jesus". As Str1977 and I had agreed, this article seems to cover well enough Christian beliefs about Jesus/God and various aspects of Salvation, but delves little into the fundamental day-to-day beliefs of Christians as based on Jesus' teachings, such as those taught in his sermons and parables. Perhaps a section on Christian views of the Law (maintaining the Ten Commandments, etc.) and their role in Christianity along with the teachings of Jesus would be a good place to discuss this. Or perhaps a recap of those things Christians are obligated to do under Jesus' teachings (such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself") would better explain Christian beliefs. —Aiden 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking back through the article, the Worship and practices section's last paragraph discusses some of what I'm talking about, defining daily Christian obligations in respect to Jesus' teachings. However, I think this content should form its on section in the Beliefs section; but it's a good start none-the-less. —Aiden 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested to know how much further you can take it without getting into areas of significant divergence between Christian traditions. Beyond the Ten Commandments and the two great commandments (Love God, Love your neighbour as yourself), what else have you in mind? I suspect that, for many Christians, their overt daily obligations are little to do with Jesus' teachings and more to do with their particular church's (or society's) traditions. Myopic Bookworm 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Honestly I like what we have in the Worship and practices section, but I feel the latter paragraph should be given its own section and expanded just slightly to incorporate some of the views on the Law and Jesus' "two greatest" commandments. —Aiden 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mosaic Law|The Law]] or "Teachings of Jesus" 

message: Thanks to User:Myopic Bookworm for developing the 'Sunday worship services' section more.  It occured to me though, that who receives Communion and who doesn't is a much bigger issue for Catholics than it is for most other denominations, given that for the former it's an essentially element of salvation, while in the latter it may only be a matter of preference/convenience.  With this in mind, I'd like to rework the section in a way that encompasses succintly the differences between denominations in communion practices while still pointing out that Catholics place most importance on the sacrament. Slac speak up! 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be careful of "most" importance on the scarament.  Maybe something like, "Catholics place a high importance on ..." or any derivative thereof.  I don't like using absolute superlatives; it places us in the position of knowing something we don't.  Storm Rider (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say "the central importance of the Eucharist is a distinctive element of Catholic theology".  Slac speak up! 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that works.  However, it is interesting to note that the sole purpose of Sunday Sacrament Meeting for Latter-day Saints is the partaking of the Sacrament.  It is the one meeting that is viewed as a requirement for followers of Christ in the eyes of LDS.  Though there are other Sunday meetings, they can be missed, but Sacrament Meeting is paramount.  Having said this, I still think your statement above is good.  Question:  when you state Catholic theology does one interpret that to include Eastern Orthodoxy and is their also theology similar?  Storm Rider (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eastern Orthodox churches do indeed give a high place to the Eucharist, since most public religious worship is Eucharistic. However, the partaking of communion by lay people is generally less frequent, and I'm not sure whether Eastern churches make the Eucharist an absolutely central feature of religion in quite the way that the Roman Church came to do. I also wonder whether the Eucharist is central to Catholic theology as such, or merely central to Catholic religious practice. I might suggest replacing distinctive element of Catholic theology with characteristic element of Catholic religious practice. Myopic Bookworm 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunday worship services and Communion

message: Aiden, my choice of "shares in" over "accepts" is motivated by John 6:53-54: "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day". But I'm aware there may be other views at hand: what do you think? Slac speak up! 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Shares in" versus "accepts"

message: Im unwilling to revert more than once in this instance for now, User:Biblical1 inserts a link here:  to a PBS documentary purporting to be an "intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial blah blah blah" concerning Jesus, but the main problem is, you can't see it here. Or rather, you can't actually see the documentary for free, just the transcripts, for a video, feel free to shell out $59.98 -____-. I question the necessity of such a link, and if it's really a good idea, at least the link should go directly to the transcripts, you know? Reaserching the documentary itself to see whether it's actually useful would take too long, does anyone else see the need for this link? Homestarmy 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, actually, it seems there's more to this site, clicking on the links above leads to numerous articles written by various sources on many number of issues concerning Jesus. Their points of view are often conflicting, and some of the articles appear extremely speculative in nature, such as this one, and all in all, im not sure that listing the entire site as an external link would be helpful. I suspect some of these articles may actually be useful for citing our own article, but many of the articles seem to be making a ton of conjecture about the purposes of the gospels (Such as their version of the Q document thing here), and all in all, I just don't like the looks of the quality of all the material from this PBS thing as a whole. Homestarmy 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PBS external link

