Talk:Christianity/Archive 5

message: :Please see Template talk:Christianity User talk:Stevertigo User talk:Grenavitar
I think a Christianity template on this page would be worthwhile like the great work on for the Islam template, however we desperately need help creating it.  I have been debating with User:Stevertigo over how it should be done and am advocating we discuss what should be on the template on the template's talk page and creating the layout (which could very well be similar to  around it.  He has merely changed words and attempted for direct equivalence between Islam and Christianity and even equated Crusade to Jihad which shows a clear lack of understanding of the concepts.  Therefore it is my plea that some of the main editors of this article pool together to create a working template based on the concepts of Christianity and not the translation of Islamic ideas into supposed Christian equivalents.  We should of course what for bias, however, we cannot go the route of the template as it is now shown (plus, green is used for the Islam template for a reason...)  Please comment, please help. gren 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Christianity 

message: Someone has been inserting a bunch of subtle marketing plugs for Islam throughout the text which actually belong on the Islam page and some weird degrading emphasis on death by crucifiction in the intro which I corrected. I appreciate your attention to this Jayjg but I believe my points are valid. 
I cleaned this up .Thanks--Achtung 01:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is too short, and the small sections comparing the religion to others are not "plugs".  As well, your organization is wrong; for example, it is not a "belief" of Christians that the work Messiah has the Greek origin etc. Please propose your changes here first. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro should be short , a few important key facts is enough. The prior version was bloated and not easily digestible by the typical Wikipedia reader. The rest of the article should be properly organized in their relevant sections.--Achtung 03:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what part of policy says the "intro should be short"?  I've seen a number of Featured Article Candidates rejected because the intro wasn't long enough.  The rest of the article seems fine, but you can propose any specific changes in Talk: if you want. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  I propose the intro below which is simple and clear to replace the bloated , and hard to understand current version:
Christianity is an Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament. It is the world's largest religion.--Achtung 17:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should try out that simple change first, and propose other changes in Talk:.  You've attempted to change much more than that. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Achutng make good points. Simplicity and fact servs the readers much better.--Dverwer 18:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Achtung hasn't made any points, just edits and proposals. Please don't use sockpuppets to bolster your case, Achtung. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The points I made are:
Someone has been inserting a bunch of subtle marketing plugs for Islam throughout the text which actually belong on the Islam page and some weird degrading emphasis on death by crucifiction in the intro which I corrected. Jayjg, these points seem quite reasonable, if you read those sections , it is quite obvious, as to the covert intent behind those. Likewise, the Islam page would not be the place to insert Christianity marketing plugs. The readers are better served with clean and well presented articles as opposed to propaganda. That is why I made those edits.--Achtung 12:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Firstly the weird emphasis on crucifixion is because that is a huge part of Christianity.  For the vast majority of Christian denominations if Jesus had not died and risen from the dead there would be no religion.  Also the references to Islam are not "plugs"  in any sense of the word.  It is first mentioned in contrast to Christianity being the number one religion in size in the world, which clearly make Christianity look better.  Since the made the comparison for population they then made the comparison for growth which is also reasonable... if you would like to question the facts you can and look at Talk:Islam too where there is much debate about population statistics but the content itself is only to give the reader perspective in terms of other religious communities.  I do agree with you on removing and in countries such as France, have also received an influx of followers of Islam. and often because the first is irrelevant and I believe 95+% believe that it follows Judaism because... Jesus said he had come to fulfill... so....  however, it is better to discuss these things before changing. gren 13:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Achtung, please propose changes here so they can be discussed, before entering them. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  keep this article focused on the subject please

message: 1) Make the change gren mentions ie remove this statement:
:"Some traditionally Catholic countries have largely become agnostic, and in countries such as France, have also received an influx of followers of Islam."
2) The following statement is not consistent with growth numbers quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia 
:"By contrast, Islam is growing at 1.76% per year. " 
The islam page claims 1.4 % growth, which is it?? I propose that both pages reflect 1.4 % growth since that number is conspicuously documented in the various Wikipedia Islam related articles.
3) Islam is not a branch of Christianity nor an offshoot as the seriously non-NPOV and inacurate insertion in the following section claims :
 