message: Please do not add old hats of scholarship from the 19th century as controversy. It is already a stretch that we have so much on that Egyptian issue. Please don't make it worse. Str1977 (smile back) 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old hats dressed as controversies

message: I removed the comment about doctrinal differences arising from different cultures and places.  Some doctrinal issues are simply opinion and may have no grounding in a clash of cultures.
--LawrenceTrevallion 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denominational variations 

message: What exactly is the basic criteria for being considered a Christian? I noticed several groups listed who don't hold to orthodox views, but were nonetheless classified as Christian. If a group claims to be Christian, is it automatically regarded as such? If a broad scale is used to determine who's Christian, I foresee a mass of confusion.Jlujan69 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Christianity is a universalist religion, it expects all people to behave in a moral way and adhere to God's laws.  Thus the question of who is a Christian versus who isn't is less important on a purely personal level than say, in Judaism.  What is important is belief - what describes an "orthodox" (i.e. "teaching rightly") belief from an unorthodox and false belief?  The question of authenticity of belief in Christian thought comes before the question of authenticity of personal adherence (not to say that personal adherence is not an important issue - far from it, of course; but a large part of Jesus' preaching emphasises that this authenticity can only be judged by God).  So a better question to ask here rather than "who is a Christian?" is "what are the basic criteria for a belief to be considered Christian"? Slac speak up! 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bare minimum IMHO would be the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ and Lord. Not that I personally would leave it at that, but WP's NPOV policy makes matters difficult. Hence the inclusion of some questionable group, about which we can only report that some/many Christians consider them non-Christian. Str1977 (smile back) 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: El, or Elohim? (A Lord, or the Lord of Lords?) Ronabop 10:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brush up your Hebrew: El and Elohim means God not Lord. Adonai/Kyrios (Greek) means Lord and stands in for the hallowed name of God, which I will not type here. Str1977 (smile back) 10:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i.e. YHWH or YHVH. Consonants only; vowels are missing from the Hebrew text. rossnixon 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's hope it was not in  vain. Str1977 (smile back) 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The tenets of orthodox (or "mainline") Christianity are summarised within the article. These would/should include the following: (1) Belief in God (theism); (2) Belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God; (3) Belief in God as three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Trinitarianism; (4) Belief in salvation from sin; and related to this, (5) belief in resurrection of the body and eternal life. But the question you ask is an important one, since many groups outside the mainstream - for example, those who reject Trinitarianism - consider themselves truly Christian, but this would be disputed by other Churches. Slac speak up! 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people use the word to exclude. As in, "we're Christian and everyone who doesn't follow our tenents is unchristian/subhuman." For the sake of this article, I would think that people for whom the teachings or life of Jesus is a primary revelatory event (whether of eschatalogical, salvific, or mythological dimensions) I think that pretty well defines the boundaries. If they don't quite fit, bear in mind that Christianity isn't really about exclusion, if it was there wouldn't be so many denominations. If they choose to define themselves as Christian, that should really be their business, so long as Jesus (however they choose to interpret him) retains primary importance. Remember that religion is messy stuff, if the article becomes "a mass of confusion" that just means it will be an accurate reflection of the reality it seeks to define. It will then be up to us to find some way to organize the article. As to whether it's orthodox or not, well, that's really up for debate and dependent on who you're talking with. Was orthodoxy pre or post Nicea? Was Constantine the best or worst thing to happen to Christianity? Arius or Athanasius? There are too many points at which we might split, and we recognize those more readily than we do our points of commonality. Be a mensch, let the wierdos stay. MerricMaker 01:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must take exception to the last post. Considering someone non-Christian doesn't mean considering them "subhuman". Equations of that kind already blurr things and hinder any reasoning. The same goes for "Christianity isn't really about exclusion" - no it is not, but if Christianity has some substance and someone doesn't share that substance he excludes himself. The number of denominations is no real argument as it is based on the fallacy: because many denominations exist that it is a good thing. But it wasn't intented that way. Frankly, Jesus cannot retain "primary importance", if he is subject to individual interpretation. That might be a valid definition in WP, where we are bound by the NPOV policy but in "real life" where are supposed to have a view. "(I)f the article 'becomes a mass of confusion'" it will defeat its purpose of being informative and accurate. Str1977 Talk 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "many denominations" piece does not suggest one way or another that it is a positive or negative thing. What it does suggest is that Christianity remains viable (in broad terms) across its assorted permutations. In short, that the faith is resilient. As for my subhuman statement, please bear in mind the context. "Some exclude," not Christians exclude, or Roman Catholics exclude, or you personally exclude, some. I refer to the unfortunate fact that some Christians use "Christian" as racists use "Pure." By the same token (and I am not suggesting that this is the trend in this article) we're talking about who is, "in" and who is "out." The argument for charity and inclusion must carry the day. Not what I'll call for lack of a better term, "Christian Exclusivism." There are some bright people working on this entry, please trust their ability to keep this article useful and objective, regardless of what information is added to it. MerricMaker 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not in the article, then why raise it. You may stick to your opinions but please don't go call around equating Christians that do insist on defining the term in a meaningful way (with the sad side-effect that some are excluded) with racists. Finally, the main theme of Jesus' ministry was certainly not "inclusivity" - it has some part in it but not in an unqualified way. Cheers anyway, Str1977 (smile back) 09:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's a Christian? 