The branches and boundaries of Christianity
:"The doctrines and practices of Christianity have been subject to a great deal of debate since the founding of Christianity. Over the years, many groups have traced their lineage to Jesus and claimed to be "True Christianity," despite enormous differences in doctrine and practice with the surviving mainstream Christian group. Some of the first examples of this were Marcionism, Arianism and Pelagianism within the first few centuries after Christ. This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".
--Achtung 00:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.4% makes sense.  As for the Islam section, I don't see what it wrong with it.  All of the movements listed have some relationship with Christianity, yet are not considered Christian by most modern Christians.  Islam has clearly built on Christian belief, claims to be the successor to Christianity (or more accurately the original religion of Abraham, Jesus, etc.).  In addition, it considers Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah.  The section seems to make perfect sense. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a section about the boundaries of Christianity.  A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, is certainly at the boundary of Christianity.  If you want to insert the 1.4% that is fine, but please get consensus for the rest.  If you revert again you will be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule and will no doubt get blocked. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did we not get consensus on point #1 see Gren 's comment above? I will change the 1.4 % for now , but what is your view on point # 1? No offense, but your comment about blocking me is uncalled for as I have made every reasonable effort to provide reasons for my changes as evidenced by the continuing discussion threads above, furthermore you are abusing your admin privileges by making such comments since you are a party to the reverts yourself.--Achtung 03:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You reverted all sections to your version, not just those two points; please do not make disingenuous arguments. I don't think the influx of Muslims is relevant, though the part about France becoming agnostic is.  As for the comment, I did not state I would block you, but rather warned you about Wikipedia's blocking policy so that you were aware of it.  Warning you of policy is not an "abuse" of "admin privileges". Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  Yes, I see what you are saying, and this is obviously your belief on the matter but if you want to "document" Mohammad's claims then the perfect place is the Islam page where you will find many similar claims about Islam . The statement as it stands really does not fit in the context of the paragraph that it is in. This, it would seem to me, should be obvious to evangelical Christians of all people and to  anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam and Christianity. --Achtung 05:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, it is in a section about the boundaries of Christianity. The article certainly doesn't document all of Muhammed/Islam's many beliefs, but it does document the small number that are highly relevant to this section of the article.  A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, and which claims it is the true religion of Jesus and successor to Christianity (or as it would prefer, predecessor to Christianity, and Judaism, for that matter), is certainly at the boundary of Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Jayig's and Refdoc's assessment. Further, I have heard a Christian bishop describe Islam as a modern form of Arianism, similar in that both give great honor to Jesus while also denying that Jesus is God. It is certainly at or near the boundaries. Wesley 04:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK here are the proposed changes: 

message: This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".
Not only does it does not fit within the context of the section The branches and boundaries of Christianity, it makes some rather arrogant allusions implying that Christianity is not "true God's religion" and is corrupt. The point has been made that some Muslims believe this, which they are entitled to do but if that is the case then it belongs in the Islam article, not here. 
As Noam Chomsky so fondly keeps reminding us hypocrisy is the unwillingness to apply the same standard to oneself that one applies to others. Some of the people who have objected to my corrections oddly enough mirror my editorial position when its their own pet Wikipedia articles that are in question. You know who you are--Achtung 23:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I see what you are saying, and this is obviously your belief on the matter but if you want to "document" Mohammad's claims then the perfect place is the Islam page where you will find many similar claims about Islam . The statement as it stands really does not fit in the context of the paragraph that it is in. This, it would seem to me, should be obvious to evangelical Christians of all people and to  anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam and Christianity. --Achtung 05:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, it is in a section about the boundaries of Christianity. The article certainly doesn't document all of Muhammed/Islam's many beliefs, but it does document the small number that are highly relevant to this section of the article.  A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, and which claims it is the true religion of Jesus and successor to Christianity (or as it would prefer, predecessor to Christianity, and Judaism, for that matter), is certainly at the boundary of Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Jayig's and Refdoc's assessment. Further, I have heard a Christian bishop describe Islam as a modern form of Arianism, similar in that both give great honor to Jesus while also denying that Jesus is God. It is certainly at or near the boundaries. Wesley 04:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The sentence below should be removed 

message: Unless accompanioed by some discussion here I would think the change from divine persons to bodies is vandalism and not a valid edit. I am not aware of any Christian group/church/sect who believes in a three bodied God, but there is an ongoing "misunderstanding" by Islamic apologists who accuse Christians of polytheism  Refdoc 16:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. "Persons" is correct. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to revert to "persons" but I instead I chose "entities" because it less depicted God as human... despite the fact that part of the definition of person is one of the three God heads.  I think it's important to not confuse the idea and make people think it's relating to humanity of all parts of the trinity (even if it is the reader's lack of knowledge that leads them to such a conclusion).   Also, changing it to bodies I don't think was vandalism... just bad judgment. gren 16:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, to believe in multiple omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent beings doesn't make too much sense... so therefore if you claim anything has those characteristics (which Christianity does) they must be one. gren 23:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a common argument used by athiests in logical debate.  The next step is that an omnipotent being should be able to create a "more omnipotent being" which would make the first being inferior and therefore paradoxial.  I'm not going to go into counters to the Athiest's argument here, but could you please explain what laws could possibly govern an omnipotent, omniscient, et cetera being, and therefore why such a being would be under ANY controls, including forced singularity?  Tom S.
I rolled back Stevertigo's change of "persons" to "personifications," which really doesn't make sense. "Persons" is the right word because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons; they relate to each other interpersonally, though that's not the best way to say it. "Person" is the English word that trinitarian Christianity has used consistently. Oh and gren, there is a single "Godhead," not three "God heads." Have the people proposing alternatives read the Trinity article recently? Wesley 04:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Completely agree with Wesley and Refdoc. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persons / Bodies 

message: Since this article is about Christianity, I was thinking that maybe we could include Christian organizations in the article. For example, if we were to make a list of Christian organizations we would include something like the Christian Coalition and many others. What does everyone think?--Gramaic 08:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations 

message: Truly, it is an unholy shade of grey.  I'd like it white, but I'm sure that change would be reverted instantly. ✈ James C. 04:14, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
:It was the attempt of one not very competent with html to mimic the Jesus box's color scheme.  If you want to add more white or fix it or do lots of things do them... if your changes are disliked then someone will probably complain.  Sorry that it's unholy though :(  gren 08:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to support using white instead of the ugly gray in infoboxes please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Infoboxes as their are two wikipedians that are trying to force us all to use this gray and the "toccolors" class for all infoboxes and imageboxes. Thx - now back to our regularly scheduled program Trödel|talk 03:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the big Christianity infobox 

message: I was just curious as to how the number jumped to 2.2 billion, when on the Islam page you had links to both the CIA Factbook and US Dept of State showing Christianity (Catholocism and Protestantism) at 1.5 Billion and Islam at 1.48 Billion.  If no one responds in a few days, I will change the numbers here and post the sources.  MPA
:I recall some edits being made a week or so ago and it was changed from 2.1 billion to 2.2 billion. I imagine these figures could be from www.adherents.com, in particular this section .  I have no idea what the accuracy of these figures are, so I'm just adding this as a comment. --Randolph 06:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Number of Adherents 

message: It's pretty cumbersome for my little modem to handle. :) --Randolph 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we archive this page now?

message: A description of satan and the names Christ called him is important in understanding the Christian religion more completely. What is this thing satan that Jesus called the "prince of the world" ?
:The Prince of Darkness is crafty; he has obviously kept the editors of this page from drawing attention to him and his reign on Earth. Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of satan in the article? 