message: I noticed there was a little section on vampires in the page, that was removed, and gladly so as it was out of place.  Just for information, though, vampires seem to have been a part of old Slavic paganism, which lingered after Christian conversion.  Hence, old pagan wards (garlic, the sun, stakes through the heart, for example) are mixed with Christian wards (crucifixes, hallowed Church ground, submersion in running water) to create the legendary material.  Of course, there are no mention of Vampires in the Bible; and its totally out of place with a Slavic origin.  Lostcaesar 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, much of the same could be said of Christmas and Easter traditions, which borrow from the pagan rituals of different countries. -- Beland 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  little note on vampires 

message: Many times this article will read “some say” or “many Anglicans…”; I think in these situations we ought to replace this wording with quotes from relevant materials.  For Catholics we have the Catechism, for them and Orthodox we have Church Councils, for Lutherans we have Luther’s catechism and some Confessions like the Augsburg (unvariated), for the Reformed we have things like the Heidelberg catechism, for Anglicans we have the thirty nine articles, the book of common prayer, and so on.  We should be more precise I think. Lostcaesar 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble here is that the 39 articles no longer accurately represents the views of most Anglicans. Which would hardly be surprising since they haven't been revised for many hundreds of years. DJ Clayworth 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precision and quotes 

message: I dont think its a good idea to merge. There is enough substantial information that pertains to a "christian" that would not be relevant to the whole of "christianity". There are things christains do and say that do not nesessarily have to do with christianity. Again, this is not a stub, and merging it to christianity would eventually mean breaking it off again when it gets too big. Somerset219 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are talking about the proposed merger on the Christian article into Christianity; if I am wrong the title of this section should be reverted with my apologies.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity is simply the collection of all Christians; pretty much everything that could be in "Christian" could also be in "Christianity".  A lot of the history section of "Christian" article is duplicative of History of Christianity. "Christian" should probably only discuss the term itself, if anything, and defer the rest to "Christianity". -- Beland 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and Christian merger

message: I noticed that this article is an AID Candidate. Shouldn't there be some items on the todo list? The only item listed was from April 2005; what do we need to do now? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing you're back. —Aiden 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AID Drive 

message: has there been any case of a muslim converting to christianity, in the recorded history. i found many cases wherein christians become muslims, but could not seem to find out a case wherein a muslim person proselytized to christianity.nids 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most famous case I can think of was that fellow in Afghanistan who I think the Vatican took in just in time really recently, those Imam's in Afghanistan were pretty ticked off that somebody would leave Islam and wasn't going to die for it thanks to another nation. Homestarmy 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thousands, possibly millions, of moslems have converted to Christianity. rossnixon 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, he's the one, Thanks sarah :) Homestarmy 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be hard to find people who acknowledge their conversion, because in a Muslim country their lives may be in danger if they are considered to be apostates from Islam. There is a testimony on the web from an Egyptian convert, and articles about an an Indian Lutheran pastor called Rev. K. K. Alavi and a Pakistani convert in Britain. I think the Anglican Bishop of Rochester is a convert from Islam to Christianity.  Myopic Bookworm 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarification: according to the Wikipedia article he was born into a Muslim family, but went to a Christian school, so I do not know whether he ever personally considered himself a Muslim. Myopic Bookworm 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  any muslim converted to christianity???