message: Well, according to that article anyway. I have just removed:
:Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Judaism does not appear to become strictly monotheistic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment is not unambiguously monotheistic. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" seems implictly to accept the existance of other gods.
I am sure that anyone here who believes this should be free to incorporate such stunning conclusions into the relevant article on Judaism and Christianity (though this seems to be the driving force behind the Roots section in the History of Christianity article). 
Be aware that one contributor doesn't seem to think that this is POV. Anyone here should feel free to balance the text, as I'm positive that this is not what Jewish scholars would say. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It appears that [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]] came from [[Zoroastrianism]]... 

message: After Jesus' death and resurrection (as described in the Bible) Jesus kept teaching and asked his disciples to spread his word. Christianity is based on his death as well since communion represents the partaking of his sacrifice (death in the cross). Belief on him as the Messiah is justified by his death (as prophesied by Isaiah resurrection (not human nature but divine). JC's death startes the spread of the Church. --Vizcarra 10:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christiany is based on life and death of Jesus Christ 

message: There is no need to highlight some particular point of the New Testament's portrayal/account as being more doubtful than others.  Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: portrayals of definite articles 

message: According to the the previous version of the article, a basic "Christian belief is that the NT is part of the Bible". This is not a belief, since the Bible was put together by scholars. It is a point of view, rather. --Vizcarra 01:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Testament is part of the Bible? 

message: Dear Jayig, thank you for correcting me on this point. I had made the edit on the strength of what Muslims are telling me and failed to realise that this may not be true without qualification. My apologies. In the circumstances, is there not also a problem with the Wikipedia articles People of the Book and Abrahamic religion in this respect? Portress 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed People of the Book.  Abrahamic religion seems accurate: "Thus, both the Torah and New Testament are accepted as valid in principle, but Muslims believe them to have been intentionally corrupted.". Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims' use of Books of the OT. 

message: I deleted the words "(Latin for "God become flesh") " following the mention of the belief that Jesus was "God incarnate" because both words are English.
:Hello, 66.177.33.232, AKA a Comcast Cable user, possinly from Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
:(You forgot to sign: Here, let me do it for you - 66.177.33.232 posted comment above in this diff on 01:42, 7 August 2005. You can click the "signature" icon, second from the right, to sign your name. It initially looks like this: --~~~~, but then turns into a signature.)
:OK, I tweaked your edit, retaining the definition of "incarnate" but leaving out a claim it was from Latin. PS: I see here that you appeared to have caused trouble -or at least joked around a bit too much, but thank you for your edit. It may get reverted, but it was offered in good faith, and that's good enough for me.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A "Good Samaritan" Anon comments on his/her "incarnate" edit

message: I had not been a christian for some 20 years, but I gave little thought to it. I had never called myself an atheist, though by a purely semantic sense I was one, but I had always called myself a secularist and an agnostic. My parents were once catholic, members of a church that regularly baptized newborns, but my father had passed away and my mother had been a self proclaimed deist for some time. We had a small discussion regarding the statistics presented by the catholic church one afternoon, spurred into such a discussion by the passing of Pope John Paul the Second, and she said "Somehow I doubt the numbers are quite accurate." As we watched Chris Matthew my mother had the idea to check in with the old church, to see if we were still counted as members. A few days later, the phone rang, and my mother informed me that her and I both were still listed on the roster, along with my departed father. It took quite a bit of doing to get our names removed, and so I wonder, how many dead people are still being counted as members of the catholic church? How many members listed on the roster are now of other religions? How many, like myself, are of no religion at all? user:lucavix
:Lucavix, your point is a provocative one with quite a bit of truth behind it. However, I was interested if there was more you were trying to express regarding the "Once Saved Always Saved" issue, as I (and perhaps others) am not clear about the link between that issue and the issue you present in your comment above. Are you saying that on such church registers, people are being counted as "saved", i.e. baptized, while in fact they have no longer adhere to that church--is that the connection you're making? Thanks ~ Dpr 01:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Once Saved Always Saved" A Dilemma With the Catholic Church.